Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1975 06-17 CC MIN70 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NATIONAL CITY, CALIFORNIA June 17, 1975 The regular meeting of the City Council of the City of National City was called to order at 7:30 p.m. by Mayor Morgan. ROLL CALL Council members present: Camacho, Dalla, Pinson, Reid, Morgan. Absent: None. Administrative officials present: Bourcier, Campbell, Acting City Attorney Cowett, Gerschler, Hoffland, McCabe. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG AND INVOCATION The meeting was opened with the pledge of allegiance to the flag led by City Manager Bourcier followed with invocation by the Rev„ Dale Barizo, Paradise Valley Seventh Day Adventist Church. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Moved by Camacho, seconded by of June 10, 1975 be approved. PRESENTATIONS AND PROCLAMATIONS MAYOR'S APPOINTMENTS - None. Reid, the minutes of the regular meeting Carried by unanimous vote. - None. Mayor Morgan called an Executive Session on personnel and legal matters at 7:31 p.m. The meeting reconvened at 7:40 p.m. ROLL CALL Council members present: Camacho, Dalla, Pinson, Reid, Morgan. Absent: None, ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - None. ADOPTION OF RESOLUTIONS Moved by Camacho, seconded by Reid, these resolutions be presented by title only. Carried by unanimous vote. RESOLUTION NO. 11,800, "RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NATIONAL CITY FINDING AND DETERMINING THAT THE BOX CULVERT STRUCTURE AND RELATED APPURTENANCES LOCATED AT 24TH STREET AND WILSON AVENUE, WITHIN, ABUTTING, AND ADJACENT TO THE E. J. CHRISTMAN BUSINESS AND INDUSTRIAL PARK I REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NATIONAL CITY, CALIFORNIA IS OF BENEFIT TO SAID PROJECT AND PROJECT AREA." Moved by Reid, seconded by Camacho, Resolution No. 11,800 be adopted. Carried by unanimous vote. RESOLUTION NO. 11,801, "RESOLUTION (Jack H. Files and Retha E. Files, Moved by Pinson, seconded by Reid, Carried by unanimous vote. ACCEPTING CONVEYANCE OF REAL PROPERTY 2 easements and 2 grant deeds)." Resolution No. 11,801 be adopted. RESOLUTION NC.. 11,802, "RESOLUTION ACCEPTING ENCROACHMENT REMOVAL AGREE- MENT (832 Hoover Avenue, E. Wild)." Moved by Reid, seconded by Pinson, Resolution No. 11,802 be adopted. Carried by unanimous vote. RESOLUTION NO. 11,803, "RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING GRANT OF CITY FUNDS IN THE AMOUNT OF $20,000 TO THE GIRLS CLUB OF NATIONAL CITY FOR THE CONST1QICTION AND OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE OF A FREE CLINIC MEDICAL FACILITY." Moved by Camacho, seconded by Morgan, Resolution No. 11,803 be adopted. There was discussion. Acting City Attorney Cowett said...the resolution states that it is for purpose of serving poor people in the community; the resolution does not definepoor people...nor does the resolution 6/17/75 71 specifically provide that the medical care is free; he thought that was implicit. There was further discussion. GORDON FLEISHER, 2407 East 2nd, President, Girls Club of National City, Inc., was present and said that their intent is to operate and you are getting a free clinic; at the present time and in the past the only charges...the only income that has come to this clinic has been when someone has come in and they have been eligible for Medicare or Medi-Cal payments and if they can receive that money and help their operating, they will receive that money; it is their intent, and the clinic is open to anybody in the City for free medical care. Mr. Fleisher said...they have three groups that want to come into this building when they get it completed, right now; so, it could be any one of three groups; ...they do look to have a tenant in there for a long time; they also look to having to increase the size of the clinic within a year or two; ...the agreement is between the Girls' Club of National City and the tenant; it has to be approved by the City Manager and the City Attorney, but the agreement is between them; the City is not involved within this agreement. Carried by unanimous vote. RESOLUTION NO. 11,804, "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NATIONAL CITY APPROVING THE SALARY PLAN, ESTABLISHING PERSONNEL CLASSI- FICATIONS, ADOPTING SALARY SCHEDULES AND RATIFYING MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDINGS FOR THE 1975-76 FISCAL YEAR." Moved by Pinson, seconded by Camacho, Resolution No. 11,804 be adopted. Carried by unanimous vote. HEARING Mayor Morgan called the National City Redevelopment Agency meeting to order. ROLL CALL Redevelopment Agency members present: Camacho, Dalla, Pinson, Reid, Morgan. Absent: None. Administrative officials present: Acting Exec- utive Director Peterson. The JOINT HEARING before the City Council and Redevelopment Agency to consider adopting a REDEVELOPMENT PLAN and a RELOCATION PROGRAM for the SOUTH BAY TOWN AND COUNTRY REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT was held at this time. City Clerk Campbell stated the Affidavit of Mailing Notice of Joint Hearing is on file; and communication from the Real Property Officer stating at the June 11, 1975 regular meeting of the Citizens Committee for Community Development, the Committee recommended in favor of the proposed South Bay Town and Country Redevelopment Project has been re- ceived; and notification from