Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2013 11-05 CC HA AGENDA PKTRON MORRISON Mayor LUIS NATIVIDAD Vice Mayor JERRY CANO Councilmember MONA RIOS Councilmember ALEJANDRA SOTELO-SOLIS Councilmember 1243 National City Blvd. National City, CA 91950 619-336-4300 Meeting agendas and minutes available on web WWW. NATIONAL CITYCA. GO V AGENDA OF A REGULAR MEETING - NATIONAL CITY CITY COUNCIL/ COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION — HOUSING AUTHORITY OF THE CITY OF NATIONAL CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS CIVIC CENTER 1243 NATIONAL CITY BOULEVARD NATIONAL CITY, CALIFORNIA TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 05, 2013 — 6:00 PM ORDER OF BUSINESS: Public sessions of all Regular Meetings of the City Council / Community Development Commission - Housing Authority (hereafter referred to as Elected Body) begin at 6:00 p.m. on the first and third Tuesday of each month. Public Hearings begin at 6:00 p.m. unless otherwise noted. Closed Sessions begin at 5:00 p.m. or such other time as noted. If a workshop is scheduled, the subject and time of the workshop will appear on the agenda. The Mayor and Council members also sit as the Chairperson and Members of the Board of the Community Development Commission (CDC). REPORTS: All open session agenda items and reports as well as all documents and writings distributed to the Elected Body less than 72 hours prior to the meeting, are available for review at the entry to the Council Chambers. Regular Meetings of the Elected Body are webcast and archived on the City's website www.nationalcityca.gov. PUBLIC COMMENTS: Prior to the Business portion of the agenda, the Elected Body will receive public comments regarding any matters within the jurisdiction of the City and/or the Community Development Commission. Members of the public may also address any item on the agenda at the time the item is considered by the Elected Body. Persons who wish to address the Elected Body are requested to fill out a "Request to Speak" form available at the entrance to the City Council Chambers, and turn in the completed form to the City Clerk. The Mayor or Chairperson will separately call for testimony of those persons who have turned in a "Request to Speak" form. If you wish to speak, please step to the podium at the appropriate time and state your name and address (optional) for the record. The time limit established for public testimony is three minutes per speaker unless a different time limit is announced. Speakers are encouraged to be brief. The Mayor or Chairperson may limit the length of comments due to the number of persons wishing to speak or if comments become repetitious or irrelevant. WRITTEN AGENDA: With limited exceptions, the Elected Body may take action only upon items appearing on the written agenda. Items not appearing on the agenda must be brought back on a subsequent agenda unless they are of a demonstrated emergency or urgent nature, and the need to take action on such items arose after the agenda was posted. Upon request, this agenda can be made available in appropriate altemative formats to persons with a disability in compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act. Please contact the City Clerk's Office at (619) 336-4228 to request a disability -related modification or accommodation. Notification 24-hours prior CC/CDC Agenda 11/5/2013 —Page 2 to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to this meeting. Spanish audio interpretation is provided during Elected Body Meetings. Audio headphones are available in the lobby at the beginning of the meeting. Audio interpretacian en espanol se proporciona durante sesiones del Consejo Municipal. Los audibfonos estan disponibles en el pasillo al principio de la junta. COUNCIL REQUESTS THAT ALL CELL PHONES AND PAGERS BE TURNED OFF DURING CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS. CC/CDC Agenda 11/5/2013 —Page 3 OPEN TO THE PUBLIC CITY COUNCIL / COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION AGENDA CALL TO ORDER ROLL CALL PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG PUBLIC ORAL COMMUNICATIONS (THREE -MINUTE TIME LIMIT) PROCLAMATIONS 1. Proclaiming November 5, 2013 as "Connect2Compete Day". (Mayor / City Council) PRESENTATIONS 2. Presentation of a display ornament to the City of National City and staff for our participation and celebration of the 50th Anniversary of the Metro Wastewater System. (Vice Mayor Natividad) INTERVIEWS / APPOINTMENTS CONSENT CALENDAR 3. Approval of the Minutes of the Regular Meetings of the City Council and Community Development Commission - Housing Authority of the City of National City of September 3, 2013 and October 15, 2013. (City Clerk) 4. Resolution of the City Council of the City of National City authorizing the National City Police Department to accept the donation of a police service dog from the United States Government - Naval Special Warfare Group - One (NSWG-1) and authorize police department to sign the indemnity agreement. (Police) 5. Resolution of the City Council of the City of National City ratifying the acceptance of a $31,862 grant from the State of California AB109 funds administered through the City of San Diego and ratifying the establishment of a Fiscal Year 2014 appropriation of $31,862 and a corresponding revenue budget for monitoring and assisting frontline law enforcement in our region with the problems associated with the early release of non- violent offenders from State prison. (Police) CC/CDC Agenda 11/5/2013 — Page 4 6. Resolution of the City Council of the City of National City authorizing the Mayor to execute a Third Amendment to the Agreement with Grossman Psychological Associates, APC, in the not -to -exceed amount of $49,500 to provide Pre -Placement evaluations, Pre -Employment exams, an Officer Assistance Program, Critical Incident Debriefing, and Fitness for Duty Evaluations for the Police Department for the term of one year. (Police) 7. Resolution of the City Council of the City of National City approving Reinstatement and Amendment Number One to Monitoring Well Encroachment Permit and Agreement by and between the City of National City and Chevron Environmental Management Company for Monitoring Well (W-27) encroaching into the alley between Roosevelt Avenue and Hoover Avenue south of 8th Street for continued monitoring as required by the County of San Diego Department of Environmental Health. (Engineering) 8. Temporary Use Permit -6th Annual Tree Lighting Ceremony hosted by the Community Services Department on December 12, 2013 from 5 p.m. to 8 p.m. at Morgan Square & Brick Row, between "A" Avenue and National City Boulevard. This is a City sponsored event under Policy No. 804 (Neighborhood Services) 9. Warrant Register #14 for the period of 9/25/13 through 10/1/13 in the amount of $1,976,643.46. (Finance) 10. Warrant Register #15 for the period of 10/2/13 through 10/8/13 in the amount of $241,687.47. (Finance) PUBLIC HEARINGS ORDINANCES FOR INTRODUCTION 11. An Ordinance Amending Appendix 'A' of the Westside Specific Plan to add "Self -Storage Facility with Accessory Truck Rental" as a Conditionally - Allowed Use in the Limited Commercial (CL) Zone. (Applicant: U- Haul/Amerco) (Case File 2013-20- SPA) (Planning) ORDINANCES FOR ADOPTION NON CONSENT RESOLUTIONS 12. Resolution of the City Council of the City of National City authorizing the donation of a 1989 Seagraves fire engine to Sweetwater High School to provide the Fire Science program with a fire engine that will allow the students to practice skills in a more realistic environment. (Fire) 13. Resolution of the City Council of the City of National City authorizing the submittal of an application for grant funds for the Urban Greening Grant CC/CDC Agenda 11/5/2013 — Page 5 Program under the Safe Drinking Water Quality and Supply, Flood Control, River and Coastal Protection Bond Act of 2006 (Proposition 84) for the Hoover Avenue Park/Paradise Creek Walk Project in the amount of $1,100,000, committing to a local match of $200,000 for a total project cost of $1,300,000, and authorizing the City Manager to execute a grant agreement, if approved for funding. (Engineering) NEW BUSINESS 14. Notice of Decision - Planning Commission approval of a Conditional Use Permit for a Self -Storage Facility with Accessory Truck Rental located at 1300 Wilson Avenue (Applicant: U-Haul/Amerco) (Case File 2013-20- CUP) (Planning) 15. Consideration of the Planning Commission's recommendations on the affirmative termination by amortization of the nonconforming land uses located at 1732 Coolidge Avenue (Steve's West Coast Automotive) and 108 W. 18th Street (Jose's Auto Electric). (Planning) 16. Temporary Use Permit --Promotion of Certified Pre -Owned Vehicles with outdoor tent and inflatable attachment sponsored by Frank Motors at 2829 National City Boulevard from November 6, 2013 to November 6, 2014 from 8 a.m. to 9 p.m. with no waiver of fees. (Neighborhood Services) 17. Temporary Use Permit -21st Annual Fiesta Filipiniana-Mexicana Karaoke hosted by the Seafood City Supermarket on November 9, 2013 from 10 a.m. to 10 p.m. at 1420 E. Plaza Blvd with no waiver of fees. (Neighborhood Services) 18. City Council Meeting Schedule - December 2013 through January 2014. (City Clerk) COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION -HOUSING AUTHORITY PUBLIC HEARINGS- HOUSING AUTHORITY NON CONSENT RESOLUTIONS- HOUSING AUTHORITY NEW BUSINESS- HOUSING AUTHORITY STAFF REPORTS 19. Discussion of Potential Workshop Dates for City Council Policy Manual Review. (City Manager) MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL CLOSED SESSION REPORT CC/CDC Agenda 11/5/2013 — Page 6 ADJOURNMENT Regular City Council/Community Development/Housing Authority of the City of National City Meeting - Tuesday - November 19, 2013 - 6:00 p.m. - Council Chambers - National City, California. Item #1 11/05/13 Item # 2 11/05/13 PRESENTATION OF A DISPLAY ORNAMENT TO THE CITY OF NATIONAL CITY AND STAFF FOR PARTICIPATION AND CELEBRATION OF THE 50TH ANNIVERSARY OF THE METRO WASTEWATER SYSTEM (Vice Mayor Natividad) Item # 3 11 /05/13 APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION — HOUSING AUTHORITY OF THE CITY OF NATIONAL CITY OF SEPTEMBER 3, 2013 AND OCTOBER 15, 2013. (City Clerk) Book 95 / Page 157 09-03-2013 DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION — HOUSING AUTHORITY OF THE CITY OF NATIONAL CITY September 3, 2013 The Regular Meeting of the City Council Commission — Housing Authority of the City o at 6:06 p.m. by Mayor / Chairman Ron Mo ROLL CALL Council / Board members present: Can orrison, Natividad, t Sotelo-Solis. Administrative Officials present: Cisser, Ila, D = -e, Duong; anganieool, Parra, Raulston, Roberts, Ro ez, Silva, venson, Verg' Williams. Others present: Student Rep tives Kane ego. Community Development I. City was called to order PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO AG BY MA ,OR RON MORRISON PUBLIC ORAL 1CATION Sunshine Horto involving 'Shop wit City Council on upcoming events and 'Special Olympics'. support for the City Council action e supports American military action PROCLAMATI DM ' 102-2-1) 1. Proclaimin onth of September 2013 as: "National Preparedness Month" CITY COUNCIL PRESENTATIONS PERSONNEL RECOGNITION /APPRECIATION ADMIN (604-2-1) 2. Employee of the Quarter 2013 — Rustico Aguilar — Custodian ACTION: The item was rescheduled to the next meeting. Book 95 / Page 158 09-03-2013 PRESENTATIONS (cont.) COUNCIL MEETING PRESENTATIONS 2013 (102-10-8) 3. South County Economic Development Council — Visioning and Economic Strategy — Cindy Gompper Graves COUNCIL MEETING PRESENTATIONS 2013 (102-10-8) 4. South Bay YMCA Summer Program Update, r,. National City Municipal Pool and Camacho Recreation Center. (CQn unity Services) INTERVIEWS / APPOINTMENTS BOARDS & COMMISSIONS ADMIN (1Q.1-1) 5. Interviews and Appointments thterview new app nts; (2) Consider recommendations to bring ter into conformance wit W Qrdinance No. 2013-2381;(3)Take necessaryactio o a pp,# / re-appoili'��City Clerk) TESTIMONY: David Ga Mr. Eddie‘*ez were interviewed for ointment to th blic Art Committee. CONSENT CALENDAR C5MJiwi1 ADOPTION OF rC;ONSE; Nos. 2013-131. dough Motion by Rios, onded approve the remainder of t G CALE -133), Sotelo- onsent C through 8 (Resolution os. 910 (Warrant Registers). s, to pull Item Nos. 7 and 8, and to (ndar. Carried by unanimous vote. Resolution ; 201 d ' 1. REk5IUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF TIONAL C:�TY: 1) RATIFYING THE ACCEPTANCE OF A $10,000 NT FROMx E CALIFORNIA LIBRARY LITERACY SERVICES (CLL ..)TO FUN ' E LIBRARY'S LITERACY SERVICES FOR FY2013- 14; D 2) A HORIZING THE ESTABLISHMENT OF FUND APPROPRIATION SAND A CORRESPONDING REVENUE BUDGET. (Library) ACTIOA dopted. See above. CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS 2013 (403-28-1) 7. Resolution No. 2013-132. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NATIONAL CITY DENYING THE APPEAL OF AND AFFIRMING THE PLANNING COMMISSION REVOCATION OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2010-33 CUP FOR LIVE ENTERTAINMENT AT AN EXISTING BAR/RESTAURANT LOCATED AT 105 E. 8TH STREET. (Case File No.: 2013-11 R) (Planning) ACTION: Motion by Sotelo-Solis, seconded by Cano, to adopt the Resolution. Carried by unanimous vote. Book 95 / Page 159 09-03-2013 CONSENT CALENDAR (cont.) LAND USE CODE AMENDMENTS ADMIN (405-6-1) 8. Resolution No. 2013-133. RESOLUTION CERTIFYING A NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NATIONAL CITY TO FILE A NOTICE OF DETERMINATION RELATED TO AMENDING SECTION 18.30.360 OF TITLE 18 (LAND USE CODE) OF THE NATIONAL CITY MUNI GPAL CODE RELATED TO FAST FOOD RESTAURANT LOCH,{rAL REQUIREMENTS. (Applicant: The Focus Group) (Case Fil 2 IS) (Planning) ACTION: Motion by Rios, secorf otelo-Solis, to adopt the Resolution. Carried by unan sous vote. 1QQ 4i 'Y Ri:WWW:I' WARRANT REGISTER JULY 2013 lE 2014 (202-1-2 9. Warrant Register #5 for the p` ff d of 7/23/13 throu/30/13 in the amount of $885,413.58. (Finance) ACTION: Ratifi- See above. WARRANT REGISTER JULY . 10. Warrant Register #6 for tP IA of $8,691,4 ;. (Finance,` A led. Se PUBLIC HEARIN LAN 11 EA lc'i*`Iearang and 18.41M unicipal Co 6-through b (C:`s Ile: 2013- REC ' , ENDAT recomm-:;® , tion 18.41.020 TESTI NE 201 02-1-28) /31/1,ugh 8/6/13 in the amount 05-6-1) sider 'doh in:hce Amending Sections 18.30.360 Title 18 (Land Use Code) of the National City Mast food restaurant Iocational requirements and n guidelines. (Applicant: The Focus Group) (Pla' fining) : Staff concurs with the Planning Commission's adopt the amendments to Title 18.30.360 and Municipal Code pertaining to fast food restaurants. : Tom Cofersons appeared on behalf of the applicant and responded to questions. ACTION: Motion by Sotelo-Solis, to continue for two weeks. Motion died for lack of a second. Motion by Cano, seconded by Rios, to close the Public Hearing. Carried by unanimous vote. 3 Book 95 / Page 160 09-03-2013 ORDINANCE FOR INTRODUCTION MUNICIPAL CODE 2013 (506-2-28) 12. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NATIONAL CITY AMENDING SECTIONS 18.30.360 AND 18.41.020 (C) OF TITLE 18 (LAND USE CODE) OF THE NATIONAL CITY MUNICIPAL CODE RELATED TO FAST FOOD RESTAURANT LOCATIONAL REQUIREMENTS AND DRIVE -THROUGH,. BUSINESS DESIGN GUIDELINES. (Applicant: The Focus Gro (Case File: 2013-12 A) (Planning) NEW BUSINESS CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS 2013( 13. Notice of Decision — Planning Permit for a new fast food rest Avenue. (Applicant:Te Focus (Planning) RECOMMENDATION S' Commission and recomm`er'',ds TEST ® Y: None AC'T on by R ps e rnmenda �` . Carrib Aanim POLITICAL SUPP 14. ana r :< RECOMMEPAI Y TESTI v ACTION action was -28-1) fission approval of a "h nditional Use ocated at 0 Highland Case File: 201 -12 CUP) urs wit e Notice,i decision of the Planning ecision be filed. by t ano, to approve staff s :vote. ES (102-4-1) tan a letter regarding AB 981. (City upd`a0 version of the letter was distributed. No en. fiOMMU:I 1l Y DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION — HOUSf'NG/ATORITY OF THE CITY OF NATIONAL CITY NO AGENDA ITEMS STAFF REPORTS CITY MANAGER / REPORTS ADMIN (1104-1-12) 15. Staff Report — San Diego State University Community Engagement for Sustainable Cities Program (CESC). (City Manager) TESTIMONY: Dean Jeffery Chase and Dr. Jessica Barlow appeared on behalf of San Diego State University and responded to questions. Book 95 / Page 161 09-03-2013 STAFF REPORTS (cont.) CITY ATTORNEY REPORTS (509-1-3) 16. Verbal Report — Senate Bill 1 (Steinberg) of 2013 — New Sustainable Economic Development Legislation. (Executive Director Brad Raulston) PUBLIC WORKS DEPT ADMIN (1104-1-11) 17. Staff Report — Update on Relocation ofI?ublic Works Facilities. (Engineering/Public Works) 17a. Alfredo Ybarra, Director of Housing a r- ` informed the Council of the steps were being taken to addrarking i sts at Kimball & Morgan Towers and that escrow close • ale of the &rent and new Public Works yard located at 1726 Wil, venue. BOARDS & COMMISSIONS ADMIN (101. 18. Discussion on the ation of 1f fary Advisor( bommittee. (Councilmember Rios TESTIMONY: Sh Bert Andrade, Nati ACTI,e� ..The conse Adittee on MAYOR AND CI Cou`Fi El Toy Street. Council Memb Highland Avenue Nationa;. Cty, spoke in support. ke in solaort. .e he establishment of an was taken. everyone about the Quarterly staff look into football practices taking place at awash taking place at Plaza Boulevard and 8th e of the need for maintenance in the medians along bnal City Blvd. Mayor Morrison reported on the recent rate increase hearing held by the Sweetwater Water Authority. CLOSED SESSION REPORT City Attorney Claudia Silva stated there was nothing to report from the Closed Session. (See attached Exhibit `L') 5 Book 95 / Page 162 09-03-2013 ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned in memory of Maria Avalos and Maria Valderrama. Motion by Sotelo-Solis, seconded by Rios, to adjourn the meeting to the next Regular Meeting of the City Council and Community Development Commission — Housing Authority of the City of National City to be heft]=.Tuesday, September 17, 2013 at 6:00 D.M. at the Council Chambers, Nationglety, California. Carried by unanimous vote. The meeting closed at 10:37 p.m. The foregoing minutes were ap 2013. City Cler be Regiii4dVleeting of November 5, Mayor 6 EXHIBIT `L' AGENDA OF A SPECIAL MEETING. CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF AL CITY AND SUCCESSOR AGENCY TO T; O ITY DEVELOPMENT CO ;l_. S • N AS NATIONAL CITY RED {'_ 3� PMENT AGE Main Co ce Room Civic er 1243 National Ci Tonal City, Ca Special Meeting — Septembe i ,013 —.5:00 p.m. ROLL CALL CLOSED SESSION CI T17"G Ci,I'NCIL 1. L Gilt Claims — Goment Section 54956.95 W ,.' Compensate laim Agens.d-imed Agains ity of N:``ional City Number L aim: One 'W ` 2. Conferenc w =e• ax$t` sel — Antici • ated Liti. ation Anticipated Litiguant to Government Code Section 54956.9(d)(2) and (e)(3) Two Liability Clai .': adalupe Fajardo and Stella Kuzukian 3. Conference with Legal Counsel — Existing Litigation Government Code Section 54956.9(a) Community Youth Athletic Center v. City of National City, CDC, et al. SD Superior Court Case No. 37-2007-00076404-CU-EI-CTL Court of Appeal Case No. D060001 Agenda of a Special Meeting September 3, 2013 Page 2 CITY COUNCIL 4. Conference with Legal Counsel — Existing Litigation Government Code Section 54956.9(a) Teodoro VillaIon Torres, et al. v. Almquist, et al. San Diego Superior Court Case No. 37-2012-000763304-CU-PO-SC 5. Conference with Legal Counsel — Existing Litigation Government Code Section 54956.9(a) Isabel Padilla v. City of National City San Diego Superior Court Case No. 37-2013-00030 6. Conference with Legal Counsel — Existing LitigatiOn4 Government Code Section 54956.9(a) Christina Never v. City of National City, et ig San Diego Superior Court Case No. 377 -p =0078352-CL-UD-S Conference with Legal Counsel — Existing n°. ation Government Code Section 54956.9(a) Kimberly Willis v. Housing Aity of the City 6f� q City San Diego Superior Court Ca e 0 7-2013-6120- WM-CTL 8. Conference with Legal Counsel xis CI,=iti. ation Government Code Section 54956. The Affordable Coalition o n Diego Sacramento G� .Q. 34-201 m`8.001 9. Conference Government Co. City g latlona/ C ction ourt Cas'= I — Existin• .ation 56.9(a) genc y.�;ilatosantos, Sandoval (true up) 0011 v Sa"rdiiyal, et al DSO" 0' ;Conference witt egal Co — Existin 1hti$ation overnment Code'gction 54 9(a) National City ,Succes Jj 4gency v. Morgan Square go Superior Co ;Case No37-2013-00030288 11. Confere with Legal hsel — Existing Litigation Government de Sect° . 4956.9(a) City of Nations jt a f C v. Rosenow Spevacek Group Arbitration Matte 12. Conference with Legal Counsel — Anticipated Litigation Initiation of Litigation Pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(a) One Potential Case SUCCESSOR AGENCY 1. Conference with Legal Counsel — Existing Litigation Government Code Section 54956.9(a) Community Youth Athletic Center v. City of National City, CDC, et al. SD Superior Court Case No. 37-2007-00076404-CU-EI-CTL Court of Appeal Case No. D060001 Agenda of a Special Meeting September 3, 2013 Page 3 SUCCESSOR AGENCY 2. Conference with Legal Counsel — Existing Litigation Government Code Section 54956.9(a) The Affordable Housing Coalition of San Diego County v. Sandoval, et al Sacramento Court Case No. 34-2012-80001158-CU-WM-GDS 3. Conference with Legal Counsel — Existina Litigation Government Code Section 54956.9(a) City of National City and Successor Agency v. Matosar to Sacramento Court Case No. 34-2012-80001198 4. Conference with Legal Counsel — Existing Litigatio Government Code Section 54956.9(a) City of National City and Successor Agen ""'" organ Square San Diego Superior Court Case No. 37- =t 0030288 5. andoval (true up) Conference with Le• al Counsel — Existin Govemment Code Section 54956.9(a) City of National City and CD osenow Spey Arbitration Matter tion 6. Conference with Legal Counsel Initiation of Litigation Pursuant to One Potential C ADJOURNMENT Litigation de SectiO 956.9(a) N, v• ular CiQueig — Tuesd)! September 3, 2013, 6:00 p.m., Council Book 95 / Page XX 10-15-2013 DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION — HOUSING AUTHORITY OF THE CITY OF NATIONAL CITY October 15, 2013 The Regular Meeting of the City Council and Community Development Commission — Housing Authority of the City of National City was called to order at 6:21 p.m. by Mayor , Chairman Ron ..__ ,_ 64. ROLL CALL Council / Board members present: Cano Morrison, Natividad, s� Sotelo-Solis. Administrative Officials present: Cissel, Ila, Deese, Duong; anganiello, Parra, Raulston, Roberts, Ro uez Silva, �-_venson, Verg 6, Williams,Ybarra. Others present: City Treasure Kane Gillego. and Student Representative PLEDGE OF ALLTO THE; LA6 Y°1111A (OR;fi'F2ON MORRISON OFF AGENDA IT I , SUBJECT: Request fro C'ainfornia Assemblywoman Lorena Gonzalez, together with F iceboi k, Inc.., to us0,the Martin,Luther King Jr. Community Center (North Room for a Facebook Small Business Owners Training Seminar on Friday, Nover r 8 2013, fr n. 7:004am to 10:00 am for approximately 150 attendees. Applica not requesfa" a fee`°ii i�,yer. RE MENDAT , Add he item. ACTT Motion : Sotelo-Solis, seconded by Cano, to bring the item onto the Agenda ay Item No. 22a. Carried by unanimous vote. PUBLIC ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Brian Clapper, National City Lions Club, informed the Council about a program undertaken by the Chula Vista Elks Lodge to distribute dictionaries to all third graders in National City. Mr. Clapper invited the City Council to attend the next give -a -way events and suggested the possibility of a Proclamation by the City. Bert Andrade, National City, spoke of his service during the Korean War. 0 CITY COUNCIL PROCLAMATION Book 95 / Page XX 10-15-2013 PROCLAMATION ADMIN (102-2-1) 1. Proclaiming the City of National City to be a "Purple Heart City". PRESENTATIONS COUNCIL MEETING PRESENTATIONS 2013 2. Update by City of National City co ARTS center, A Reason to Survive ITS). COUNCIL MEETING PRESENTATIO 3. Update on National City Safe R Walk to School Day. (Engineeringa CONSENT CALENDAR ADOPTION OF CONSENT CA through 19 (Resole Item Nos. 21 a Cano, to pull It Calendar. Carri APP 4. os. 20 v unani os. 201 48 th ant Re 's ers d 21, a us vote. MINUS` <<: provaI ofv he CommunityDevelop tional City otob - ACTION:rove -8) rtner and lessee of the 013 (102-10-8) to School Prograri JI October 31st ildren's Ho 't I) Drove 4., (Minutes), Item Nos. 5 , Item No. 20 (TUP), by 'Natividad, seconded by remainder of the Consent tes of • dlar Meeting of the City Council and et t Comm on — Housing Authority of the City of 013. (City Clerk) ee above. FINANCIAL NAGEM T 2013-2014 (204-1-29) 5. Resolut o A,No. 2 � 148. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY ZONAL CITY AUTHORIZING THE ACCEPTANCE OF AND RATIF .I HE ESTABLISHMENT OF AN APPROPRIATION FOR $100,000.00 WITHIN THE GENERAL FUND FROM THE FY 2013 SUPPLEMENTAL LAW ENFORCEMENT SERVICES FUND (SLESF)/CITIZENS' OPTION FOR PUBLIC SAFETY (COPS) PROGRAM, AND AUTHORIZING THE EXPENDITURE OF GRANT FUNDS TO PURCHASE A FULLY -EQUIPPED POLICE VEHICLE, HANDGUNS AND RIFLES. (Police) ACTION: Adopted. See above. Book 95 / Page XX 10-15-2013 CONSENT CALENDAR (cont.) GRANT / PUBLIC SAFETY (206-4-27) 6. Resolution No. 2013-149. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NATIONAL CITY AUTHORIZING THE ACCEPTANCE OF THE FY 2013 SAN DIEGO COUNTY LAW ENFORCEMENT FOUNDATION GRANT IN THE AMOUNT OF $2,201.65, AND AUTHORIZING AN INCREASE OF THE ARJ OPRIATION FOR THE PURCHASE OF FIRST AID/MEDICAL °1KITS FOR THE POLICE DEPARTMENT. (Police) ACTION: Adopted. See above. PARKING & TRAFFIC CONTROL ADMIN 2413 (801-2- 7. Resolution No. 2013-150. RESOLUTION OF THENCJTY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NATIONAL CITY I,THORIZING INSTA:TION OF ALL - WAY STOP CONTROL WITH CROSSWALKS AT THE SINTyERSECTION OF BRISBANE STREETAND COMMsg X L DRIVEWAYSwLOCATED AT SOUTH BAY MA T LACE,11) ZEST OF N. 4TH AVENUE. (TSC 2013-19). (Engine.eri ACTION: Adopteds` ��, PARKING & T C C • CONTROL Ab I 13 2 344) 8. Resolution o. 201.451. RESOLUTION THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY.F NATIONAL CITY.UTHORIZING INSTALLATION OF A BLUE CURBr:HAND '.A > SPACEANJTH SIGNAGE IN FRONT OF 240 E. i I STREET 201 1) (Er ineering) ATION ted. Seen ove=°' PARK G & TRAFFIC CONTt OL ADMIN 2013 (801-2-34) 9.Resolution No. 3-152. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE�.CITY OF N " ZONAL` CITY AUTHORIZING INSTALLATION OF A BLUE'URB HA 1CAP SPACE WITH SIGNAGE IN FRONT OF 1033 "A" AVE. U(TS.� 013-14) (Engineering) AC ti' �:N; ®,opted. See above. CONTRACT (C2011-20) 10. Resolution No. 2013-153. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NATIONAL CITY RATIFYING AND APPROVING AN AGREEMENT NOT TO EXCEED $50,000 WITH THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA FOR STAFF SUPPORT IN THE PERFORMANCE OF RECRUITMENT AND SELECTION OF CANDIDATES FOR CITY OF NATIONAL CITY EMPLOYMENT. (Human Resources) ACTION: Adopted. See above. Book 95 /Page XX 10-15-2013 CONSENT CALENDAR (cont.) CIVIL SERVICE RULES / AMENDMENTS (603-1-1) 11. Resolution No. 2013-154. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NATIONAL CITY AMENDING CIVIL SERVICE RULE III FOR THE PURPOSE OF ADDING SECTION 313 — VETERAN'S PREFERENCE. (Human Resources) ACTION: Adopted. See above. CONTRACT (C2010-68) 12. Resolution No. 2013-155. RESO THE CITY OF NATIONAL CI EXECUTE A FIFTH AMEND PROJECT PROFESSIONAL NOT -TO -EXCEED AMOUNT 0 ON -CALL GENERAL ENGINE INSPECTIONS AND,4:;7ROJECT VARIOUS CAPITAL Ix�.:F:. EMENT CIP Projects). (Enginee ACTION: Adopted. CONTRACT (C 13. Resoluti THE CI EXECUTE MATERIAL <. , PROVEME ded by vari r> • CTION: CONTRACT( 14. Resolution � .xye -157. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY ATIONAL CITY AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO EXECUTE A OURTH AMENDMENT TO THE AGREEMENT WITH BUREAU VERITAS NORTH AMERICA, INC. TO EXTEND THE TERM OF THE AGREEMENT TO APRIL 5, 2014 FOR ON -CALL GENERAL ENGINEERING SERVICES, CONSTRUCTION INSPECTIONS AND PROJECT MANAGEMENT SERVICES FOR VARIOUS CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS, EFFECTIVE AS OF OCTOBER 4, 2013. (Funded by various CIP projects) (Engineering) ACTION: Adopted. See above. o. F MO T T T 56. R ®NAL S G RO CIP •ted. LUT -IE CITY COUNCIL OF rHOR Z ` G THE MAYOR TO T TO THE `ry.'. REEMENT WITH RPORATION 0 `41 CREASE THE 'HE AGREEMENT SRC ICES, C MENT SER 300,000 FOR ,TRUCTION ES FOR JECTS. (Funded by various TION ,,THE CITY COUNCIL OF AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO NT TO THE AGREEMENT WITH O EXTEND THE TERM OF THE OR ON -CALL GEOTECHNICAL SEf ICES FOR VARIOUS CAPITAL S, EFFECTIVE AS OF OCTOBER 4, 2013. cts) (Engineering) e above. +3 Book 95/Page XX 10-15-2013 CONSENT CALENDAR (cont.) CONTRACT (C2004-51) 15. Resolution No. 2013-158. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NATIONAL CITY AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO EXECUTE A FIRST AMENDMENT TO THE AGREEMENT WITH D-MAX ENGINEERING, INC. TO INCREASE THE NOT -TO -EXCEED AMOUNT OF THE AGREEMENT BY $100,000 FOR ENW ONMENTAL SERVICES FOR VARIOUS CAPITAL IMPROVEME• ?ROJECTS. (Funded by various CIP Projects) (Engineering) ACTION: Adopted. See above. CONTRACT (C2010-69) 16. Resolution No. 2013-159. RE �y'`UTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NATIONAL tT :�;CC: AUTHORIZING MAYOR TO EXECUTE A FOURTH AMEND fNT T HE AGR ENT WITH KIMLEY-HORN & A CIATES, I TO INCREASE Efr NOT -TO - EXCEED AMOUNT O �fi�j AGREE NT BY $300,000 AND EXTEND THE TERM OF THE AC'�I EE AGREEMENT TO Al? L 5, 2014 FOR ON -CALL GENERAL ENGINEENGa SERV ES, CONSTRUCTION INSPECTIONS ND PROJECT M NAGE ENT SERVICES FOR VARIOUS C T IMPROVEMENTeJECTS, EFFECTIVE AS OF OCTOB R"4, 2013 :Funded us CIP lbjects) (Engineering) ACON: Ado d. See ;_f.e. th Y. 5t hh CON T < c 2009=719�,� ".1. 17 . eso1 do � o. 20 ,N a-160. R 7DJ-UTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY% F NATIONAL C s, AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO ECUTE A rURT#..AMENDMENT TO THE AGREEMENT WITH THERN C .ORN1A OIL & TESTING, INC. TO EXTEND THE OF THE ','GREE ENT TO APRIL 5, 2014 FOR ON -CALL GEOT CHNICAL A 'ATERIALS TESTING SERVICES FOR VARIOUS CAPITALCAPITAMI PROWtMENT PROJECTS, EFFECTIVE AS OF OCTOBER 4, 2013. ( ": various CIP Projects) (Engineering) ACTIOdopted. See above. Book 95 / Page XX 10-15-2013 CONSENT CALENDAR (cont.) CONTRACT (C2010-38) 18. Resolution No. 2013-161. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NATIONAL CITY AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO EXECUTE A FIRST AMENDMENT TO THE AGREEMENT WITH RBF CONSULTING TO INCREASE THE NOT -TO -EXCEED AMOUNT OF THE AGREEMENT BY $30,000 FOR Cal {- . ENGINEERING AND CONSTRUCTION SUPPORT SERVICES:. THE NATIONAL CITY 8TH STREET SAFETY ENHANCEM .' r ;4_("J" AVENUE TO PALM AVENUE) PROJECT. (Funded b : op *icon A and Gas Tax) (Engineering) ACTION: Adopted. See CONTRACT (C2009-1) 19. Resolution No. 2013-162. RES THE CITY OF NATO AL CITY EXECUTE A FOUR "`' NDMEN HARRIS & ASSOCIA AGREEMENT TO AP ENGINEER PROJECy IMPROI f: (Funded :x ACTI NT rious TEMI'RARYl3 PE ` 1 206 Temporary e P ovember 1, is a Ci (Ne'jorhood Se TION: Alication vot ERVIC EMEN E �d ECTS, Project See a. e C 14 TIV. ngineering) S 2013' — Swee ater High School's Homecoming on from , 0 p.m. to 9:30 p.m. at 2900 Highland Avenue. o-spa ;red event per Council Policy No. 804. es) on by Rios, seconded by Natividad, to approve the a Temporary Use Permit. Carried by unanimous �� THE CI T UNCIL OF *ZING THE'`YOR TO THE AGREEMENT WITH ND THE TERM OF THE fit.. ON -CALL GENERAL CTIO ", INSPECTIONS AND OR VARIOUS CAPITAL OF OCTOBER 4, 2013. WARRANT REGISTE - JULY 2013 — JUNE 2014 (202-1-28) 21. Warrant Register #12 for the period of 9/11/13 through 9/17/13 in the amount of $1,490,504.13. (Finance) ACTION: Motion by Rios, seconded by Cano, to ratify Warrant Register #12. Carried by unanimous vote. WARRANT REGISTER JULY 2013 — JUNE 2014 (202-1-28) 22. Warrant Register #13 for the period of 9/18/13 through 9/24/13 in the amount of $996,567.99. (Finance) ACTION: Ratified. See above. t5 Book 95/Page XX 10-15-2013 OFF AGENDA ITEM MARTIN LUTHER KING JR. COMMUNITY CENTER (1101-5-1) 22a. Request from California Assemblywoman Lorena Gonzalez, together with Facebook, Inc., to use the Martin Luther King Jr. Community Center (North Room) for a Facebook Small Business Owners Training Seminar on Friday, November 8, 2013, from 7:00 am to 10:00 am for approximately 150 attendees. Applicant is not requesting a f waiver. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends.Wroving the Facility Use Application. ACTION: Motion by Rios, sec take `b Cano, to approve the Facility Use Application with.;,all recommendations of staff. Carried by unanimous vote. PUBLIC HEARING MUNICIPAL CODE 2013 (5 23. Public Hearing to Corgi Westside Specific Plan t� Rental" as a Conditionally Zone. (App t;U-Haul) (C RECOMME DMA ' ON: Staff dopt the recomm Specific P1 n Ordinan ., elf -Storage I.se in mending Appendix 'A' of the cility with Accessory Truck g4Limited Commercial (CL) 3 20 SE. k) (Planning) e 'Planning Commission's ent to ppendix 'A' of the Westside TESTI NYI Butaia ' on Pederson and Carlos Vizcarra peare eha `( of the plicant, made a presentation and s ronded t ,uestions ` ' artinez, representing the Environmental Health Coalition, modifications regarding parking and hours of operation. rcia, Nnonal City, expressed concern about the hours on by Sotelo-Solis, seconded by Rios, to close the . Carried by unanimous vote. Mote® otelo-Solis to continue the item to the next meeting. Motio ` for lack of a second. Motion by Rios, seconded by Cano, to bring back an Ordinance. Carried by the following vote, to -wit: Ayes: Cano, Morrison, Natividad, Rios. Nays: Sotelo-Solis. Absent: None. Abstain: None. Caroll:a suggeo Margarita' f operatio TION: "Ic Hea -28) �6 Book 95 ! Page XX 10-15-2013 CONSENT CALENDAR (cont.) NEW BUSINESS TEMPORARY USE PERMITS 2013 (203-1-29) 24. Temporary Use Permit - Fall Festival hosted by the South Bay Community Church at 2400 Euclid Avenue on October 31, 2013 from 5 p.m. to 9 p.m. with no waiver of fees. (Neighborhood Servic RECOMMENDATION: Approve the App i. '' for a Temporary Use Permit subject to compliance with all cord A s of approval. uYe. TESTIMONY: None. ACTION: Motion by Rios, s;_ > ded by NO idad, to approve staff recommendation. Carried animous vo COMMUNITY DEVEL P MENT COMMISSION HOUSING AUTHORITY OF TateITY •FINATIONAL CIT>Y STAFF REPORTS BD OF PORT C 25. Update Director) Executive D iG ENDA IT REPO Unifie elate$)• m gv f Po IP fun redirection Po r: Capital sit-: = d t r w, > ing" and " w : -term 25a. Stud and upc epresen a g ev, repo inc MIN (701-3-1) Brad Raulston, Executive on recent events and actions by the g the unanticipated reallocation of n iego and Chula Vista; the apparent way from 'National City's strategic plan goals for wly established Port initiatives for "Integrated goals". ve Kane Gillego updated the City Council on recent at Sweetwater High School. A recess was calle•' s'. 3 p.m. The meeting reconvened at 8:41 p.m. All members were present. 25b. City Attorney Claudia Silva reported on new legislation (AB 1090) that will allow the FPPC to enforce and provide advice on conflict of interest matters. The new legislation goes into effect on January 1, 2014. Book 95/Page )O( 10-15-2013 MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL CITY COUNCIL ADMIN (102-16-1) 26. Follow-up — State of the City Address. (Council Initiated) ACTION: There were questions to staff and extensive discussion. No action was taken. City Treasurer Beauchamp discussed the local and atonal consequences of the current federal government budget crisis, expres a ..=concern about the use of outside legal counsel, the importance of tl�-; )t! tree crew and the new administration in our Sister City of Tecate, Me Vice Mayor Natividad requested updaton food trucks and car sales on the street. Council Member Sotelo-Solis spoke alp' dedication and the upcomin Iloween To the importance of working to Pon the foo would be participating in the I MAN October 17th. Council Membea received from she participate regarding the State twater Hi chool field error event, cd-`iTnented on ck issue and advised that she e, San Diego Gala event on owledg`od Vic ar atidad for the award he Clinic,: ed on:. olice Department events she ap dated the discussion that took place Ma r &?ison comme tad. on the ?upcom ig Tower of Terror event at the fire t .rr station and Day off4the Dead, at La Vista Cemetery, the Sweetwater High field dedicat on and victo and 'November 1st Homecoming. Mayor Morrison highlighted ,the planned State of Cthe City address on October 17th and invited everyone-4t°attend. CLOSED SES` City Attorney Cla Session. (See attac ADJOURNMENT T a stated there was nothing to report from the Closed xhibit 'L') The meeting was adjourned in memory of Colleen Hernandez. Motion by Sotelo-Solis, seconded by Rios, to adjourn the meeting to the next Regular Meeting of the City Council and Community Development Commission — Housing Authority of the City of National City to be held Tuesday, November 5, 2013 at 6:00 p.m. at the Council Chambers, National City, California. Carried by unanimous vote. The meeting closed at 9:59 p.m. Book95/PageXX 10-15-2013 City Clerk The foregoing minutes were approved at they eeting of November 5, 2013. Mayor N9 EXHIBIT'L' N T AGE CITY COUNCIL„; ma's Main`�tonferenc Civic Cei 243 Natio' al l' National Tuesday, G JONAL CITY bole at: California etober 15, 2013 — 5:30 p.m. ROLLL', CLOSED SE $1QN CITY COUNCIL 1. Conference with Labor Negotiators: Agency Designated Representatives: Employee Organization: Government Code Section 54657.6 Stacey Stevenson, Claudia Silva, Brad Raulston, Mark Roberts, Frank Parra, and Tim Davis Fire Fighters' Association 2. Conference with Legal Counsel — Existing Litigation Government Code Section 54956.9(a) The Affordable Housing Coalition of San Diego County v. Sandoval, et al Sacramento Court Case No. 34-2012-80001158-CU-WM-GDS ADJOURNMENT 'd0 Next Regular Meeting of the City Council and Community Development Commission — Housing Authority of the City of National City — Tuesday, October 15, 2013, 6:00 p.m., Council Chambers, National City, California. 1 1 CITY OF NATIONAL CITY, CALIFORNIA COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT '1EETING DATE: INovember 5, 2013� AGENDA ITEM NO. f+ ITEM TITLE: 'Resolution of the City Council of the City of National City authorizing the National City Police Department to accept the donation of a police service dog from the United States Government — Naval Special Warfare Group — One (NSWG-1) and authorize police department to sign the indemnity agreement. PREPARED BY: 'Jose Tellez, Captain DEPARTMENT: Police PHONE: 1450 APPROVED BY: EXPLANATION: 1-he United States Government — Naval Special Warfare Group — One (NSWG-1) donated - olice Service Dog (PSD) to the National City Police Department as part of a partnership that has been fostered over several years between the Police Department's SWAT Team and the US Navy Seals. PSD Marco, a two and a half year old male Belgium Malinois, was trained in patrol work and in bomb detection. For the purposes of the US Navy Seals, PSD Marco could not meet the transition standards in a timely manner, as required for sensitive operations, between patrol work and bomb detection. As a result PSD Marco was released from the US Navy Seals K9 Program and offered to the National City Police Department as a working patrol dog. The police department's independent canine trainer, tested PSD Marco and determined the dog is suitable to work as a police canine for the National City Police Department. Due to the impending -'overnment shutdown, the independent trainer took custody of PSD Marco until which time the city Jrmally accepts the donation. PSD Marco will be assigned a handler and then undergo training specific to police work. Based on the breed, age, and training PSD Marco's estimated value is $12,000. FINANCIAL STATEMENT: APPROVED: ACCOUNT NO. APPROVED: N/A' ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: N/A1 ORDINANCE: INTRODUCTION: FINAL ADOPTION: Finance MIS STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Adopt Resolution' BOARD / COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: N/A ATTACHMENTS: ,.sackground Indemnity Agreement Resolutior� The National City Police Department currently has three K9 Teams, the addition of PSD Marco will only add a fourth team for a short period of time. In January 2014, one of the current dogs will be retired from service. The addition of PSD Marco will allow the police department to maintain three teams in service. Background: Police Service Dogs are assigned to the Patrol Division of the police department. These dogs have specific temperaments needed for street patrol work to perform various tasks including tracking, bomb detection, narcotics detection and suspect apprehension. Police Service Dogs are considered force multipliers for their innate ability to track and focus resources on a specific area during a critical incident. National City Police canines have been very successful tracking not only lost or wanted persons but also tracking stolen articles such as firearms discarded by fleeing suspects. Police Service Dogs are an integral part of police work and serve as a first line of defense in order to minimize the exposure to dangerous situations by officers. These dogs serve as invaluable tool used by police to safeguard our community and reduce crime. COVENANT NOT TO SUE WITH INDEMNITY AGREEMENT (LEA) PAGE I OF STATE OF: CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF: SAN DIEGO Know all by these present that the United States Government, has delivered by means of transfer, unto National City Police Department. hereafter referred to as ("RECIPIENT") the following described Multi - Purpose Canine(s), thereafter referred to as ("MPC") to wit MARCO. , MALE, INTACT BELGIAN MALINOIS. DOG. WHELPED 25 NOVEMBER 2010, ELIMINATED FROM THE NAVAL SPECIAL WARFARE GROUP ONE MULTI -PURPOSE CANINE PROGRAM. Recipient hereby stipulates and guarantees that the canine(s) provided under this agreement are being acquired for use by RECIPIENT for the purpose of RETIREMENT. It is hereby agreed by both parties that the adoption of said canine(s) is not being accomplished with the intent that said canine(s) be resold by RECIPIENT to a third party. If RECIPIENT fails to comply with this provision and places the canine(s) provided under this agreement for sale, the RECIPIENT shall reimburse NAVAL SPECIAL WARFARE GROUP -ONE (NSWG-1) for the full market replacement value of the canine(s) provided under this agreement at a rate set by NSWG-1. The NSWG-1 reserves the right to pursue all available legal recourse should RECIPIENT be found to have procured the canines provided under this agreement under false pretenses. Recipient, in consideration of the transfer of above referenced MPC(s), the receipt.of which is hereby acknowledged, does hereby covenant and agree with the United States Government and the executors of administrators, will never institute or in any way aid in the institution of any suit, action at law, or make any claim against the United States Government, Department of Defense, NSWG-1, or any employee or servant thereof, for or by reason of any damage, loss, or injury either to person or property or both or wrongful death, which may be caused directly or indirectly by the above described MPC, however and whenever the same may be caused. And in further consideration of the transfer of said MPC, recipient hereby agrees to indemnity the United States Government, Department of Defense, and NSWG-land any and all services be employed by the Government, the Department of Defense and NSWG-1, through its agents and representatives, that Recipient, or his heirs, assigns, executors of administrators, will never institute or in any way aid in the institution of any suit, action at law, or make any claim against the United States Government, Department of Defense, NSWG-1 or any employee or servant thereof, for or by reason of any damage, loss, or injury either to person or property or both, which may be caused directly or indirectly by the above described canine(s), however and whenever the same may be caused. And in further consideration of the transfer of said canine(s), Recipient hereby agrees to indemnity and waive any and all future action, both at law and equity, the United States Government, Department of Defense, NSWG- 1, and any and all servants or employees thereof, against any and all claims for injury or damages, compensation or otherwise, which may arise at anytime whatsoever, and which are attributable directly or indirectly to the above described canine(s), or to any training given the above described canine(s) by the United States Government, Department of Defense, or NSWG-1, and to reimburse or make good any loss or damages or cost the United States Government, Department of Defense, NSWG-1, or any servants or employees thereof may have to pay if litigation arises on account of any claims made by Recipient , its successors, or assigns, or by any other party, whatsoever, who may institute any type of claim against the United States Government, Department of Defense, NSWG-1, or against any servant or employee thereof. Recipient further makes the promise that the canine(s) will not be used for any illegal purpose, all in consideration of the transfer of the above described canine(s) to Recipient by the United States Government, the Department of Defense, and NSWG-1, through its agents or representatives' receipt of which is hereby acknowledged. In making this agreement, the Recipient acknowledges that the above mentioned canine(s) HAS RECEIVED NSWG-1 Aggressiveness (Patrol) training, and having such knowledge, said owner, as a condition of being the recipient of the canine, thus freely and voluntarily accepts all risks and consequences of the future conduct and acts of the canine(s). Encl (2) COVENANT NOT TO SUE WITH INDEMNITY AGREEMENT (LEA) Jose Tellez, Captain National City Police Dept. 619-336-4513 jtellez a(�nationalcitvca.Qov PAGE 2 OF 2 CW03 CHAD CLEMENT NAVAL SPECIAL WAREFARE GROUP ONE, MULTI -PURPOSE CANINE AGENT/REPRESENTATIVE OF THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT RESOLUTION NO. 2013 — RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NATIONAL CITY ACCEPTING THE DONATION OF A POLICE SERVICE DOG FROM THE UNITED STATE GOVERNMENT — NAVAL SPECIAL WARFARE GROUP ONE, AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO EXECUTE A COVENANT NOT TO SUE WITH INDEMNITY AGREEMENT WHEREAS, the United State Government — Naval Special Warfare Group One donated a Police Service Dog to the National City Police Department as part of a partnership that has been fostered over several years between the Police Department's SWAT Team and the U.S. Navy Seals, pending execution of an indemnity agreement; and WHEREAS, the Service Dog is trained in patrol work and in bomb detection, but could not meet the transition standards in a timely manner, as required for sensitive operations; and WHEREAS, the Police Department's independent canine trainer tested the Service Dog and determined the dog is suitable to work as a police canine. The dog is valued at $12,000; and WHEREAS, the donation of the Police Service Dog requires the execution of a Covenant Not To Sue lWith Indemnity Agreement releasing the United States Government from any liability and includes the City's agreement to not sue the United States Government for any claims related to the Police Service Dog; and WHEREAS, this donation is in compliance with City Council Policy No. 204. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of National City hereby accepts the donation of a Police Service Dog from the United States Government — Naval Special Warfare Group One, and authorizes the Mayor to execute a Covenant Not To Sue With Indemnity Agreement. PASSED and ADOPTED this 5th day of November, 2013. Ron Morrison, Mayor ATTEST: Michael R. Dalla, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: Claudia Gacitua Silva City Attorney CITY OF NATIONAL CITY, CALIFORNIA COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT '1EETING DATE: November 5, 20131 AGENDA ITEM NO. ITEM TITLE: Resolution of the City Council of the City of National City ratifying the acceptance of a $31,862 grant from the State of California AB109 funds administered through the City of San Diego and ratifying the establishment of a Fiscal Year 2014 appropriation of $31,862 and a corresponding revenue budget for monitoring and assisting frontline law enforcement in our region with the problems associated with the early release of non-violent offenders from State prison PREPARED BY: Chief Manuel Rodriguez DEPARTMENT: poiiC PHONE: 4511 APPROVED BY: EXPLANATION: Assembly Bill 109 (as amended by AB 117) took effect October 1, 2011, and realigned three major areas of the California criminal justice system: 1. Establishes local jail custody for specified non-violent, non -serious, non -sex offenders who were previously subject to prison sentences II. Modifies parole statutes and creates local Post -release Community Supervision (PCS) for criminal offenders released from prison after having served a sentence for a non-violent non - serious, and non -sex offense III. Shifts the revocation process for parolees to the county court system over a two-phase, two-year process While the State of California allocated funding to local corrections agencies, it did not provide any +nding for frontline law enforcement. These grant funds are specifically geared to assist local law enforcement in the monitoring of these early release prisoners. FINANCIAL STATEMENT: APPROVED: 774� �'�'a� Finance ACCOUNT NO. APPROVED: MIS Revenue Fund: 290-11643-3463 Expenditure Fund: 290-411-643-* ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: ORDINANCE: INTRODUCTION: FINAL ADOPTION: STAFF RECOMMENDATION: 'Adopt Resolution BOARD / COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: N/A� 4TTACHMENTS: RESOLUTION NO. 2013 — RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NATIONAL CITY RATIFYING THE ACCEPTANCE OF A $31,862 GRANT TO THE NATIONAL CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA AB 109 FUNDS ADMINISTERED THROUGH THE CITY OF SAN DIEGO FOR THE MONITORING AND ASSISTING FRONTLINE LAW ENFORCEMENT IN OUR REGION WITH THE PROBLEMS ASSOCIATED WITH THE EARLY RELEASE OF NON-VIOLENT OFFENDERS FROM STATE PRISON, AND RATIFYING THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A FISCAL YEAR 2014 APPROPRIATION OF $31,862 AND A CORRESPONDING REVENUE BUDGET WHEREAS, AB 109 (as amended by AB 117) took effect October 1, 2011, and realigned three major areas of the California criminal justice system, as follows: 1. Establishes local jail custody for specified non-violent, non -serious, non -sex offenders who were previously subject to prison sentences; 2. Modifies parole statutes and creates local Post -release Community Supervision (PCS) for criminal offenders released from prison after serving a sentence for non- violent, non -serious, non -sex offenses; 3. Shifts the revocation process for parolees to the county court system over a two- phase, two-year process; and WHEREAS, the State of California allocated funding to local correction agencies, but did not provide funding for frontline law enforcement. These AB 109 grant funds are specifically geared to assist local law enforcement in the monitoring of these early release prisoners. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of National City hereby ratifies the acceptance of a $31,862 grant from the State of California AB 109 funds administered through the City of San Diego for the monitoring and assisting frontline law enforcement in our region with the problems associated with the early release of non-violent offenders from state prison. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of National City hereby ratifies the establishment of a Fiscal Year 2014 appropriation of $31,862 and a corresponding revenue budget. PASSED and ADOPTED this 5th day of November, 2013. Ron Morrison, Mayor ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: Michael R. Dalla, City Clerk Claudia Gacitua Silva City Attorney CITY OF NATIONAL CITY, CALIFORNIA COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT 'MEETING DATE: November 5, 2013 AGENDA ITEM NO. 0 ITEM TITLE: Resolution of the City Council of the City of National City authorizing the Mayor to execute a Third Amendment to the Agreement with Grossman Psychological Associates, APC, in the not -to -exceed amount of $49,500 to provide Pre -Placement evaluations, Pre -Employment exams, an Officer Assistance Program, Critical Incident Debriefing, and Fitness for Duty Evaluations for the Police Department for the term of one year. PREPARED BY: Ronni Zengota, Operations Assistanfl DEPARTMENT: Police PHONE: 45161 EXPLANATION: lOn July 1, 2010, the City entered into an Agreement with Grossman Psychological Assoc i rites, APC, to provide Pre -Placement Evaluations, Pre -Employment Exams, Officer Assistance Program, Critical Incident Debriefing and Fitness for Duty Exams for the Police Department from July 1, 2010 through June 30, 2011, for the not to exceed amount of $49,500. The Agreement provides the option to extend the Agreement for three (3) one-year terms. On July 5, 2011, the City extended the Agreement for one year (First Amendment) through June 30, 2012, for the not to exceed amount of $49,500. On July 17, 2012, the City extended the Agreement for an additional one year (Second Amendment) through June 30, 2013, for the not to exceed amount of $49,500. This Third Amendment to the Agreement in the not to exceed amount of $49,500 exercises the option for the third one-year extension through June 30, 2014. Bringing the total Agreement amount to "198,000. -frossman Psychological Associates, APC is a licensed psychologist that has specialized in police psychology since 1982, and is qualified by experience and ability to perform the se4vices requi ed. APPROVED BY: FINANCIAL STATEMENT: APPROVED: G Finance ACCOUNT NO. 'Budgeted through the General Fund APPROVED: MIS 001-411-000-205-0000 — Pre -Placement, Pre -employment, Critical Incident Debriefing, Fitness for Duty 001-411-000-299-0000 — Officer Assistance Program ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: N/A ORDINANCE: INTRODUCTION: FINAL ADOPTION: STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Adopt Resolution' BOARD / COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: NTTAC H M ENTS: hird Amendment to Agreement Proposed resolution THIRD AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT BY AND BETWEEN THE CITY OF NATIONAL CITY AND GROSSMAN PSYCHOLOGICAL ASSOCIATES, APC This THIRD AMENDMENT to Agreement is entered into this 1st day of July 2013, by and between the CITY OF NATIONAL CITY, a municipal corporation (the "CITY"), and GROSSMAN PSYCHOLOGICAL ASSOCIATES, APC, a professional corporation (the "CONSULTANT"). RECITALS WHEREAS, the CITY and CONSULTANT entered into a one year Agreement with CONSULTANT in the not to exceed amount of $49,500 to provide Pre -Placement Suitability evaluations, Pre -Employment Psychological Examinations, an Officer Assistance Program, Critical Incident Debriefing, and Fitness for Duty Examinations for the National City Police Department located at 1200 National City Boulevard from July 1, 2010 through June 30, 2011. The Agreement provided an option to extend the term of the Agreement for one-year, with up to three extensions. WHEREAS, on July 5, 2011, the City Council approved the First Amendment to the Agreement extending the term from July 1, 2011 to June 30, 2012, for the not to exceed amount of $49,500, for a total agreement amount of $99,000. WHEREAS, on July 17, 2012, the Second Agreement was approved extending the term from July 1, 2012 to June 30, 2013, for the not to exceed amount of $49,500, for a total Agreement amount of $148,500. WHEREAS, the parties now desire to amend the Agreement to extend the term of the Agreement for an additional year, through Fiscal Year 2013- 2014, beginning July 1, 2013 and ending June 30, 2014, for the not to exceed amount of $49,500. WHEREAS, the parties further agree that with the foregoing exceptions, each and every term and provision of the Agreement dated July 1, 2010, shall remain in full force and effect. AGREEMENT NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual benefit to be derived therefrom, CITY and GROSSMAN PSYCHOLOGICAL ASSOCIATES, APC, agree as follows: 1. The Agreement is hereby amended to extend the term of the Agreement for an additional year, expiring on June 30, 2014, beginning July 1, 2013 and ending June 30, 2014, for the total not to exceed amount of $49,500, bringing the total not to exceed amount of the Agreement to $198,000. 2. The parties further agree that with the foregoing exception, each and every term and provision of the Agreement dated July 1, 2011, shall remain in full force and effect. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Third Amendment to the Agreement on the date and year first above written. CITY OF NATIONAL CITY Ron Morrison Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: Claudia Gacitua Silva City Attomey GROSSMAN PSYCHOLOGICAL ASSOCIATES, APC Ira Grossman, PHD President By: Third Amendment - 2- Between the City of National City and to 2011 Agreement Grossman Psychological Associates, APC p.2 ACV Dr CERTIFICATE OF LIABILITY INSURANCE DATE (M WDDIYYYYI 10/16/2013 THIS CERTIFICATE IS ISSUED AS A MATTER OF INFORMATION ONLY AND CONFERS NO RIGHTS UPON THE CERTIFICATE HOLDER. THIS CERTIFICATE DOES NOT AFFIRMATIVELY OR NEGATIVELY AMEND, EXTEND OR ALTER THE COVERAGE AFFORDED BY THE POLICIES BELOW. THIS CERTIFICATE OF INSURANCE DOES NOT CONSTITUTE A CONTRACT BETWEEN T} E ISSUING INSURER(S), AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE OR PRODUCER, AND THE CERTIFICATE HOLDER. IMPORTANT: If the certificate holder is an ADDITIONAL INSURED, the policy(ies) must be endorsed. If SJBROGATION IS WAIVED, subject to the terms and conditions of the policy, certain policies may require an endorsement A statement on this certificate does not confer rights to the certificate holder In lieu of such endoraernent(s). PRODUCER MARILYN BILLINGSLEY Sfatefasm 1527 W LEWIS ST A, SAN DIEGO CA 92103 INSURED BUCCIGROSS, RICHARD L MD A MEDICAL CORP & GROSSMAN PSYCHOLOGICAL ASSOC 4550 KEARNY VILLA RD STE 214 SAN DIEGO CA 92123 CONTACT NAME: PHONE EMAIL ADORES$ INSURER(S) AFFORD MG COVERAGE 05 FAX 1 INSURER A State Farm General Iran ance Company INSURER B NAIC P 25161 INSURER C INSURER O e INSURER E INSURERF: • F EVISION NUMBER: MIS IS INDICATED. CERTIFB EXCLUSLDNS —0 CERTIFY THAT THE POLICIES OF INSURANCE LISTED BELOW HAVE BEEN ISSUED TO THE INSURE) NOTWITHSTANDING ANY REQUIREMENT, TERM OR CONDITION OF ANY CONTRACT OR OTHER DOCUMENT ATE MAY BE ISSUED OR MAY PERTAIN, THE INSURANCE AFFORDED BY THE POLICIES DESCRIBEC AND CONDITIONS OF SUCH POLICIES. OMITS SHOWN MAY HAVE BEEN REDUCED BY PAID CLAIMS. NAMED ABOVE FOR THE POLICY PERIOD WITH RESPECT TO WHICH THIS HEREIN IS SUBJECT TO AU. THE TERMS, INSR LTR AWL TYPE OF INSURANCE INSR SUER POLICY NUMBER POLICY EFF POLICYEXP f1AMODD'WY11 IMWODYYIYYI_ UYRS A GENERALUABA.ITY X I COMVERCIA.L GENEtALUAfUTY Y I., E. L- 90-51-4271-4 01/09/2613 01/0912014 2ACHOCCURRENCE $ 1,000,00D TED ES/EaE TO�o-: reneet S 300,000 JED EXP /Arty one Damn) S 5,000 CLAIMS -MADE 7, OCCUR PERSONAL S AOVINJURY S 3ENERAL AGGREGATE S 2,000,C00 'RODUCTS •COMPNP ACC $ 2,000,000 GEN'L X P AGGREGATE LICY LIMIT APPLIES PER: n J7ra 7 LOC S AUTOMORLE AVY Al A.JTOS HR LIABILITY TY AUTO OWNED D SCHEDULED AUTOS NON.OWNA-JTOS AUTOS D E { ''----rf EO Beaddlntf INGLE LIMIT S 3COILY INJURY (Prim/mop 4 BODILY INJURY (Per aeNtion0 $ PROPERTY 'Per OANAGE S I UMORELLAUAe OCCUR 7 EACH OCCURRENCE i AGGREGATE $ UAB CLAIMS -MADE S IESS I RETENnONS WO AND EJPLOYERV ANY P OPEC plane If yes, O CA UAaLRY 20 PRIETOR'PARTNER,EXECUTVE YIN JMEMBRI EXCLUDED?n wry In MI) ascribe under 'TICGI OF fTIONS [elm/ N IA r - _ I WCSTAMITS I _ER E.L. EACH ACCIDENT S E.L. DISEASE - EA EMPLOYEE $ E L. DISEASE -POLICY LIMIT S LI DESCRPTICN OF OPERATIONS I LOCATIONS! VEHICLES IAweh ACORD ICI, Addlao„ aI Remarks SMeduls, If more apace Is requIredl CERTIFICATE HOLDER THE CITY OF NATIONAL CITY, ITS ELECTED OFFICIALS, OFFICERS, AGENTS AND EMPLOYEES 1200 NATIONAL CITY BLVD NATIONAL CITY CA 91950.4302 CANOE SHOULD ANY OF THE ABOVE • ESCRIBED POLICIES BE CANCELLED BEFORE THE EXPIRATION DATE Tit - EOF, NOTICE WILL BE DELIVERED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE POLI • PROVISIONS. ACORD 26 (2010/05) @ 1988-2010 AC I RD CORPORATION. All rights reserved. The ACORD name and logo are registered marks of ACOR1001486 132849.8 01-23-2013 p.3 Pot BN AU 45 SA Ad CI IT AG N SECTION II ADDITIONAL INSURED ENDORSEM cy No: 90-51-4271-4 ed Insured: CIGROSS, RICHARD L MD EDICAL CORP & GROSSMAN CHOLOGICAL ASSOC 0 KEARNY VILLA RD STE 214 DIEGO CA 92123-1563 itiona! Insured (include address): OF NATIONAL CITY OFFICIALS, OFFICERS, NTS & EMPLOYEES NC BLVD IONAL CITY CA 9195D-4302 W 0 IS AN INSURED, under SECTION 11 DESIGNATION OF INSURED, is ame A•ditional Insured shown above, but only to the extent that liability is imposed on tha of your work performed for that Additional Insured shown above. A y insurance provided to the Additional Insured shall only apply with respect to d rnages for which you are provided coverage. T e Primary Insurance coverage below applies only when there is an "X" in the box. Primary. Insurance. The insurance provided to the Additional Insured show Any insurance carried by the Additional Insured shall be noncontributory wi you. A other provisions of the policy apply. -6609 FE 8609 Page ': al 1 NT ded to include as an insured the Additional Insured solely because claim made or suit brought for above shall be primary insurance. h respect to coverage provided to Jun 0112 08:28e WAIVER OF TRANSFER OF RIIMHTS OF RECOVERY AGAINST OTHERS TO US SCHEDULE Policy Number: 00 514271 4 Named Insured: BUCCIQROSS, RICHARD L MD A MEDICAL CORP & GROSSMAN PSYCHOLOGICAL ASSOC Hama and Address of Parson or OrSarllzallon: CITY OF NATIONAL CITY ITS OFFICERS, AGENTS & EMPLOYEES 1243 NATIONAL CITY BLVD NATIONAL CITY, CA 91g6O.4j p,4 Fralen The fhlkoving Is added to Paragraph illb. of SECTION i AND SECTION II— COMMON CONDITIONS: We waive any right of recovery we may have egainat the .pardon or organization shown to the Schedule because of payments we make for Inlay or damage arising out of: a. Your ongoing oparatlore,: or b. Your work dine under con0raci.wdh turd pram or organization and included in the products, compteied operations hazard. This waiver applies only to the person or organization shown in the Schedule. AI other policy provisions apply. Fsearl COOyftel,Skstefana4rhwlAutomobilekowtwsCanpeoy,ROOF MCA* mPrrbhlod meterter a hours in Soho r Cnok Inn, ion v paoolseko, amreaM a eA DARWIN NATIONAL ASSURANCE COMPANY 9/28/12 - A PsychTHISISiACLAIMSrMADEPOLCY PLEASEEfl ADLCAREEULLYY HI *** RENEWAL *** . NOTICE: A LOWER LIMIT OF LIABILITY APPLIES TO JUDGMENTS OR SETTLEMENTS WHEN THERE ARE ALLEGATIONS OF SEXUAL MISCONDUCT (SEE THE SPECIAL PROVISION "SEXUAL MISCONDUCT" IN THE POLICY). DECLARATIONS ' POLICY NO: 5010-5098 ACCOUNT NO: CA-GROS455-0f 0222406C' ' ITEM I. (a) NAME AND ADDRESS OF INSURED: ITEM 1.- (b) ADDITIONAL NAMED INSUREDS: IRA GROSSMAN, PH.D. GROSSMAN PSYCHOLOGICAL .ASSOCIATES, APC 4550 KEARNY VILLA RD STE 214 SAN DIEGO, CA 92123 ITEM 2. ADDITIONAL INSUREDS: CITY OF CHULA VISTA PURCHASING DIVISION 276 FOURTH AVE MS F-106 CHULA VISTA, CA 91910 ITEM 3, POLICY PERIOD: ITEM 4,, _ LIMITS OF LIABILITY: • TYPEOFORG: PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION .FROM: 12:01A.M. STAND A RD D TI1ME AT THE ADD • RESS. OF THE.INSURED/ASS STAIT3ED HEREIN: (a) $ ' 2,000,000 EACH WRONGFUL ACT OR SERIES OF CONTINUOUS, REPEATED OR INTERRELATED WRONGFUL ACTS OR OCCURRENCE . (b)$ 25,000 COSTS RELATED TO ANY SINGLE PROCEEDING 4,000,000 AGGREGATE, FOR ALL CLAIMS AND ALL PROCEEDINGS ITEM 5. ' ttii ITEM 6. ITEM 7. •l 1. PREMIUM SCHEDULE: CLASSIFICATION , 'NUMBER RATE ANNUAL PREMIUM 1ST PSYCHOLOGIST 1 1494..00 1,195.00 ',DIMET'" •---- .b_DEFENSE — - . - ..-..-+.-7.5_.0,0- ADDITIONAL INSUREDS 1. 50.00 .... .. Irf • .. .ter.. ... . _ k. ....:).. . ''Pt 4: k. .. A_9r. , . itl.-' r. ... RETROACTIVE DATE: 12 / 01 / 9 2 . _ TOTAL PREMIUM: 1, 01: 0 0 EXTENDED REPORTING PERIOD .• , ADDITIONAL PREMIUM (if excrcised):$ 2,102':0'0°SCHEDULED. RATING T INCREDICLUDED ITEM 8 ' " POLICY FORMS AND ENDORSEMENTS ATTACHED TO THIS POLICY PRGE2000 (3/2006) PRGe1069 (1/2006) PRGe1121- AU'IMORIZED COMPANY REPRESENTATIVE Americ fessional Agency • 95 Broadway, Amityville, NY 11701 CRED THIS IS NOT A BILL. PREMIUM HAS BEEN PAID. PRGE2005 (3/2006) RESOLUTION NO. 2013 — RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NATIONAL CITY AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO EXECUTE THE THIRD AMENDMENT TO THE AGREEMENT WITH GROSSMAN PSYCHOLOGICAL ASSOCIATES, APC, IN THE NOT -TO -EXCEED AMOUNT OF $49,500 FOR AN ADDITIONAL ONE YEAR TERM TO PROVIDE PRE -PLACEMENT EVALUATIONS, PRE -EMPLOYMENT EXAMS, AN OFFICER ASSISTANCE PROGRAM, CRITICAL INCIDENT DEBRIEFINGS, AND FITNESS FOR DUTY EVALUATIONS FOR THE NATIONAL CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT WHEREAS, on July 1, 2010, the City entered into a one-year Agreement with Grossman Psychological Associates, APC, in the amount of $49,500 to provide pre -placement evaluations, pre -employment exams, an officer assistance program, critical incident debriefings, and fitness for duty evaluations for the National City Police Department; and WHEREAS, said Agreement provided the option to extend the term of the Agreement for three additional one-year terms; and WHEREAS, on July 5, 2011, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 2011-146, approving the First Amendment to the Agreement to extend the term of the Agreement for one year for the not to exceed amount of $49,500; and WHEREAS, on July 17, 2012, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 2012- 157, approving the Second Amendment to the Agreement to extend the term of the Agreement for one year for the not to exceed amount of $49,500; and WHEREAS, the parties desire to exercise the option to extend the Agreement for the third of the three one-year extensions by extending the term of the Agreement for one additional year, through June 30, 2014, in the amount of $49,500, for a total agreement amount of $198,000. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of National City hereby authorizes the Mayor to execute a Third Amendment to the Agreement in the not -to -exceed amount of $49,500 with Grossman Psychological Associates, APC, to provide pre -placement evaluations, pre -employment exams, an officer assistance program, critical incident debriefings, and fitness for duty evaluations to the Police through June 30, 2014. Said Third Amendment to Agreement is on file in the office of the City Clerk. PASSED and ADOPTED this 5th day of November, 2013. Ron Morrison, Mayor ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: Michael R. Dalla, City Clerk Claudia Gacitua Silva City Attorney CITY OF NATIONAL CITY, CALIFORNIA COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT EETING DATE: November 5, 2013 AGENDA ITEM NO. 7 ITEM TITLE: Resolution of the City Council of the City of National City approving Reinstatement and Amendment Number One to Monitoring Well Encroachment Permit and Agreement by and between the City of National City and Chevron Environmental Management Company for Monitoring Well (W-27) encroaching into the alley between Roosevelt Avenue and Hoover Avenue south of 8th Street for continued monitoring as required by the County of San Diego Department of Environmental Health. PREPARED BY: Stephen Manganiello DEPARTME Engineering PHONE: (6191336-4382 APPROVED BY: EXPLANATION: See attached. FINANCIAL STATEMENT: ACCOUNT No financial impact ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: N/A ORDINANCE: INTRODUCTION: FINAL ADOPTION: APPROVED: Finance APPROVED: MIS STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Adopt Resolution BOARD / COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: N/A TTACHMENTS: 1. Explanation 2. Amendment No. 1 to Agreement 3. Resolution Explanation The City of National City and Chevron Environmental Management Company entered into an agreement on November 23, 2010, wherein Chevron was granted the right to encroach upon City property for the purpose of installing monitoring wells on 8th Street (W-26) and in the alley between Roosevelt Avenue and Hoover Avenue south of 8th Street (W-27). The Agreement states that the well may exist in the public right-of-way for a maximum of two years. The applicant is required to inform the City if additional time will be required for groundwater monitoring and shall obtain the City's written approval for any time extension. Monitor well W-26 was installed on January 7, 2011 and closed on April 28, 2011, at the request of the City due to future 8th Street improvements. Monitoring Well W-27 was installed on January 6, 2011 and is still in existence and monitored semi-annually. The County of San Diego Department of Environmental Health requires continued groundwater monitoring of well W-27. Therefore, Chevron Environmental Management Company has requested to extend the Agreement for two additional years from November 23, 2012 to November 23, 2014 so that monitoring can continue. If approved, the Agreement entered into on November 23, 2012 will be reinstated and will extend the expiration date for monitoring well W-27 until November 23, 2014. All other terms and provisions of the original Agreement shall remain in full force and effect. REINSTATEMENT AND AMENDMENT NUMBER ONE TO MONITORING WELL ENCROACHMENT PERMIT AND AGREEMENT BY AND BETWEEN THE CITY OF NATIONAL CITY AND CHEVRON ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT COMPANY This Reinstatement and Amendment to Agreement ("the Amendment") is entered into this 5th day of November, 2013, by and between the City of National City, a municipal corporation ("CITY"), and Chevron Environmental Management Company (the "PERMITEE"). RECITALS A. The CITY and the PERMITEE entered into a Monitoring Well Encroachment Permit and Agreement on November 23, 2010 ("the Agreement), wherein the PERMITTEE was granted the right to encroach upon City property for the purpose of installing monitoring wells, namely on 8th Street (W-28) and in the alley between Roosevelt Avenue and Hoover Avenue south of 8th Street (W-27). B. Monitoring well W-26 was installed on January 7, 2011, and closed on April 28, 2011, at the request of the City due to future 8th Street improvements. C. Monitoring well W-27 was Installed on January 6, 2011 and is still In existence and monitored semi-annually. D. The Permitee seeks to extend the Agreement for two additional years so that groundwater monitoring can continue to occur. E. The Agreement requires the Permltee to obtain City permission to extend the term of the Agreement and the PERMITTEE has requested a time extension for an additional two (2) years, from November 23, 2012 to November 23, 2014. NOW, THEREFORE, the parties hereto agree as follows: 1. The Agreement entered into on November 23, 2010, is reinstated and amended to extend the expiration date for monitoring well W-27 until November 23, 2014. 2. That with the foregoing exception, each and every term and provision of the Agreement dated November 23, 2010, shall remain in full force and effect. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Amendment on the date and year first above written. Signature page to follow Page - 1 - of 2 Amendment No. 1 to Agreement by and between City and Chevron Environmental Management Company for Monitoring Well W-27 1 CITY OF NATIONAL CITY CHEVRON ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT COMPANY (C n — signatures of two corporate officers) By: By: Ron Morrison, Mayor (Name) Frank G. Soler (Print) Assistant Secretary APPROVED AS TO FORM: (Title) Claudia G. Silva City Attorney By: (Name) Michael W. Woody (Print) Assistant Secretary (Title) Page - 2 - of 2 Amendment No. 1 to Agreement by and between City and Chevron Environmental Management Company for Monitoring Well W-27 2 ACKNOWLEDGMENT State of California County of Contra. Costa on October 9th, 2013 before me, Amie Bogaard, Notary Public (insert name and title of the officer) personally appeared Frank G. Soler and Michael W. Woody who proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(s) whose name(s) id/are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that f,1'e/%he/they executed the same in tiis/Iyt3r/their authorized capacity(ies), and that by FA/Or/their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument. I certify under PENALTY OF PERJURY under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing paragraph is true and correct. WITNESS my hand and official seal. Signature (Seal) laholwadaMMIabal AMIE BOGAAAD F Comrnisslon St 1972516 r. .jii Notary Public • California z Contra Costa County - al Comm.ExTire,Apr 4; 016 E RESOLUTION NO. 2013 — RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NATIONAL CITY AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO EXECUTE THE REINSTATEMENT AND AMENDMENT NUMBER ONE TO THE MONITORING WELL ENCROACHMENT PERMIT AND AGREEMENT BY AND BETWEEN THE CITY OF NATIONAL CITY AND CHEVRON ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT COMPANY FOR MONITORING WELL W-27 ENCROACHING INTO THE ALLEY BETWEEN ROOSEVELT AVENUE AND HOOVER AVENUE SOUTH OF 8TH STREET FOR CONTINUED MONITORING AS REQUIRED BY THE COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH WHEREAS, the City and Chevron Environmental Management Company ("Chevron") entered into an Agreement on November 23, 2010, allowing Chevron to encroach on City right-of-way to install and monitor wells on 8th Street (W-26) and in the alley between Roosevelt Avenue and Hoover Avenue south of 8th Street (W-27) for a maximum of two years, requiring the applicant to inform the City if additional time would be needed for groundwater monitoring, and requiring the City's written approval for any time extension; and WHEREAS, Monitor Well W-26 was installed on January 7, 2011 and closed on April 28, 2011 at the City's request based on future 8th Street improvements; and WHEREAS, Monitoring Well W-27 was installed on January 6, 2011, continues in existence, and is monitored semi-annually; and WHEREAS, Chevron is asking to reinstate the Agreement and extend it for two additional years, from November 23, 2012 to November 23, 2014, so that groundwater monitoring can continue to occur; and WHEREAS, the County of San Diego Department of Environmental Health requires continued groundwater monitoring of Monitor Well W-27. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of National City hereby authorizes the Mayor to execute the Reinstatement and Amendment Number One to Monitoring Well Encroachment Permit and Agreement by and between the City of National City and Chevron Environmental Management Company for Monitoring Well W-27 encroaching into the alley between Roosevelt Avenue and Hoover Avenue south of 8th Street for continued monitoring, as required by the County of San Diego Department of Environmental Health. PASSED and ADOPTED this 5th day of November, 2013. Ron Morrison, Mayor ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: Michael R. Dalla, City Clerk Claudia Gacitua Silva City Attorney CITY OF NATIONAL CITY, CALIFORNIA COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT 'AEETING DATE: November 5, 2013 AGENDA ITEM NO. 8 ITEM TITLE: Temporary Use Permit —6th Annual Tree Lighting Ceremony hosted by the Community Services Department on December 12, 2013 from 5 p.m. to 8 p.m. at Morgan Square & Brick Row, between "A" Avenue and National City Boulevard. This is a City sponsored event under Policy No. 804. PREPARED BY: Vianey Rivera PHONE: (619) 336-4364 EXPLANATION: DEPARTMENT: Neigh Services Division APPROVED BY: This is a request from the Community Services Department to conduct the Tree Lighting event at Morgan Square & Brick Row on "A" Avenue between E. 9th Street and National City Boulevard on December 12, 2013. This event will include the tree lighting ceremony, musical performances, the Kimball Museum will be open and there will also be a Christmas Bazaar where food, drinks and various other items will be sold from booths. Street closures are required on "A" Avenue at E. 9th Street on Morgan Square and E. Plaza Blvd. FINANCIAL STATEMENT: APPROVED: Finance ACCOUNT NO. APPROVED: MIS The City has incurred $237.00.00 for processing the TUP through various City Departments, plus $689.65 for Public Works. Total fees are $926.65 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: N/A ORDINANCE: INTRODUCTION: FINAL ADOPTION: STAFF RECOMMENDATION: jApprove the Application for a Temporary Use Permit subject to compliance with all conditions of approval. This is a City sponsored event under Policy No. 804. BOARD / COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: IN/A 4TTAC HM E NTS: application for a Temporary Use Permit with recommended approvals and conditions of approval. Type of Event: _ Public Concert Fair _ Festival Parade Demonstration _ Circus Motion Picture Grand Opening _ Other Event Title: - 12, Event Location: _ Community vent _ Block Party - (o `"^ Pcnnu r.., quaf 1)nc>% (2-sotA3 Event Date(s): From 12 (12113 to t21 a l t3 Actual Event Hours: 5 arreto e) am ) Total Anticipated Attendance: 'gyp ( Participants Spectators) Setup/assembly/construction Date: t2I 12. I t3 Start time: 3 cyrN Please describe the scope of your setup assembly work (specific details): 5e r t - c ) eho1'1r� I PP Par per Pc o oas Pood 1 vo ldor booths Holiclaq dtcoad cn Q.tc, Dismantle Date: tZ I It 113 Completion Time: CI a . t List any street(s) requiring closure as a result of this event. Include street name(s), day and time of closing and day and time of reopening. • ,r iCan qjt' Sj . -fr,-PIc,ZG Sponsoring Organization: rnmt t_ _ ce\ 1 Crno Chief -Officer of Organization (Name) I i'e Deese_Lel Applicant (Nam 3e%kCQ ei,s e_t LUkvan �x'�� Address: 1Zr--C t Joi cvlC1l.\ CiAt-1 6\vd Daytime Phone: ((AR 3340- '!Z89 Evening Phone: ( -j-- Fax: ( E-Mail: \r 100ic. i i 00-1 E nelon0.,61"4C U. c oV Contact Person "on site day of the event: Lo.u.(0rt Cellular:'Pefsonal cell " 3.0,1-H637 NOTE: THIS PERSON MUST BE IN ATTENDANCE FOR THE DURATION OF THE EVENT AND IMMEDIATELY AVAILABLE TO CITY OFFICIALS s your organization a "Tax Exempt, nonprofit" organization? X_ YES i NO Are admission, entry, vendor or participant fees required? YES X NO If YES, please explain the purpose and provide amount(s): $ / v Estimated Gross Receipts including ticket. product and sponsorship sales from this event. Estimated Expenses for this event. What is the projected amount of revenue that the Nonprofit Organization will receive as a result of this event? Please provide a DETAILED DESCRIPTION of your event. Include details regarding any components of your event such as the use of vehicles, animals, rides or any other pertinent information about the event. L c int` ce ncr o 'Trub C .\ r m--pnles Cnd Irn' ROidia Staler) --07 ▪ Vciad 1._icinti5 _kor Sale ° CV \C\NV . (PA + 5N) • gym\ \\ MU S rn_ /1 fir' -t OL,X • Vcn LQQ 5 o_ 4Y or -tkn. GCS NO If the event involves the sale of cars, will the cars come exclusively from National City car dealers? 