the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors upon receipt of said notice is on file. Planning Director Gerschler said the Planning Commission has reviewed the project, found it is in compliance with the General Plan, and recommends its adoption. Acting Executive Director Peterson presented a summary of the Redevelopment Agency of the City of National City's report to the City Council, as prepared by himself; at the conclusion of presenting it, he would answer any questions the Agency members might havq after hearing the Report Summary the members may wish to approve and adopt the Report and recom- mend it to the City Council. Mr. Peterson explained the nature of the proposed South Bay Town and Country Redevelopment Project, an area bounded on the north by Sweetwater Road, on the south by State Highway 54, on the east by Interstate Highway 805 and on the west by Edgemere Avenue...all within the City of National City; the area consists approx- imately of 26 acres of land including abutting streets (Edgemere and Sweetwater); the majority of the land within the proposed project is owned by a developer, who under the proposed Redevelopment plan would be an owner/participant in the project; there are three properties, each about 60' x 200' located northerly of State Highway 54 and easterly of Edgemere Avenue where a proposed...under the Redevelopment Plan, to be acquired by negotiation after appraisal and if necessary by a condemna- tion before a Judge or a Judge and a Jury; it is proposed, under the Plan, to have two structures cleared that are located on three parcels: one occupied by a family and one by an individual, the other parcel be- ing vacant; the Report of the Agency is made pursuant to Section 33352 of the California Community Redevelopment Law; it consists of five pages and a group of Exhibits marked "A" through "H"; in essence the project 6/17/75 72 proposal is one of owner participation on the part of a majority owner and the Agency's adopted rules for owner participation permit each or all of the owners of the three parcels referred to to participate under the Plan; the rules of participation are such that any or all of the owners would have to pursue redevelopment or new development on those parcels pursuant to this Plan; this Plan connotates commercial use of these three parcels and the remainder of the site; in fact, it can be observed that on the ground today a portion of the site is presently under development; the owners of the two houses, both of whom occupy the houses would be (under this plan) paid under the State's laws a Home- owner Replacement Housing Payment; such a payment being the difference between the Agency's purchase price of the property and the cost of a new house of that owner's choosing; the amount of money paid in such a homeowner displacement payment is limited to $15,000. Mr. Peterson continued the Redevelopment Plan document (the controlling document as far as the project objectives, land uses, and the controls which will be put onto the developer or developers of this land and in under this Plan) is part of the report; the owner/participant developer under this Plan would be subjecting himself and his successors to a further set of government controls and restrictions all of them are being at least equal to and many of them being much more restrictive than the City's zoning and related land -use requirements; so, a burden would be imposed on the redeveloper under this Plan; a developer or developers would have to come before the Agency with their plans for specific review and the Agency would control the approval or disapproval of those plans; the Redevelopment Plan document was prepared by the Redevelopment Agency staff; it was reviewed by the Planning Department staff; the Planning Commission unanimously recommended its approval on May 19; the Citizens Committee for Community Development recommended its approval with one "no" vote (eight members in attendance) on May 11; the Redevelopment Plan has a table of contents, definitions of the terms used throughout the Plan, a description of the project area, the land uses planned for the project, the proposed activities in the project, other related pro- visions(for amendment;', actions by the City, and Exhibits 1 through 4 depicting various aspects of the Plan prepared pursuant to the State Redevelopment Law; the Plan document has been reviewed by the City's attorneys and by O'Melveny and Meyers, bond counsel to the Agency; the ordinance that you may consider has been reviewed by O'Melveny and Meyers (that is their Exhibit A of the Redevelopment Plan) there is a map show- ing the survey area and the environs; and a brief description of the evolution of this project; we have a letter from Blythe Eastman Dillon, San Francisco, which sustains the set of conclusions about the project and its findings that he has written to the Agency members; there is a document called Relocation Plan (an adopted plan of the Agency) which conforms to the City's plan for relocation and the State law and provides among other things for the homeowner replacement housing payments; there is the preliminary plan which was approved by the Planning Commission on April 15, 1975; there is the report and recommendations of the Plan- ning Commission on May 19, 1975 and that report of the Citizens Committee referred to dated June 11, 1975. Mr. pment Agency on June 3, 1975 held a