0. list an _dditional dealers involved in the sale: YES XNO Does the event involve the sale or use of alcoholic beverages? YES _ NO Will items or services be sold at the event? If yes, please describe: cinkS I Cfack5 .e_ YES y, NO Does the evens involve a moving route of any kind along streets, sidewalks or highways? If YES, attach a detailed map of your proposed route indicate the direction of travel, and provide a written narrative to explain your route. Y YES NO Does the event involve a fixed venue site? If YES, attach a detailed site map showing at streets impacted by the event. _ YES X NO Does the event involve the use of tents or canopies? If YES: Number of tent/canopies Sizes NOTE: A separate Fire Department permit is required for tents or canopies. YES NO Will the event involve the use of the City, or your stage or PA system? SPECIFY: ('th.i QA 5&451esn Wi Cntiiiipte onicitOweS In addition to the route map required above, please attach a diagram showing the overall layout and set-up locations for the following items: 2. , -4ior Qc ' la, 0,k oeceins, on e(} j('(fitti�� W tt" e\f_c+6t.a Alcoholic and Nonalcoholic Concession and/or Beer Garden areas, news. Food Concession and/or Food Preparation areas Please describe how food will be served at the event: If you intend to cook food in the event area please specify the method: GAS ELECTRIC CHARCOAL OTHER (Specify): 'T(A,'O 1 Portable and/or Permanent Toilet Facilities Number of portable toilets: (1 for every 250 people is required, unless the applicant can show that there are facilities in the immediate area avail ble to the public during the event) Tables # VDFencing, barriers and/or and barricadeChairs # s j �- (J3 (TC3L7�j c.' �gyrk Generator locations and/or source of electricity tes:A r .p,4Cc J� p�jr w fvQfSiLQO-i� Sti6%n[yY1124-S . Canopies or tent locations (include tent/canopy dimensions) Booths, exhibits, displays or enclosures Scaffolding, bleachers, platforms, stages, grandstands or related structures Vehicles and/or trailers Other related event components not covered above Trash containers and dumpsters (Note: You must properly dispose of waste and garbage throughout the term of your event and immediately upon conclusion of the event the area must be returned to a clean condition.) Number of trash cans: Trash containers with lids: Describe your plan for clean-up and removal of waste and garbage during and after the event: it1 v,se h CAt7 s en &t te. os wet t o addi 1 Yzxes kcy, + st+e w\t tit? clecartec( 'wi 5' .- * voturrre Please describe your procedures for both Crowd Control and Internal Security: 1\J GPO i\ 11 be on a\ \e ' event- _ YES NO Have you hired any Professional Security organization to handle security arrangements for this event? If YES, please list - Security Organization: Security Organization Address: Security Director (Name): Phone: YES _ NO is this a night event? If YES, please state how the event and surrounding area will be illuminated to ensure safety of the participants and spectators: ir7 Please indicate what arrangement you have made for providing First Aid Staffing and Equipment. Nap will be m Fr12 ' event Please describe your Accessibility Plan for access at your event by individuals with disabilities: -��S�s5ib1Q Please provide a detailed description of your PARKING plan: Please describe your plan for DISABLED PARKING: Im(1Siidec-klcoL-ec! ", Please describe your plans to notify all residents, businesses and churches impacted by the event: l NOTE: Neighborhood residents must be notified 72 hours in advance when events are scheduled in the City parks. ,YES NO Are there any musical entertainment features related to your event? If YES, please state the /number of stages, number of bands and type of music. Number of Stages: Ail A Number of Bands: 1--P Type of Music: V'C3d Etc.{ Y\YES NO WII sound amplification be used? If YES, please indicate: Start time: 5 am0 Finish Time 8 am YES NO Will sound checks be conducted prior to the event? If YES, please indicate: Start time: " 1 am!'1110 inish Time Please describe the sound equipment that will be used for your event: lam- nc+obIL i es -ern Qacm. C,1tt, Or I Jar v,od+o 5 c iic i YES NO Fireworks, rockets, or other pyrotechnics? If YES, please describe: YES NO Any signs, banners, decorations, special lighting? If YES, please describe: 1-1olldai decrx * cns -'; Y)ro locA Yt -fie n f 0o6 posStbk Revised 02/29/12 City of National City PUBLIC PROPERTY USE HOLD HARMLESS AND INDEMNIFICATION AGREEMENT Persons requesting use of City property, facilities or personnel are required to provide a minimum of $1,000,000 combined single limit insurance for bodily injury and property damage which includes the City, its officials, agents and employees named as additional insured and to sign the Hold Harmless Agreement, Certificate of insurance must be attached to this permit, Organization Person in Charge of Activity Lri\ or crias n Address \21-(?) MCA- ` aa\ CO L. 1 VC Telephone j�j�j� 1-1ZE Date(s) of Use 1Z) 12 i l 7, HOLD HARMLESS AGREEMENT As a condition of the issuance of a temporary use permit to conduct its activities on public or private property, the undersigned hereby agree(s) to defend, indemnify and hold harmless the City of National City and the Parking Authority and its officers, employees and agents from and against any and all claims, demands, costs, losses, liability or, for any personal injury, death or property damage, or both, or any litigation and other liability, including attorneys fees and the costs of litigation, arising out of or related to the use of public property or the activity taken under the permit by the permittee or its agents, employees or contractors, dSig ature of Applicant Official Title Date WagMeirljr Anci lui -t- For Office Use Only Certificate of Insurance Approved Date ''T e L.c�rrhrr� Ce:cGr rry 2CA3 OP T oN #1- r 4e8-ictr;) 1Ac, r \ ^i• # Y (IG COCA C TC?e 1 Cee'x-1 cQT ToN *c2 4 1 'flavookg- CITY OF NATIONAL CITY NEIGHBORHOOD SERVICES DIVISION APPLICATION FOR A TEMPORARY USE PERMIT RECOMMENDATIONS AND CONDITIONS SPONSORING ORGANIZATION: Community Services EVENT: Christmas at Brick Row DATE OF EVENT: December 12, 2013 TIME OF EVENT: 5pm to 8pm APPROVALS: DEVELOPMENT SERVICES YES [ x ] NO [ ] SEE CONDITIONS [ x ] RISK MANAGER YES [ x ] NO [ ] SEE CONDITIONS [ x ] PUBLIC WORKS YES [ x ] NO [ ] SEE CONDITIONS [ x ] FINANCE YES [ x ] NO [ ] SEE CONDITIONS [ x ] FIRE YES [ x ] NO [ ] SEE CONDITIONS [ x ] COMMUNITY SERVICES YES [ x ] NO [ ] SEE CONDITIONS [ x ] POLICE YES [ x ] NO [ ] SEE CONDITIONS [ x ] CITY ATTORNEY YES [ x ] NO [ ] SEE CONDITIONS [ x ] CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: DEVELOPMENT SERVICES (619) 336-4318 ENGINEERING: No comments PLANNING: No comments. BULDING: No comments. RISK MANAGER (619) 336-4370 Since this is a city sponsored event, Risk Management sees no outstanding issues. PUBLIC WORKS (619)366-4580 Street Division 1. Staff will deliver barricades to street corners and install barricades and remove them at the conclusion of the event. 2. Staff will post "no parking" signs in affected streets before the event. 3. The cost to provide Street personnel support for this event is estimated to be as follows: • "No Parking" signs 25 x $0.45 ea = $ 11.25 • Barricades 10 x $0.35 ea = 3.50 • Equipment 4 x $19.09 = 76.36 • Regular Hours2 hrs x $32.57 = 65.14 • Overtime Hours 2 hrs x $48.86 = 97.72 • TOTAL = $ 253.97 Facilities Division 1. Electrician Overtime Hours 5 hrs x $33.32 = $ 166.60 2. Custodians (2) OT Hours 4 hrs ea x 2 x $22.26 = 178.08 3. Chairs 100 x $.75 ea = 75.00 4. Tables 16 x $1.00 ea = 16.00 • TOTAL $. 435.68 Parks Division Staff will clean area before the event. PA system belonging to Community Services Department will be utilized. FINANCE All vendors should have a business license. Food vendors need to have proper certification from the Health Department. FIRE (619) 336-4550 If an afterhours inspection was needed for this event, the cost would be $200.00 for the first two hours and $100.00 dollars for every hour after the first two hours. COMMUNITY SERVICES Community Services is a co -applicant POLICE The police department doesn't have any issues with this. We'II put in an extra patrol for officers to stop by. CITY ATTORNEY All vendors shall execute an indemnification and hold harmless agreement, and provide a policy of general liability insurance, with the City and its officials, employees, agents and volunteers as additional insureds, with amounts of coverage to be determined by the Risk Manager. Performers shall execute a hold harmless/waiver agreement CITY OF NATIONAL CITY, CALIFORNIA COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT MEETING DATE: November 5, 2013 AGENDA ITEM NO. ITEM TITLE: Warrant Register #14 for the period of 9/25/13 through 10/1/13 in the amount of $1,976,643.46. (Finance) PREPARED BY: K. Apalategui DEPARTMENT: Fin`� PHONE: 1619-336-43311 APPROVED BY: EXPLANATION: Per Government Section Code 37208, attached are the warrants issued for the period of 9/25/13 through 10/1/13. In accordance with Finance Department policy, below is an explanation of all warrants above $50,000.00. Vendor Check Amount Explanation Health Net Inc 309289 62,842.41 Insurance R1192A Oct 2013 Kaiser Health Plan 309296 177,696.48 Insurance Active Oct 2013 FINANCIAL STATEMENT: ACCOUNT NO. Reimbursement total $1,976,643.46. APPROVED: 97 Finance APPROVED: `'�/ MIS ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: This is not a project and, therefore, not subject to environmental review. ORDINANCE: INTRODUCTION: FINAL ADOPTION: STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Ratification of warrants in the amount of $1,976,643.46. BOARD / COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: IN/A ATTACHMENTS: Warrant Register #14 1/3 WARRANT REGISTER #14 10/1/2013 PAYEE DESCRIPTION CHK NO DATE AMOUNT NATIONAL CITY CHAMBER SALUTE TO THE NAVY LUNCH / SILVA 309239 9/30/13 50.00 ACEDO, I RETIREE HEALTH BENEFITS / OCT 2013 309240 10/1/13 160.00 AFLAC ACCT BDM36 - OCT 2013 309241 10/1/13 911.68 ALDEMCO FOOD FOR NUTRITION CENTER 309242 10/1/13 2,468.64 ALL FRESH PRODUCTS FOOD FOR NUTRITION CENTER 309243 10/1/13 245.00 ALLEN, R RETIREE HEALTH BENEFITS / OCT 2013 309244 10/1/13 125.00 ANDERSON, E RETIREE HEALTH BENEFITS / OCT 2013 309245 10/1/13 110.00 ASSI SECURITY INC ASSI SOFTWARE INSTALLATION 309246 10/1/13 335.00 BEARD, P RETIREE HEALTH BENEFITS / OCT 2013 309247 10/1/13 70.00 BECK, L RETIREE HEALTH BENEFITS / OCT 2013 309248 10/1/13 140.00 BEST BEST & KRIEGER ATTNY LAW PROFESSIONAL SVCS 309249 10/1/13 1,631.50 BISHOP, R RETIREE HEALTH BENEFITS / OCT 2013 309250 10/1/13 110.00 BOEGLER, C RETIREE HEALTH BENEFITS / OCT 2013 309251 10/1/13 260.00 BOYD, P RETIREE HEALTH BENEFITS / OCT 2013 309252 10/1/13 145.00 BROADWAY AUTO ELECTRIC ELECTRICAL PARTS FOR CITY VEHICLES 309253 10/1/13 924.38 C A P F FIRE/LTD OCTOBER 2013 309254 10/1/13 576.00 CALIFORNIA LAW ENFORCEMENT PD/LTD OCTOBER 2013 309255 10/1/13 1,935.50 rALPELRA REGISTRATION- 2013 ANNUAL CONFERENCE 309256 10/1/13 985.00 7.AN HARBORS HAZARDOUS WASTE PICKUP FY 2014 309257 10/1/13 1,391.00 ..NDON, D RETIREE HEALTH BENEFITS / OCT 2013 309258 10/1/13 280.00 CORPUZ, T RETIREE HEALTH BENEFITS / OCT 2013 309259 10/1/13 140.00 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO 6HBASE-EHO. BHBASE-EHO - BASE FEE 309260 10/1/13 418.00 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO SHARE OF PC REVENUE -AUG 2013 309261 10/1/13 15,273.57 DANESHFAR, Z RETIREE HEALTH BENEFITS / OCT 2013 309262 10/1/13 250.00 DECKSIDE POOL SERVICE BULK HYDROCHLORIC ACID, DRY CHLORINE 309263 10/1/13 2,155.70 DELTA CARE USA PMI DENTAL INS - OCT 2013 309264 10/1/13 2,775.45 DELTA CARE USA PMI COBRA DENTAL INS - AUG 2013 309265 10/1/13 109.48 DELTA DENTAL DENTAL INS - OCT 2013 309266 10/1/13 13,364.42 DESROCHERS, P RETIREE HEALTH BENEFITS / OCT 2013 309267 10/1/13 110.00 DI CERCHIO, A RETIREE HEALTH BENEFITS / OCT 2013 309268 10/1/13 70.00 DREDGE, J RETIREE HEALTH BENEFITS / OCT 2013 309269 10/1/13 250.00 DREW FORD MOP 49078 AUTOMOTIVE PARTS 309270 10/1/13 251.59 EISER III, G RETIREE HEALTH BENEFITS / OCT 2013 309271 10/1/13 250.00 FABINSKI, D RETIREE HEALTH BENEFITS / OCT 2013 309272 10/1/13 220.00 FLEET SERVICES INC MOP 67804 AUTOMOTIVE PARTS 309273 10/1/13 439.20 GACITUA SILVA, C REIMB - TRAVEL CALPELRA CONFERENCE 309274 10/1/13 317.45 GELSKEY, K RETIREE HEALTH BENEFITS / OCT 2013 309275 10/1/13 115.00 GIBBS JR, R RETIREE HEALTH BENEFITS / OCT 2013 309276 10/1/13 120.00 GOODYEAR TIRE & RUBBER COMPANY TIRES FOR CITY FLEET 309277 10/1/13 464.11 GORMSEN APPLIANCE CO CITY-WIDE APPLIANCE PURCHASES, REPAIRS 309278 10/1/13 371.44 GOVCONNECTION, INC. UPS SMART ONLINE RACK/TOWER 309279 10/1/13 11,277.72 GRANICUS INC WEBCASTING - SEPT 2013 309280 10/1/13 1,477.35 ;TC SYSTEMS INC GTC SYSTEMS NETWORK SUPPORT 309281 10/1/13 487.50 VDERT, M RETIREE HEALTH BENEFITS / OCT 2013 309282 10/1/13 350.00 L,W SCHOOL SUPPLY TINY TOTS CLASSROOM SUPPLIES 309283 10/1/13 286.18 HAMILTON MEATS & PROVISIONS MEAT DELIVERY SERVICES / NUTRITION 309284 10/1/13 1,298.31 HANSON, E RETIREE HEALTH BENEFITS / OCT 2013 309285 10/1/13 135.00 HAUG, S RETIREE HEALTH BENEFITS / OCT 2013 309286 10/1/13 120.00 HEALTH NET FULL NETWORK 57135A- OCT 2013 309287 10/1/13 4,481.65 HEALTH NET HEALTHNET INS N5992A - OCT 2013 309288 10/1/13 525.07 PAYEE HEALTH NET INC HEALTH NET INC HODGES, B HOME DEPOT CREDIT SVCS HONDO, E JAMES, R JUNIEL, R KAISER FOUNDATION HEALTH PLANS KAISER FOUNDATION HEALTH PLANS KAISER FOUNDATION HEALTH PLANS KAISER FOUNDATION HEALTH PLANS KIMBLE, R LANDA, A LIMFUECO, M MALDONADO, J MATIENZO, M MC CABE, T MEDINA, R METRO AUTO PARTS DISTRIBUTOR MURRAY, J MYERS, B NAPA AUTO PARTS NATIONAL CITY CAR WASH NOSAL, W NOTEWARE, D OCHOA, I OPERATION SAMAHAN INC PACIFIC TELEMANAGEMENT SERVICE PADRE JANITORIAL SUPPLIES PAUU JR, P PEASE JR, D POST, R POTTER, C POWERSTRIDE BATTERY CO INC PROGRESSIVE ELECTRONICS PRUDENTIAL. OVERALL SUPPLY RAY, S RELIANCE STANDARD ROARK, L ROE, V RUIZ, J RUSS' BEE REMOVAL SAM'S ALIGNMENT SERVICE SANCHEZ, E SDG&E SEAPORT MEAT COMPANY SERVATIUS, J SHORT, C SOUTHWEST SIGNAL SERVICE STEVENSON, S WARRANT REGISTER #14 10/1/2013 DESCRIPTION CHK NO DATE HEALTH INS R1192A - OCT 2013 309289 10/1/13 HEALTH NET - OCT 2013 309290 10/1/13 RETIREE HEALTH BENEFITS / OCT 2013 309291 10/1/13 TREE/SHRUB 309292 10/1/13 RETIREE HEALTH BENEFITS / OCT 2013 309293 10/1/13 RETIREE HEALTH BENEFITS / OCT 2013 309294 10/1/13 RETIREE HEALTH BENEFITS / OCT 2013 309295 10/1/13 KAISER INS ACTIVE - OCT 2013 309296 10/1/13 RETIREES INS / OCT 2013 / GP 104220-03 309297 10/1/13 INS HD HSA ACTIVE - OCT 2013 309298 10/1/13 RET INS -COBRA AUGUST 2013 309299 10/1/13 RETIREE HEALTH BENEFITS / OCT 2013 309300 10/1/13 RETIREE HEALTH BENEFITS / OCT 2013 309301 10/1/13 RETIREE HEALTH BENEFITS / OCT 2013 309302 10/1/13 RETIREE HEALTH BENEFITS / OCT 2013 309303 10/1/13 RETIREE HEALTH BENEFITS / OCT 2013 309304 10/1/13 RETIREE HEALTH BENEFITS / OCT 2013 309305 10/1/13 RETIREE HEALTH BENEFITS / OCT 2013 309306 10/1/13 MOP 75943 AUTOMOTIVE PARTS 309307 10/1/13 RETIREE HEALTH BENEFITS / OCT 2013 309308 10/1/13 RETIREE HEALTH BENEFITS / OCT 2013 309309 10/1/13 MOP 45735 AUTOMOTIVE PARTS 309310 10/1/13 MOP 72454 VEHICLE EQUIPMENT 309311 10/1/13 RETIREMENT SETTLEMENT / OCT 2013 309312 10/1/13 RETIREE HEALTH BENEFITS / OCT 2013 309313 10/1/13 RETIREE HEALTH BENEFITS / OCT 2013 309314 10/1/13 OPERATION SAMAHAN 40TH / CM 309315 10/1/13 PAYPHONE - SEPT 2013 309316 10/1/13 JANITORIAL SUPPLIES FOR NUTRITION 309317 10/1/13 RETIREE HEALTH BENEFITS / OCT 2013 309318 10/1/13 RETIREE HEALTH BENEFITS / OCT 2013 309319 10/1/13 RETIREE HEALTH BENEFITS / OCT 2013 309320 10/1/13 RETIREE HEALTH BENEFITS / OCT 2013 309321 10/1/13 MOP 67839 AUTOMOTIVE PARTS 309322 10/1/13 WINDOW TINT FILM 309323 10/1/13 MOP 45742 CLEANING SERVICES 309324 10/1/13 RETIREE HEALTH BENEFITS / OCT 2013 309325 10/1/13 VOLUNTARY LIFE INS - OCT 2013 309326 10/1/13 RETIREE HEALTH BENEFITS / OCT 2013 309327 10/1/13 RETIREE HEALTH BENEFITS / OCT 2013 309328 10/1/13 RETIREE HEALTH BENEFITS / OCT 2013 309329 10/1/13 BEE REMOVAL FROM CITY PROPERTY 309330 10/1/13 WHEEL ALIGNMENT FOR CITY VEHICLES 309331 10/1/13 REIMB - AMERICAN HEART ASSOC 309332 10/1/13 STREET DIVISION GAS & ELECTRIC CHARGES 309333 10/1/13 FOOD (MEAT AND FISH) FOR NUTRITION 309334 10/1/13 RETIREE HEALTH BENEFITS / OCT 2013 309335 10/1/13 RETIREE HEALTH BENEFITS / OCT 2013 309336 10/1/13 TRAFFIC SIGNAL & STREET LIGHTING 309337 10/1/13 TRAVEL REIMBURSEMENT-CALPELRA CONFERENCE 309338 10/1/13 2/3 AMOUNT 62,842.41 1,528.85 200.00 445.98 110.00 140.00 50.00 177,696.48 8,249.22 2,476.01 1,839.44 300.00 155.00 160.00 130.00 100.00 280.00 105.00 140.00 1.50 375.00 1,176.44 120.00 125.00 150.00 250.80 527.83 340.00 140.00 280.00 150.00 490.34 243.15 904.45 190.00 2,737.07 135.00 120.00 310.00 275.00 1,408.27 29,6 249.45 340.00 300.00 18,297.15 200.80 PAYEE STRASEN, W SUBPOENA COMPLIANCE PAYMENTS SUPERIOR READY MIX SWEETWATER AUTHORITY SYSCO SAN DIEGO THE LIGHTHOUSE INC THE LINCOLN NATIONAL LIFE INS TRIVIZ, R UNITED PARCEL SERVICE UNITED ROTARY BRUSH URIAS, N USA MOBILITY WIRELESS INC VALLEY INDUSTRIAL SPECIALTIES VCA EMERGENCY ANIMAL HOSPITAL WAXIE SANITARY SUPPLY WILLY'S ELECTRONIC SUPPLY ZIETLOW, D SECTION 8 HAPS PAYMENTS PAYROLL Pay period Start Date 19 9/3/2013 Special Payroll WARRANT REGISTER #14 10/1/2013 DESCRIPTION RETIREE HEALTH BENEFITS / OCT 2013 WIRE TAP FEE TACK OIL, 3/8 SHEET & COLDMIX ASPHALTS PARKS DIVISION WATER FY 2014 FOOD & CONSUMABLES FOR NUTRITION CENTER MOP 45726 AUTOMOTIVE PARTS LIFE & AD&D, STD LTD INS - OCT 2013 RETIREE HEALTH BENEFITS / OCT 2013 UPS CHARGES STREET SWEEPER REPAIRS RETIREE HEALTH BENEFITS / OCT 2013 METROCALL PAGER SERVICE FY14 MOP 46453 PLUMBING MATERIAL FOR STRAY ANIMAL VET CARE MISCELLANEOUS JANITORIAL SUPPLIES FY MOP 45763 MISC SUPPLIES - MIS RETIREE HEALTH BENEFITS / OCT 2013 Start Date 9/25/2013 End Date 9/16/2013 End Date 10/1/2013 Check Date 9/25/2013 9/25/2013 3/3 CHK NO DATE AMOUNT 309339 10/1/13 135.00 309340 10/1/13 11.00 309341 10/1/13 487.19 309342 10/1/13 7,395.28 309343 10/1/13 4,358.32 309344 10/1/13 102.02 309345 10/1/13 8,267.04 309346 10/1/13 135.00 309347 10/1/13 110.06 309348 10/1/13 929.70 309349 10/1/13 125.00 309350 10/1/13 786.44 309351 10/1/13 604.40 309352 10/1/13 434.48 309353 10/1/13 2,693.29 309354 10/1/13 426.67 309355 10/1/13 150.00 NP Total 414,599.41 719,854.72 841,547.26 642.07 GRAND TOTAL $ 1.976.643.46 CITY OF NATIONAL CITY, CALIFORNIA COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT MEETING DATE: November 5, 2013 AGENDA ITEM NO. p.0 ITEM TITLE: 'Warrant Register #15 for the period of 10/2/13 through 10/8/13 in the amount of $241,687.47. (Finance) PREPARED BY: 1K. Apalategui DEPARTMENT: Finan PHONE:19-336-4331; 5,e4 APPROVED BY: `Pk EXPLANATION: Per Government Section Code 37208, attached are the warrants issued for the period of 10/2/13 through 10/8/13. In accordance with Finance Department policy, below is an explanation of all warrants above $50,000.00. Vendor Check Amount Explanation Honeywell International 309370 60,868.00 BBCN Bank 309375 65,000.00 FINANCIAL STATEMENT: ACCOUNT NO. Reimbursement total $241,687.47. APPROVED: APPROVED: ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: This is not a project and, therefore, not subject to environmental review. ORDINANCE: INTRODUCTION: FINAL ADOPTION: HVAC Maintenance Settlement, Nagraj MIS STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Ratification of warrants in the amount of $241,687.47. BOARD / COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: 1N/A ATTACHMENTS: ,JVarrant Register #15 PAYEE ARCO GASPRO PLUS BAVENCOFF JR, D BEHAVIOR ANALYSIS BUCKNAM INFRASTRUCTURE GRP INC BUREAU VERITAS N AMERICA INC CANO, J CATO CCTA CEB CHRISTENSEN & SPATH LLP CITY OF NATIONAL CITY CORDERO, E CORDERO, E DEESE, L HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL INC IBARRA, G KANE BALLMER & BERKMAN LAKE TAHOE RESORT HOTEL 4RIN CONSULTING ASSOCIATES :N BANK JYEN, L OLSON. J OLSON, J PENNY SAVER PMW ASSOCIATES RIOS, M SD ASSOCIATION OF PUBLIC SDG&E SELTZER CAPLAN MCMAHON VITEK SMART SOURCE OF CA LLC SORIANO, R SORIANO, R SOUTHLAND AUTO BODY STAPLES ADVANTAGE STARTECH COMPUTERS SWEETWATER AUTHORITY TOM MOYNAHAN U S BANK U S BANK VERIZON WIRELESS WILLY'S ELECTRONIC SUPPLY 'TION 8 HAPS PAYMENTS 1/1 WARRANT REGISTER # 15 10/8/2013 DESCRIPTION CHK NO DATE AMOUNT FUEL FOR CITY FLEET 309356 10/8/13 41,266.30 SUBSISTENCE: MEDIA RELATIONS COURSE 309357 10/8/13 463.10 TUITION: INTERVIEW /INTERROGATIONS 309358 10/8/13 472.00 STREET SIGN INVENTORY 309359 10/8/13 665.00 PED CROSSING, SERVICES, JULY 309360 10/8/13 14,435.00 REIMB - LEAGUE OF CA CITIES 309361 10/8/13 331.46 REGISTRATION - ANNUAL CONFERENCE 309362 10/8/13 620.00 ANNUAL MEMBERSHIP 309363 10/8/13 1,000.00 CA LAND USE PRACTICE 2013 309364 10/8/13 349.46 SECTION 8 WRIT 309365 10/8/13 7,263.75 PETTY CASH REPLENISHMENT - AUG 2013 309366 10/8/13 460.98 SUBSISTENCE: SHERMAN BLOCK LEADERSHIP 309367 10/8/13 468.00 SUBSISTENCE - SHERMAN BLOCK LEADERSHIP 309368 10/8/13 468.00 REIMB - LEAGUE OF CA CITIES CONFERENCE 309369 10/8/13 331.46 HVAC MAINTENANCE 309370 10/8/13 60,868.00 SUBSISTENCE: CACEO ANNUAL SEMINAR 309371 10/8/13 161.00 INV 19434/19476 SVCS JUNE - AUG 2013 309372 10/8/13 27,459.86 ACCOMMODATIONS FOR CODE ENFORCEMENT 309373 10/8/13 543.51 TUITION: ASSERTIVE SUPERVISION COURSE 309374 10/8/13 550.00 SETTLEMENT, NAGRAJ 309375 10/8/13 65,000.00 SUBSISTENCE - INTERVIEW/INTERROGATIONS 309376 10/8/13 640.00 REIMB - CACEO SEMINAR 2013 309377 10/8/13 366.70 SUBSISTENCE - ANNUAL CACEO SEMINAR 309378 10/8/13 197.00 ADVERTISEMENT - STATE OF THE CITY 2013 309379 10/8/13 655.06 TUITION: MEDIA RELATIONS FOR LE COURSE 309380 10/8/13 420.00 REIMB - LEAGUE OF CA CITIES CONFERENCE 309381 10/8/13 331.46 TUITION: FIELD TACTICS & OFFICER SAFETY 309382 10/8/13 90.00 STREET GAS & ELECTRIC 309383 10/8/13 1,491.13 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 309384 10/8/13 513.80 MOP 63845 ENVELOPES 309385 10/8/13 160.26 REIMB OF FLIGHT FOR CACEO SEMINAR 309386 10/8/13 366.70 SUBSISTENCE - ANNUAL CACEO SEMINAR 309387 10/8/13 197.00 BODY AUTO REPAIR / PW 309388 10/8/13 6,631.70 MOP 45704 OFFICE SUPPLIES - PD 309389 10/8/13 1,294.35 MOP 61744 MISC SUPPLIES - MIS 309390 10/8/13 412.95 STREET WATER BILL 309391 10/8/13 270.74 MOP 45734 TOWING - PD 309392 10/8/13 150.00 CREDIT CARD EXP - PD 309393 10/8/13 752.35 CREDIT CARD EXP - CM 309394 10/8/13 508.55 CELL. PHONE CHGS 8/22/13 - 9/21/13 309395 10/8/13 60.24 MOP 45763 MISC SUPPLIES - MIS 309396 10/8/13 453.60 Start Date End Date 10/2/2013 10/8/2013 AIP Total 239,140.47 2,547.00 GRAND TOTAL $ 241,687.47 Certification IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 37202, 37208, 372059 OF THE GOVERNMENT CODE, WE HEREBY CERTIFY TO THE ACCURACY OF THE DEMANDS LISTED ABOVE AND TO THE AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS FOR THE PAYMENT THEREOF AND FURTHER THAT THE ABOVE CLAIMS AND DEMANDS HAVE BEEN AUDITED AS REQUIRED BY LAW. MARK ROBERTS, FINANCE LESLIE DEESE, CITY MANAGER FINANCE COMMITTEE RONALD J. MORRISON, MAYOR -CHAIRMAN LUIS NATIVIDAD, VICE -MAYOR ALEJANDRA SOTELO-SOLIS, MEMBER MONA RIOS, MEMBER JERRY CANO, MEMBER 1 HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THE FOREGOING CLAIMS AND DEMANDS WERE APPROVED AND THE CITY TREASURER IS AUTHORIZED TO ISSUE SAID WARRANTS IN PAYMENT THEREOF BY THE CITY COUNCIL ON THE 5th OF NOVEMBER, 2013. AYES NAYS ABSENT CITY OF NATIONAL CITY, CALIFORNIA COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT JIEETING DATE: November 5, 2013 AGENDA ITEM NO. 1.1 ITEM TITLE: An Ordinance Amending Appendix 'A' of the Westside Specific Plan to add "Self -Storage Facility with Accessory Truck Rental" as a Conditionally -Allowed Use in the Limited Commercial (CL) Zone. (Applicant U- Haul) (Case File 2013-20 SPA) PREPARED BY: Martin Reeder, AICP DEPARTMENT: 'Plannin . PHONE: 619-336-4313 APPROVED BY-1_ EXPLANATION: The City Council held a public hearing on the proposed amendment to Appendix 'A' of the Westside Specific Plan at a Public Hearing on October 15, 2013. Council had questions regarding other potential uses permitted by Appendix 'A' The appendix is attached for you review. The Council voted to bring back an Ordinance related to the applicant's request. The Ordinance is attached.) FINANCIAL STATEMENT: ACCOUNT NO. N/A ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: This proposed use is a commercial use in the CL (limited commercial) zone of the Westside Specific Plan area. This proposed use is consistent with the commercial uses allowed in the CL zone and commercial use impacts have already been analyzed sufficiently and adequately in the Final EIR for the Westside Specific Plan (State Clearinghouse No. 2008071092), certified by the City Council on March 16, 2010. ORDINANCE: INTRODUCTION: FINAL ADOPTION: APPROVED: APPROVED: Finance MIS STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Introduce the Ordinance BOARD / COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: NA ATTACHMENTS: 1. Westside Specific Plan - Appendix A 2. Ordinancel Westside Specific Plan March 2010 1 2 Area wide permitted uses — As noted below Arboretum Crop Raising Drainage Improvements Open Space Public Utility & Transmission Lines Area wide conditional uses — Those uses as noted below Adult Day Health Care Center Athletic Field 18.104.050 18.104.060 3 4 Auditorium Dormitories Head Start Program Park — Public or Private Post Office Public Works Yard Religious Services Schools & Colleges Transportation Terminals Animal Husbandry Automotive and allied services Auto Detailing 18.104.070 18.104.080 X = Permitted Use C = Requires approval of a Conditional Use Permit - = Not Permitted Use 1 Westside Specific Plan March 2010 Auto Electronics Installation & Repair Auto Electronics Shop Auto Glass Shop Auto Muffler Shop Auto Parts & Accessories Sales Auto Parts Exchange Auto Pawn Lot Auto Radiator Shop Auto Repair, Minor & Major Auto Repair Mobile Auto Sales and Leasing Auto Sales, Used Auto Services Office (Insurance, Financing, etc.) Auto Smog Emission Station Auto Static Inspection Auto Storage Auto Towing (Dispatch Only Auto Transmission Repair Auto Upholstery Boat Sales & Leasing Camper Sales, Leasing, Rental Car Wash (Accessory Gas Pumps Permitted) X = Permitted Use C = Requires approval of a Conditional Use Permit - = Not Permitted Use ii nes 2 Westside Specific Plan March 2010 5 Drive -In Tune up Gas Sales Mobile Home Sales Motorcycle Sales Leasing, Rental Repair Trailer Sales, Leasing, Rental, Repair Truck Sales, Leasing, Rental Repair Used Car Reconditioning Van Conversion Service Auto Painting with Accessory Body & Fender Work Auto Repair Minor Accessory to a Department Store Liquefied Petroleum Gas Dispensing Amusement and entertainment, Uses as permitted below, subject to CUP as noted Amusement Arcade Bar Burlesque, Pantomine, and Modeling Shows Cabarets Cocktail Lounge Dance Hall (Serving Alcohol) Nightclub X = Permitted Use C = Requires approval of a Conditional Use Permit - = Not Permitted Use 18.104.090 C C Westside Specific Plan March 2010 Group .; No Use • 6 7 8 9 10 Pool Hall/Billiard Hall Restaurant with Dancing after Dinner Hours Commercial recreation indoor Uses Commercial recreation outdoor Community, cultural, and public recreational services Dwelling, single-family ('Existing SFR permitted and allowed to expand in CL, no new Single family use permitted in CL) Dwelling, two-family 18.104.100 18.104.110 18.104.120 18.104.130 18.104.140 X C C- C X 11 Multiple -family dwelling 18.104.150 12 13 14 15 16 17 Dwelling, mobile home Eating places, other than takeout Drive-thru/drive-in take-out eating places Food processing Gasoline service stations Convenience goods & services 18.104.160 18.104.170 18.104.180 18.104.190 18.104.200 18.104.210 X 18 Shopping goods & services 18.204.220 X = Permitted Use C = Requires approval of a Conditional Use Permit - = Not Permitted Use iv 4 Westside Specific Plan March 2010 19 Other goods and services except those prohibited uses noted below: All services permitted shall provide storage within the building. No exterior storage permitted. Auto Electronics Installation and Repair Auto Transmission Repair 18.104.230 ;ones OSR Car Wash Ceramic Product Sales Yard Compressor Unit Sales & Service Dry Cleaning Plant Exterminating Service Lumber Yard Nursery Garden Supplies Outboard Motor Sales, Service & Repair Plaster Cast Figurines Sale and Outdoor Display Pottery and Ceramic Product Sales Yard Recycling Collection Center Shipping containers Incidental to Reverse Vending Machines with a Licensed Recycling Facility Conditional Use Permit uses as noted in Use Group 19 X = Permitted Use C = Requires approval of a Conditional Use Permit v - = Not Permitted Use a Westside Specific Plan March 2010 Group No Use# 20 21 22 Heavy equipment & machinery Not permitted except as noted below Public Transit Facility Hotel, motel, & related services Light manufacturing - All services noted as permitted shall provide storage within the building. No exterior storage permitted. Assembly Assembly of Camper Shells Assembly of Electronic Circuits APPEN %stskleSpBdDIX fiAcPlan Land Use 18.104.240 18.104.250 18.104.260 X Zones OSR Assembly or Packaging Auto Assembly Auto Detailing Auto Repair, Mobile Blacksmith Building Materials Storage Yard & Retail Sales Cabinet & Carpentry Shops Chemical Etching of Manufactured Products Computer Maintenance and Installation Contractor's Storage and Equipment Yard Deck Systems Packaging and Services X = Permitted Use C = Requires approval of a Conditional Use Permit - = Not Permitted Use vi r 6 Westside Specific Plan March 2010 RS-4, Delicatessen ttes.: Diving (Commercial) Diving Equipment Mfg Electrical Appliance Assembly Equipment Repair Farmers Market Film Processing Hydraulic Repair, Marine & Commercial Machine Shop Mail Order House Manufacture 18.104.260- Mattress Repair & Recovering Metal Polishing Packaging Painting of Small Parts & Metal Coating Pharrnaceutical Drugs Packaging Plastic Fabricating & Extrusion Pneumatic & Hydraulic Control Systems Repair Refuse Disposal Truck & Container Facility Repair of Shop Equipment (Milling Machines, Lathes, Grinders, etc.) Sheet Metal Shop X = Permitted Use C = Requires approval of a Conditional Use Permit - = Not Permitted Use vii Westside Specific Plan March 2010 Group. No Use # 22 23 24 25 26 27 Use Group' Tire Rebuilding or Recapping Toiletries (Packaging) Tool & Die Shop Used Tire Sales Welding Shop Wholesale Business Principal use — no retail) Wholesale (in conjunction with retail) Wood Sawing Wood Truss Fabrication & Sales All Uses noted as permitted with a Conditional Uses would not be permitted. Medium manufacturing Heavy manufacturing Manufacturing tidelands Mineral resource extraction and processing Offices and studios Artist and craft studios and similar cottage industry Schools, studios and colleges Located within an existing building when adequate parking can be established (as determined by the Planning Director) X = Permitted Use C = Requires approval of a Conditional Use Permit - = Not Permitted Use AP 'EN©] " !es#sade Specific Plan and Use 18.104.260 18.104.270 18.104.280 108.104.290 108.104.300 18.104.310 viii Zones 8 Westside Specific Plan March 2010 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 Off-street parking Public protection facilities Public Utilities Research & Development Scrap metal processing Signs & Outdoor Advertising Temporary Uses - with approval of a Temporary Use Permit Wholesaling, Warehousing & Distribution Truck Transportation Facilities Waterfront 18.104.320 18.104.330 18.104.340 18.104.350 18.104.360 18.104.370 18.104.380 18.104.390 18.104.400 18.104.410 X 38 Open Space Reserve 18.104.420 39 Open Space Reserve 18.104.430 X. X I Use group numbers and reference sections correspond to standard nomenclature and definitions established in Section 18.104 of the NCLUC. 2 Ground floor retail required on Civic Center Drive. X = Permitted Use C = Requires approval of a Conditional Use Permit - = Not Permitted Use ix ORDINANCE NO. 2013 — AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NATIONAL CITY AMENDING APPENDIX "A" OF THE WESTSIDE SPECIFIC PLAN TO ADD "SELF -STORAGE FACILITY WITH ACCESSORY TRUCK RENTAL" AS A CONDITIONALLY -ALLOWED USE IN THE LIMITED COMMERCIAL (CL) ZONE WHEREAS, pursuant to the terms and provisions of the California Government Code, proceedings were duly initiated for the amendment of the Westside Specific Plan; and WHEREAS, pursuant to legal notice, hearings were held by the Planning Commission and the City Council of National City, and all persons interested were given the opportunity to appear and be heard before said Planning Commission and City Council; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has regularly and duly certified its report to the City Council of National City and has recommended such amendment. NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council does ordain as follows; Section 1. All protests, if any, against said amendment to the Municipal Code and each of them be and hereby are denied and overruled. Section 2. That Appendix "A" of the Westside Specific Plan be amended to add the following land use: Use Group No. Definition Zones RS-4 MCR-1 MCR-2 CL IC OS 19 Self -Storage Facility with Accessory Truck Rental" - - - C - - - = Not Permitted Use C = Requires Approval of a Conditional Use Permit Section 3. This proposed use is a commercial use in the CL (limited commercial) zone of the Westside Specific Plan area. This proposed use is consistent with the commercial uses allowed in the CL zone and commercial use impacts have already been analyzed sufficiently and adequately in the Final EIR for the Westside Specific Plan (State Clearinghouse No. 2008071092), certified by the City Council on March 16, 2010. [SIGNATURE PAGE TO FOLLOW] PASSED AND ADOPTED this 5th day of November, 2013. Ron Morrison, Mayor ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: Michael R. Dalla, City Clerk Claudia G. Silva City Attorney 2 CITY OF NATIONAL CITY, CALIFORNIA COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT ETING DATE: November 5, 2018 AGENDA ITEM NO. 12 ITEM TITLE: (Resolution of the City Council of the City of National City authorizing the donation of a 1989 Seagraves fire engine to Sweetwater High School to provide the Fire Science program with a fire engine that will allow the students to practice skills in a more realistic environment. (Fire) PREPARED BY: 'Walter Amedeel l4)6/ DEPARTMENT: PHONE: 1619-336-4556I APPROVED BY: EXPLANATION: See attached Staff Report. FINANCIAL STATEMENT: APPROVED: �jEg��, / �j Finance ACCOUNT NO. f APPROVED: MIS No cost to City; however, donating the fire engine versus selling at auction impacts potential revenue of approximately $10,900. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: ORDINANCE: INTRODUCTION: FINAL ADOPTION: STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the City Council approve the donation in order to assist the Sweetwater High School. BOARD / COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: TTACHMENTS: ,. Staff Report 2. Sweetwater Union High School District Agenda Items Details 3. Municipal Code Chapter 2.42 4. City Council Policy #115 5. Resolution Staff Report: Sweetwater High School's Fire Science Program Coordinator approached the National City Fire Department about the possibility of donating a surplus fire engine. After discussing the idea, the National City Fire Department would like to proceed with the donation of a fire engine that has been phased out of service to Sweetwater High School. The surplus fire engine being recommended for donation is Engine #171, a 1989 Seagraves fire engine with approximately 128,442 miles. It has an estimated value of $10,900. The City of National City and the National City Fire Department would not incur any liability related to the fire engine's ownership, operation, or use. Sweetwater Union High School District, as the owner of the fire engine, would provide all maintenance and insurance surrounding its use. Sweetwater Union High School District Board: Sweetwater High School's Fire Science Program Coordinator was advised that the Sweetwater Union High School District Board would have to accept full liability for the fire engine. On August 19, 2013, the Sweetwater Union High School District Board approved/ratified the receipt of the donated fire engine to Sweetwater High School. (See attached Agenda Item Details for more information). Policy Requirements: According to City Council Policy #115, the City Council may authorize the donation of surplus City property to municipal agencies or local, non-profit 501(c)(3) organizations consistent with Municipal Code section 2.42.040 (B)(4) "Manner of Disposal", if the surplus city property which is not required for city use has been alsigned an estimated market value of one thousand dollars or more by the purchasing agent, he/shall dispose of the property: 4. hrough a negotiated agreement with another public agency, public safety organization, go ernment agency or other nonprofit agency which may have limited funds, and an expressed need for such item(s). The donation of a surplus fire engine to the Sweetwater Union High School District meets requirement No. 4 as described above. Release of Liability: Sweetwater Union High School District will sign the attached "Request for Donation" form, which agrees to indemnify and hold harmless, the City, its officers, agents and employees from and against any and all liability. In addition a "Donation Receipt" will also be completed to document the donation of surplus merchandise made by the City of National City. Previous Donations: The City of National City has previously provided a surplus police vehicle to Southwestern Community College's Police Academy Training Program and a surplus fire engine to the City of Tecate's Fire Department. Financial Statement: No cost to the City; however, donating the fire engine versus selling it at auction impacts potential revenue of approximately $10,900. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends the City Council approve the donation in order to assist Sweetwater High School's Fire Science Program. $oar0.11ocsai Fro https://boarddocs.suhsd.k12.ca.us/Board.nsf/Private?open&login# Agenda Item Details SWEEIWA►TER UNION HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT Meeting Aug 19, 2013 - Regular Board Meeting - 6:00 p.m. Category Subject K. Fiscal Services Discussion Items 3. Approve/ratify donations to the district in accordance with Resolution No. 2501, and accept Report on Donations. (F/I: None.) Access Public Type Action (Consent) Public Content Issue: Donations to the district. Superintendent's Recommendation: Approve/ratify donations to the district in accordance with Resolution No. 2501, and accept Report on Donations. Analysis: In accordance with annual board Resolution No. 2501, the board authorizes the acceptance of donations in the form of money and/or equipment on behalf of the district. This resolution addresses all types of allowable donations that can be made to the district whether to a site or directly to the administration center. Staff recommends acceptance of the donations listed in the attached report. Fiscal impact: None. K-3 Backup.pdr (6 KB) 28. Formation and Approval of Consent Agenda - 08 19 13.MPG (1 748 Kin Administrative Content of 1 10/1/2013 1:36 PM SWEETWATER UNION HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT Donations for Approval/Ratification Presented to the Board of Trustees on August 19, 2013 Ratification ($1,000 and Under) Funds will be used to support Hilltop High School Dr, John Rindone Hilltop High School Jeffrey Phalr Scholarship. $500.00 .Al . ' C .4. Ft ,+ Mtn ja3� 5 6 ;)i • °' a'rvF X 1 1e, pproval (Over $1,000) To provide the Fire Science program with a fire engine that will allow Sweetwater High School City of National City the students to practice skills In a more realistic environment, 520,000.00 Total $20,500.00 Municode http://librarymuncade.com/print.aspx?IF&clientID=16516&HTMReq... National City, California, Code of Ordinances» - SUPPLEMENT HISTORY TABLE» Title 2 - ADMINISTRATION » Chapter 2.42 - DISPOSAL OF SURPLUS CITY PROPERTY» Chapter 2.42 - DISPOSAL OF SURPLUS CITY PROPERTY Sections: 2.42.010 - Definitions. 2.42.020 - Duty to report surplus equipment and supplies. 2.42.030 - Disposal required. 2.42.040 - Manner of disposal. 2.42.050 - City personnel prohibited from purchasinn. 2.42.010 - Definitions. A. "Surplus city property" means supplies or equipment belonging to the city which are no longer used or which have become obsolete or wom out or which are otherwise of no further use. B. "Inrnediate family" means the husband, wife, mother and father of both husband and wife, son, daughter, brother and sister of the employee, or any relative by blood or marriage residing in the same household. (Ord. 1673 § 1(part), 1979) 2.42.020 - Duty to report surplus equipment and supplies. All using agencies shall submit to the purchasing agent, at such times and in such forms as prescribed, reports listing all available surplus city property. The purchasing agent shall have authority to exchange for, or trade in, such property on new supplies and equipment in accordance with this chapter. (Ord. 1673 § 1 (part), 1979) 2.42.030 - Disposal required. The purchasing agent shall determine if any surplus city property can be used by any agency of the city. If such supplies or equipment cannot be used or are unsuitable for city use, the purchasing agent shall, in the manner provided in this chapter, dispose of such supplies and equipment that cannot be exchanged for or traded in on new equipment or supplies. (Ord. 1673 § 1 (part), 1979) 2.42.040 - Manner of disposal. A. If the surplus city property which is not required for city use has been assigned an estimated market value of less than one thousand dollars by the purchasing agent, he/she may dispose of such property on the open market without advertising for bids. B. If the surplus city property which is not required for city use has been assigned an estimated market value of one thousand dollars or more by the purchasing agent, he/she shall dispose of the property: 1 of 2 5/21/2013 11:43 AM Municode http://library.municode.com/printaspx?l&client1D 16516&HTMReq... 