public hearingoonn sEnvvironmentalaid, the Impact Report and made its decision to approve the project on environmental grounds and you have that final report in the Agency's action; that com- pletes his summary. SAMUEL ALHADEFF, Asara and Keagy, Attorneys at Law, 304 Kalmia, San Diego, was present and said they are representing Mr. and Mrs. DeJesus, 3123 Edgemere Ave., one of the three property owners affected by the proposed redevelopment project; it is quite difficult to come before you and speak about a redevelopment project when redevelop- ment per se connotates a valid and a good project to which the citizens of the community want to dedicate themselves; they request that before passing an ordinance adopting this redevelopment project and including these three parcels, that you consider what in effect is truly happenin it is their opinion after review and analysis of the facts and after g9 review and analysis of the subject area, that these three parcels do not qualify under Health and Safety Code Sections 33031-34 as a blighted area; nor do they, in their opinion, add a drain to the tax rolls of the City of National City; it appears rather, what has occurred is that one developer needs three additional parcels to complete a shopping center; he has been of the opinion (as he thinks most people are) that the open market should determine what the price and the terms of the acquisition are going to be for any parcel; and that simply is not going to occur 6/17/75 73 here if you go ahead with the redevelopment project and acquire the properties by right of eminent domain; he has reviewed what Mr. Peterson has said about the project, but he has not seen the report that's re- quired under the Public Resources Code, nor has he seen the report required under the Government Code, but he is sure the Agency members have. Mr. Alhadeff requested that the Council in their deliberations examine the report, especially Page 3, beginning with paragraph 2 which states the purposes of the Redevelopment project will be to provide employment opportunities and achieve a balanced community...and sub- section e (elimination of blighting influences)...and this is critically important whenever a City Council adopts a redevelopment plan. .you must find that quantum or indicia of blighting influences to which you can address yourself in any plan; he suggests that anyone of the members who has not seen the DeJesus residence take the time and go out there before you determine and pass this ordinance as to whether it is a blighted area; he has in fact been in there; it is a home that is modest by the standards of most middle-class people, but he doesn't think it is blighted; he thinks it does provide more than adequate shelter for these people; also if you are trying to achieve a balanced community, as we understand balanced community today, it means that every person regardless of their place in life or their station, regardless of whether they are wealthy or poor, have the right to live where they desire as long as they don't infringe on the rights of others; he would suggest that that be taken into consideration when considering the DeJesus; they are a poor family, but yet they live with dignity and it appears again that they certainly don't blight the community in National City because National City annexed their parcel only recently; finally, on Page 14, paragraph F, sub -section a says "by elimination of the blighted condi- tions which now exist within the projecft..and it goes on..."the project contains easements, low topography, and potential flood hazard in a portion of the project area; this is only three parcels and we are talking about parcels that are zoned commercial with a F-2 Flood Plain Overlay Zone, what in fact the Redevelopment project or the redevelop- ment proposal states is that these parcels are in the flood plain overlay zone and therefore blighted areas; again he must respectfully disagree with the findings of the redevelopment project or the proposed redevel- opment project in that he thinks if anyone would take the time to go to the State Department of Transportation and analyze what Highway 54 theoretically did at the time the property was acquired, you will find that the flood plain overlay zone would be removed by virtue of the improvements which would be constructed in the manner proposed by the Highway project; he doesn't know how many of the members know who they are, but he thinks it is fair to say that Mr. Cowett could explain their firm has a long history of condemnation practice and they have repre- sented both public and private persons; he thinks (1) that another look should be taken at this proposed redevelopment project which influences three properties from the basis of whether in fact that the quantum of blight has been met or the tax drain, or the burden, or the tax burden with regard to services has been met and (2) if you would really achieve a balanced community by this process or in fact what has happened here is that negotiations between the developer and the three property owners have not taken place in the open market; he thinks that the Agency mem- bers have come to the conclusion that the development, developer, and the persons who are affected by this proposed redevelopment project have simply not had the opportunity to negotiate without the threat of con- demnation; he thinks to acquire these parcels by