1. Through the solicitation of sealed bids, with the award going to the highest responsive, responsible bidder. All notices shall be published by the purchasing agent in a commercially reasonable manner, using any appropriate mediums of printed or electronic commerce which, in the opinion of the purchasing agent, are reasonably likely to ensure an optimum bidding process; 2. Through participation in the San Diego County cooperative auction; 3. Through consignment of items to a vendor to sell on behalf of the city. The purchasing agent shah enter into an agreement with the vendor that has the potential of generating the most market interest and, therefor, the highest net proceeds for the city. The consignment vendor shall, at its expense, advertise the item(s) for sale, in accordance with subsection (BX1) of this section, and shall accept offers on behalf of the city, with the city having final acceptance authority; 4. Through a negotiated agreement with another public agency, public safety organization, government agency or other nonprofit agency which may have limited funds, and an expressed need for such item(s). C. The purchasing agent shall have the authority to combine any surplus city property with lost and unclaimed property for the purpose of disposal by public auction in accordance with Chapter 2.44 of this title. D. The amount received for any property sold pursuant to this chapter shall be deposited in the city's general fund. (Ord. 2284, 2006: Ord. 2044, 1992; Ord. 1873 § 1(part), 1979) 2.42.050 - City personnel prohibited from purchasing. No city officer or employee or any member of the immediate family living in the same household of a city officer or employee shall purchase surplus city property sold in accordance with this chapter. (Ord. 1673 § 1 (part), 1979) 2 of 2 5/21/2013 11:43 AM CITY COUNCIL POLICY CITY OF NATIONAL CITY TITLE: Donation of Surplus City Property and POLICY #115 Police Dept. Unclaimed Personal Property ADOPTED: June 17, 2003 AMENDED: Paruose To establish a policy for donating surplus City property, and Police Department unclaimed personal property to local, non-profit 501(c)(3) organizations, and/or other municipal agencies. Definitions • Municipal Agencies' public/govemment agencies, and Sister Cities. • Local Non -Profit 501(c)(3) Organizations: As defined by the IRS: non-profit 501(c)(3) organizations "must be organized and operated exclusively for exempt purposes set forth in section 501(c)(3), and none of its earnings may inure to any private shareholder or individual. In addition, it may not be an action organization, i.e., it may not attempt to influence legislation as a substantial part of its activities and it may not participate in any campaign activity for or against political candidates." Organizations are "commonly referred to as charitable organizations". In order to be considered "local", the organization must have a physical address within the City limits, and a valid National City Business License. The organization must be able to show proof of 'local' and 'non-profit' 501(cx3) status. • 5urnlus Citv Proverty: is defined by Municipal Code 2.42 as "supplies or equipment belonging to the City which are no longer used or which have become obsolete or worn out or which are otherwise of no further use." • Police Department Unclaimed Personal Property: is defined in Municipal Code Chapter 2.44 as "goods or chattels which are no longer possessed by their lawful owner and for which demand by right has not been asserted by such lawful owner." After a specified retention period, the Police Department may release items for distribution or disposal in accordance with Code. Page 1 of 3 { Deleted: foreign or domestic i CITY COUNCIL POLICY CITY OF NATIONAL CITY TITLE: Donation of Surplus City Property and POLICY #115 Police Dept. Unclaimed Personal Property ADOPTED: June 17, 2003 AMENDED: • "Request for Donation" form: available from the City's Intranet or the Finance Department/Purchasing Division. This form provides documentation of the agency and donation, and includes a Release of Liability: Policy The City Council may authorize the donation of surplus City property, or Police Department unclaimed personal property, to municipal agenctes: or: local, non-profit 501(c)(3) organizations as defined above, consistent with Muteipal Code section 2.42.040 (B)(4). The City Council may:,also direct the City Manager to conduct a "donation event" (see below) in the event that multiple agencies are requesting the same items. Surplus City Property: Per Municipal -Code Chapter 2.42, surplus City property must first be offered to all City Depamnents, before it can be disposed of in any way. Only items with a value of under S 1000: may be donated. Police Department U fined Personal Property: Per Municipal Code Chapter 2.44: "If after the expiration othc applicable retention period, the city manager or his/her authorized designee determines any unclaimed property in the possession of the police department is need6dfor pubkiise, such property shall be retained by the city." Once it becon es City property, Me City may dispose of it in accordance to Municipal Code.• Liability Issues: To reduce liability, City forces will not be involved in the loading, distribution or delivery of donated items. The recipient must provide their own labor force, loading equipment and vehicles, and they must pick the item(s) up from wherever it is being stored. The recipient must submit a signed "Donation Request" Form which includes a Release of Liability. Gift of Public Funds: if the non-profit 501(c)(3) is a local organization, then assisting them will also assist the National City residents they serve, and the donation will benefit the community. Page 2 of 3 CITY COUNCIL POLICY CITY OF NATIONAL CITY TITLE: Donation of Surplus City Property and POLICY #115 Police Dept. Unclaimed Personal Property ADOPTED: June 17, 2003 AMENDED: Procedures Municipal agencies and Ioca1, non-profit 501(c)(3) organizations may request donations by submitting the "Request for Donation" form to the Finance Departpen►/P. urchasing Division. The Purchasing Division will obtain City Council approval. The Finance Department/Purchasing Division will: • notify the City Council prior to sending anything to auction, to allow them the opportunity to consider donation instead • seek Council approval for all donation requests • develop a lottery system in the event that multiple agencies request the same item • coordinate the donation process and paperwork • provide details regarding the type of_property that is available, upon request • upon approval by the City Council, make the property available to the requesting agency • verify Ioca1, non-profit`501(c)(3) status via physical proof, and website registries such as: www.guidestar.com • confirm valid business license for'loeal non-profit 501(c)(3) agencies • ensure completion of a "Request for Donation" form and signatures • document die donation. • ensure that City property°tags, and other sensitive City information (hard drives, etc) have been removed from the property • notify the Finance Department to remove applicable items from the City's Fixed Asset Inventory. Related Polii4-Rel`erences Municipal Code Chapter 2.42 Municipal Code Chapter 2.44 IRS Code 501(c)(3) Donation Request Forms are available from the Purchasing Division of the Finance Department Prior Policy Amendments April 20, 2004 Page 3 of 3 CITY COUNCIL POLICY CITY OF NATIONAL CITY TITLE: Donation of Surplus City Property and Police Dept. Unclaimed Personal Property ADOPTED: June 17, 2003 POLICY #115 AMENDED: Purpose To establish a policy for donating surplus City property, unclaimed personal property to local, non-profit 501(c)(3) org municipal agencies. Definitions • Municipal Agencies: public/governmen • Local Non -Profit 501(c)(3) Or 501(c)(3) organizations "must purposes set forth in section 501 (c) private shareholder or individual. organization, i.e., it m of its activities and it ni political candis • -s." Or, organizations". physical License. 501(c med by the IRS: non-profit erated exclusively for exempt ne of its earnings may inure to any dition, it may not be an action not attempt to .sfluence legislation as a substantial part icipate in any campaign activity for or against s are "commonly referred to as charitable onsidered "local", the organization must have a ity limits, and a valid National City Business ust be able to show proof of `local' and `non-profit' is defined by Municipal Code 2.42 as "supplies or ging to the City which are no longer used or which have become orn out or which are otherwise of no further use." • Po D - . artment Unclaimed Personal Pro s - : is defined in Municipal Code Chapter 2.44 as "goods or chattels which are no longer possessed by their lawful owner and for which demand by right has not been asserted by such lawful owner." After a specified retention period, the Police Department may release items for distribution or disposal in accordance with Code. Page 1 of 3 i 1 CITY COUNCIL POLICY CITY OF NATIONAL CITY TITLE: Donation of Surplus City Property and Police Dept. Unclaimed Personal Property POLICY #115 ADOPTED: June 17, 2003 AMENDED: • "Request for Donation" form: available from the City's Tnt Department/Purchasing Division. This form provides agency and donation, and includes a Release of Liability Policy The City Council may authorize the donation Department unclaimed personal property, to m 501(c)(3) organizations as defined above, c 2.42.040 (B)(4). The City Council may "donation event" (see below) in the even items. e Finance of the perty, or Police cies or local, non-profit nicipal Code section y Manager to conduct a cies are requesting the same Surplus City Property: Per Municipal Code er 2.42, surplus City property must first be offered to all City D ., ;i ents, before ' can be disposed of in any way. Only items with a value of under $10+'' ay be , onated. Police D - .artment Uncla after the expirati authorized d i departmen becom ert : Per Municipal Code Chapter 2.44: "If pp i . le retention period, the city manager or his/her iv any unclaimed property in the possession of the police arc use, such property shall be retained by the city." Once it y, the City may dispose of it in accordance to Municipal Code. reduce liability, City forces will not be involved in the loading, distrib or delivery of donated items. The recipient must provide their own labor force, loa. '' equipment and vehicles, and they must pick the item(s) up from wherever it is being stored. The recipient must submit a signed "Donation Request" Form which includes a Release of Liability. Gift of Public Funds: if the non-profit 501(c)(3) is a local organization, then assisting them will also assist the National City residents they serve, and the donation will benefit the community. Page 2 of'3 • CITY COUNCIL POLICY CITY OF NATIONAL CITY TITLE: Donation of Surplus City Property and POLICY }i115 Police Dept. Unclaimed Personal Property ` ADOPTED: June 17, 2003 AMENDED: Procedures Municipal agencies and local, non-profit 501(c)(3) organizations requ -"";�,+onations by submitting the "Request for Donation" form to the Finan * epament/P �" asing Division. The Purchasing Division will obtain City Council appro The Finance Department/Purchasing Division will: • notify the City Council prior to sending anything to opportunity to consider donation instead • seek Council approval for all donation requ • develop a lottery system in the event tha • coordinate the donation process and • provide details regarding the type o . ``aerty th• is • upon approval by the City Council, m agency • verify local, non-profit such as: www.guidestar.eom confirm valid busine ense ensure completi . n of • • • • document the ensure th• City p have b • noti ation allow them the request the same item vailable, upon request roperty available to the requestin (3) sta s via physical proof, and website registrie fo non-profit 501(c)(3) agencies Donation" form and signatures s, and other sensitive City information (hard drives, e c) e property Department to remove applicable items from the City's Fi ed Relate ' is References Municipal `• e Chapter 2.42 Municipal Code Chapter 2.44 IRS Code 501(e)(3) Donation Request Forms are available from the Purchasing Division of the Finan artment Prior Policy Amendments April 20, 2004 Page 3 of 3 RESOLUTION NO. 2013 — RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NATIONAL CITY AUTHORIZING THE DONATION OF A 1989 SEAGRAVES FIRE ENGINE TO SWEETWATER HIGH SCHOOL TO PROVIDE THE FIRE SCIENCE PROGRAM WITH A FIRE ENGINE THAT WILL ALLOW STUDENTS TO PRACTICE SKILLS IN A MORE REALISTIC ENVIRONMENT, AS AUTHORIZED BY NATIONAL CITY MUNICIPAL CODE SECTION 2.42.040(B)(4) WHEREAS, the Fire Science Program Coordinator at Sweetwater High School contacted the National City Fire Department ("NCFD") to inquire about a possible surplus fire engine donation to enhance their program by allowing students to practice skills in a more realistic environment; and WHEREAS, NCFD is in possession of a surplus 1989 Seagraves fire engine with approximately 128,442 miles and an estimated value of $10,900; and WHEREAS, donating the fire engine to the Sweetwater High School Fire Science Program will benefit the community by preparing its students for potential public service in fire science; and WHEREAS, the benefit to the community justifies waiving the portion of City Council Policy Number 115 which states "[o]nly items with a value under $1,000 may be donated"; and WHEREAS, National City has negotiated a donation of the surplus fire engine to Sweetwater High School as authorized by Municipal Code Section 2.42.040(B)(4). NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of National City hereby waives the provision in Council Policy 115 limiting donations to only those with a value under $1,000, and authorizes the donation of a surplus 1989 Seagraves fire engine to Sweetwater High School to provide the Fire Science Program with a fire engine that will allow the students to practice skills in a more realistic environment upon execution by the City Manager of a negotiated agreement consistent with the National City Municipal Code. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Manager is hereby authorized to execute said Negotiated Agreement between the City of National City and the Sweetwater Union High School. PASSED and ADOPTED this 5th day of November, 2013. Ron Morrison, Mayor ATTEST: Michael R. Dalla, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: Claudia Gacitua Silva City Attorney CITY OF NATIONAL CITY, CALIFORNIA COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT "FETING DATE: November 5, 2013 AGENDA ITEM NO. 13 ITEM TITLE: Resolution of the City Council of the City of National City authorizing the submittal of an application for grant funds for the Urban Greening Grant Program under the Safe Drinking Water, Water Quality and Supply, Flood Control, River and Coastal Protection Bond Act of 2006 (Proposition 84) for the Hoover Avenue Park / Paradise Creek Walk Project in the amount of $1,100,000, committing to a local match of $200,000 for a total project cost of $1,300,000, and authorizing the City Manager to execute a grant agreement, if approved for funding. PREPARED BY: Stephen Manganiello PHONE: (619) 336-4382 EXPLANATION: See attached. DEPARTME Engineering APPROVED BY: 2 FINANCIAL STATEMENT: APPROVED: Finance ACCOUNT APPROVED: MIS No financial impact at this time; staff will return to Council at a later date to accept the grant (if approved for funding) and appropriate funds. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: N/A ORDINANCE: INTRODUCTION: FINAL ADOPTION: STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Adopt Resolution BOARD / COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: N/A 'TTACHMENTS: 1. Explanation and Conceptual Exhibit 2. Resolution Explanation Staff is requesting authorization to apply for grant funds for the Urban Greening Grant Program under the Safe Drinking Water, Water Quality and Supply, Flood Control, River and Coastal Protection Bond Act of 2006 (Proposition 84) for the Hoover Avenue Park / Paradise Creek Walk Project. The grant request is for $1,100,000 with a local match of $200,000 resulting in a total project cost of $1,300,000. The local match will be funded through various Capital Improvement Program (CIP) accounts. The purpose of the project is to create a celebrated and sustainable park with Community gardens along Paradise Creek using ecological techniques, natural vegetation plantings, passive use trails, bio-swale & educational elements. See attached conceptual exhibit. Council Resolution authorizing staff to file the grant application, committing to the local match, and authorizing the City Manager to execute a grant agreement (if approved for funding) is required. NATIVE MEADOW SALT FLAT OVERLOOK COMPOST/ SOIL/ MULCH/ VERMICULTURE BINS KIMBALL ELEMENTARY GARDEN LABORATORY (D.G. WALKING AREA) EDUCATIONAL REGIONALLY NATIVE PLANT GARDEN (DEMONSTRATIVE GARDEN) WEST SIDE COMMUNITY GARDEN "DRY CREEK BED" BIO-SWALE NATIVE MEADOW SEATING NATIVE CREEK MEADOW DRY POND/ BMP "RAIN GARDEN" COMMUNITY MARKER (TYP) D.G. TRAIL AND NATIVE PLANTS SOUTH TO 22N➢ STREET PUBLIC ENTRY SIGN UNDERGROUND RAINWATER CISTERN FOR IRRIGATION EDUCATIONAL CREEK EXPERIENCE (NATIVE DROUGHT TOLERANT PLANTS) NATIVE PLANT WALK D.G. TRAIL CREEK SIGNAGE EXISTING BOARD WALK INTERPRATIVE SIGNAGE HOOVER AVENUE PARK/ PARADISE CREEK WALK CONCEPT PLAN NATIONAL CITY, CALIFORNIA RESOLUTION NO. 2013 — RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NATIONAL CITY APPROVING THE APPLICATION FOR GRANT FUNDS FOR THE URBAN GREENING GRANT PROGRAM UNDER THE SAFE DRINKING WATER, WATER QUALITY AND SUPPLY, FLOOD CONTROL, RIVER AND COASTAL PROTECTION BOND ACT OF 2006 (PROPOSITION 84) FOR THE HOOVER AVENUE PARKIPARADRISE CREEK WALK PROJECT IN THE AMOUNT OF $1,100,000 AND COMMITTING TO A LOCAL MATCH OF $200,000 FOR A TITAL PROJECT COST OF $1,300,000 WHEREAS, the Legislature and Governor of the State of California have provided funds for Proposition 84; and WHEREAS, the City of National City seeks to apply for grant funds under the Proposition 84 Grant Program for the Hoover Avenue Park/Paradise Creek Walk Project ("Project"); and WHEREAS, the Strategic Growth Council has been delegated the responsibility for the administration of the Grant Program, establishing necessary procedures; and WHEREAS, the procedures established by the Strategic Growth Council require a resolution certifying the approval of application(s) by the applicant's goveming board before submission of such applications(s) to the State; and WHEREAS, the applicant, if selected, will enter into an agreement with the State of California to carry out the Project. National City: NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of 1. Approves the filing of an application for the Hoover Avenue Park/Paradise Creek Walk Project; and 2. Certifies that applicant understands the assurances and certification in the application; and 3. Certifies that applicant or title holder will have sufficient funds to operate and maintain the Project consistent with the land tenure requirements; or will secure the resources to do so; and 4. Certifies that it will comply with the provisions of Section 1771.5 of the State Labor Code regarding payment of prevailing wages on projects awarded Proposition 84 funds; and 5. If applicable, certifies that the Project will comply with any laws and regulations including, but not limited to, legal requirements for building codes, health and safety codes, disabled access laws, environmental laws and, that prior to commencement of construction, all applicable permits will have been obtained; and 6. Certifies that applicant will work towards the Governor's State Planning Priorities intended to promote equity, strengthen the economy, protect the environment, and promote public health and safety as included in Government Code Section 65041.1; and 7. Appoints the City Manager, or designee, as agent to conduct all negotiations, execute and submit all documents including, but not limited to applications, agreements, payment requests, and any other documents, which may be necessary for the completion of the Project. PASSED and ADOPTED this 5th day of November, 2013. Ron Morrison, Mayor ATTEST: Michael R. Della, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: Claudia Gacitua Silva City Attorney CITY OF NATIONAL CITY, CALIFORNIA COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT MEETING DATE: November 5, 2013 AGENDA ITEM NO. 4 ITEM TITLE: Notice of Decision — Planning Commission approval of a Conditional Use Permit for a Self -Storage Facility with Accessory Truck Rental located at 1300 Wilson avenue. (Applicant: U-HauVAmerco) (Case File 2013-20 CUP) PREPARED BY: Martin Reeder, AICP', DEPARTMENT: p PHONE: 336-4313 1 APPROVED BY: EXPLANATION: the project site is a 3.29-acre property located on the west side of Wilson Avenue south of Civic Center Drive. The property is developed with a large (70,000 square feet) industrial building. The applicant (U-Haul) wishes to purchase the property outright and operate a self -storage facility, with accessory truck and trailer rental, sales of packing and moving supplies, and installation of tow hitches. U-Haul is concurrently processing a Westside Specific Plan Amendment to add this use to Appendix "A" (Land Use) of the Westside Specific Plan. This Conditional Use Permit, if approved, would not be effective unless the Specific Plan Amendment is also approved. The Planning Commission held a public hearing on the item on September 16, 2013. Questions were raised regarding business operations, parking of vehicles, and graffiti. The Commission voted to approve the Conditional Use Permit based on required findings and subject to Conditions of Approval with the addition of condition related to graffiti abatement. The attached Planning Commission staff report describes the proposal in detail. FINANCIAL STATEMENT: ACCOUNT NO. APPROVED: Finance APPROVED: MIS ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: Categorically Exempt pursuant to Class 3 Section 15301 (Existing Facilities) ORDINANCE: INTRODUCTION: FINAL ADOPTION: STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff concurs with the decision of the Planning Commission and recommends that the Notice of Decision be filed. BOARD / COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: tThe Planning Commission approved the Conditional Use and Planned Development Permits. Ayes: Alvarado, Baca, Bush, DeLaPaz, Flores, Garcia, Pruitt ATTACHMENTS: I. Location Map 2 Planning Commission Staff Report 4. Reduced Plans' 3. Resolution No. 21-2013 Project Locations Zone Boundary APN: 559-061 -1 4 & 15 1— ——Civic,Center Dr—,— 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 t: k fr ± i to 1 1 xuC cam, 1 k i 3 1 e T' Q. — 1 1 1 1 n 1 g iN 1515 1{. 1 1523 r} 1 1533 MCR=1- 1 1 1 \J 1 1 1 1 1 iwo 1 1 1 1 I o I 1619 —W:.14th. St. 27 1 1 142 29 1 1 141 W. 15th St W. 16th St I I I I Feet 0 100 200 400 Planning Commission Location Map 2013-20 A, CUP 9.3.13 1 Title: Item no. 6 September 16, 201 CITY OF NATIONAL CITY - PLANNING DEPARTMENT 1243 NATIONAL CITY BLVD., NATIONAL CITY, CA 91950 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT PUBLIC HEARING - SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT ADDING "SELF -STORAGE FACILITY WITH ACCESSORY TRUCK RENTAL" TO APPENDIX A OF THE WESTSIDE SPECIFIC PLAN AS A CONDITIONALLY -ALLOWED USE IN THE LIMITED COMMERCIAL (CL) ZONE, AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A SELF -STORAGE FACILITY WITH ACCESSORY TRUCK RENTAL LOCATED AT 1300 WILSON AVENUE. Case File No.: 2013-20 SPA, CUP Property Location: Southwest corner of Wilson Ave. and Civic Center Dr. Assessor's Parcel No.: 559-061-15 & 14 Staff report by: Martin Reeder, AICP — Principal Planner Applicant: U-Haul Zoning designation: Limited Commercial (CL) — Westside Specific Plan Project size: 3.29 acres Adjacent land use/zoning: North: Northbound 1-5 on -ramp / OS East: Industrial and Residential uses across Wilson Avenue / MCR-1 South: Industrial use across W. 16th Street / CL West: Interstate 5 / OS Environmental review: Categorical Exemption. Class 1, Section 15301 (Existing Facilities) BACKGROUND Site Characteristics The project site is a 3.29-acre property located on the west side of Wilson Avenue south of Civic Center Drive. The property is developed with a large (70,000 square feet) industrial building. The previous tenant was CP Manufacturing, a company that manufactured recycling equipment (metal fabrication, painting, etc.) The building is currently vacant and in poor repair. History The Planning Commission voted to initiate the Specific Plan Amendment at their meeting of August 5, 2013. The applicant has since also applied for a Conditional Use Permit that is being processed concurrently with the amendment. Proposal Since the property was vacated, the property owner has been courting prospective tenants for the building that do not involve industrial -type uses. U-Haul has been in communication with the owner and wishes to locate a self -storage facility, including rental vehicles, at this location. However, as things stand, this is not a currently permitted use within the Westside Specific Plan area and would need to be added to the allowable uses in order to operate. To that end, U-Haul submitted this Specific Plan Amendment in order to add 'Self -Storage Facility with Accessory Truck Rental' (subject to a Conditional Use Permit) to Appendix A (Land Use) of the Westside Specific Plan. Analysis The subject property is a unique lot in that it is long and skinny. Although it is over 970 feet long, it is only 183 deep. It is also developed with a large building that covers about half of the lot. With a storage lot at the south end and a large parking lot on the north end, the lot is suited for a large-scale manufacturing use. Per the City's Non -Conforming Use Ordinance, a use may continue provided that it does not lapse for more than 12 months. In this case, the property owner has until the end of the year before losing the lawful non -conforming status. The owner has received interest from another industrial manufacturing company that can move in right away; however, the owner would prefer a new use that would be more of an upgrade to the area. They have stated that prospective industrial tenants are only interested in moving to the building as is, and do not wish to spend any money on building upgrades. The amendment would affect the Limited Commercial (CL) zone in the Westside Specific Plan area. The CL zone is located on the west side of Wilson Avenue between Civic Center Drive and Mile of Cars Way. Issues to consider are mostly related to traffic, given the history of large trucks in the area and their associated impacts (pollution and noise). In the case of U-Haul, only gasoline -powered vehicles are used in their rental fleet, which are smaller and Tess polluting than diesel -powered semi -trucks. They are also significantly quieter. Given that this use and any future such use would be subject to a Conditional Use Permit, the use would be analyzed on a case by case basis to ensure that any impacts to surrounding uses are minimal. The CUP requirement would also allow staff to mandate other conditions as required. The property is located at the confluence of two major rights -of -way — Interstate 5 and Civic Center Drive. As such, most vehicles going to and from the area would likely be utilizing those streets to exit and/or move throughout the City. Therefore, the subject property would be a better candidate for such a use than other parcels located further south on Wilson Avenue. Property Condition The applicant provided a Phase I Environmental Assessment for the property that was recently conducted. The assessment indicated potential issues with an underground storage tank, contaminated soils, maintenance of storm water filtration equipment, and asbestos/lead-based paint -containing materials. U-Haul has committed to remedying these items, which are included as Conditions of Approval. U-Haul wishes to purchase the property outright. They have proposed adaptive reuse of the existing building that would represent a *roughly $5 million investment in the property. Improvements would include a new exterior facade, new roof, extensive landscaping, and a new rental showroom. The facility would be primarily self -storage, but would also offer truck and trailer rental, sales of packing and moving supplies, and installation of tow hitches. In the case of U-Haul, the company operates only gasoline -powered vehicles (no diesel). The company follows a fairly consistent pattern with regard to new outlets, which allows for potential results to be known ahead of time. For example, a standard - sized facility generates approximately $2.5 million in taxes over a ten-year period (average of existing locations). Other area U-Haul locations also have high rates of local employment. According to the applicant, there are local hiring numbers as high as 90% in Oceanside and almost 100% in Escondido. U-Haul also has a Re -Use program to reduce the amount of used goods being dumped. Re -use centers allow for customers to leave their unwanted but reusable belongings, such as furniture, for others to take. Traffic/Circulation U-Haul generally serves the community within 3 'h miles of the outlet. The eventual number of trucks is anticipated to be 40-45, based on use in the San Diego Metro area. A Condition of Approval limits the maximum number to 50. Conditions also require only non -diesel vehicles and require that all vehicles be stored on site (not on adjacent city streets). 4 According to U-Haul, storage and rental centers generate less and lighter vehicle traffic than a comparably -sized industrial or commercial use. For example, a typical center of 80,000 square feet (10,000 square feet larger than the subject building) would generate approximately 31 average daily trips (ADT) on a weekday and 53 on a weekend day. Traffic generation data provided for another project by a traffic engineer for the applicant indicated an average trip generation rate of 0.36 ADT per 1,000 square feet for a weekday and 0.72 on a weekend day. This would be 25.2 ADT and 50.4 ADT respectively for the subject property. The previous industrial use would have generated approximately 280 ADT, per information provided by SANDAG. Based on the low expected ADT and access to the freeway, staff is of the opinion that the facility would not have a significant impact on traffic in the area. The majority of parking spaces are to be located on the north end of the property. Rental truck pick up and drop off would be in the north yard, with overflow space available in the south yard. 11 standard vehicle parking spaces, including two handicapped -accessible spaces are to be located adjacent to the smaller single story metal building located at the north end of the main building. The total retail area of this building would be 2,065 square feet, which would require 9 parking spaces. The Land Use Code does not specify how much parking is required for a self -storage warehouse. However, U-Haul Centers are not typical mini -warehouse facilities. Their unique design allows patrons to Toad and unload vehicles at special loading spaees (the south end of the subject building in this case). These spaces are located immediately adjacent to the building and provide internal access to each self -storage unit via corridors and elevators. Typical mini -warehouse storage is configured in long rows of storage units accessed form garage -type doors via private common alley/roadways. Trip generation data from a similar standard U-Haul facility (O'Fallon U-Haul Center in Missouri) for customers accessing self -storage units in the main building during peak times indicated that only five spaces were generally needed (including for the retail component). Therefore, 11 dedicated parking spaces appear sufficient. There is also ample room for overflow parking given the large north and south yard areas. Adjacent uses There are relatively few residential properties located along Wilson Avenue in this location, which would reduce the amount of residents affected by the use. Of the 14 properties located on this portion of Wilson Avenue (two blocks) developed with the subject property, five contain residential units (36%).The smaller and quieter trucks, most of which would likely be heading north on Wilson, would have Tess of an impact than the large diesel semis that previously utilized the site. CEQA The project is Categorically Exempt under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Class 1 Section 15301. This section allows for conversion of existing facilities. S Summary The requirement for a Conditional Use Permit would allow analysis of potential issues to ensure appropriate placement of such businesses. Additional studies regarding traffic, parking, etc. would be required or conditioned on a case by case basis. More importantly, approving the Specific Plan Amendment would not result in automatic permission to build a self -storage facility anywhere in the CL zone. The proposed use will be an upgrade, both environmentally and aesthetically, on the area. The unique location of the property close to major thoroughfares allows efficient access to and from the property without creating significant impacts on neighboring properties. Based on the low expected ADT and access to the freeway, the facility will not have a significant impact on traffic or traffic -related pollution in the area, but rather would reduce such impacts. RECOMMENDATION 1. Approve 2013-20 SPA, CUP subject to the conditions listed below, based on attached findings; or 2. Deny 2013-20 SPA, CUP based on findings to be determined by the Planning Commission; or 3. Continue the item to a specific date. ATTACHMENTS 1. Recommended Findings for Approval 2. Recommended Conditions of Approval 3. Location Map 4. Notice of Exemption 5. Public Hearing Notice (Sent to 46 property owners) 6. Site Photos 7. Project Narrative 8. Applicant's Plans (Exhibits B and C, Case File No. 2013-20 SPA, CUP dated 8/21/2013) MARTIN REEDER, AICP Principal Planner BRAD RAULSTON Executive Director 6 RECOMMENDED FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL OF A SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT ADDING "SELF -STORAGE FACILITY WITH ACCESSORY TRUCK RENTAL" TO APPENDIX A OF THE WESTSIDE SPECIFIC PLAN AS A CONDITIONALLY -ALLOWED USE IN THE LIMITED COMMERCIAL (CL) ZONE 2013-20 SPA 1. That the proposed amendment is in the public interest and is consistent with General Plan policy, as a Conditional Use Permit would be required for any new self -storage and/or truck rental facility, which would assure compliance with General Plan policies regarding vehicle traffic. 2. That the proposed amendment will allow for conversion of existing industrial uses to cleaner non -industrial uses within the CL zone, which is intended for service -related commercial uses, including storage and equipment rental. RECOMMENDED FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL OF THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2013-20 CUP —1300 Wilson Ave. 1. That the site for the proposed use is adequate in size and shape, since the proposed use would be contained within the existing building envelope, and all activities would be contained on the subject site. 2. That the site has sufficient access to Wilson Avenue and Civic Center Drive, both Collector streets with direct access to Interstate 5, operating at a Level of Service (LOS) of A and C respectively, to accommodate the approximate maximum of 5 average daily trips (ADT). 3. That the proposed use will not have an adverse effect upon adjacent or abutting properties, since the use will be completely contained within the existing building and property, and since only gasoline vehicles will be used in conjunction with the business. 4. That the proposed use is deemed essential and desirable to the public convenience, since it will contribute to the conversion of an existing industrial use to a non -industrial use and will contribute to the viability of the existing commercially -zoned property. 7 RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 2013-20 CUP —1300 Wilson Ave. General 1. The Conditional Use Permit shall not be considered valid, nor construction plans accepted for a self -storage facility, until the associated Specific Plan Amendment has been approved. 2. This Conditional Use Permit authorizes a self -storage facility with accessory truck rental and hitch installation. Except as required by conditions of approval, all plans submitted for permits associated with the project shall conform to Exhibits B and C, Case File No. 2013-20 SPA, CUP dated 8/21/2013. 3. Within four (4) days of approval, pursuant to Fish and Game Code 711.4 and the California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Section 753.5, the applicant shall pay all necessary environmental filing fees for the San Diego County Clerk. Checks shall be made payable to the County Clerk and submitted to the National City Planning Department. 4. This Conditional Use Permit shall become null and void if not exercised within one year after adoption of the Resolution of approval unless extended according to procedures specified in the Land Use Code. 5. Before this Conditional Use Permit shall become effective, the applicant and the property owner both shall sign and have notarized an Acceptance Form, provided by the Planning Department, acknowledging and accepting all conditions imposed upon the approval of the permit. Failure to return the signed and notarized Acceptance Form within 30 days of its receipt shall automatically terminate said permit. The applicant shall also submit evidence to the satisfaction of the Planning Department that a Notice of Restriction on Real Property is recorded with the County Recorder. The applicant shall pay necessary recording fees to the County. The Notice of Restriction shall provide information that conditions imposed by approval of the Conditional Use Permit are binding on all present or future interest holders or estate holders of the property. The Notice of Restriction shall be approved as to form by the City Attorney and signed by the Executive Director prior to recordation. Building 6. Plans submitted for improvements in 2013 must comply with the 2010 edition of the California Building, Electrical, Plumbing, Mechanical, Fire and Accessibility Codes. If submitted in 2014, plans submitted for improvements must comply with the 2013 edition of the California Building, Electrical, Plumbing, Mechanical, Fire, and Accessibility Codes. Engineering 7. The Priority Project Applicability checklist for the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) is required to be completed and submitted to the Engineering Department. The checklist will be required when a project site is submitted for review of the City Departments. The checklist is available at the Engineering Department. If it is determined that the project is subject to the "Priority 8 Project Permanent Storm Water BMP Requirements" and the City of National City Storm Water Best Management Practices of the Jurisdictional Urban Runoff Management Program (JURMP) approved Standard Urban Storm Water Mitigation Plan (SUSMP) documentation will be required prior to issuance of an applicable engineering permit. The SUSMP shall be prepared by a Registered Civil Engineer. 8. The Best Management Practices (BMPs) for the maintenance of the proposed construction shall be undertaken in accordance with the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) regulations which may require a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) for the project. An approved SWPPP will be required prior to issuing of a construction permit. 9. All surface run-off shall be treated with an approved Standard Urban Runoff Mitigation Plan (SUSMP) Best Management Practice (BMP) for all Priority SUSMP projects. No runoff will be permitted to flow over the sidewalk. Adjacent properties shall be protected from surface run-off resulting from this development. 10. The property owner, or its successors and assigns shall be responsible for the maintenance, repair, or reconstruction of all irrigation and landscaping improvements installed within the public right-of-way. Sprinkler heads shall be adjusted so as to prevent overspray upon the public sidewalk or the street. The proposed sprinkler heads shall be installed behind the sidewalk, and the irrigation mainline upon private property only, as required by the City. The property owner or, its successors or assigns, shall be remove and relocate all irrigation items from the public right-of-way at no cost to the City, and within a reasonable time frame upon a written notification by the City Engineer. 11. Metallic identification tape shall be placed between the bottom layer of the finished surface and the top of all irrigation lines in the public right-of-way. 12. A permit shall be obtained from the Engineering Department for all improvement work within the public right-of-way, and any grading construction on private property. 13. A cost estimate for all of the proposed grading, drainage, street improvements, landscaping and retaining wall work shall be submitted with the plans. A performance bond equal to the approved cost estimate shall be posted. Three percent (3%) of the estimated cost shall also be deposited with the City as an initial cost for plan checking and inspection services at the time the plans are submitted. The deposit is subject to adjustment according to actual worked hours and consultant services. Fire 14. The project shall be designed, installed, tested and approved in compliance with the 2010 edition of NFPA, current edition of the CFC, and Title 19 of the California Code of Regulations. 9 Planning 15. A landscape and underground irrigation plan shall be submitted as part of the building permit process. The plans shall meet minimum landscape requirements of the Land Use Code. 16. Remove and dispose of the existing on site underground storage tank (UST) and its contents. Confirmatory soil and groundwater sampling should also be conducted in this area to determine if a release has occurred. 17. A limited subsurface investigation shall be conducted in order to determine the presence or absence of soil and/or groundwater contamination, specifically in the areas of the observed clarifiers, floor drains, and unidentified subsurface features within the warehouse building (Building 1). 18. Clean out the Existing catch basins, drains, inlets, and cleanouts shall be cleaned and associated waste properly disposed of. 19. Based on the information provided in the survey completed by Ninyo & Moore in 1999, the observed damaged areas of confirmed asbestos -containing materials and lead -based paints shall be abated and an O&M Plan be implemented to manage the remaining areas of intact confirmed asbestos -containing materials and lead -based paints in place. 20. All rental trucks shall be stored on the site and not on adjacent public streets. 21. No more than 50 rental trucks shall be stored on site at any one time. 22. The rental truck fleet shall be exclusively gasoline -powered (or hybrid/alternative fuel -powered). No diesel -powered vehicles are permitted as part of the rental fleet. 10 CITY OF NATIONAL CITY - DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT 1243 NATIONAL CITY BLVD., NATIONAL CITY, CA 91950 NOTICE OF EXEMPTION TO: County Clerk County of San Diego P.O. Box 1750 1600 Pacific Highway, Room 260 San Diego, CA 92112 Project Title: 2012-20 SPA, CUP Project Location: 1300 Wilson Avenue, National City, CA 91950 Contact Person: Martin Reeder Telephone Number: (619) 336-4313 Description of Nature, Purpose and Beneficiaries of Project: Specific Plan Amendment Adding "Self -Storage Facility with Accessory Truck Rental" to appendix a of the Westside Specific Plan as a conditionally -allowed use in the Limited Commercial (CL) zone, and conditional use permit for a Self -Storage Facility with Accessory Truck Rental located at 1300 Wilson avenue. Applicant Name and Address: U-Haul International c/o: Randy Lopez PO Box 21502 Phoenix, AZ 85036-1502 Telephone Number: (602) 263-6555 Exempt Status: ® Categorical Exemption. Class 1, Section 15301 (Existing Facilities) Reasons why project is exempt: It can be seen with certainty that the project will not have a significant effect on the environment, seeing that subsequent projects will be subject to a Conditional Use Permit and associated CEQA review, and since the subject project will utilize an existing building without expanding the footprint. Furthermore, traffic generated by the use would be less polluting and frequent than the previous industrial use. Date: MARTIN REEDER, AICP Principal Planner 11 CITY OF NATIONAL CITY - DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT 1243 NATIONAL CITY BLVD., NATIONAL CITY, CA 91950 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING PUBLIC HEARING - SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT ADDING "SELF -STORAGE FACILITY WITH ACCESSORY TRUCK RENTAL" TO APPENDIX A OF THE WESTSIDE SPECIFIC PLAN AS A CONDITIONALLY -ALLOWED USE IN THE LIMITED COMMERCIAL (CL) ZONE, AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A SELF -STORAGE FACILITY WITH ACCESSORY TRUCK RENTAL LOCATED AT 1300 WILSON AVENUE. CASE FILE NO: 2013-20 SP A, CUP The National City Planning Commission will hold a public hearing after the hour of 6:00 p.m. Monday, September 16, 2013, in the City Council Chambers, 1243 National City Blvd., National City, California on a proposed request (U-Haul). The applicant proposes to add "Self -Storage Facility with Accessory Truck Rental" as a conditionally -allowed use in the CL zone of the Westside Specific Plan area in order to convert the existing industrial building to a U-Haul self -storage facility. Members of the public are invited to comment. Any person interested in this matter may appear at the above time and place and be heard. Written comments should be received by the Planning Division on or before 12 p.m., September 16, 2013. Planning Division staff may be contacted at 619-336-4310 or planninq(a)nationalcityca.gov. If you challenge the nature of the proposed action in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the public hearing entity conducting the hearing at, or prior to, the public hearing. PLANNING DEPARTMENT BRAD RAULSTON Executive Director 12 13 14 14 17 00 Ah.t1,4,44-VKAA'XV6j,:aii 20 f N N AMERCO® REAL ESTATE COMPANY 2727 NORTH CENTRAL AVENUE, 5-N • PHOENIX, ARIZONA 85004 PHONE: 602.263.6555 • FAX: 602.277.5824 • EMAIL parul@uhaul.com NARRATIVE PROJECT SUMMARY AMERCO Real Estate Company (AREC) is interested in purchasing the property located at 1500 Wilson Avenue (APN: 5590611500). AREC is the wholly owned real estate subsidiary of the U-Haul System. AREC is submitting this narrative for the opportunity to receive the participation and counseling from the City of National City in regards to a text amendment to add self -storage and truck and trailer rental as conditionally permitted uses to the CL zone. The property at Wilson Avenue is currently developed and U-Haul proposes an adaptive re -use of the existing building; which incorporates self -storage, truck and trailer rental, and retail services. The north portion of the property, along Civic Center Drive, would provide customer parking and display U-Haul trucks and trailers. The showroom, hitch bays, and self -storage would be positioned towards the north side of the building. The typical U-Haul office is approximately 2,500 s.f. in size. U-Haul is proposing truck and trailer rental but the number of trucks has not yet been determined. The placement of these trucks and trailers is also unknown at this time. The property is currently zoned 'CL within the West Side Specific Plan' that does not allow self -storage or truck rental and will require a text amendment. We feel U-Haul would be an appropriate use for the property due to the close proximity to a main arterial street, Civic Center Drive, and a major freeway, San Diego Freeway 1-5. U-Haul is more of a commercial type use that serves the residential communities within a 3-5 mile radius unlike the existing industrial type uses found to the south, west, and north side. U-Haul moving and storage facilities act as a good transition from industrial uses to residential such as the homes found to the east of the property. In fact, there are proven benefits for allowing self -storage facilities in communities: • Self storage facilities are quiet • They provide an excellent buffer between zones • They create very little traffic • They have little impact on utilities • They have no impact on schools • They provide a good tax revenue • They provide a community service U-Haul moving and storage are convenience businesses. Our philosophy is to place centers in high growth residential areas, where we fill a need for our products and services. Customers are made aware of the U-Haul center, primarily via drive -by awareness, much like that of a convenience store, restaurant or hardware store. Attractive imaging and brand name recognition bring in area residents — by our measures, those who live within a four -mile radius of the center. Custom site design for every U-Haul moving and storage center assures that the facility compliments the community it serves by architectural compatibility and attractive landscaping. Adherence to community objectives is key, so that the U-Haul moving and storage center is a neighborhood asset, and is assured of economic success. U-Haul looks forward to working with National City and we look forward to your consideration of the conceptual development plan that we are submitting at this time. Please provide us with your feedback and any comments you may have. THE U-HAUL MOVING AND STORAGE FACILITY U-Haul moving and storage centers characteristically serve the do-it-yourself household customer. In a typical day at U-Haul, the center will be staffed with a general manager and two to three customer service representatives. Families will generally arrive in their own automobiles, enter the showroom and may choose from a variety of products and services offered there. • Families typically use U-Haul self -storage facilities to store furniture, household goods, sporting equipment or holiday decorations. Often prompted by moving to a smaller home, combining households or clearing away clutter to prepare a home for sale, storage customers will typically rent a room for a period of two months to one year. • U-Haul moving and storage centers also rent trucks and trailers for household moving, either in -town or across country. • Families who need packing supplies in advance of a move or to ship personal packages can choose from a variety of retail sales items, including cartons, tape and packing materials. • Families who tow U-Haul trailers, boats or recreational trailers can select and have installed the hitch and towing packages which best meet their needs. 24 • Moving and storage are synergistic businesses. Over half of our storage customers tell us they used U-Haul storage because of a household move. Customers will typically rent U-Haul equipment or use their personal vehicle to approach the loading area and enter the building through the singular customer access. All new storage facilities are designed with interior storage room access, giving the customer the added value of increased security, and the community the benefit of a more aesthetically pleasing exterior. SIGNIFICANT POLICIES: • Hours of Operation: Mon. - Thurs. 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. Fri. 7:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. Sat. 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. Sun. 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. • All U-Haul storage customers are issued a card -swipe style identification card that must be used to gain access to their room. This is but one of many security policies which protect the customer's belongings and decrease the ability of unauthorized access to the facility. • It is against policy for a business to be operated from a U-Haul storage room. • Customers and community residents who wish to use the on -site dumpsters for disposing of refuse must gain permission to do so, and are assessed an additional fee. • Items that may not be stored, include: chemicals, flammables, and paints. • U-Haul facilities are protected by video surveillance. • U-Haul moving and storage centers are non-smoking facilities. • U-Haul will provide added service and assistance to our customers with disabilities. 7i RESOLUTION NO. 21-2013 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF NATIONAL CITY, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT ADDING "SELF -STORAGE FACILITY WITH ACCESSORY TRUCK RENTAL" TO APPENDIX A OF THE WESTSIDE SPECIFIC PLAN AS A CONDITIONALLY -ALLOWED USE IN THE LIMITED COMMERCIAL (CL) ZONE, AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A SELF -STORAGE FACILITY WITH ACCESSORY TRUCK RENTAL LOCATED AT 1300 WILSON AVENUE. APPLICANT: U-HAUL. CASE FILE NO. 2013-20 SPA, CUP APN: 559-061-15 & 14 WHEREAS, pursuant to the terms and provisions of the Government Code of the State of California, proceedings were duly initiated for the amendment of the Westside Specific Plan, Appendix A; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of National City, California, considered said proposed amendment at a duly advertised public hearing held on September 16, 2013, at which time the Planning Commission considered evidence; and, WHEREAS, at said public hearing the Planning Commission considered the staff report provided for Case File No. 2013-20 SPA, CUP, which is maintained by the City and incorporated herein by reference; along with any other evidence presented at said hearing; and, WHEREAS, this action is taken pursuant to all applicable procedures required by State law and City law; and, WHEREAS, this action is taken in an effort to be compliant with applicable State and Federal law; and, WHEREAS, the action hereby taken is found to be essential for the preservation of the public health, safety and general welfare. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Planning Commission of the City of National City, California, that the evidence presented to the Planning Commission at the public hearing held on September 16, 2013, support the following findings: RECOMMENDED FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL OF A SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT 1. That the proposed amendment is in the public interest and is consistent with General Plan policy, as a Conditional Use Permit would be required for any new 26 4. This Conditional Use Permit shall become null and void if not exercised within one year after adoption of the Resolution of approval unless extended according to procedures specified in the Land Use Code. 5. Before this Conditional Use Permit shall become effective, the applicant and the property owner both shall sign and have notarized an Acceptance Form, provided by the Planning Department, acknowledging and accepting all conditions imposed upon the approval of the permit. Failure to retum the signed and notarized Acceptance Fomi within 30 days of its receipt shall automatically terminate said permit. The applicant shall also submit evidence to the satisfaction of the Planning Department that a Notice of Restriction on Real Property is recorded with the County Recorder. The applicant shall pay necessary recording fees to the County. The Notice of Restriction shall provide informationthat conditions imposed by approval of the Conditional Use Permit are binding on all present or future interest holders or estate holders of the property. The Notice of Restriction shall be approved as to form by the City Attorney and signed by the Executive Director prior to recordation. Building 6. Plans submitted for improvements in 2013 must comply with the 2010 edition of the Califomia Building, Electrical, Plumbing, Mechanical, Fire and Accessibility Codes. If submitted in 2014, plans submitted for improvements must comply with the 2013 edition of the Califomia Building, Electrical, Plumbing, Mechanical, Fire, and Accessibility Codes. Engineering 7. The Priority Project Applicability checklist for the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) is required to be completed and submitted to the Engineering Department. The checklist will be required when a project site is submitted for review of the City Departments. The checklist is available at the Engineering Department. If it is determined that the project is subject to the "Priority Project Permanent Storm Water BMP Requirements" and the City of National City Storm Water Best Management Practices of the Jurisdictional Urban Runoff Management Program (JURMP) approved Standard Urban Storm Water Mitigation Plan (SUSMP) documentation will be required prior to issuance of an applicable engineering permit. The SUSMP shall be prepared by a Registered Civil Engineer. 8. The Best Management Practices (BMPs) for the maintenance of the proposed construction shall be undertaken in accordance with the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) regulations which may require a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) for the project. An approved SWPPP will be required prior to issuing of a construction permit. 9. All surface run-off shall be treated with an approved Standard Urban Runoff Mitigation Plan (SUSMP) Best Management Practice (BMP) for all Priority SUSMP projects. No runoff will be permitted to flow over the sidewalk. Adjacent properties shall be protected from surface run-off resulting from this development. 10. The property owner, or its successors and assigns shall be responsible for the maintenance, repair, or reconstruction of all irrigation and landscaping improvements installed within the public right-of-way. Sprinkler heads shall be adjusted so as to prevent overspray upon the public sidewalk or the street. The proposed sprinkler heads shall be installed behind the sidewalk, and the irrigation mainline upon private property only, as required by the City. The property owner or, its successors or assigns, shall be remove and relocate all irrigation items from the public right-of-way at no cost to the City, and within a reasonable time frame upon a written notification by the City Engineer. 11. Metallic identification tape shall be placed between the bottom layer of the finished surface and the top of all irrigation lines in the public right-of-way. 12. A permit shall be obtained from the Engineering Department for all improvement work within the public right-of-way, and any grading construction on private property. 13. A cost estimate for all of the proposed grading, drainage, street improvements, landscaping and retaining wall work shall be submitted with the plans. A performance bond equal to the approved cost estimate shall be posted. Three percent (3%) of the estimated cost shall also be deposited with the City as an initial cost for plan checking and inspection services at the time the plans are submitted. The deposit is subject to adjustment according to actual worked hours and consultant services. Fire 14. The project shall be designed, installed, tested and approved in compliance with the 2010 edition of NFPA, current edition of the CFC, and Title 19 of the California Code of Regulations. Planning 15. A landscape and underground irrigation plan shall be submitted as part of the building permit process. The plans shall meet minimum landscape requirements of the Land Use Code. 16. Remove and dispose of the existing on site underground storage tank (UST) and its contents. Confirmatory soil and groundwater sampling should also be conducted in this area to determine if a release has occurred. 17. A limited subsurface investigation shall be conducted in order to determine the presence or absence of soil and/or groundwater contamination, specifically in the areas of the observed clarifiers, floor drains, and unidentified subsurface features within the warehouse building (Building 1). 18. Clean out the Existing catch basins, drains, inlets, and cleanouts shall be cleaned and associated waste properly disposed of. 19. Based on the information provided in the survey completed by Ninyo & Moore in 1999, the observed damaged areas of confirmed asbestos -containing materials and lead -based paints shall be abated and an O&M Plan be implemented to 28 is manage the remaining areas of intact confirmed asbestos -containing materials and lead -based paints in place. 20. All rental trucks shall be stored on the site and not on adjacent public streets. 21. No more than 50 rental trucks shall be stored on site at any one time. 22. The rental truck fleet shall be exclusively gasoline -powered (or hybrid/alternative fuel -powered). No diesel -powered vehicles are permitted as part of the rental fleet. 23. Exterior walls of buildings/ freestanding signs/ trash enclosures to a height of not less than 6 feet shall be treated with a graffiti resistant coating subject to approval from the Planning Department. Graffiti shall be removed within 72 hours of its observance as required by Chapter 10.54 — Graffiti Control — of the National City Municipal Code. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that copies of this Resolution be transmitted forthwith to the applicant and to the City Council. CERTIFICATION: This certifies that the Resolution was adopted by the Planning Commission at their meeting of September 16, 2013, by the following vote: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Alvarado, Baca, Bush, DelaPaz, Flores, Garcia, Pruitt CHAIRPERSON ,a CIVIC CENTER SPECIFIC SITE PLAN AMENDMENT 1300 WILSON AVENUE NATIONAL CITY, CA 91950 CI N to fI �I .��A19a- • _ . ;MESON AVENUE• I 1 '�Illlll 1 ►1 F 1 I niim r 11.11 II 11� I I� II 11,1111 I I I �rIIIII1111 ! I9IIIIIII` III1�iR 11IIII 1 1/1/11111 ill 11t1 iP illii i MO 1 0 ii i R.D. R A.E. RY S.D. R AT. RV n� 1 OVERALL SITE PLAN 2 AERIAL VICINITY MAP SCALE: 1•..AMR ACCAESS: ISOIMSCNAI4E 201E n- LIMED mMM9lara WITHIN 1,EWES1R SP€ORCPUN CURRENT USE FI - FACTOR, MANUPACIUSISIG PROPOSED USE. SI • MORE NO M - MEAGNM1E 9ECUESSI w MARfIEWF TO TEKE519lE SP:ila1G PUN TO WOU1E TU. RENTAL NA SELF-TOPA(*ASA C01-0RIONAL USE TO VW PRUIICSW F USES. 4 ZONING EXHIBIT B CASE FILE NO. 2013-20 CUP DATE: 8/21/2013 SPI IIRA MEV I4IER.PN Al RPM RYA ELI ELEV3TPB LSI WDEGPE RAN CEaa9L MISSY iY3 1 1,11CflIPS3Re !FIE ARNRR toe AMERCO MOMUMM VA9e1 as an ARl SOW WM MU. OM gel m oa mE ASTMS. 13M WRem Averse NMMM OR, ET 919S] 91QF CPRAIS SIR Plan 5 SHEET INDEX R 9 887051 mei SP1 0/Se... t. 3 I ENLARGED FLOOR PLAN - SHOWROOM AND D&R BAY 90 .tma.1•a AR amp a: • l J r� n4W1 e 12AAA.A4,SF • 1 I PROPOSED FIRST FLOOR T.I. PLAN I "`11I111itll111111ll1111.7 "1i1111111ll1111111ll1111r I- ';11111it♦•1iir 111.111111111111. I. - j aI•u•■uae. 111111111111111111113. 9i iIlIlla.' !IMMMP! iiuuu•■ rA- 1 l,� 11111111. iulI1I11Ir1.1w1111:IIIIIIIlli 4 PROPOSED ROOM MIX EMI =1=11E13 WS," KUM ©gym Wit11:11=1m111:301:0 II.2111E =m Il a oama® lY ©1=1m =AM ®M® m1:21=131:1a®P©0=1® oo©mlamLMI PROPOSED ROOM MIX WI-aMY1e COMMA - w .oe. — v. - a II INN ERR II II ®®&�+aR �aa.;. RR �3 3RR RW. AIR ea EI'',aIl r1.7°. N ti?AG "aa�a rErnmorie y--a r 1 9SC Fs�GyNS 2 I PROPOSED NEW SECOND FLOOR PLAN ;a } RR aye 7 aay,_tai; ;R . aa. .. ••— SCALE: Saba i 1 a .% MIR 1.11.71110 141013114.11. R. O.S.Ra LOW: AMEAC� liESEIMEINIEZIC aaave4w nn eft MN 114. A.. as1 fa..,.. 1m. T[ MM. 1]OO.sen Avis. NMNOy. GOM.O am [Med.. Sion 887051 ®I mollusc asa Al d4lY•G.ti ILi1 t. I '411 LELA 'C W --- — ,--.— — II W smoove.r suss Ib Irnr !/I1 DOER rrT.m M S MVl11 401 .NY T aTYI sl WEST ELEVATION SCALE 111A1'a 2 1 SOUTH ELEVATION SCALE: 1/N'^1'tl NM M pR ... EMI �I�IJM MI WM® MS MI �� II 1 �IIII�IIM I1II�IIA I 11111111111111��1�I 11111111111111111•111111�1111�1111 wlasl®ois�s,�IeolM�nsenom®®,.tea®snt�immOu■las�I 1 II i�i Ioil �i1�7■r ��1',.,�Ili 9'lllllllllll ��'h:1111111 llir_ _ MINI! Kr .CTM. 01b Ina cw• inir eM AN OJOS 3 EAST ELEVATION SCAM 111r t., 4 1 NORTH ELEVATION SCAM Mir- 1, QN0t. enk ■ 1 1 .M»,C., 1m,: 1 AMERCO EXIEIMESE T11 aP10.001 !Al mr14.®. Tat .. im- r: m-10Aaa mrt MOMS: 1,50.0e3n RM! 1.1NbI1,11, oAB10.0 SPRIT 0a00110 EVA.. Etarrm 887051 S0 anal von a1 01,051100.4.1 LL 1 Z 0 m C m 0 2015 MIERCO ■ k ESTATE COW.' n 0 Z 0 z v Z 00 • { ' CIVIC DRIVE • Q9 ip ICI .iek _ .ICI + ; 1 •i1 II 1 1 m 14TH STREET 16T1 STREET j'L 887051 ibis IAA �ii1,1 /301 1 I' P:: r .LE NO. 2013-20 CUP rt- ,21/2013 .04,41.,1.67•5 1.014M9111. 20305:11 060 277.105 .N.0:17ES: 1}1.1.41.X. WILSON ME la001.430MM6 1441101..INTS.M1183 P.IEET CONCEPTUNL FIVICASINNO 887051 Wilt MR ae remi masa 1-1 11VCSI.P16.4.1 • • • CITY OF NATIONAL CITY, CALIFORNIA CITY COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT MEETING DATE: November 5, 2013 AGENDA ITEM NO. 15 ITEM TITLE: Consideration of the Planning Commission's recommendations on the affirmative termination by amortization of the nonconforming land uses located at 1732 Coolidge Avenue (Steve's West Coast Automotive) and 108 W. 18th Street (Jose's Auto Electric). PREPARED BY: Raymond Pe, Principal Planney' DEPARTMENT: PI nfng Division APPROVED B PHONE: 336-4421 EXPLANATION: Pursuant to Municipal Code Section 18.11.100(D), the City Council may order a nonconforming use to be terminated within a reasonable amount of time upon recommendation of the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on August 19, 2013 after written notice was provided to the owners of the subject nonconforming uses. Oral and documentary evidence was received by the Commission at the hearing, and reasonable amortization periods were recommended for the subject nonconforming uses based upon that evidence. On September 16, 2013, the Planning Commission adopted resolutions recommending that the City Council order the affirmative termination by amortization of the nonconforming land uses. The Planning Commission recommended an amortization period of 1.69 years (1 year and 252 days) for Steve's West Coast Automotive and 1.64 years (1 year and 234 days) for Jose's Auto Electric. The amortization periods would commence on the date of final action by the City Council by adoption of a resolution for each business, ordering the termination of the business and setting forth the amortization period for the business. Failure to comply with an order to terminate would constitute a violation of the Municipal Code and a public nuisance subject to abatement. • FINANCIAL STATEMENT: Not applicable. ACCOUNT NO. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: Not applicable. ORDINANCE: INTRODUCTION: FINAL ADOPTION: APPROVED: Finance STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Direct Staff to prepare resolutions for City Council consideration ordering the nonconforming uses to be terminated within the amortization periods determined by the City Council. BOARD / COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: On September 16, 2013, the Planning Commission adopted resolutions recommending that the City Council order the affirmative termination by amortization of the nonconforming land uses within the amortization periods specified therein. 4TTACHMENTS: 1. Planning Commission Resolution 22-2013 2. Planning Commission Resolution 23-2013 3. Planning Commission Staff Report 4. Planning Commission Hearing Transcript RESOLUTION NO. 22-2013 RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF NATIONAL CITY RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ORDER THE AFFIRMATIVE TERMINATION BY AMORTIZATION OF THE NONCONFORMING LAND USE LOCATED AT 1732 COOLIDGE AVENUE, AND RECOMMENDING A REASONABLE AMOUNT OF TIME IN WHICH SUCH USE SHALL BE ORDERED TERMINATED (STEVE'S WEST COAST AUTOMOTIVE) WHEREAS, prior to March 10, 2010, the real property commonly known as 1732 Coolidge Avenue was located in the Light Manufacturing - Residential (MLR) zone, and was devoted to general automotive repair, which was an allowed use in said zone; and WHEREAS, on March 10, 2010, the City Council of the City of National City adopted Resolution No. 2010-44, approving a General Plan amendment to change the land use designations for the Westside Specific Plan Area from Light Manufacturing Residential (MLR), Civic Institutional — Open Space (IC -OS), Light Manufacturing — Planned Development (ML-PD), Tourist Commercial — Planned Development (CT-PD), and Heavy Commercial (CH) to Open Space Reserve (OSR), Residential — Single Family (RS-4), Mixed Use Commercial — Residential (MCR-1), Mixed Use Commercial — Residential (MCR-2), Limited Commercial (CL), and Civic Institutional (IC) within the Westside Specific Plan area east of I- 5, west of National City Boulevard, north of Mile of Cars Way, and south of Plaza Boulevard; and WHEREAS, also on March 10, 2010, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 2010-45, adopting the Westside Specific Plan for an area located east of 1-5, west of National City Boulevard, north of Mile of Cars Way, and south of Plaza Boulevard; and WHEREAS, on August 3, 2010, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 2010-2344, amending Chapters 18.10, 18.14, 18.16, 18.50, 18.58, 18.62, 18.88, 18.104, 18.108, and 18.140 of the National City Municipal Code to provide standards implementing the approved Westside Specific Plan; and WHEREAS, the real property commonly known as 1732 Coolidge Avenue is located in the Westside Specific Plan area; and WHEREAS, as a result of the City Council's adoption of Resolution No. 2010-44, approving a General Plan amendment, and of Resolution No. 2010-45, approving the Westside Specific Plan, and of Ordinance No. 2010-2344, amending the Municipal Code to provide standards to implement the Westside 1 Resolution No. 22-2013 Page Two September 16, 2013 Specific Plan, the real property commonly known as 1732 Coolidge Avenue was rezoned to the Mixed -Use Commercial -Residential (MCR-1) zone; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 18.11.010 of the National City Municipal Code, a nonconforming land use occurs when the land use was lawful before a zoning regulation under the Land Use Code was enacted or amended, but that land use becomes prohibited after the regulation is enacted or amended; and WHEREAS, because general automotive repair is not a permitted use in the Mixed -Use Commercial -Residential (MCR-1) zone, upon the effective date of Resolution No. 2010-44, Resolution 2010-45, and Ordinance No. 2010-2344, said use became a nonconforming use on the real property commonly known as 1732 Coolidge Avenue; and WHEREAS, Section 18.11.100 of the National City Municipal Code, titled Affirmative Termination by Amortization, was enacted in 2006. Subsection (D)(1) of Section 18.11.100 provides, in relevant part, that the City Council may order a nonconforming use to be terminated within a reasonable amount of time, upon recommendation of the Planning Commission; that the Planning Commission shall conduct a public hearing after 10 days' written notice to the nonconforming user; and that in making its recommendation to terminate a nonconforming use and in recommending a reasonable amount of time in which such use shall be terminated, the Planning Commission shall consider the following: a) The total cost of the land and improvements; b) The length of time the use has existed; c) Adaptability of the land and improvements; d) The cost of moving and reestablishing the use elsewhere; e) Whether the use is significantly nonconforming; f) Compatibility with the existing land use pattems and densities of the surrounding neighborhood; g) The possible threat to the public health, safety, or welfare; h) Any other relevant factors; and WHEREAS, in 2010, the City was awarded a technical assistance grant from the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The grant allowed the EPA and its consultant to develop a process to rank nonconforming uses in the Westside Specific Plan area using a set of objective criteria that were applied to each property and land use within the Specific Plan area. The ranking 2 Resolution No. 22-2013 Page Three September 16, 2013 process was intended for the purpose of ranking properties with nonconforming uses within the Specific Plan area, and as a means to prioritize those properties, with those properties with the highest priority being the first to be considered for affirmative termination through amortization, subject to consideration of the factors set forth in Section 18.11.100 (D)(1) of the Municipal Code; and WHEREAS, on July 17, 2013, pursuant to Section 18.11.100 (D)(1) of the Municipal Code, the City served a written notice of public hearing upon the owners of Steve's West Coast Automotive, the owners of the nonconforming automotive repair business at 1732 Coolidge Avenue. The notice advised the owners that the Planning Commission would hold a public hearing on August 19, 2013, after the hour of 6:00 p.m., in the City Council Chambers at 1243 National City Boulevard, to consider a recommendation on the affirmative termination by amortization of the nonconforming automotive repair business at 1732 Coolidge Avenue; and WHEREAS, on August 19, 2013, after the hour of 6:00 p.m., the Planning Commission held a hearing in the City Council Chambers at 1243 National City Boulevard, at which time the Commission considered a recommendation on the affirmative termination by amortization, and on the reasonable amount of time in which such amortization should occur, concerning the automotive repair business at 1732 Coolidge Avenue. At said hearing, the Commission considered the Staff Report and other oral and documentary evidence, including the testimony of Brian P. Brinig, a business valuation consultant, the testimony of Raymond Pe, Principal Planner for the City, and Michael Garcia, a land use consultant. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of National City as follows: 1. That based upon the Staff Report and other oral and documentary evidence received at the time of the hearing, in making its recommendation to the City Council to terminate the use of the real property at 1732 Coolidge Avenue for an automotive repair business, and in recommending a reasonable amount of time in which such use shall be terminated, the Planning Commission makes the following findings pursuant to Section 18.11.100 (D)(1)(a)-(h) of the Municipal Code: a) The total cost of the land and improvements. (1) The term of the business owners' existing lease ends in February, 2014, with a current rent of $2,400 per month. 3 Resolution No. 22-2013 Page Four September 16, 2013 (2) The assessed value of the land and improvements was obtained from the San Diego County Assessor's Office , and was considered as being potentially relevant to the analysis. However, a business enterprise that operates under a real property lease does not own the land or real property improvements from which it operates. Consequently, the historical cost of the land and improvements are not relevant to the analysis in this case. b) The length of time the use has existed. (1) According to the City's business license records, the current automotive repair use has existed at this location since April 26, 2004. (2) The location has had a series of businesses utilizing the "West Coast" name since 1999. (3) Because the owners of Steve's West Coast Automotive have operated at this location since 2004, the owners have operated longer than the period necessary to recover their investment. c) Adaptability of the land and improvements to a currently permitted use. (1) The land area exceeds the minimum required by the Mixed Use Commercial Residential zone. (2) The building size exceeds the minimum required by the Mixed Use Commercial Residential zone. (3) The building meets the minimum setbacks required by the Mixed Use Commercial Residential zone. (4) The building floor area meets the Floor Area Ratio requirements of the Mixed Use Commercial Residential zone. (5) The building does not exceed the maximum height allowed by the Mixed Use Commercial Residential zone. (6) The property meets the parking requirements of the Mixed Use Commercial Residential zone. (7) The building would require major, costly rehabilitation to convert it to a type suitable for use in the Mixed Use Commercial Residential zone. d) The cost of moving and reestablishing the use elsewhere. (1) Several cars, three hydraulic lifts, and various materials, tools, and office equipment used by this type of automotive repair business have been observed on this site. 4 Resolution No. 22-2013 Page Five September 16, 2013 (2) Based on an analysis of this use, its relocation would require labor for packing, moving, and unpacking, rental of a forklift, and the towing of several cars. (3) To reestablish this use elsewhere would require searching for the new location; securing the new site (e.g., security deposit); reestablishing phone, internet, business cards, and letterhead; marketing; and making tenant improvements (e.g., flooring, storage, shelving, lifts, electrical upgrades). (4) The estimated relocation cost for this use is $15,600. (5) The estimated cost to reestablish this use is $9,300. e) Whether the use is significantly nonconforming. (1) This automotive repair use is a significantly nonconforming use in the Mixed Use Commercial Residential zone. (2) The automotive repair use could be converted to a mixed residential over retail or office use as allowed in the Mixed Use Commercial Residential zone after significant investment in building rehabilitation. f) Compatibility with the existing land use patterns and densities of the surrounding neighborhood. (1) The automotive repair use is compatible with some of the adjacent, existing land use patterns, namely, other automotive repair uses; however, these other uses are not in conformance with the land uses allowed by the Westside Specific Plan. (2) The use is in close proximity to residential uses. g) The possible threat to the public health, safety, or welfare. (1) Notices of violation have been issued but have been resolved. (2) The use has all required permits. (3) Notices of unlawful discharges into the stormwater system have been issued but have been resolved. (4) Hazardous materials are stored on -site. (5) Open storage of hazardous materials occurs on the site. (6) Security measures such as fencing are in place on the site. (7) The use is located within 100 feet of Kimball Elementary School, which is considered a sensitive use. (8) The use performs work off -site and in the public right of way. Cars are parked on sidewalks, which forces elementary school children to walk in the street when going to and from school. 5 Resolution No. 22-2013 Page Six September 16, 2013 h) Any other relevant factors. (1) The Price/Earnings Ratio (P/E Ratio) was determined by the City's business valuation consultant, because the P/E Ratio indicates the number of years of earnings that it takes to recover the value of the business. Using standard business valuation sources, the P/E Ratio was determined to be in the range of 1.69 to 2.19. By converting the P/E Ratio into years, the business owners are allowed to earn the business's net income for that number of years, thereby recovering the fair market value of their investment. Accordingly, the reasonable amortization period that would allow for the recovery of the business owners' investment, based upon the analysis of the City's business valuation consultant, is in the range of 1.69 to 2.19 years. 2. That based upon the above findings, and in particular, the findings that the historical cost of the land and improvements at 1732 Coolidge Avenue is irrelevant in determining a reasonable amortization period for the business at that location, that the automotive repair business has been operated at this location longer than the period necessary for the owners to recover their investment, that the use is significantly nonconforming with the uses allowed in the Mixed Use Commercial Residential zone, that the use is not compatible with the uses allowed in the Mixed Use Commercial Residential zone, and that the automotive repair use at this location presents a threat to the public health, safety, and welfare, the Commission further finds and determines that the automotive repair use at 1732 Coolidge Avenue should be terminated. 