redevelopment and then threaten condemnation is not the way it should be done, that's personal philosophy, but more importantly when it comes to the subject of public philosophy where the rights of every person, at least as we understand them, are deemed as important as every other persoriiright so long as they are not infringed upon that you should in all candor ask for further study on this redevelopment project. Mr. Peterson answered a series of questions from Council saying they did obtain an appraisal of each of the three parcels that are being referred to; their appraiser is a qualified fee appraiser in this area; in their opinion a competent and qualified appraiser; they requested that appraiser in making his appr4s- al to find the highest value that the property would bring on the market for the uses, the zoning, and the conditions that exist as they would be reviewed by an informed buyer over a reasonable period of time; this was their request; they received an appraisal; they are not required by law 6/17/75 74 to, as he understands it, deliver to each of the owners their portion of an appraisal report, but they did do that; they did that because they think it is only fair that parties that would be affected by their action should know what is proposed; they did not per se make an offer, but they did give information in order that people could come to the hearing and state their views; they did do that; he did and would state in his reading of the appraisal and the data contained in it that the appraisal was complete, well-done and that the conclusions of the ap- praiser where fair; the individual living in one of the houses, and the family living in the other of the two houses on the three parcels, each could receive as much as but not more than $15,000; the conditions would be that the differential in terms of the price paid by the Agency for their property, should the Agency acquire it, and the price that that person or family pays in the market for a house that is reasonably com- parable; but it is a house of their choosing, in their location with their amenities; if that differential is $15,000...yes, we would pay that amount. Moved by Morgan, seconded by Camacho, that we hire another appraiser and the Agency pay the cost of this appraisal for this one pieceofproperty. There was discussion. In answer to the question if there was any reason why we should not let him (Mr. Peterson) tell this commission how much those appraisals were on those properties, Acting City Attorney Cowett said you are asking if Mr. Peterson can report to the Council the fair -market value that our appraiser has determined on these properties; he did not think there was any ethical problem; it may not be the most prudent business way to go about.,. There was fur- ther discussion. Attorney Alhadeff said...he thinks they have a chicken and egg problem here; you are sort of bound by the fact that you can't make an offer to someone because you haven't passed the ordinance; yet at the same time, as the Redevelopment Agency, you go to someone and say you are going to acquire their property; he thinks at times that is a very difficult position for the negotiator to be in regardless of who it is; ...he has no difficulty with yourreleasing the price except that you should take...should review with own Councel before you do that; it might subject you to other problems with regard to passing an ordinance and going ahead and condemning that property and he has already alerted Mr. Peterson to the fact that he thinks that you may have that problem already; however, that's not the point; because when you appraised the property as a redevelopment project --and that is what has happened here; and that is the property was appraised on the basis that it suffered certain conditions, one of which was being in a flood plain zone, in which there is a chicken and egg problem there; because it is in the flood plain zone we are going to value it at a certain price and we are not going to take into account the full commercial potential, although it is also zoned commercial and, therefore, it has to be at a lower pricq however, on the other hand by virtue of that fact, what you do is support the position and if you can go ahead with the redevelopment project be- cause it is in a flood plain overlay zone and that is the reason he had addressed himself to the issue of whether or not you should reconsider and ask for a further finding as to whether this property indeed qualifies for redevelopment. Mr. Alhadeff continue4, with the regard to the re- placement housing; he thinks there is a myth that goes on in California in any new redevelopment project; he knows they experience it when they represent their public clients; it is this, everytime you increase the dollar of an appraisal for a man who has a piece of property, you take away dollars in another area; it is not just like the open market; al- though you can say a person qualifies for the maximum $15,000 relocation assistance program, under the Muskie bill as it was adopted in Califorria, everytime you increase a dollar on the appraisal he gets dinged over here on his relocation assistance; that's where you get back to the problem of not being in an open market; what he has suggested on those lines is, if in fact, the adjacent developer needs the property to com- plete his development as it shows on the South Bay Town and