3. That based upon the above findings, and in particular, the findings that the historical cost of the land and improvements at 1732 Coolidge Avenue is irrelevant in determining a reasonable amortization period for the business at this location, that the automotive repair business has been operated at this location longer than the period necessary for the owners to recover their investment, that the use is significantly nonconforming with the uses allowed in the Mixed Use Commercial Residential zone, that the use is not compatible with the uses allowed in the Mixed Use Commercial Residential zone, and that the automotive repair use at this location presents a threat to the public health, safety, and welfare, the Commission further finds and determines that the reasonable time within which the nonconforming automotive repair use at 1732 Coolidge Avenue should be terminated 6 Resolution No. 22-2013 Page Seven September 16, 2013 is 1.69 years (1 year and 252 days) from the date of final action by the City Council. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Planning Commission recommends to the City Council that the City Council order the termination of the nonconforming automotive repair use located at 1732 Coolidge Avenue. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Planning Commission recommends to the City Council that the time period within which the nonconforming automotive repair use located at 1732 Coolidge Avenue be ordered to cease its current operations is 1.69 years (1 year and 252 days) from the date of final action by the City Council. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this action is not considered a project as defined in the California Environmental Quality Act since it does not have the potential to result in either a direct or a reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment, and is thereby not subject to the California Environmental Quality Act. CERTIFICATION: This certifies that the Resolution was adopted by the Planning Commission at their meeting of September 16, 2013, by the following vote: AYES: Alvarado, Bush, Pruitt, Baca, Garcia NAYS: DeLa Paz ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: Flores CHAIRMAN 7 RESOLUTION NO. 23-2013 RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF NATIONAL CITY RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ORDER THE AFFIRMATIVE TERMINATION BY AMORTIZATION OF THE NONCONFORMING LAND USE LOCATED AT 108 W. 18th STREET, AND RECOMMENDING A REASONABLE AMOUNT OF TIME IN WHICH SUCH USE SHALL BE ORDERED TERMINATED (JOSE'S AUTO ELECTRIC) WHEREAS, prior to March 10, 2010, the real property commonly known as 108 W. 18th Street was located in the Light Manufacturing -Residential (MLR) zone, and was devoted to automotive repair, specializing in tune-ups and brake repair, which was an allowed use in said zone; and WHEREAS, on March 10, 2010, the City Council of the City of National City adopted Resolution No. 2010-44, approving a General Plan amendment to change the land use designations for the Westside Specific Plan Area from Light Manufacturing Residential (MLR), Civic Institutional — Open Space (IC -OS), Light Manufacturing — Planned Development (ML-PD), Tourist Commercial — Planned Development (CT-PD), and Heavy Commercial (CH) to Open Space Reserve (OSR), Residential — Single Family (RS-4), Mixed Use Commercial — Residential (MCR-1), Mixed Use Commercial — Residential (MCR-2), Limited Commercial (CL), and Civic Institutional (IC) within the Westside Specific Plan area east of 1-5, west of National City Boulevard, north of Mile of Cars Way, and south of Plaza Boulevard; and WHEREAS, also on March 10, 2010, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 2010-45, adopting the Westside Specific Plan for an area located east of 1-5, west of National City Boulevard, north of Mile of Cars Way, and south of Plaza Boulevard; and WHEREAS, on August 3, 2010, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 2010- 2344, amending Chapters 18.10, 18.14, 18.16, 18.50, 18.58, 18.62, 18.88, 18.104, 18.108, and 18.140 of the National City Municipal Code to provide standards implementing the approved Westside Specific Plan; and WHEREAS, the real property commonly known as 108 W. 18th Street is located in the Westside Specific Plan area; and WHEREAS, as a result of the City Council's adoption of Resolution No. 2010- 44, approving a General Plan amendment, and of Resolution No. 2010-45, approving the Westside Specific Plan, and of Ordinance No. 2010-2344, amending the Municipal Code to provide standards to implement the Westside Specific Plan, the real property commonly known as 108 W. 18th Street was rezoned to the Limited Commercial (CL) zone; and 1 Resolution No. 23 - 2013 Page Two September 16, 2013 WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 18.11.010 of the National City Municipal Code, a nonconforming land use occurs when the land use was lawful before a zoning regulation under the Land Use Code was enacted or amended, but that land use becomes prohibited after the regulation is enacted or amended; and WHEREAS, because specialized automotive repair is not a permitted use in the Limited Commercial zone, upon the effective date of Resolution No. 2010-44, Resolution 2010-45, and Ordinance No. 2010-2344, said use became a nonconforming use on the real property commonly known as 108 W. 18th Street; and WHEREAS, Section 18.11.100 of the National City Municipal Code, titled Affirmative Termination by Amortization, was enacted in 2006. Subsection (D)(1) of Section 18.11.100 provides, in relevant part, that the City Council may order a nonconforming use to be terminated within a reasonable amount of time, upon recommendation of the Planning Commission; that the Planning Commission shall conduct a public hearing after 10 days' written notice to the nonconforming user; and that in making its recommendation to terminate a nonconforming use and in recommending a reasonable amount of time in which such use shall be terminated, the Planning Commission shall consider the following: a) The total cost of the land and improvements; b) The length of time the use has existed; c) Adaptability of the land and improvements; d) The cost of moving and reestablishing the use elsewhere; e) Whether the use is significantly nonconforming; f) Compatibility with the existing land use patterns and densities of the surrounding neighborhood; g) The possible threat to the public health, safety, or welfare; h) Any other relevant factors; and WHEREAS, in 2010, the City was awarded a technical assistance grant from the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The grant allowed the EPA and its consultant to develop a process to rank nonconforming uses in the Westside Specific Plan area using a set of objective criteria that were applied to each property and land use within the Specific Plan area. The ranking process was intended for the purpose of ranking properties with nonconforming uses within the Specific Plan area, and as a means to prioritize those properties, with those properties with the highest priority being the first to be considered for affirmative termination through amortization, subject to consideration of the factors set forth in Section 18.11.100 (D)(1) of the Municipal Code; and 2 Resolution No. 23 - 2013 Page Three September 16, 2013 WHEREAS, on July 17, 2013, pursuant to Section 18.11.100 (D)(1) of the Municipal Code, the City served a written notice of public hearing upon the owners of Jose's Auto Electric, the owners of the nonconforming specialized automotive repair business at 108 W. 18th Street. The notice advised the owners that the Planning Commission would hold a public hearing on August 19, 2013, after the hour of 6:00 p.m., in the City Council Chambers at 1243 National City Boulevard, to consider a recommendation on the affirmative termination by amortization of the nonconforming specialized automotive repair business at 108 W. 18th Street; and WHEREAS, on August 19, 2013, after the hour of 6:00 p.m., the Planning Commission held a hearing in the City Council Chambers at 1243 National City Boulevard, at which time the Commission considered recommendations on the affirmative termination by amortization, and on the reasonable amount of time in which such amortization should occur, concerning the specialized automotive repair business at 108 W. 18th Street. At said hearing, the Commission considered the Staff Report and other oral and documentary evidence, including the testimony of Brian P. Brinig, a business valuation consultant, the testimony of Raymond Pe, Principal Planner for the City, and Michael Garcia, a land use consultant. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of National City as follows: 1. That based upon the Staff Report and other oral and documentary evidence received at the time of the hearing, in making its recommendation to the City Council to terminate the use of the real property at 108 W. 18th Street for a specialized automotive repair business, and in recommending a reasonable amount of time in which such use shall be terminated, the Planning Commission makes the following findings pursuant to Section 18.11.100 (D)(1)(a)-(h) of the Municipal Code: a) The total cost of the land and improvements. (1) The term of the business owners' existing lease ends on November 30, 2018, with a current rent of $2,200 per month. The business owners have an option to extend the lease term for two additional years at the same monthly rent. (2) The assessed value of the land and improvements was obtained for the San Diego County Assessor's Office, and was considered as being potentially relevant to the analysis. However, a business enterprise that operates under a real property lease does not own the land or real property improvements from which it operates. 3 Resolution No. 23 - 2013 Page Four September 16, 2013 (3) Consequently, the historical cost of the land and improvements are not relevant to the analysis in this case. b) The length of time the use has existed. (1) According to the City's business license records, the current specialized automotive repair use has existed at this location since October 30, 2008. (2) The business relocated from 140 W. 18th Street, where it had been located since 2006. (3) Because the owners of Jose's Auto Electric have operated at this location since October 30, 2008, the owners have operated longer than the period necessary to recover their investment. c) Adaptability of the land and improvements to a currently permitted use. (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) The land area exceeds the minimum required by the Limited Commercial zone. The building size exceeds the minimum required by the Limited Commercial zone. The building does not meet the minimum setbacks required by the Limited Commercial zone. The building floor area meets the Floor Area Ratio requirements of the Limited Commercial zone. The building does not exceed the maximum height allowed by the Limited Commercial zone. The property does not meet the parking requirements of the Limited Commercial zone. The building would require major, costly rehabilitation to convert it to a type suitable for use in the Limited Commercial zone. The site frequently experiences flooding from November through February, due to its location immediately adjacent to Paradise Creek, which would make conversion of the use to retail or office use difficult. d) The cost of moving and reestablishing the use elsewhere. (1) In addition to cars, various materials, tools, and office equipment used by this type of automotive repair business have been observed on this site. (2) Based on an analysis of this use, its relocation would require labor for packing, moving, and unpacking, rental of a forklift, and the towing of cars. (3) To reestablish this use elsewhere would require searching for the new location; securing the new site (e.g., security deposit); 4 Resolution No. 23 - 2013 Page Five September 16, 2013 reestablishing phone, internet, business cards, and letterhead; marketing; and making tenant improvements (e.g., flooring, storage, shelving, lifts, electrical upgrades). (4) The estimated relocation cost for this use is $7,200. (5) The estimated cost to reestablish this use is $5,900. e) Whether the use is significantly nonconforming. (1) This automotive repair use is a significantly nonconforming use in the Limited Commercial zone. (2) The specialized automotive repair use could be converted to a retail or office use as allowed in the Limited Commercial zone after significant investment in building rehabilitation. f) Compatibility with the existing land use patterns and densities of the surrounding neighborhood. (1) The specialized automotive repair use is compatible with some of the adjacent, existing land use patterns, namely, other automotive repair uses; however, these other uses are not in conformance with the land uses allowed by the Westside Specific Plan. (2) The use is not in close proximity to residential uses. g) The possible threat to the public health, safety, or welfare. (1) Notices of violation have been issued but have been resolved. (2) The use does not have all required permits. (3) No open violations of unlawful discharges into the stormwater system are on record. (4) Hazardous materials are stored on the site. (5) No open storage of hazardous materials occurs on the site. (6) Security measures such as fencing are in place on the site. (7) One of the parcels on which the business is located is within 100 feet of Paradise Creek Park, which is considered a sensitive area. (8) The use is located more than 100 feet from Kimball Elementary School. (9) The use is not located in close proximity to residential uses. (10) The use performs no work off -site or in the public right of way. h) Any other relevant factors. (1) The Price/Earnings Ratio (P/E Ratio) was determined by the City's business valuation consultant, because the P/E Ratio indicates the number of years of eamings that it takes to recover the value of the business. Using standard business valuation sources, the P/E Ratio was determined to be in the range of 1.64 to 2.77. By converting the 5 Resolution No. 23 - 2013 Page Six September 16, 2013 P/E Ratio into years, the business owners are allowed to earn the business's net income for that number of years, thereby recovering the fair market value of their investment. Accordingly, the reasonable amortization period that would allow for the recovery of the business owners' investment, based upon the analysis of the City's business valuation consultant, is in the range of 1.64 to 2.77 years. 2. That based upon the above findings, and in particular, the findings that the historical cost of the land and improvements is irrelevant in determining a reasonable amortization period for the business at that location, that the automotive repair business has been operated at this location longer than the period necessary for the owners to recover their investment, that the use is significantly nonconforming with the uses allowed in the Limited Commercial zone, that the use is not compatible with the uses allowed in the Limited Commercial zone, and that the specialized automotive repair use at this location presents a threat to the public health, safety, and welfare, the Commission further finds and determines that the specialized automotive repair use at 108 W. 18th Street should be terminated. 3. That based upon the above findings, and in particular, the findings that the historical cost of the land and improvements at 108 W. 18th Street is irrelevant in determining a reasonable amortization period for the business at this location, that the specialized automotive repair business has been operated at this location longer than the period necessary for the owners to recover their investment, that the use is significantly nonconforming with the uses allowed in the Limited Commercial zone, that the use is not compatible with the uses allowed in the Limited Commercial zone, and that the specialized automotive repair use at this location presents a threat to the public health, safety, and welfare, the Commission further finds and determines that the reasonable time within which the nonconforming specialized automotive repair use at 108 W. 18th Street should be terminated is 1.64 years (1 year and 234 days) from the date of final action by the City Council. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Planning Commission recommends to the City Council that the City Council order the termination of the nonconforming specialized automotive repair use located at 108 W. 18th Street. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Planning Commission recommends to the City Council that the time period within which the nonconforming automotive repair use located at 108 W. 18th Street be ordered to cease its current operations is 1.64 years (1 year and 234 days) from the date of final action by the City Council. 6 Resolution No. 23 - 2013 Page Seven September 16, 2013 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this action is not considered a project as defined in the California Environmental Quality Act since it does not have the potential to result in either a direct or a reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment, and is thereby not subject to the California Environmental Quality Act. CERTIFICATION: This certifies that the Resolution was adopted by the Planning Commission at their meeting of September 16, 2013, by the following vote: AYES: Alvarado, Bush, Pruitt, Baca, Garcia NAYS: DeLa Paz ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: Flores CHAIRMAN 7 Item no. 3 August 19, 2013 CITY OF NATIONAL CITY - DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT 1243 NATIONAL CITY BLVD., NATIONAL CITY, CA 91950 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT TITLE: Public hearing to consider making recommendations to the City Council to order the termination of nonconforming land uses, and to consider making recommendations regarding a reasonable amount of time in which to terminate the nonconforming land uses located at 1732 Coolidge Avenue (Steve's West Coast Automotive) and 108 W. 18th Street (Jose's Auto Electric). RECOMMENDATION Hold a public hearing to receive public testimony regarding the proposed affirmative termination by amortization of the subject nonconforming land uses, and if the Planning Commission deems it appropriate, recommend to the City Council that the subject nonconforming land uses be terminated within a reasonable amount of time. BACKGROUND Amortization is a process that was established by City Ordinance in 2006 by which a legal nonconforming use can be required to discontinue after a reasonable amount of time. Municipal Code Section 18.11.100(D)(1), Affirmative Termination by Amortization, authorizes the City Council to order a nonconforming use to be terminated upon recommendation of the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission is required to conduct a public hearing after written notice to the nonconforming uses (Attachment 1). The Planning Commission then makes a recommendation to the City Council as to whether the nonconforming use should be ordered terminated by the Council. In making this recommendation, the Commission also recommends to the Council a reasonable amount of time in which the nonconforming use shall be terminated. A report on the legal authority for affirmative termination of nonconforming uses by amortization, prepared by special counsel George Eiser, is attached (Attachment 2). The amortization of non -conforming uses is one component of long standing efforts to reestablish the Westside as a safe, healthy, and vibrant neighborhood. In August 2004, the City retained a planning consultant to prepare the Westside Specific Plan with the ongoing participation of elected/appointed officials, community members, health service providers, property owners, and other stakeholders. The plan was adopted in March 2010, and implementing Land Use Code (zoning) amendments took effect in August 2010. Many commercial and industrial uses that were previously allowed became 'non- conforming under the new plan and land use zones, including Steve's West Coast Automotive and Jose's Auto Electric. In 2010, the City was awarded a technical assistance grant from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. The grant allowed the EPA and its consultant to develop a process to rank non -conforming uses in the Westside Specific Plan area using a set of objective criteria applied to each land use and property. The ranking of non -conforming uses represented an important step in the process to identify non -conforming uses and systematically analyze their impact on the neighborhood. The report setting forth the rankings and explaining the ranking process is attached (Attachment 3). The ranking list was presented to the City Council on July 24, 2012, and was followed by a 30-day review period to provide interested parties with an opportunity to be heard and to address issues with the ranking. One significant issue that was addressed during the review period was a correction in the ranking formula developed by the EPA. Specifically, properties located more than 1,000 feet from a sensitive use (park or school) were assigned a maximum score of 100 that was intended to be assigned to properties located within 100 feet of a sensitive use. After working with the EPA consultant to correct this error, the ranking criteria were reapplied, which resulted in a revision to the ranking list. During the 30-day review period, staff and an economic consultant conducted a detailed review of businesses on the ranking to verify non -conforming uses. Each property (use) was reviewed to determine whether it was permitted, conditionally permitted, non- conforming, or some combination thereof. The determination was based on the type of business, current land use, and actual business operations (outdoor storage, manufacturing/assembly, hazardous material handling, etc.). Information was obtained in the field and from research conducted with City, County and State agencies. The businesses included in the original ranking process were based on uses at the time of the survey in 2010. After conducting site visits of each business and verifying operations during the 30-day review period, some were determined to be conforming to the uses allowed under the current zoning. These businesses were removed from the ranking list. In December of 2012, staff and consultant met with most of the property and business owners of the top ten ranking nonconforming uses. The meetings allowed for the exchange of information and a thorough discussion of the amortization process. Most business and property owners appreciated the process and indicated an understanding of the rationale for the zoning and land use policies of the Westside Specific Plan. The meetings allowed for open communication and identified properties/businesses that could achieve voluntary compliance with the Specific Plan's land use and zoning requirements. Staff and consultants determined that the City could proceed with the affirmative termination of two non -conforming businesses at this time based on the remaining fiscal year appropriation fund balance available for the implementation of the program. The top two nonconforming uses on the revised ranking list, Steve's West Coast Automotive and Jose's Auto Electric, were selected for potential termination by amortization. At this time, it is requested that the Planning Commission, pursuant to Section 18.11.100 (D)(1) of the Municipal Code, recommend to the City Council that based upon their positions on the ranking list, the current business operations of Steve's West Coast Automotive, located at 1732 Coolidge Avenue, and Jose's Auto Electric, located at 108 W. 8th Street, be ordered terminated as nonconforming uses within a reasonable amount of time. In making its recommendation to the City Council to terminate a nonconforming use and in recommending a reasonable amount of time in which to terminate, Section 18.11.100 (D)(1) requires that the Planning Commission shall consider the following: a) The total cost of the land and improvements; b) The length of time the use has existed; c) Adaptability of the land and improvements to a currently permitted use; d) The cost of moving and reestablishing the use elsewhere; e) Whether the use is significantly nonconforming; f) Compatibility with the existing land use pattems and densities of the surrounding neighborhood; g) The possible threat to the public health, safety, or welfare; h) Any other relevant factors. Steve's West Coast Automotive is engaged in general automotive repair, and is nonconforming with present zoning because automobile repair is not a permitted use in the Single Family Residential (RS-4) zone in which it is located. Jose's Auto Electric is engaged in automobile repair specializing in tune-ups and brake repair, and is nonconforming with present zoning because automobile repair is not a permitted use in the Limited Commercial (CL) zone in which it is located. The City's business valuation consultant, Brian P. Brinig, the President of Brinig & Company, has prepared a report in which it is concluded from a business valuation standpoint that a reasonable amortization range for Steve's West Coast Automotive is from 1.69 to 2.19 years, and for Jose's Auto Electric, the range is from 1.64 to 2.77 years (Attachment 4). In making these determinations, Mr. Brinig considered the factors set forth in Subsections (D)(1)(a), (b), and (h) of Section 18.11.100 of the Municipal Code. In addition to the conclusions of the Brinig & Company report, City staff and the City's land use consultant, Mike Garcia of Tierra West, considered the factors set forth in Subsections (D)(1)(a), (b), (c), (d), (e), (f), (g), and (h) of Section 18.11.100 of the Municipal Code in making a recommendation regarding the appropriate amortization period for each business, as follows: 3 4 Steve's West Coast Automotive —1732 Coolidge Avenue a) The total cost of the land and improvements. 1. This property was transferred on 07/19/2011 to Gary Walton, and no transfer value was recorded for this transaction. According to Mr. Walton, the property was bequeathed to him. 2. The property has a current assessed value of $89,634. 3. The attached report provided by Brinig and Company details that a "business enterprise that operates under a real property lease does not own the land or real property improvements from which it operates. It occupies the real property under contract with the lessor for a defined period of time at a defined rental rate. Consequently, the historical cost of the land and improvements to the property are not relevant to the business owner although the terms of the lease may be." 4. According to Mr. Walton, the term for the lease agreement with Steve's Auto Electric ends in February 2014 with a current rental rate of $2,400 per month. 5. Due to the current lease term, a time period of 1.69 years for amortization as detailed in the Brinig and Company report could be utilized in consideration of this factor. b) The length of time the use has existed. 1. The current use has existed at the site according its business license application date since 4/26/2004. 2. Based on this information Steve's West Coast Automotive has existed longer than the number of years of income indicated in its price/earnings ratio range of 1.69 to 2.19 times net eamings. Therefore, the owner has achieved a payback period commensurate with the value of the business. 3. This location had a series of businesses utilizing the "West Coast" name dating to 1999. 4. Based on this additional length of time that this auto repair type uses has been operating at this location it is recommended that the longer amortization period of 2.19 years be utilized for amortization of this nonconforming use. c) Adaptability of the land and improvements to a currently permitted use. 1. The land area exceeds the minimum required by the Mixed Use Commercial Residential zone. 2. The building size exceeds the minimum required by the Mixed Use Commercial Residential zone. 3. The building type is meets that usable in the Mixed Use Commercial Residential zone. 4. The building would require major rehabilitation to convert this to a budding type suitable in the Mixed Use Commercial Residential zone for such uses as residential over retail or residential over office mixed uses. 4 5. The building does meet the minimum setbacks required by the Mixed Use Commercial Residential zone. 6. The building floor area meets the Floor Area Ratio requirements of the Mixed Use Commercial Residential zone. 7. The building does not exceed the maximum height allowed by the Mixed Use Commercial Residential zone. 8. The property meets the parking requirements in the Mixed Use Commercial Residential zone. 9. Due to the major rehabilitation costs required for converting the building to a mixed use residential over retail or office use it is recommended that the longer amortization .period of 2.19 years be utilized. d) The cost of moving and reestablishing the use elsewhere. 1. The business was noted to have 20 cars on -site, three hydraulic lifts, and various materials/tools/office equipment pertinent to this type of auto repair shop. 2. Based on an analysis of this business operation, the relocation of this use would require labor for moving/packing/unpacking, a forklift rental and towing of approximately 20 cars. 3. An estimate to relocate this business of $15,600 is provided. 4. The cost to reestablish the use elsewhere includes costs for searching for the new location, costs to secure the new site (security deposit and other potential costs), costs associated with reestablishing the business (phone, fax, Internet, business cards, letterhead, marketing and other costs), and potential costs for tenant improvements (flooring, storage, shelving, lifts, electrical upgrades, and other potential improvements). 5. An estimate to reestablish this business is $9,300. 6. Due to the costs associated with relocating and reestablishing this business elsewhere it is recommended that the longer amortization period of 2.19 years be utilized. e) Whether the use is significantly nonconforming. 1. This auto repair shop is not a conforming use in the Mixed Use Commercial Residential zone. 2. The use could be converted to a mixed residential over retail or office building as permitted in the Mixed Use Commercial Residential zone after significant investment in building rehabilitation. 3. It is recommended that the longer amortization period of 2.19 years be utilized. f) Compatibility with the existing land use patterns and densities of the surrounding neighborhood. 1. The use is compatible with some of the adjacent, existing land use patterns (auto repair uses), but these uses are not in conformance with the allowed land uses in the Westside Specific Plan. 2. The use is in close proximity to residential uses. 5 E g) 3. The residential density of the area is equal or Tess than 40 parcels per acre. 4. Due to Steve's West Coast Automotive nonconformance with allowed land uses in the Westside Specific Plan, a shorter time period for amortization of 1.69 years could be utilized in consideration of this factor. The possible threat to the public health, safety, or welfare. 1. Notices of violation have been resolved. 2. The use has required permits. 3. The use does store hazardous wastes. 4. Notices of discharge violations have been resolved. 5. Open storage does occur on property. 6. This business does perform work off -site or in the public right of way. 7. Security measures such as fencing are in place at this business. 8. This business is located closer than 100 feet from Kimball Elementary. 9. Due to Steve's West Coast Automotive close proximity to a sensitive use the shorter time period for amortization of 1.69 years could be utilized in consideration of this factor. h) Any other relevant factors. Other than those analyzed in the report of Brinig & Company, no other relevant factors were considered for this business. In consideration of all eight factors in analyzing an amortization period for this nonconforming use it is recommended that 2.19 years be utilized for Steve's West Coast Automotive. 6 Jose's Auto Electric -108 W. 18th Street a) The total cost of the land and improvements. 1. This property was transferred on 03/28/2008 to the Reid Hutchinson LLC. and no transfer value was recorded for this transaction. 2. The property has a current assessed value of $89,634. 3. The attached report provided by Brinig and Company details that a "business enterprise that operates under a real property lease does not own the land or real property improvements from which it operates. It occupies the real property under contract with the lessor for a defined period of time at a defined rental rate. Consequently, the historical cost of the land and improvements to the property are not relevant to the business owner although the terms of the lease may be." 4. According to the lease agreement between Jose's Auto Electric and Reid Hutchison LLC., the term for the agreement was for five years from December 1, 2008 to November 30, 2013. A 2nd Addendum to the lease agreement was executed establishing a rental rate of $2,200 per month from December 1, 2012 to November 30, 2018 with an option to renew the lease at the same rental rate for two (2) additional years. 5. Due to the current 6-year lease term with two additional years for renewal it is recommended that the Jose's Auto Electric be given the longest time period of 2.77 years for amortization as detailed in the Brinig and Company report, as attached. b) The length of time the use has existed. 1. The current use has existed at the site according business license records since 10/30/2008. 2. This business relocated from 140 W. 18th Street where it had been established since 2006. 3. Based on this information, Jose's Auto Electric has existed longer than the number of years of income indicated in its price/eamings ratio range of 1.64 to 2.77 times net earnings. Therefore, the owner has achieved a payback period commensurate with the value of the business. 4. Jose's Auto Electric was located nearby at 140 W. 18th Street and has built a customer based from local residents and businesses. Based on this additional length of time operating as a business on 18th Street it is recommended that the longer amortization period of 2.77 years be utilized for amortization of this nonconforming use. c) Adaptability of the land and improvements to a currently permitted use. 1. The land area exceeds the minimum required by the Limited Commercial zone. 2. The building size exceeds the minimum required by the Limited Commercial zone. 3. The building type is meets that usable in the Limited Commercial zone. 7 4. The building would require major rehabilitation to convert this to a building type suitable in the Limited Commercial Zone for such uses as retail or office. 5. The building does not meet the minimum setbacks required by the Limited Commercial zone. 6. The building floor area meets the Floor Area Ratio requirements of the Limited Commercial zone. 7. The building does not exceed the maximum height allowed by the Limited Commercial zone. 8. The parking requirements per the Limited Commercial zone are more lenient in the Westside Specific Plan and would require 3.6 space per 1,000 square feet of retail space (normally 4 per 1,000) or 2.9 spaces per 1,000 square feet of office space (normally 5 per 1,000). 9. The land frequently experiences flooding due to its location immediately adjacent to Paradise Creek from November through February, which would make conversion to a retail or office use difficult. 10. Due to the major rehabilitation costs required for converting the building to a retail or office use, and the flooding issues that might necessitate a building built above parking with flood channels to protect the parking areas from flooding; it is recommended that the longer amortization period of 2.77 years be utilized. I) The cost of moving and reestablishing the use elsewhere. 1. The business was noted to have two cars on -site and various inventory/materials/tools/office equipment pertinent to this type of auto repair shop. 2. Based on an analysis of this business operation the relocation of this use would labor for moving/packing/unpacking, a forklift rental and towing of approximately two cars. 3. An estimate to relocate this business of $7,200 is provided. 4. The cost to reestablish the use elsewhere includes costs for searching for the new location, costs to secure the new site (security deposit and other potential costs), costs associated with reestablishing the business (phone, fax, Internet, business cards, letterhead, marketing and other costs), and potential costs for tenant improvements (flooring, storage, shelving, lifts, electrical upgrades, and other potential improvements). 5. An estimate to reestablish this business is $5,900. 6. Due to the costs associated with relocating and reestablishing this business elsewhere it is recommended that a longer amortization period of 2.77 years be utilized. e) Whether the use is significantly nonconforming. 