Country Plan, he should be required like any other person to come to these people and say "I need your property to complete my parking structure," or "I need your property because I'm going to put in an improvement there, I just need it to complete my shopping center;" he has no quarrel if you want to discuss that; you ought to review it first with your own attorney because you might be putting yourself in a box. In answer to the Mayor's question if there is any problem with asking people what they paid for this and what he would recommend as the moving costs, Acting City Attor- ney Cowett said he doesn't have any problem, but he might comment on 6/17/75 75 what Mr. Alhadeff has said because Mr. Alhadeff is a specialist in this field and is also a specialist in confusing people like City Council members; he did want to comment that Mr. Alhadeff is correct that every dollar you pay in an additional price for the property reduces the amount you pay in relocation costs; relocation costs in this law and the federal law and the state law is really a bonus to the property owner over and above what his house is worth; therefore, assuming you pay fair -market value of the property which we always try to do here, you would give him a bonus for any relocation costs that he might get in addition, so it's not that you are dinging the property owner's right to relocation costs, it's just you are reducing the amount of his bonus; and the other point that has been raised is what is the role of the Re- development Agency prior to the adoption of the redevelopment ordinance with respect to conducting appraisals and evaluating questions concern- ing property within that potential redevelopment area; he has no problem with appraising property before the ordinance is passed; in fact, we should in order to know what the Council and Redevelopment Agency is getting into and as a result of that he has no problem with the release of the appraisal that has been made on that parcel of property. Coun- cilman Pinson objected to discussing price at this time. Attorney Alhadeff said he agrees with Mr. Pinson that perhaps price, the chicken and egg thing; perhaps what you are saying is the chicken should come before the egg, but if you release the price of what the City would pay for the property in public, he has requested from Mr. Peterson that he release the disposal price, if there is a redevelopment ordinance adopted, of what the Redevelopment Agency is going to sell the property to the developer for; which he feels is fair. JOSEPH M. GALVAN, 994 Aqua Tibia St., Chula Vista, was present and said he is the owner of the other par- cel, the one that does not have a building on it; he wasn't going to come to the meeting because he was working late but he finally made it; he does not go along with the sale of his property at this time; they haven't come to talk with him except the appraisal that was mailed to him; he doesn't think it is the right price; he had not talked with Mr. Peterson about it he doesn't even know him; he talked to him on the phone once; if the other two families who live next to his property are allowed to stay there, he would rather not sell; he wants to stay there himself. MRS. JUNE LINK representing Mrs. Jessie Bennett, 3205 Edgemere Avenue, who also owns a piece of property, was present and said they had talked to Mr. Peterson and she is in favor of her mother, she is speaking for her, that we do have another appraiser; she would also like to know if the escrow fees of the property the City purchases if the Redevelopment Agency, or whomever it is, pays for that; and also, she is pretty familiar with the moving expense but the property that they have taken into consideration that the Redevelopment has offered her mother and property that they are thinking of buying that there is a deficit of $818 that would not clear her property; if another appraiser came in maybe $1,000 more that would certainly help her mother's cause. Mrs. Link said she believes that the Redevelopment Agency has been very fair and they have done everything in her opinion that they could pos- sibly do to help each and every one of us except that she does think another appraisal should be made. There was discussion. Mr. Peterson said the $15,000 maximum amount consists of three parts: one part, is the price difference between the Agency's acquisition price and the owner/occupant's new -house purchase price; there must be a purchase; that is one money difference; another is the present value of the more favor- able mortgage; in other words if you had $10,000 on a 4% or 6% mortgage and he has to go over and pay 8 or 9 or 10%, the current value on the remaining amount on the present mortgage is computed out and that's part of the $15,000; thirdly, the incidental costs to the purchase of the new, the closing, half the escrow fee and those conventions of real es they are part of it too; but out of the three parts, there is never more than $15,000. Moved by Camacho, seconded by Pinson, we close this hear- ing and that we recommend to City Council adoption of the Ordinance approving this Redevelopment Plan (South Bay Town and Country Redevelo ment Project) with all the stipulations adhered to. (amended motion) Carried by unanimous vote. P- Mayor Morgan declared the Redevelopment Agency meeting recessed at this time and will call them back to order later. 