1. This auto repair shop is not a conforming use in the Limited Commercial zone. 8 In consideration of all eight factors in analyzing an amortization period for this nonconforming use it is recommended that the longer amortization period of 2.77 years be utilized for Jose's Auto Electric. CONCLUSION Taking the report of Brinig & Company into consideration, including the factors set forth is Section 18.11.100(D)(1)(a)-(h) of the Municipal Code, staff recommends that the high end of the ranges be applied to each of the respective businesses. Consequently, Steve's West Coast Automotive would have 2.19 years to discontinue operations, and Jose's Auto Electric would have 2.77 years to discontinue operations. The two businesses were selected for amortization as the highest ranking nonconforming uses surveyed within the Westside Specific Plan area. The City will continue to work with the property owners to identify potential uses that would be allowed by the underlying zones. The City will also work with the business owners to identify locations that are appropriately zoned for their current operations. The number of uses proposed to be amortized at this time is based on the budget appropriated to this program for fiscal year 2012/13. RAYMOND PE Principal Planner ATTACHMENTS 1431/ BRAD RAULSTON Executive Director 1. Notices of Public Hearing 2. Report on Legal Authority for Affirmative Termination of Nonconforming Uses by Amortization 3. EPA Ranking Report & Final Ranking 4. Brinig & Company Report / Amortization Schedules 10 ATTACHMENT 1 CM-0ORstIA f a . Ta July 17, 2013 Jose's Auto Electric Attn: Jose & Alma Ramirez 108 W. 18th Street National City, CA 91950 RE: NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING Amortization of Nonconforming Land Use Jose's Auto Electric 108 W. 18th Street, National City, CA Dear Mr. & Ms. Ramirez, The Planning Commission will hold a public hearing on Monday, August 19, 2013 after the hour of 6 p.m. in the City Council Chambers at 1243 National City Boulevard to consider a recommendation on the affirmative termination by amortization of the aboveaonconforming land use. Amortization is a process established by Ordinance in 2006 by legal nonconforming use can be required to discontinue after a reasonable amount of time. Our consultant has prepared an amortization schedule with a timeframe range for the termination of the nonconforming use. Staff will recommend the high end of the range (2.77 years) as the time period to discontinue the use. In the meantime, the City will be available to work with you to Identify locations that are appropriately zoned for the continued operation of the business. The City will also be available to work with the property owner to identify conforming uses that would be allowed by the underlying Limited Commercial (CL) zone. If you have any questions, please contact Raymond Pe at (619) 336-4240 or our consultant Michael Garcia of Tierra West Advisors, Inc. at (714) 309-1104. Sincerely, Brad Raulston Executive Director cc: Reid Hutchison LLC 22302 Redbeam Avenue Torrance, CA 90505 1243 National City Boulevard, National City, California 91950 (619) 336-4240 www.nationaicityca.gov 1: ATTACHMENT 2 14 THE LEGAL BASIS FOR AFFIRMATIVE TERMINATION OF NONCONFORMING USES THROUGH AMORTIZATION George H. Eiser, Ill Attorney at Law Meyers Nave 633 West 5th Street Suite 1700 Los Angeles, CA 90071 760.828.2928 geiser@meyersnave.com 1: I NONCONFORMING USES Pursuant to Section 18.11.010 of the National City Municipal Code, a `nonconforming use" occurs when a land use was lawful before a zoning regulation under the Land Use Code was enacted or amended, but that land use becomes prohibited after the regulation is enacted or amended. Generally, pursuant to 18.11.020 of the Municipal Code, a nonconforming use may be continued for an indefinite period of time, provided that the use is not expanded or extended. An exception is provided in Sections 18.11.030 and 18.11.040 of the Municipal Code, which provide that a nonconforming use located in the Westside Specific Plan area may convert to another nonconforming use identified in the Municipal Code. II AMORTIZATION Although it is the general rule that a nonconforming use may be continued indefinitely, a nonconforming use may instead be terminated after a specified period of time through the enactment of an ordinance providing for the "amortization" of nonconforming uses. Amortization is the method of determining the useful life of a nonconforming use or structure and prohibiting continuation of the use or structure no later than the expiration of an amortization period. The amortization process can be applied to nonconforming buildings or other structures (such as signs) or to the nonconforming use of land. The distinction is important because most ordinances provide a shorter amortization period for nonconforming uses than for nonconforming buildings or structures. This difference in treatment is permissible because of the difference in the effect of eliminating the two classes of nonconformity. In the case of nonconforming uses, the investment of the user is usually less than the investment in a nonconforming building or structure; thus, terminating a nonconforming use in a shorter period of time results in less of a financial impact. (8-262, California Real Estate Law & Practice (2013) Matthew Bender & Company, Inc.). The current implementation of National City's amortization ordinance on the City's Westside involves only the amortization of nonconforming uses . III NATIONAL CITY'S AMORTIZATION ORDINANCE The enabling ordinance establishing National City's authority for the affirmative termination of nonconforming uses through amortization was enacted in 2006 and is codified in Subsection (D) (1) of Section 18.11.100 of the National City Municipal Code. Subsection (D) (1) states as follows: D. Affirmative Termination by Amortization 1. The city council of the City of National City may order a nonconforming use to be terminated within a reasonable amount of time, upon recommendation of the planning commission. The planning commission shall conduct a public hearing after 10 days' written notice to the nonconforming user. If the nonconforming user has not made a substantial investment in furtherance of the use, or if the investment can be substantially utilized or recovered through a currently permitted use, the order may require complete termination of the nonconforming use within a minimum of one year after the date of the order. If the nonconforming user has made a substantial investment in furtherance of the use, or if the investment cannot be substantially utilized or recovered through a currently permitted use, the order may require the complete termination of the nonconforming use within a longer 2 1 reasonable amount of time. Nonconforming uses that are determined to be an imminent threat to the public health or safety may be terminated immediately, pursuant to Chapter 1.36 of this Municipal Code. In making its recommendation to terminate a nonconforming use and in recommending a reasonable amount of time in which to terminate, the planning commission shall consider: a. The total cost of the land and improvements; b. The length of time the use has existed; c. Adaptability of the land and improvements to a currently permitted use; d. The cost of moving and reestablishing the use elsewhere; e. Whether the use is significantly nonconforming; f. Compatibility with the existing land use patterns and densities of the surrounding neighborhood; g. The possible threat to the public health, safety, or welfare; h. Any other relevant factors The term "nonconforming use" when used in this section shall include nonconforming uses, nonconforming structures, and nonconforming lots, consistent with the intent of this title. This amortization section does not apply to any lawful nonconforming residential uses. Failure to comply with the city councils order to terminate a nonconforming use shall constitute a violation of this chapter and is a public nuisance subject to abatement in accordance with Chapter 1.36 of this Code. 3 if A true and correct copy of Chapter 18.11 of the Municipal Code, including Section 18.11.100, is attached hereto as Exhibit "A." IV THE ADOPTION OF THE WESTSIDE SPECIFIC PLAN, AND REZONING OF THE WESTSIDE SPECIFIC PLAN AREA On March 10, 2010, the City Council of the City of National City adopted Resolution No. 2010-44, approving a General Plan Amendment to change the land use designations for the Westside Specific Plan Area from Light Manufacturing -Residential and Civic Institutional -Open Space Reserve to Multi -Use Commercial Residential, Limited Commercial, Residential Single - Family, Civic Institutional, and Open Space Reserve within the Westside Specific Plan Area east of I-5, west of National City Boulevard, north of Mile of Cars Way, and south of Plaza Boulevard. A true and correct copy of Resolution No. 2010-44 attached hereto as Exhibit "B." Also on March 10, 2010, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 2010-45, adopting the Westside Specific Plan for an area located east of I-5, west of National City Boulevard, north of Mile of Cars Way, and south of Plaza Boulevard. A true and correct copy of Resolution 2010-45 is attached hereto as Exhibit "C." A true and correct copy of the map depicting the land area located within the Westside Specific Plan is attached hereto as Exhibit "D." On August 3, 2010, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 2010-2344, amending Chapters 18.10, 18.14, 18.16, 18.50, 18.58, 18.62, 18.88, 18.104, 18.108, and 18.140 of the Municipal Code to provide standards implementing the approved Westside Specific Plan. A true and correct copy of Ordinance No. 2010-2344 is attached hereto as Exhibit "E." 4 1 The Westside Specific Plan, as approved and implemented by Resolution Nos. 2010-44 and 2010-45, and by Ordinance No. 2010-2344, designates the land uses which are allowed in the portion of the City included within the Specific Plan area. As a result of these enactments, certain uses within the Specific Plan area that were lawful prior to the enactments became nonconforming. V THE AUTHORITY OF A CITY TO CAUSE THE AFFIRMATIVE TERMINATION OF NONCONFORMING USES THROUGH AMORTIZATION HAS BEEN FIRMLY ESTABLISHED BY THE COURTS The authority of a city to cause the termination of nonconforming uses through amortization has been consistently recognized by the courts as a valid exercise of the city's "police power." The police power is derived from Article XI, Section 7 of the California Constitution, which confers on cities the power to "make and enforce within its limits all local police, sanitary, and other ordinances and regulations not in conflict with general laws." In City ofLos Angeles v. Gage (1954) 127 Cal. App. 2d 442, a property owner established his residence and plumbing business on a parcel of property in the City of Los Angeles. The use of the property for both a residence and a plumbing business was in conformity with the zoning of the property at the time. Approximately 16 years later, the Los Angeles City Council rezoned the property, the result of which was to make the use of the property for a plumbing business nonconforming. At the time the property was rezoned, the Los Angeles Municipal Code provided that as a commercial or industrial use, the use of the property as a plumbing business must be discontinued within five years. The city filed a suit for an injunction to compel the 5 20 termination of the plumbing business. At trial, the court concluded that the property owner had become vested with the right to use the property for the purpose that it was used, and that the ordinance requiring him to discontinue that use was void as applied to the property owner because it deprived him of property without due process of law. The decision of the trial court was reversed on appeal. The Court of Appeal determined that the enforcement of the amortization ordinance as to the property owner was a constitutionally valid exercise of the city's police power, and did not deprive the property owner of his property without due process of law. In reversing the trial court, the Court &Appeal, in a thoughtfully -worded opinion, set forth the following points: • Zoning laws are enacted in the exercise of the police power. A zoning law is presumptively valid, and the burden is on the one assailing it to overcome the presumption (at p. 450). • The police power is not restricted to the suppression of nuisances. It includes the regulation of the use of property to the end that the public health, morals, safety, and general welfare may not be impaired or endangered (at p. 451). • A municipality has the power to establish and maintain residential and quasi -residential districts, and to exclude therefrom all nonconforming and conflicting uses (at p. 451). • The power to declare a zoning ordinance unconstitutional should be exercised only where no reason exists to support the determination of the legislative body (at p. 451). • The right of a city council, in the exercise of the police power, to regulate or, in proper cases, to prohibit the conduct of a given business, is not limited by the fact that the value of investments made in the business prior to any legislative action will be greatly diminished (at p. 453). 6 2 • A business which, when established, was entirely unobjectionable, may, by the growth or change in character of the neighborhood, become a source of danger to the public health, morals, safety, or general welfare of those who have come to be occupants of the surrounding property (at p. 453). • The effect of zoning restrictions may be to depreciate sharply the value of a particular parcel. The mere fact that some hardship is experienced is not material since every exercise of the police power is apt to affect adversely the property interest of somebody (at p. 453). • There is a growing tendency to guard against the indefinite continuance of nonconforming uses by providing for their liquidation within a prescribed period (at p. 454). • The general purpose of present-day zoning ordinances is to eventually end all nonconforming uses (at p. 454). • Certainly the maximum benefit of zoning ordinances cannot be obtained as long as nonconforming businesses remain in residential districts, and their gradual elimination is within the police power (at p. 455). • Having the undoubted power to establish residential districts, the legislative body has the power to make such classification really effective by adopting such reasonable regulations as would be conducive to the welfare, health, and safety of those desiring to live in such district and enjoy the benefits thereof. There would be no object in creating a residential district unless there were to be secured to those dwelling therein the advantages which are ordinarily considered the benefits of such residence. It would seem to be the logical and reasonable method of approach to place a time limit upon the continuance of existing nonconforming uses, commensurate with the investment involved and based on the nature of the use (at p. 459). 7 2." • The distinction between an ordinance restricting future uses and one requiring the termination of present uses is one of degree (at p. 460). • The elimination of existing uses within a reasonable time does not amount to a taking of property nor does it necessarily restrict the use of property so that it cannot be used for any reasonable purpose (at p. 460). As in many of the appellate court decisions considering challenges to amortization regulations, People ex. rel. Department of Public Works v. Adco Advertisers (1973) 35 Cal. App. 3d 507 involves the application of such regulations to billboards, also referred to as "off - premises" signs. In Adco, the State of California Department of Public Works sought an injunction to compel the removal of a billboard owned by Adco Advertisers, alleging that the billboard violated the state Outdoor Advertising Act. Adco had installed the billboard in late 1967 pursuant to a permit it had obtained from the state. The State Legislature amended the Act in 1970, and the subject billboard, although in compliance with the Act at the time it was installed, no longer complied with the Act as amended. An amortization period of two years and eight months applied to the removal of the billboard. Adco refused to remove the billboard at the end of that period, alleging that the amortization period was too short and for that reason deprived it of due process of law. In upholding the reasonableness of the amortization period, the Court of Appeal rejected Adco's argument, finding that Adco had provided no evidence, as opposed to its "bare conclusion," that the amortization period was too short. United Business Commission v. City of San Diego (1979) 91 Cal. App. 3d 156 was a case involving the compelled removal of "on -premises" signs. In that case, the City of San Diego enacted a comprehensive sign ordinance regulating such signs; the ordinance provided an effective amortization period of just under seven years, with the possibility of an extension of 8 2 this period for an additional three-year period pursuant to an appeal process. A sign owner filed a suit to have the ordinance declared unconstitutional. The sign owner contended that the amortization period was unreasonable, and that the amortization provisions constituted "a masquerade of [the city's] power of eminent domain under the guise of the police power." !n upholding the validity of the ordinance, including its amortization provisions, as a valid exercise of the city's police power, the opinion of the Court of Appeal set forth the following points: • Implicit in the police power, as differentiated from the power of eminent domain, is the principle that incidental injury to an individual will not prevent its operation, once it is shown to be exercised for proper purposes of public health, safety, morals, and general welfare, and there is no arbitrary and unreasonable application in the particular case (at p. 180). • The determination of the length of a reasonable period -of amortization is not merely a matter of accounting. It is not required that the nonconforming property concerned have no value at the termination date. The determination instead involves a process of weighing the public gain to be derived from a speedy removal of the nonconforming use against the private loss which removal of the use would entail (at p. 180). • Plaintiff [sign owner] has the burden of proving the amortization period is unreasonable (at p. 181). Costner v. City of Oakland (1982) 129 Cal. App. 3d 94 involved an ordinance providing for the amortization of nonconforming uses. An ordinance of the City of Oakland banned adult entertainment activity within 1,000 feet of a residential zone. The ordinance provided for a one- year grace period for non -conforming uses and two additional years of grace for operations 9 2' obligated by a written lease, or whose activity involved investment of money in leasehold or improvements such that the longer period would be necessary to prevent financial hardship. The owner of an adult bookstore located less than the permitted distance from a residential zone filed a suit to compel the city to issue him a conditional use permit to continue the operation of his bookstore beyond the ordinance's one-year grace period. The bookstore owner argued that the ordinance was unconstitutional because it caused him to lose his vested right to operate an adult entertainment business which was in existence before the ordinance was enacted. The Court of Appeal upheld the validity of the amortization provisions, stating that "California cases have firmly held zoning legislation may validly provide for the eventual termination of nonconforming property uses without compensation if it provides a reasonable amortization period commensurate with the investment involved." Further, the Court cited the United Business Commission v. City of San Diego decision in holding that the business owner "has the burden of establishing the unreasonableness of the amortization period applied to his vested right." (Castner, at p. 96). Among the many appellate court cases in which the validity of regulations requiring the amortization of nonconforming billboards has been considered, Metromedia, Inc. v. City of San Diego (1980) 26 Cal. 3d 848, decided by the California Supreme Court, would be considered a landmark decision. Metromedia involved an ordinance of the City of San Diego which banned off -site commercial billboards and required the removal of existing billboards following expiration of an amortization period of between one and four years. The plaintiffs, owners of billboards affected by the ordinance, sued to have enforcement of the ordinance enjoined, contending the ordinance was invalid as an unreasonable exercise of the police power and an abridgement of constitutional guarantees of freedom of speech and the press. With 10 2 respect to the First Amendment issues, the Court rejected the plaintiffs' arguments and upheld the validity of the ordinance; however, with respect to those issues only, the Court's decision was later reversed by the U.S. Supreme Court. The California Supreme Court also held that the amortization period of the ordinance, which ranged from one to four years, was not unreasonable on its face. This portion of the Court's opinion was not overturned on appeal. In making its determination on the issue of amortization, the Court's decision set forth the following points: • California decisions establish that a city seeking to eliminate nonconforming uses may pursue two constitutionally equivalent alternatives: It can eliminate the use immediately by payment of just compensation, or it can require removal of the use without compensation following a reasonable amortization period (at p. 881). • Our conclusion that the amortization schedule established in the San Diego ordinance is not facially unreasonable does not demonstrate its validity as applied to each of plaintiffs' signs. The reasonableness of an amortization period as applied to each billboard depends in part upon facts peculiar to that structure. Such facts include the cost of the billboard, its depreciated value, remaining useful life, the length and remaining term of the lease under which it is maintained, and the harm to the public if the structure remains standing beyond the prescribed amortization period (at pp. 883-884). • If the amortization period prescribed by the ordinance is a reasonable one, the fact that the city arrived at that period by a formula which did not include every one of the relevant considerations does not render its ordinance unconstitutional (at p. 884). 11 21 VI A LAND USE REGULATION DOES NOT CONSTITUTE A "TAKING" UNLESS IT DEPRIVES THE PROPERTY OWNER OF ALL ECONOMICALLY VIABLE USE OF HIS OR HER PROPERTY In Agins v. City of Tiburon (1980) 447 US 255, the United States Supreme Court held that the application of a land use regulation to a specific property is a taking if it "does not substantially advance legitimate state interests or denies an owner economically viable use of his land." (Agins, at p. 260). In a later decision, Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council (1992) 505 US 1003, the Court clarified that under the standard set forth in Agins, the regulation must deprive the owner of all economically viable use of his or her property. More recently, in Lingle v. Chevron U.S.A. (2005) 544 US 528, the Court partly overturned Agins by holding that a regulation does not constitute a taking on the grounds that it fails to substantially advance legitimate state interests; rather, there must be a total deprivation of all economically viable use of property. Pursuant to the City's program for affirmative termination of nonconforming uses through amortization, nonconforming uses required to be discontinued because they are prohibited under the regulations of the Westside specific Plan may 1) be converted to a myriad of conforming uses, or 2) be converted to several other nonconforming uses specified in the Municipal Code. Thus, there is no deprivation of all economically viable use of the affected properties. 12 2 VII CONCLUSION Over the years, a body of appellate case law has developed concerning the affirmative termination of nonconforming uses through amortization. That case law has established that a city may affirmatively terminate a nonconforming use without payment of compensation following a reasonable amortization period. Further, the elimination of a nonconforming within a reasonable period of amortization does not amount to a taking, even where the value of the nonconforming user's land or business is greatly diminished. A variety of factors must be considered in establishing the appropriate amortization period, and each case must be determined based upon its own facts. If the nonconforming user disputes the city's determination as to the appropriate length of the amortization period, the nonconforming user has the burden of proving that the amortization period as determined by the city is unreasonable. 13 2! NATIONAL CITY MUNICIPAL CODE A Codification of the General Ordinances of the City of National City, California Beginning with Sapp. No. 24, Supplemented by Municipal Code Corporation CERTIFIED TO BEA TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE BRIWN�.DOCt7M@rTl' Micbsel R. Dalla. try Oak City of National City MMunicipal Code Corporation PO E)ox 2235. Tialtahaloes, FL 32316 j8DO-282 2633 • Fax 850-575-8852 M .Cum • info@inunktode.00m (Notional City Sapp No. 24) EXHIBIT "A" 2 Municode Page 1 of 7 National City, California, Code of Ordinances» - SUPPLEMENT HISTORY TABLE» Title 18 -ZONING » DIVISION 1. - GENERAL PROVISIONS» Chapter 18.11 - NONCONFORMING USES. STRUCTURES, AND PARCELS » Chapter 18,11 - NONCONFORMING USES, STRUCTURES, AND PARCELS Sections: 18.11.010 -purpose. 18.11.020 - Continuance, 18.11.030 - Enlargements and alterations. 18.11.040 - Substituion of nonconforming uses, 18.11.050 - Partially destroyed structures. 18.11.060 Religious institutions, 18.11.070 - Single-family dwellings, 18.11.080 - Nonconforming narking fac thties. 18,11.090 - Nonconforming signs 18.11.100 - Termination. 18.11.110 - Exemptions 18.11.010 - Purpose. Within the zones established by this title, there exist uses, structures and Tots which were lawful before the Land Use Code was adopted or amended, but which would be prohibited under the terms of this title or future amendment to this title. It is the Intent of this title to permit these nonconforming uses to continue until they are terminated, but not to encourage their expansion. To avoid undue hardship, nothing in this chapter shall be deemed to require a change in the plans, construction, or designated use of any building where a building permit has been issued prior to the effective date of the Land Use Code, provided such permit construction is diligently carried to completion. (Ord No. 2012-2372, Exh. 8-1, 2-7-2012) 18.11.020 - Continuance. Any lawful nonconforming use existing at the time of adoption of the Land Use Code may be continued, provided such use is continually maintained and occupied. A nonconforming use in either a conforming building or a nonconforming building, structure, or portion of either shall neither be extended to any portion of the building or structure not so used nor be enlarged or extended to any other portion of the lot not actually so occupied at the time said use became nonconforming, except as otherwise provided in this chapter. (Ord. No. 2012-2372, Exh. B-1, 2-7-2012) 18.11.030 - Enlargements and alterations. A. Changes to Nonconforming Uses. No existing building or premises designed, arranged, intended, or devoted to a use not permitted in the zone in which such building or premises is located shall be enlarged, extended, reconstructed or structurally altered, except: 1. Work done in any period of twelve months on ordinary structural atterations or replacements of walls, fixtures or plumbing not exceeding twice the building's http://library.municode.00m/print.aspx?h=&clientm=16516&HTMRequest=http%3a%2f... 5/28/2013 31 Municode Page 2 of 7 assessed value, according to the assessment thereof by the county assessor for the fiscal year in which such work is done, shall be permitted. 2. These provisions shall not prevent the expansion, increase in capacity, modernization or replacement of such public utility buildings, structures, equipment, and features as are used directly for the delivery of or distribution of the service; provided, however, that all setback requirements of the zone in which the site is located shall be maintained and there shall be no enlargement of the site. 3. A single-family detached dwelling may be reconstructed or remodeled in accordance with the standards of the existing structure, i.e., in the same building location on the lot, the same size of the existing structure, and the same height as the existing structure; however, different materials and architectural details may be used. 4• A nonconforming use located in the Westside Specific Plan area that substitutes another nonconforming use in compliance with Section 18.11.040 may expand, enlarge, reconstruct, or structurally alter the footprint of the existing building or structure for that substituted nonconforming use up to twenty percent within the existing parcel in which it is located, subject to first obtaining a conditional use permit. (Oni. No. 2012-2372, Exh. 8-1, 2-7.2012) 18.11.040 - Substituion of nonconforming uses. A. Conversion of Nonconforming Uses. A nonconforming use may not be converted to any use except to a specifically permitted use in the zone of the parcel on which 11 is located; except that conversion of a lawful nonconforming use to a nonconforming use found by the planning commission to be a lawful nonconforming use on another site within the same zone may be allowed where a conditional use permit therefore has been approved; provided, that this shall in no way extend the abatement provisions contained in this chapter. The exception stated in this paragraph of allowing a conversion of a lawful nonconforming use to another nonconforming use within the same zone does not apply to nonconforming uses located within the Westside Specific Plan area. B. Nonconforming Uses Located Within the Westside Specific Plan Area. 1 • A nonconforming use located on a parcel or parcels located within the Westside Specific Plan may not be converted to any use except to a specifically permitted use in the zone of the parcel or parcels on which it is located, except as follows: a• A nonconforming use may be converted to any use which is specifically permitted in the allowable uses for any of the zones identified in Appendix A of the Westside Specific Plan. 2. A nonconforming use that converts to another nonconforming use from Appendix A may enlarge and alter their footprint to the extent allowed in Section 18.11.030 C. Nonconforming Uses in the CA Zone. In the CA zone where there exists commercial retail shopping facilities which became nonconforming at the time of the adoption of the Land Use Code, such facilities may continue to lease commercial space to uses typical of such facilities but not otherwise permitted in the CA zone. (Ord. No. 2012-237Z Exh. 8-1, 2-7-2012) 18.11.050 - Partially destroyed structures. A. Nonconforming Buildings or Structures that Become Damaged. A nonconforming building or structure which is damaged or destroyed by fire, explosion, or natural disaster may be restored and the occupancy or use of such structure or part thereof existing at the time of such partial destruction may be continued or resumed provided: 1. Such restoration results in an equal or lesser degree of nonconformity; 2. http://library.municode.com/print.aspx?h=&clienttID =16516&HTMRequest=http%3a%2f... 5/28/2013 Municode Page 3 of 7 The total cost of such restoration for structures other than single-family detached dwellings does not exceed one-half the replacement cost of the structure at the time of such damage (the replacement cost will be calculated by the department of building and housing); 3. Such restoration is started within a period of one year and is carried out diligently to completion; 4. Such damage or destruction of structures is not intentionally caused by the owner. (Ord. No. 2012-2972, Exh. B-1, 2-7-2012) 18.11.060 - Religious institutions. Religious Institutions of a permanent nature which became nonconforming at the time of adoption of the Land Use Code may be continued, reconstructed, structurally altered, extended or enlarged subject to plans approved by the planning commission for any reconstruction, alteration, extension or enlargement and provided such reconstruction, alteration, extension or enlargement conforms with all other provisions of this title; and provided, further, that said extension, reconstruction, alteration or enlargement shall not be extended to additional property beyond the parcel(s) upon which the nonconforming use exists. (Ora. No. 2012-2372, Exh. B-1, 2-7-2012) 18.11.070 - Single-family dwellings. A. Nonconforming Single -Family Dwellings. Single-family dwellings which became nonconforming uses at the time of adoption of the Land Use Code or of amendments to the code may be continued, reconstructed, structurally altered, extended or enlarged In conformance with the following: 1. Enlargement or extension of a single-family detached dwelling shall conform to the standards of the zone which applies to the property. If a proposed enlargement or extension, except in the coastal zone, results In more then two thousand five hundred square feet of floor area and/or more than four bedrooms, parking fadlities shall be provided for the increase but not for any existing deficiency in such facilities. Parking facilities required as a result of this section may be provided in a garage, carport, or surface space. 2. No increase in parking over that previously provided shall be required for reconstruction of a nonconforming single-family residential use destroyed or partially destroyed by natural disaster, but may be permitted, in conformance to development standards of the zone which applies to the property. (Ord No. 20i2-2372, Exh. B-1, 2-7-2012) 18.11.080 - Nonconforming parking facilities. A. Use Made Nonconforming by Off -Street Parking Requirements. 1. Any use, excluding a single-famiy detached dwelling, which is nonconforming only because of changes made in the off-street parking requirements by the adoption of the Land Use Code, or any amendment thereto, may be expanded, increased or modified, or converted to a conforming use, and no addition to or change in the off- street parking facliities shall be required except as identified below. 2. If the existing off-street parking facilities are not sufficient to comply with the requirements of this title after such expansion, increase or modification, additional parking facilities shall be added. 3. The capacity of said facilities shall equal the difference between the off-street parking facilities this title would require for such use as expanded, increased or modified, and http://library.municode.com/print.aspx?h=&clientID=16516&HTMRequest=http%3 a%2f... 5/28/2013 3; Municode Page 4 of 7 the off-street parking facilities as required for such use before said expansion, increase or modification. 4. This shall not apply to entertainment and public assembly type uses which shall provide the full amount of parking otherwise required. 5. Any additional off-street parking facilities provided under these conditions shall be developed pursuant to the provisions of Chanter 18.45 (Off -Street Parking and Loading). 6. Any modification of off-street parking requirements permitted by this section shall not be construed to extend the termination date of the subject nonconforming use, as specified by this title. (Ord. No. 2012-2372, Exh. B-1, 2-7-2012) 18.11.090 - Nonconforming signs. A. Nonconforming Sign Regulations. 1. In cases where the area of signs existing as a lawful nonconforming use on a property exceeds the total allowable area for permitted signs, no additional signs shall be permitted on the property. tithe size or configuration of a parcel or building is changed by the subdivision or splitting of the property or alterations to the building or parcel, property identification signs and outdoor advertising signs on the resulting properties shall be required to conform to the sign regulations applicable to the newly created parcel or parcels, at the time such change becomes effective. 2. In the event a use of any site or building is vacated, terminated or abandoned, for any reason, for a period of more than one ninety consecutive days, the owner or person in possession of the property shall be responsible for the removal of all signs on the property, building or wall, or for having the copy thereon painted out, immediately upon notice from the city. 3. Nonconforming signs shall be removed or made conforming when the business or property changes occupancy or ownership. (Ord. No. 2012-2372, Exh. B-1, 2-7-2012) 18.11.100 - Termination. A. Violation of Title. Any of the following violations of this title shall immediately terminate the right to operate a nonconforming use, except as otherwise provided in this title: 1. Changing a nonconforming use to a use not permitted in the zone; 2. Increasing or enlarging the area, space, or volume occupied by or devoted to such nonconforming use; 3. Addition to a nonconforming use of another use not permitted in the zone. B. Discontinuance. A nonconforming use or structure shall become discontinued, except when extended as otherwise provided in this title, when it is: 1. Succeeded by a conforming use; 2. Discontinued and not re-established within a period of twelve or more consecutive calendar months; 3. Discontinued and not re-established within a period of eighteen or more nonconsecutive calendar months in a twenty-four month period. C. Termination by Operation of Law. The following conditions will result in a termination of nonconforming signs. 1. Termination by Abandonment. Any nonconforming sign, the use of which is discontinued for a period of ninety days, regardless of any intent to resume or not to abandon such use, shall be deemed to be abandoned and shall not thereafter be re- http://library.municode.com/print.aspx?h=&clientID=16516&HTMRequest=http%3a%2f... 5/28/2013 3 Municode D. Page 5 of 7 established. Any period of such discontinuance caused by govemment actions, strikes, material shortages or forces of nature, and without any contributing fault by the nonconforming user, shall not be considered in calculating the length of discontinuance for purposes of this section. 2. Termination by Change of Business. Any nonconforming sign advertising or relating to a business on the premises on which it is located shall be terminated upon any change in the ownership or control of such business. 3. Termination by Damage or Destruction. Any nonconforming sign damaged or destroyed, by any means, to the extent of thirty-five percent of its replacement cost new shall not be restored but shall be terminated. 4. Termination by Going Out of Business/Closure of Business. No sign that is accessory to a principal nonconforming use or structure shall continue after such principal use or structure shall have ceased or terminated, unless it shall thereafter conform to all the regulations of the zoning district In which it is located. 3. Termination Due to Lack of Repair. Failure to keep a nonconforming sign in good repair within one year after notification by the city shall constitute abandonment and subject to termination. Affirmative Termination by Amortization. 1 • The city council of the City of National City may order a nonconforming use to be terminated within a reasonable amount of time, upon recommendation of the planning commission. The planning commission shall conduct a public hearing after ten days' written notice to the nonconforming user. lithe nonconforming user has not made a substantial investment in furtherance of the use, or if the investment can be substantially utilized or recovered through a currently permitted use, the order may require complete termination of the nonconforming use within a minimum of one year after the date of the order. If the nonconforming user has made a substantial investment in furtherance of the use, or if the investment cannot be substantially utilized or recovered through a currently permitted use, the order may require the complete termination of the nonconforming use within a longer reasonable amount of time. Nonconforming uses that are determined to be an imminent threat to the public health or safety may be terminated immediately, pursuant to Chapter 1.36 of this Municipal Code. In making its recommendation to terminate a nonconforming use and In recommending a reasonable amount of time in which to terminate, the planning commission shall consider. a. b. c. d. e. f. 9. h. The total cost of land and improvements; The length of time the use has existed; Adaptability of the land and improvements to a currently permitted use; The cost of moving and reestablishing the use elsewhere; Whether the use is significantly nonconforming; Compatibility with the existing land use patterns and densities of the surrounding neighborhood; The possible threat to public health, safety, or welfare; and Any other relevant factors. The term "nonconforming use" when used in this section shall include nonconforming uses, nonconforming structures, and nonconforming lots, consistent with the intent of this title. This amortization section does not apply to any lawful nonconforming residential uses. Failure to comply with the city council's order to terminate a nonconforming use shall constitute a violation of this chapter and is a public nuisance subject to abatement in accordance with Chapter 1.36 of this Code. http://library.municode.com/print.aspx?h=&ciientID=16516&HTNlRequest=http%3a%2f... 5/28/2013 3 Mu/lie-ode Page 6 of 2. That a notice of exemption shall be filed indicating that this amendment to the Municipal Code is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act, because it can be said with certainty that there Is no possibility that the action will have a significant effect on the environment as it does not have a direct effect on any property or environmental consequence. E. Unlawful Uses and Structures. Uses and structures that did not comply with the applicable provisions of this Land Use Code or prior planning and zoning regulations when established are violations of this code and are subject to the provisions of Title 1 of the Municipal Code (Administration and Enforcement). This section does not grant any right to continue occupancy of property containing en illegal use or structure. The activity shall not be allowed to continue unless/until permits or entitlements required by this Land Use Code and the Municipal Code are first obtained. (Ord. No. 2012-237Z Exh. B-1, 2-7-2012) 18.11.110 -Exemptions. A. Historic Structures. Nonconfomming structures of historical significance may be altered or enlarged with a building permit approval granted by the city manager or his/her designee, without conforming to current setback provisions; provided the historic structure: 1 • Has been certified to be an historic resource by the city, county, or state, or in the National Register of Historic Places; or 2. Is to be altered or enlarged as an authentic replica of the original structure. E. Single-family Dwellings. Single-family dwellings are exempt from the provisions of Section 18.11.100 as follows: 1 • Height. An existing single-family dwelling that is nonconforming only because it exceeds the height limit of the applicable zone, shall not be required to comply with the provisions of this title. 