6/17/75 76 INTRODUCTION OF ORDINANCE. Moved by Camacho, seconded by Pinson, to present this ordinance for first reading by title only. Carried by unanimous vote. Ordinance 6/17/75, "An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of National City, California, Approving the Redevelopment Plan and the Feasibility of Relocation for the South Bay Town and Country Redevelop- ment Project, National City, California." ADOPTION OF ORDINANCE: Moved by Camacho, seconded by Reid, this ordinance be presented to Coun- cil by title only for second reading. Carried by unanimous vote. ORDINANCE NO. 1470 (4)741Q/q&-1), "AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE AMEND- ING ORDINANCE NO. 962 AND ORDINANCE NO. 1213 TO PROVIDE REGULATIONS APPLICABLE TO UNUSED OR ABANDONED SERVICE STATIONS." Moved by Camacho, seconded by Pinson, Ordinance No. 1470 (2119/.7-1) be adopted. Carried by unanimous vote. REPORT OF CITY ATTORNEY - None. NEW BUSINESS CONSENT CALENDAR (Item 8) was presented: 8. Notice of Hearing before the California Public Utilities Commission concerning Applications Nos. 55627, 55628, and 55629 of San Diego Gas & Electric Company to increase its rates and charges for electric, gas, and steam services. Moved by Camacho, to file this item. Died for lack of second. Moved by Pinson, we protest these applications for increase in rates. Died for lack of second. Moved by Morgan, seconded by Pinson, we authorize the City Manager to write a letter of protest of any rate. There was discussion. Carried by unanimous vote. The LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES LEGISLATIVE BULLETIN No. 19-1975, dated June 13, 1975 was presented. Ordered filed by unanimous vote. A communication from City Engineer Hoffland stating he has no objections to ENCROACHMENT of proposed BLOCK WALL at 2830 18th Street provided it meets all structural requirements and attaching signed encroachment agreement (BEVERLY ANDREW) was presented. Moved by Camacho, seconded by Pinson, in favor of the City Engineer's recommendation. Carried by unanimous vote. The City Treasurer/Finance Director's request for ratification of pay- ment of BILLS in the amount of $31,964.94 (Warrants Nos. 51485 to 51548) was presented. Moved by Pinson, seconded by Camacho, the bills be rati- fied. Carried, by the following vote, to -wit: Ayes: Camacho, Dalia, Pinson, Reid, Morgan. Nays: None. A communication from City Manager Bourcier recommending that CLAIM of CECIL W. HAYNES against the City be denied and referred to the City Attorney was presented. Moved by Pinson, seconded by Reid, in favor of the Manager's recommendation. Carried by unanimous vote. A communication from City Manager Bourcier recommending that CLAIMS of SOUTH BAY WELDING, McCUNE MOTORS and CHUBB/PACIFIC INDEMNITY COMPANY, and the SOUTH BAY DIVING CENTER be denied and referred to City Attorney was presented. Moved by Reid, seconded by Pinson, the Manager's recom- mendation be approved. Carried by unanimous vote. A communication from the CHRIST ASSEMBLY CHURCH, National City, request- ing use of the Kimball Park Bowl area August 23, 1975 for a Gospel Music Concert, and communication from Director of Parks and Recreation recom- mending request be granted and a maintenance and service fee of $63.20 be charged were presented. Moved by Pinson, seconded by Dalla, in favor of the Director's recommendation. There was discussion regarding having the City Manager check into this security and noise element; the possi- bility of re -scheduling the concert from 7 to 10; whether or not the 6/17/75 77 Police had ever had a complaint (noise from the Bowl area). Carried by unanimous vote. MINISTER JIMMY MOORE, 6790 Springfield, was present and said there is a real need spiritually in National City; he was raised here and they feel that the...concert would be a tremendous thing for their City, their homes and unity of people; it is not the type of con- cert...where they just make noise; this is a gospel concert; in other words as far as the noise, will be controlled. The recommendations of the TRAFFIC SAFETY COMMITTEE at their 6/11/75 meeting were presented: A. A two-way stop sign be installed on Cherry Blossom St. at Honeysuckle Ln. Moved by Pinson, seconded by Dalla, in favor of Item A. Carried by unanimous vote. B. A stop sign be installed on Honeysuckle Ln. at Plaza Blvd. Moved by Pinson, seconded by Camacho, in favor of Item B. Carried by unani- mous vote. C. A left -turn pocket be installed on the north side of 8th St. east of National Ave., that all parking remain as is on the south side and only 4 parking spaces be eliminated between National Ave. and the alley east of National Ave. Moved by Reid, seconded by Dalla, Item C be adopted. Carried by unanimous vote. D. A 2-hour parking limitation sign be installed on south side of 8th St. (east of the red curb) east of Highland Ave. to "I" Ave. Moved by Dalla, seconded by Camacho, in favor of Item D. Carried by unan- imous vote. E. A 2-way left turn lane be installed on Highland Ave. between loth and 18th Streets; the parking on the east side of Highland Ave. to remain as is and be eliminated on the west side in front of "McDon- alds" and "Big Potato" only. Moved by Morgan, seconded by Pinson Item E be approved. There was discussion. Carried, by the follow- ing vote, to -wit: Ayes: Camacho, Dalla, Pinson, Morgan. Nays: Reid. F. A stop sign be installed on southbound Lanoitan Ave.. at 24th St., and G. A maximum speed zone of 30 mph on 4th St. between Palm Ave. and Euclid Ave. Moved by Dalla, seconded by Morgan, Items F and G be approved. There was discussion. Moved by Dalla, seconded by Pinson, to amend the motion by eliminating the word "maximum". Carried, by the following vote, to -wit: Ayes: Camacho, Dalla, Pinson, Morgan. Nays: Reid. A communication from the South Bay Democratic Club president requesting waiver of fee to hold rummage sale, June 20, 1975, at St. Matthews Church was presented. Moved by Camacho, seconded by Morgan, the request be granted. There was discussion of the cost ($3 fee); ld be difficult for the City Manager to compute the actual cost tofoprocessingy these applications to have a permit, a waiver of a fee such as this; a few years ago the processing cost was estimated to be somewhere between $9-$12. City Manager Bourcier said he is familiar with that study; it it probably 150% of that now. There was further discussion in pa re- gardingrt whether or not this could be made an administrative�t hi rif it cost more to process the application than it does for theewaiver, of the fees. City Manager Bourcier said there are many things that cost more to process than cost of the application; the idea is not the money involved, it is to have the control over the item being requested. Car- ried by unanimous vote. REPORTS CITY MANAGER BOURCIER reported receipt of a request from the State of California Department of Park and Recreation that the City of National City become the agent in charge of the restoration of St. Matthews Epis- copal Church; he recommended this be referred to the City Attorney as to whether the City should become involved to this extent or not. Moved by Reid, seconded by Pinson, in favor of the City Manager's recommendation. Carried by unanimous vote. CITY MANAGER BOURCIER reported the Automobile Club of Southern California will be paying all the expenses to send a member of staff to a Traffic Engineering Course for one week and we are very grateful to them for it.. 6/17/75 78 A transmittal from the Planning Department stating the Planning Commis- sion made a finding that (A) Restaurants within a redevelopment area that serve beer and wine and utilize a "counter" over which food or alcoholic beverages are served and that require pool table(s) and/or coin -operated amusement devices require issuance of a Conditional Use Permit, and recommended (B) Application be approved for Conditional Use Permit on premises to be constructed at 108 W. 25 Street, Units F and G (HARRY G. STONE), as long as there is no live entertainment on the prem- ises was presented. City Clerk Campbell stated Item (A) is for filing only. Moved by Pinson, Item (A) be filed. Item g MovedbyDalla, seconded by Reid, that we deny this application l� based on the finding that the counter, pool tables, and coin -operated amusement devices shown on the submitted plan are not compatible with the operation of a restaurant serving beer and wine within a redevelopment area. There was discussion. BILL DOLAN, Investcai Realty, 1400 5th San Diego, was present and said the Planning Commission voted 100% for this special use; there is not one public protest, there is not one written protest; in addition, as to the vote by the Planning Commission, there is also a publication for this meeting tonight; had there been one written protest, this would have beer a public hearing; there is no protest; ordinarily because of this he wouldn't say anything except the words "beer and entertainment" are sen- sitive in National City, so it is important that he does say something; this use was contemplated and approved under the Redevelopment Plan, signed with them and the Agency; the specific use of restaurant and al- coholic beverages is permissable under the Redevelopment Plan; this Redevelopment Plan was approved by ordinance and recorded by this Council about two years ago; the Mayor and Council visited a facility exactly like this in Kearny Mesa; the comments were the landscaping was not ade- quate, building design not adequate, however the use appears to be very well accepted by everyone in an industrial park and there appears to be a need for it; we do have a unit like this in Kearny Mesa; it is exactly the same size as the one proposed in the redevelopment area; it is a meeting place for technical representatives, tenants who work with each other; in an industrial park you have a lot of inter -play with tenants; ...we are vacating offices downtown and we are going to occupy a unit in the same building adjoining this restaurant; ...tenants like to be able to walk to this type of facility so they don't have to get in their cars and drive elsewhere; the San Diego Yacht Club has electronic pin -ball machines, so he doesn't think it is fair to say because he has a coin - operated machine something is wrong with it; leasing is extremely slow in this area; we need all the help we can get from you on supported uses in this park that will draw tenants; now, Harry Stone, as the operator, was selected by them because the urban renewal agency asked us to give a considered look to Harry Stone as he was a displaced business when the urban renewal agency was formed and property acquired and his busin- ess eliminated. There was discussion. Carried by the following vote, to -wit: Ayes: Camacho, Dalla, Reid, Morgan. Nays: Pinson. Moved by Pinson, seconded by Reid, it be allowed with the exclusion of pool tables_.. There was further discussion. Carried, by the following vote, to -Twit: Ayes: Camacho, Pinson, Reid. Nays: Dalla, Morgan. A transmittal from the Planning Department stating the Planning Commis- sion recommended Zone Variance be granted to ARTHUR C. FILSON, 1705 Na.- - tional Avenue, limiting use of setback for display of automobiles for sale subject to two conditions was presented. Moved by Pinson, seconded by Dalla, in favor of the Planniag Commission recommendation. Carried by unanimous vote. A transmittal from the Planning Department stating the Planning Commission recommended application be denied for exemption from installation of curb, gutter, and sidewalk at 1832 Rachael Avenue (JUSTINIANO R. GONZALES) was presented. Moved by Pinson, in favor of the Planning Commission recom- mendation. Died for lack of second.JUSTINIANO R. GONZALES, 1832 RacI. Avenue, was present and handed a petition to the City Clerk signed by neighbors against putting a sidewalk and curb in on his property. There was discussion. Moved by Pinson, seconded by Reid, that we require the curb and gutter in there and eliminate the sidewalk. Mr. Gonzales stated that last year the City was going to put in sidewalk and curbs in there, but the whole block signed a petition that they don't want it. There was further discussion. Carried, by the following vote, to -wit: Ayes: Camacho, Pinson, Reid. Nays: Dalla, Morgan. Moved by Camacho, seconded by Reid, that we put a deferral on the sidewalk. Carried by unanimous vote. 6/17/75 79 A transmittal from the Planning Department stating the Planning Commis.. sion recommended that Commercial Planned Development Permit (No. 69) be granted to allow property at 3421 Plaza Blvd. to be used for retail sale of produce subject to two conditions and adding stipulation that land- scaping be maintained and delivery by semi -trucks be restricted to hours between 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. (MARIO M. DAVILA) was presented. Moved by Camacho, seconded by Reid, in favor of the Planning Commission recom- mendation. CECIL MARTINEZ, 205 East 21st, Apt. 104, was present and stated they talked to the Planning Commission and they agreed to the hours, it would be all right with them. Carried by unanimous vote. A transmittal from the Planning Department stating the Planning Commis.. Sion recommended that Zone Variance (Z-7-75) from landscaping require- ments at 3000 National Avenue be granted subject to five conditions (McCREDIE and PE.,TIER) was presented. City Clerk Campbell said the Planning Director stated this should be scheduled for review not less than 15 days from today and if written protest is received within this time, the City Clerk will set for public hearing. Information only. The City Treasurer/Finance Director's FINANCIAL STATEMENT for the month ending May 31, 1975 was presented. Ordered filed by unanimous vote. COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS MAYOR MORGAN said we are in dire need of a building in National City where kids can box; we have kids over there who are competing for State and National (Championships) and you talk about the volunteer help in these people...there are people all over helping these young people; he wishes someone would help him and come up with a building; it doesn't take just an ordinary building, it takes one with a little higher ceil- ing than 8' or 9' so they can put a boxing ring in the middle. Council- man Camacho said he has talked to them about the old Masonic lodge, the upstairs, and he thought they were going to look into this...the lease on it. Mayor Morgan asked Mr. Camacho to take a look at it with him, Councilman Camacho said he has already Pinson said another one would be the oldebankebuildingd them Councilman al that is not being used. att 8th and Nation- al MORGAN said when the State law passed these updating Codes, they just don't look into how far reaching those laws are; we had a celebra- tion of the 50th year of the Kiwanis Club in National City; they bought candles to set on the tables and paid 45 apiece for them and he doesn't know how many they had...they had a lot of them; whenever they have those set out they come by and say you can't light those because of the State law; this is ridiculous that you can't light a candle; he has checked the Fire Department and they said this is a Title 19, California Administrative Code; now this was passed in '73 and when we voted on that, we didn't know that thing went that far; Stan Biggs and the Fire Department come in and said well, now we recommend this; but they have little fine print in that, they are going and he won't vote for any of them,...heis ts�eabwhere he's gun-shy thinks this is ridiculous theypajust fed -up with it; he Councilman Reid said he could takehimto aaw t lot ofhatu places can't ttheyt sit d candles eat with a candle lit. Moved by Morgan, seconded by Pinson, we srefer this candle business to the Cit Attorne for him to make a re rt next week. Carried by unanimous vote. Moved by Camacho, seconded by Reid, the meetin• be closed. Carried b unanimous vote. The meeting closed at 9 S p.m. y Ci f Clerk y of Natio1 City, California The foregoing minutes were approved by the City Council of the Cit of National City at the regular meeting of June 24, 1975. y No corrections noted below Mayors City o National City, California 6/17/75