2. Setbacks. Where a single-family dwelling or a detached accessory structure, is nonconforming only by reason of substandard setbacks, the provisions of this title shall not apply; provided that any structural alteration of a nonconforming structure shall not increase the degree of nonconformity, and any enlargements shall comply with the setback requirements of the applicable zoning district. 3. Parking. A single-family dwelling that is nonconforming with respect to the parking requirements of this Land Use Code is exempt from requirements of this title that would otherwise require compliance with the parking requirements of this Land Use Code. C. Destroyed Nonconforming Dwelling Units. 1. Where the city manager or his/her designee determines that a nonconforming single - or mufti -family dwelling unit has been involuntarily damaged or destroyed by accident (e.g., frre, explosion, etc.) or natural disaster (e.g., earthquake, etc.), the unit may be reconstructed or replaced with a new structure using the same development standards applied to the damaged or destroyed structure (e.g., building footprint, building height, density standards, number of dwelling units, setbacks, and floor area); provided: a• The applicant provides documentation, satisfactory to the review authority, supporting the claim that the damage or destruction occurred involuntarily; b. No expansion of the gross floor area or number of dwelling units occurs; c• The replacement structure: Is in compliance with the current building code; and li. http://library.municode.com/printaspx?h=&clientIDe 16516&HTMRequest=http%11%2f,.. 5/28/2013 3 Municode Page 7 of 7 Would not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to the properties or improvements in the immediate vicinity of the replacement structure; d. A building permit is issued no later than twelve months after the date of destruction, and construction is diligently pursued to completion. 2. If the preceding requirements are not met, the replacement structure shall comply with all of the regulations of the applicable zoning district in effect on the date of application for the required building permit. D. Seismic Retrofitting. Alterations, reconstruction, or repairs otherwise required by law (e.g., city adopted building, electrical, plumbing codes) shall be allowed. Reconstruction required to reinforce unrelnforced masonry structures or to comply with building code requirements shall be allowed without cost limitations; provided, the retrofitting and code compliance are limited exclusively to compliance with earthquake safety standards and other applicable building code requirements. E. Nonconforming Upon Annexation. Nonconforming uses or structures, or both, which are lawfully existing at the time the property on which they are located is annexed to the city, and which do not conform to the regulations of the subject zoning district following annexation, shall be deemed legal nonconforming uses or structures, or both, and shall, upon annexation, be subject to the provisions of this chapter. F Nonconforming Due to a Lack of a conditional use permit. 1 • Conformity of Uses Requiring Conditional Use Permits. A use that becomes nonconforming only because It is a use that would be required by this Land Use Code to have conditional use permit approval shall be deemed conforming, but only to the extent that it previously existed prior to adoption of the Land Use Code (e.g., maintain the same site area boundaries, hours of operation, etc.). 2. Previous Conditional Use Permits in Effect. A use that was authorized by a conditional use permit prior to adoption of this Land Use Code, but is identified in this Land Use Code as a use that is not allowed in its current location, may continue, but only in compliance with the original conditional use permit. G. Previous Permits. A use or structure which does not conform to the current regulations of the subject zoning district, but for which a building permit, or a permit or entitlement approved in compliance with this Land Use Code, was issued and work substantially completed before the applicability of this Land Use Code, may be completed; provided, the work is diligently pursued to completion. Upon completion these uses or structures, or partsthereof, shall be deemed to be legal nonconforming and shall thereafter be subject to the provisions of this chapter. H. Public Acquisition. Nonconforming due to public acquisition. Whenever any structure or parcel is rendered nonconforming within the meaning of this chapter by reason of a reduction In a required parcel area, reduction of off-street parking facilities, or setbacks occurring solely by reason of dedication to, or purchase by, the city for any public purpose, or eminent domain proceedings, which result In the acquisition by the city or any agency authorized for the eminent domain proceedings of a portion of the property, the structure or parcel shall not be deemed nonconforming within the meaning of this chapter. (Ord. No. 2012-237Z Exh. 8-1, 2-7-2012) http://library.municode.com/print.aspx?h=&clients 16516&HTMRequest=http%3a%2f... 5/28/2013 3 RESOLUTION NO. 2010 — 44 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NATIONAL CITY APPROVING A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT TO CHANGE THE LAND USE DESIGNATIONS FOR THE WESTSIDE SPECIFIC PLAN AREA FROM LIGHT MANUFACTURING -RESIDENTIAL AND CIVIC INSTITUTIONAL -OPEN SPACE RESERVE TO MULTI -USE COMMERCIAL RESIDENTIAL, LiMiTED COMMERCIAL, RESIDENTIAL SINGLE-FAMILY, CIVIC INSTITUTIONAL, AND OPEN SPACE RESERVE WITHIN THE WESTSIDE SPECIFIC PLAN AREA EAST OF 1- 5, WEST OF NATIONAL CITY BOULEVARD, NORTH OF MILE OF CARS WAY, AND SOUTH OF PLAZA BOULEVARD. CASE FILE NO.: 2007-34 GPA, ZC, SPA, EIR ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT SCH# 2008071002 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of National City considered the Westside Specific Plan for the approximately 100-acre area east of Interstate-5, west of National City Boulevard, north of Mile of Cars Way, and south of Plaza Boulevard on March 1, 2010, at which 5rne oral and documentary evidence was presented; and WHEREAS, at said public hearing the Planning Commission considered the staff report contained in Case File No. 2007-34 GPA, ZC, SPA, EIR, which is maintained by the City and incorporated herein by reference along with evidence and testimony at said hearing, and recommended adoption of the General Plan Amendment; and WHEREAS. the City Council conducted a public hearing on March 16, 2010, and considered the General Plan Amendment as referenced in the Westside Specific Plan, Chapter 7, which is incorporated herein by reference; and WHEREAS, the City Council approved the deletion of the Light Manufacturing/Residential land use for the Westside area. and approved the land uses designations for the Westside area that are identified In the land use map contained in the draft Westside Spec Plan, and incorporated herein by reference, and WHEREAS, at said public hearing the City Council considered the staff report contained in Case Fife No. 2007-34 GPA, ZC, SPA, EIR, which is maintained by the City and incorporated herein by reference along with evidence and testimony at said hearing, and approved an amendment to the General Plan, and this action is taken pursuant to ell applicable procedures required by State law and City law; and WHEREAS, the action recited herein is found to be essential for the preservation of public health, safety, end general welfare. NOW, THEREFORE, BE rr RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of National City that the testimony and evidence presented to the City Council at the public hearing held on March 16, 2010, support the following findings: FINDINGS_FOR APPittO AL FOR THE AMENDMENT TO THE GENERAL PLAN 1. That the proposed amendment to the Combined General Plan/Zoning Map changing the Westside Specific Plan area from Light Manufacturing -Residential, Civic Institutional, and Open Space EXHIBIT "B" 3' Resolution No. 2010 — 44 March 16, 2010 Page 2 Reserve (OSR) to Multi -use Commercial Residential (MCR-1, MCR-2), Light Commercial, Single Family Residential (RS-4), Civic Institutional, and Open Space Reserve Is consistent with the General Plan, since the approximately 100-acre Westside Specific Plan is a unique since it contains conflicting land use pattern and has resulted in deterioration and health and safety conoems for its resident, and the proposed General Plan Amendment would serve in the future to reduce the continue proliferation of conflicting land use patterns. 2. That the proposed amendment is in the public interest, since it will allow for a new mixed use development that will provide convenient services to the community and it meets the goals of the General Plan to expand the amount of retail space in the City. 3. That granting of the General Plan Amendment further enhances the goals of the General Plan to encourage residential development near transit services, and increase the opportunities for multi -modal transit services. 4. That granting of this General Plan Amendment to change the land use designations for the Westside Specific Plan area is consistent with all other City plans and ordinances, since the proposed land use changes, carries out the intent of the General Plan to create services near residences, encourages redevelopment of both commercial and residences while further expanding the goals of expanding the habitat restoration in and around Paradise Creek and increasing recreational opportunities for local residents. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council has considered the proposed Amendment to the General Plan together with any comments received during the public review process, and finds on the basis of the whole record and any comments. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Amendment to the General Plan is approved. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this Resolution shall become effective and final on the day following the City Council meeting where the resolution is adopted. The time within which judicial review of this derision may be sought is governed by the provisions of Code of Civil Procedure Section 1094.6. PASSED and ADOPTED this 16th day of March, Ron Morrison, Mayor ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: MI el R. Della, C C. Clerk George H. Iser, III Clty Attorney i Passed and adopted by the Council of the City of National City, California, on March 16, 2010 by the following vote, to -wit: Ayes: Counclimembers Morrison, Parra, Sotelo-Solls, Zarate. Nays: None. Absent: None. Abstain: Councilmember Van Deventer. AUTHENTICATED BY: RON MORRISON Mayor of the City of National City, California City Clerk of the City of tonal Cky, California By: duty I HEREBY CERTIFY that the above and foregoing is a full, true and correct copy of RESOLUTION NO. 2010-44 of the City of National City, California, passed and adopted by the Council of said City on March 16, 2010. At City Clerk of the City of National City, California Deputy 41 RESOLUTION NO. 2010 — 45 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NATIONAL CITY ADOPTING THE WESTSIDE SPECIFIC PLAN FOR AN AREA LOCATED EAST OF 1-5, AND WEST OF NATIONAL CITY BOULEVARD, NORTH OF MILE OF CARS WAY, AND SOUTH OF PLAZA BOULEVARD CASE FILE NO.: 2007-34 GPA, ZC, SPA, EIR ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT SCH# 2008071092 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of National City considered the Westside Specific Plan for the approximately 100-acre area east of Interstate-5, west of National City Boulevard, north of Mile of Cars Way, and south of Plaza Boulevard at a public hearing held on March 1, 2010, at which time oral and documentary evidenoa was presented; and WHEREAS, at said public hearing the Planning Commission considered the staff report contained in Case File No. 2007-34 GPA, ZC, SPA, EIR, which is maintained by the City and incorporated herein by reference along with evidence and testimony at said hearing, and recommended adoption of the Westside Specific Plan; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of National City conducted a public hearing on March 16, 2010, at which time oral and documentary evidence was presented, and considered the Westside Specific Plan; and WHEREAS, at said public hearing the City Council considered the staff report contained in Case File No. 2007-34 GPA, ZC, SPA, EIR, which is maintained by the City and incorporated herein by reference along with evidence and testimony at said hearing; and adopted the Westside Specific Plan and this action is taken pursuant to all applicable procedures required by state law and City law; and WHEREAS, the action recited herein is found to be essential for the preservation of public health, safety, and general welfare. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of National City that the testimony and evidence presented to the City Council at the public hearing held nn Mash 16, 2010, support the following findings: FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL. FCR THE ADOPTION OF THE WESTSIDE SPECIFIC PLAN 1. That the Westside Specific Plan is comprised of an area previously zoned Light Manufacturing -Residential, and this zoning resulted in the development of industrial uses in close proximity to residences, and this development pattern created conflicting land uses related to noise, traffic, air quality and hazardous materials which led to requests by the community to develop a comprehensive plan that would reduce the environmental impacts. 2. That the site has sufficient access to streets and highways that are adequate in width and pavement type to carry the volume and type of traffic generated by the proposed land use changes, and that the plan provides opportunities to create community corridors that will further enhance multl-modal transit to downtown National City, Kimball Park, City Hall, the library, and the light rail transit station. EXHIBIT "C" 4 Resolution 2010 — 45 March 16, 2010 Page 2 3. That the proposed Westside Specific Plan will have a beneficial effect upon adjacent or abutting properties, since the plan proposes land use patterns that are more compatible with the existing residential development by offering opportunities for increased residential development and commercial services. 4. That the proposed Westside Specific Plan is deemed essential and desirable to effectively Improve the public health and welfare of the community, since the proposed Westside Specific Plan will restrict additional land uses that utilize and store hazardous materials, emit air pollutants, increase noise levels, end overall reduce the quality of life for the residents. 5. That proposed Westside Specific Plan through future development and redevelopment will increase retail development and provide additional employment, and will serve the community's growing demand for retail services and Increase opportunities for affordable housing near services and transit, 6. That the proposed Westside Specific Plan achieves the Vision and Guiding Principles as set forth by the community though a series of community meetings and through changes in land use Westside would be established as a safe, healthy, and vibrant neighborhood. 7. That the proposed Westside Specific Plan supports the goals to conserve and enhance Paradise Creek by creating opportunities for developing a parklike setting with habitat restoration, park uses, trails, and active/passive uses adjacent to the creek, and the design and development of the open space park would be coordinated with the resource agencies 10 ensure the goals of the plan are met. 8. That the proposed Westside Specl is Plan would meet the goals of the plan by reducing Impactive land uses that result in air pollution, hazardous materials storage, increased noise levels, and parking and traffic issues. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council has considered the proposed Westside Specific Plan together with any comments received during the public review process, and finds on the basis of the whole record incorporated herein by reference along with evidence and testimony at said hearing adopts the Westside Specific Plan. BE rr FURTHER RESOLVED that this Resolution shall become effective and final on the day following the City Council meeting wherethe resolution is adopted. The time within which judicial review of this decision may be sought is govemed by the provisions of Code of CM Procedure Section 1094.6. -- Signature Page to Follow -- 4: Resolution 2010 — 45 March 18, 2010 Page 3 PASSED and ADOPTED this 16th day of March, 2 10. Morrison, Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: Georg��e FT Eiser, Ill�t City Attorney 4 Passed and adopted by the Council of the City of National City, California, on March 16, 2010 by the following vote, to -wit: Ayes: Councilmernbers Morison, Parra, Soteto-Solts, Zarate. Nays: None. Absent: None. Abstain: Counciimember Van Deventer. AUTHENTICATED BY: RON MORRISON Mayor of the City of National City, California B City Cfbrk d the City of ationet City, California Deputy I HEREBY CERTIFY that the above and foregoing is a full, true and correct copy of RESOLUTION NO. 2010-45of the City of National City, California, passed and adopted by the Council of said City on March 16, 2010. By. Deputy 4 ORDINANCE NO. 2010 — 2344 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NATIONAL CITY AMENDING TITLE 18 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE BY AMENDING CHAPTERS 18.10 (ZONES AND ZONING MAP), 18.14 (RESIDENTIAL ZONES), 18.16 (COMMERCIAL ZONES), 1&50 (FENCES, WALLS, AND HEDGES), 18.58 (OFF-STREET PARKING AND LOADING), 18.62 (SIGNS AND OUTDOOR ADVERTISING DISPLAYS), 18.88 (MOBILE HOMES), 18.104 (USE GROUPS), CHAPTER 18.108 (NONCONFORMING USES), AND 18.140 (MIXED USES) TO PROVIDE STANDARDS IMPLEMENTING THE APPROVED WESTSIDE SPECIFIC PLAN BE IT ORDAINED by the City Council of the City of National City that the National City Municipal Code is amended by amending Title 18.as follows: Section 1.. Chapter 18.10 of the National City Municipal Code is hereby amended by amending Section 18.10.130, to read as follows: 18.10.130 Zones established. In order to classify, regulate, restrict, and segregate the uses of land and buildings, to regulate and restrict the height and bulk of buildings, to regulate the area of yards and other open spaces about buildings, and to regulate the density of population, the followings zone are established, into which the city is divided: RESIDENTIAL ZONES Categories (Symbols) R S-1 RS-2 RS-3 RS-4*'" RT RM-1 R M-2** RM-3** RMH Description Residential Residential Residential Residential Residential Residential Residential Residential Residential COMMERCIAL ZONES CT CA CL CM CH CG CSC TABLE I* s Single-family Large Lot Single-family Small Lot Single-family Extendible Single-family Two-family Multi-famiiy Multi -family Senior Citizen Housing Mobile Home Park Commercial Tourist Commercial Automotive Commercial Limited Commercial Medium Commercial Heavy Commercial — General Commercial Shopping Center Previous Categories (Symbds) 12 1, S-1, R-1-S R-1 None None R-2 R -4, R-4-PD* RM-2** RM-2** None HBTV(1)PD* TRC-PD*, TCS(1)PD*, TCS-PD* C-2, CC-2-A, C-2-PD' C-2, CG C-4, CBS(1)PD* C-3-B, C-3-C, CBD CMSCC-PD* EXHIBIT "E" 41 MIXED USE COMMERCIAL — RESIDENTIAL MCR-14** Mixed Use Commercial -Residential - 2 None MCR-2''"` Mixed Use Commercial -Residential — 2 None INDUSTRIAL ZONES ML Manufacturing — Ught M-1, M-2, M-2A, M-3 MM Manufacturing — Medium M-4 MH Manufacturing — Heavy M-H MT Manufacturing — Tidelands M-4 INSTITUTIONAL AND PUBLIC USE ZONES IC Institutional — Civic None IP Institutional — Private None OSR Open Space Reserve None All zoning designations (symbols) shown on the zoning map, heretofore a part of Ordinance 962 as amended, with a 'PD.' component shall be converted pursuant to Section 18.10.020 to the new designations (symbols) with the °PD' component added. " Although these zone titles have been used in the past, the current regulations are significantly different (see Section 18.14200). '}' These zoning designations are newly created ones pursuant to and consistent with the Westside Specific Plan adopted on March 16, 2010. Section 2. Chapter 18.14 of the National city Municipal Code is hereby amended by amending the Table of Contents to read as follows: Chapter 18.14 RESIDENTIAL ZONES Sections: 18.14.010 Purposes. 18.14.015 Purpose of the single-famtly estate (RS-E) residential zone. 18.14.020 Purpose of the single-family (RS-1) zone. 18.14.030 Purpose of the single-family (RS-2) zone. 18.14.035 Purpose of the single-family extendable (RS-4) zone. 18.14.037 Purpose of the single-family (RS-2) zone. 18.14.040 Purpose of the two-family (RT) zone. 18.14.050 Purpose of the multifamily (RM-1) residential zone. 18.14.060 Purpose of the multifamily existing (RM-2) zone. 18.14.070 Purpose of the senior citizens' housing zone. 18.14.080 Purposes of the RMH residential mobile home park zone. 18.14.090 Principal uses and structures permitted. 18.14.092 Number of dwelling units allowed. 18.14.100 Accessory uses and structures permitted. 18.14.101 Accessory uses, conditions thereon. Ordinance No. 2010 — 2 Amending Title 18 Westside Specific Plan Standards 4 16.14.110 Roomen3 and boarders. 18.14.120 Home occupations. 18:14.130 Accessory structures. 18.14.150 Family foster cars. 18.14.155 Residential care home. 18.14.160 Prohibited uses and structures. 18.14.170 Use of yards in residential zones. 18.14.180 Uses and structures permitted by conditional use permit. 18.14.190 Design regulations. 18.14.200 Let area. 18.14.210 Required frontage. 18.14.220 Required yards and setbacks. 18.14.230 Distance of buildings from common lot lines. 18.14.240 Front and side yard -requirement variations. 18.14.250 Rear yard requirement variations. 18.14.260 Doors opening beyond lot lines prohibited. 18.14.265 Maximum area of accessory buildings. 18.14.270 Accessory buildings —Setback from side and rear lot lines. 18.14.280 Accessory buildings —Location within setbacks —Restrictions. 18.14.290 Accessory buildings —Setback from front lot line. 18.14.300 Yards and courts in apartment house projects. 18.14.301 Usable open space in multi -family projects. 18.14.302 Usable open space in the RS-3 zone. 18.14.310 Spacing of buildings. 18.14.330 Exceptions based on topography. 18.14.340 Building height. 18.14.350 Building floor area ratio—RM zones. 18.14.360 Building floor area requirements. 18.14.370 Lot coverage—RM zones. 18.14.390 Off-street parking —Minimum requirements. 18.14.400 Off-street parking —Facilities standards—RM zones. 18.14.410 Onsite signs. 18.14.420 Landscaping. 18.14.430 Laundry facilities. 18.14.440 Outdoor lighting. 18.14.450 Pedestrian walkways. 18.14.480 Site drainage. 18.14.470 Storage space. 18.14.480 Enlargement of apartment house projects. 18.14.490 Combining uses. 18.14.500 Exceptions to RS-1 zone design regulations. 18.14.510 Spedfic uses. 18.14.520 Satellite television antennas. Ordinance No. 2010 — 2344 3 Amending Title 18 Westside Specific Plan Standards 4' Section 3. Chapter 18.14 of the National City Municipal Code is hereby amended by adding Section 18.14.037 to read as follows: 18.14.037 Purpose of the single-family (RS-4) Zone. A. The purposes of the RS-4 zone are to: 1. Provide for areas of single-family attached and detached homes on minimum lot sizes of 2,500 square feet; and 2. Provide for small lot single-family development within the Westside Specific Plan area. B. The RS-4 zone permits one attached or detached single-family dwelling for each full two -thousand five -hundred square feet of lot area provided there is no more than one single family residence for each 2,500 square feet of lot area. It also allows the continuation of the existing mixture of housing types and encourages infill with single-family zones on vacant properties and where existing parcels may be further subdivided as provided herein. Section 4. Chapter 18.14 of the National City Municipal Code is hereby amended by amending Sections 18.14.090, 18.14.092, 18.14.210, 18.14.220, 18.14.270, 18.14.300, 18.14.340, and 18.14.360 to read as follows: 18.14.090 Principle uses and structures permitted. TABLE II USE GROUPS PERMITTED IN RESIDENTIAL ZONES Use Group No. Use Group Reference Section RS-1 RS-2 RS-3 RS-4 RS-E RT RM-1 RM-2 RM-3 RMH 1 Areawid esermitted 18.04.050 X X X X X X X X X X 2 Areawide conditional uses 18.104.060 C C C C C C C C C 3 Animal husbandry 10.104.070 C - - - C - - - - 8 Community, cultural and public recreational services 18.104.120 _ _ _ X _ _ _ _ • - - 9 Dwelling, single- family 18.104.130 X X X X X X X X - X 10 Dwelling, two-family 18.104.140 - - - _ - X X X X X 11 Dwelling, multiplefamily 18.104.150 _ _ _ - - - X X X - 12 Dwelling, mobile home 18.104.160 _ - - - - - - - - C Ordinance No. 2010 — 2344 4 Amending Title 18 Westside Specific Plan Standards 4' 29 Public protection factiiti� 18.104.330 C C C C CCCCCC Signs and outdoor advertising 18.104.370 X X X X XXX X X X 34 Temporary uses 18.104.380 ITT T T T T' T T T X Permitted - Not permitted C Conditional use permit required Note: See Section 18.14.200 for minimum lot area requirements. Exdsting, lawfully constructed residential uses, including single-famity homes, as well as one or more single-family detached dwellings nn a lot, duplexes and multifamily dwellings, are also permitted in the RS-3 zone. *` Note: Within the RS-4 zone, existing multi -family and duplexes may continue as a permitted use. Existing Churches and religious services may continue as a permitted use whereas new churches and religious facilities and expansions to existing churches and religious facilities are permitted pursuant to approval of a Conditional Use Permit. Parks and open space are permitted uses. See Appendix, Westside Specific Plan Land Use table. 18.14.092 Number of dwelling units allowed. The total number of dweling units allowed is: RS-E 1 RS-1 1 RS-2 1 RS-3 1 for each full 5,000 square feet of lot area (for new development). Also allowed is existing residential development that may be of higher density. However, no additional units may be constructed If they would result in more than 1 per 5,000 square feet of lot area. RS-4 1 for each full 2,500 square feet of lot area. RT 2, except that for detached single-family condominium units, a greater number is allowed, as specified by an approved subdivision. RMH Per State Health and Safety Code 18000 et seq. RM-1 1 unit for each full one thousand nine hundred square feet of lot area RM-2 Per existing development RM-3 Determined by planned development permit Section 18.14.210 Required frontage. All lots in the residential zones shall have a minimum width of fifty feet and a minimum frontage of fifty feet on a dedicated street, except for the following: A. All lots in the RS-1 zone shall have a minimum width of sixty feet and a minimum frontage of sixty feet, or as provided in subsection A of Section 18.14.5000. Ordinance No. 2010 —2344 5 Amending Title 18 Westside Specific Plan Standards 51 B. All residential Tots on the bulb of a cul-de-sac shall have a minimum frontage of thirty-six feet. Except for those parcels within the RS-4 zone, a minimum lot frontage of twenty- five feet is required. C. All lots within the RS-4 zone shall have a minimum width of twenty-five feet and a minimum frontage on the bulb of a cul-de-sac of fifteen feet and may front on a public or private street, or alleyway. Section 18.14.220 Required yards and setbacks. The minimum required yard setbacks in the residential zones are as follows: TABLE IV TABLE INSET: Zone Front Yard Side Yard Rear Yard Exterior Side Yard Rear Yard Abutting Alley or Public Park Usable Open Space Require RS-1 25 5 25"* 10 20 - RS2 20 5 25* 10 20 - RS-3 20 5 5 5 5 20 RS-4 10/15*** 3/0*** 15 10 15 - RS-E 25 5 25 10 20 - RT 15 5 10 5 5 - RM-1 20 5 5 5 5 See Section 18.14.300 RM-2 20 5 5 5 5 See Section 18.14.300 RM-3 Determined by planned development permit RMH 25 10 (See Chapter 18.88, Mobile Homes) * See Section 18.14.250. ** See Sections 18.14.250 and 18.14.500. *** Stoops and porches may extend into the front yard up to the front property line or in the case of a comer parcel, to the side property line. Garages shall maintain a 15-foot front yard setback. A zero foot minimum side yard, for one -side yard on the parcel is permitted provided there is a six-foot separation to the adjacent residential structure and that there is a minimum three-foot side yard setback on the opposite side. 18.14.270 Accessory buildings — Setback from side and rear lot lines. Accessory buildings, including patios, swimming pools, attached carports and attached garages shall maintain a four - foot setback from the side lot line and reat lot line. except for RS-4 which shall maintain a three- foot setback from the side lot line and the rear lot line and a minimum of six feet between structures, but shall not be located in the front yard setback required except as provided by this title. Ordinance No. 2010 — 2344 6 Amending Title 18 Westside Specific Pien Standards 5 18.14.300 Yards and courts in multi -family residential aroiects. A. Yard courts in multi -family residential projects shall comply with the following addition! regulations. "Court" means an area on the same lot with a building which is bounded on two or rriore sides by the exterior walls of a building or buildings on the same lot These requirements do not apply for development within the MCR-1 and MCRO2 zones: 1. Front yards shall be a minimum of fifteen feet when units face a street; side yards shall be a minimum of fifteen feet when units face such yards; rear yards shall be a minimum of fifteen feet when units face such yards. Front yards shall be a minimum of ten feet when units face a street, side yards shall be a minimum of ten feet if adjacent to a single-family residential, multi -family or commercial development. 2. Minimum courts for nine units or more shall be a minimum of twenty feet and fifteen feet fbr eight units or less. B. Yard and courts in multi -family residential projects within the MCR-1 and MCR-2 shall comply with the following additional regulations: 1. Front yards shall provide a minimum of len feet when units face a street side yards shall be a minimum of ten feet between property fine and the adjacent structure. C. An additional five feet shag be added to all side yards, rear yards and courts for each story above the first floor. Zero side yards may be allowed when two lots are developed as one with a common wall separating units. 18.14.340 Building height. Any building on a lot in any residential zone, except multi -family residential project shall not exceed three stories or thirty-five feet in height. The height provision does not apply to any structure in the O.D. Arnold Estates Subdivision in which an application for a building permit in excess of one story (see Section 18.14.500). Building height limits do not apply to signs. The height limit of signs is regulated by the Section 18.62 (Signs and Outdoor Advertising Displays) of this Chapter. 18.14.360 Building floor area requirements. In all residential zones, the minimum floor area, excluding garages and accessory buildings, shall be as follows: Minimum Floor Area, Residential Zones Zone Minimum Sq. Ft RS-1 One story, two bedrooms 1,200 One story, three or more bedrooms 1,400 Two stories 1,700 RS-2, RS-3 Minimum unit size 1,000 RS-4 Three stories No minimum RS-E One story, two bedrooms 1,200 One story, three or more bedrooms . 1,400. -- Two stories ---_- 1,700 RT A minimum 500 square feet per dwelling unit, or as listed under the RM zones, whichever Is greater Ordinance No. 2010-2344 7 Amending TNie 18 Westside Specific Plan Standards RM-1, RM-2 Bachelor unit 500 One -bedroom unit 650 Two -bedroom unit 800 Three -bedroom unit 1,000 Each additional bedroom 150 RM-3 To be determined by planned development permit RMH Subject to State Health and Safety Code Section 18,000 et seq. 18,000 New condominium 1,000 MCR-1 Minimum unit size 600 MCR-2 Minimum unit size 600 Regardless of number of bedrooms Section 5. Chapter 18.16 of the National City Municipal Code is hereby amended by amending Sections 18.16.085, 18.16.090, 18.16.260, 18.16.280, 18.16.310, 18.16.350, and 18.16.390 to read as follows: 18.16.085 Purposes of mixed -use commercial -residential (MCR-1 and MCR 21 zones. The purpose of the MCR-1 and MCR-2 zones is to provide an area within the Westside Specific Plan area for either commercial or multi -family residential development or a commercial and multi- family development constructed on a single parcel or as components of a single development on a assemblage of parcels. The uses established for MCR-1 and MCR-2 are listed in Appendix AofThis rate. 18.16.090 Principal uses and structures permitted. The principal uses permitted in the' commercial. zones are designated by use group. The use groups are collections of individual uses of similar character and are fully described in Chapter 18.104. The use groups permitted in commercial zones are listed in Table V. Table V does not apply to the MCR-1 and MCR-2. MCR-1 and MCR-2 land uses are fisted in Appendix, Westside Specific Plan Land Use table. 18.16.260 Uses and structures permitted by conditional use permit. Use groups which are indicated in Table V, as set out ih Section 18.16.100, and as identified for MCR-1 and MCR 2 in Appendix A as requiring a conditional use permit shall comply with the provisions of Chapter 18.116 (Conditional Use Permits). 18.16.280 Design regulations. Design regulations for commercial zones are set out in Sections 18.16.290 through 18.16.370. Additional guidelines and standards for zones MCR-1 and MCR-2 are specifically stated in the Westside Specific Plan. For general design and development regulations, see Chapters 18.44 through 18.66and the City of National City's adopted Design Guidelines. Ordinance No. 2010 — 2344 8 Amending -Title 18 Westside Specific Plan Standards 5 18.18.310 Required yards and setbacks. The minimum required yard setbacks, in feet, in the commercial zones are as follows; TABLE VIl Zone Front Yard Side Yard Rear Yard Exterior Side Yard CT 10 Ob 0 5 CL 10a . 0b 0b 10a CG 10f 0 0 4g CH 5 0c 0c 5 CM See Notes d and g CA See Note e CSC See Note e MCR-1 10 0 / 10 h 5 10 MCR-2 10 0 / 10 h 5 10 Notes: whichever is greater. a —or same as adjoining R zone, b—or ten feet if adjoining an RS zone and four feet if adjoining any other R zone. c—or five feet on a dedicated street or when adjoining an R zone. d—as per the Uniform Building Code. e—building coverage shall not exceed eighty percent of the total land area. f—See zoning map 2 attached to the National City Land Use Code for lesser front yard setbacks that are established by specific plan; also see Section 18.16.400 of this title. g—ten feet on Highland Avenue. h — ten feet if adjacent to a single-family or multi -family development without a mixed - use commercial/office. 18.16.350 Building height, floor area ratio. and lot coverage. All structures hereafter designed or erectedin the commercial zones, including the MCR-1 and MCR 2 zones, and existing buildings which may be reconstructed, altered, moved, or enlarged in the commercial zones, may not exceed the height, floor area ratio (F.A.R.), or lot coverage as indicated in Table VIM for the zone in which the buildings are or may be located. Ordinance No. 2010 --- 2344 9 Amending Title 18 Westside Specific tin Standards 5, TABLE VIII Zone Height (Max.) F.A.R. (Max.) Lot Coverage (Max.) CA 13 stones 1 80 percent CT No limit 1 Reserved CL` No limit 1 Reserved CM No limit 3 Reserved CH No limit 2 Reserved CG No limit 6 Reserved CSC 13 stories 4 80 percent. MCR-1 3 stories and 50 feet .6 None MCR-1 5 stones and 65 feet .6 None Within the Westside Specific an, properties within the C-L zone are limited to thirty-five feet and a F.A.R. of .6. 18.16.390 Screening and landscaping. A. Ail required setbacks, excluding driveways, shall be landscaped and maintained in accordance with Chapter 18.54 and the City's adopted Landscape Guidelines. B. When adjoining a residential zone, any commercial use shall be permanently screened from such adjoining property by a wall and suitable landscaping. C. All landscaping, maintenance, constriction, or street tree placement within any parkway of the city shall be done in accordance with the provisions of Chapters 13.18 and 18.54, and the City's adopted Landscape Guidelines of this Code. Section 6. Chapter 18.50 of the National City Municipal Code is hereby amended by amending Section 18.50.010 to read as follows: 18.50.010 Fencing. Wood fences are permitted between residential uses. Chain link fencing of minimum nine -gauge wire and three and one-half inch by five inch mesh with two and one-half inch by five -sixteenths inch redwood slats may be used in screening industrial areas, not adjacent to residential uses, provided landscape screening is installed adjacent to the chain Zink or wrought iron fencing. Concrete decorative or decorative block walls shall be constructed between any residential use and any newly -developed industrial, commercial, or multi -use residential -commercial development to screen the use from the residential use. Within the Westside Specific Plan area, the use of chain link, barbed wire and razor wire fencing shall be prohibited for all new development and/or expansions that increase the building square footage by 20% of the existing gross leased area. Ordinance No. 2010 — 2344 10 Amending Title 18 Westside Specific Plan Standards 5 Section 7. Chapter 18.58 of the National City Municipal Code Is hereby amended by amending Sections 18.58.050, 18.58.240, 18.58.245, 18.5.8280. 18.58.290, 18.58.300, 18.58.345, and 18.58.350 to read as follows: 18.58.050 - increase in intensity of use. A. For the purpose of this section, an increase In the Intensity of use of.any structure or premises shall mean the addition of dwelling units, employees, gross floor area,. seating capacity, or any other unit of measurement specified in this title as a basis for determining required parting and loading facilities. B. When the intensity of use of any structure or premises, excluding single-family detached dwellings, is increased by less than fifty percent, -parking and loading facilities shall be provided for the increase but not for any existing deficiency in such facilities. C. When the intensity of use is increased by more than fifty percent, excluding single-family detached.dwetlings, parking and loading facilities shall be provided for the entire structure or premises. D. When consecutive increases in intensity of use amount to a total increase of more than fifty percent, parking and loading fadiities shall be provided for the entire structure or premises. Consecutive increases shall be figured from the effective date of the National City Land Use Code or from the time of the initial construction or establishment, whichever is more recent. E. Wrth the annual renewal of business licenses for all uses mentioned in -Sections 18.58.290 and 18.58.300, the city treasurer, when requested by the planning -director. shall require the business proprietor to submit a statement showing the total number of employees on the shift of maximum employment anticipated during the next succeeding twelve-month period. F. Except for single-family residential parcels within the RS-4 zones, when a single- family detached dwelling is increased or expanded to more than two thousand five hundred square feet of floor area and/or more than four bedrooms,off-street parking fealties shall be provided for the increase but not for any existing deficiency in such facilities: Parking facilities required as a resuft of this section may be provided In a garage, carport, or surface space. 18.58.240 Schedule of parking reauieements-Residential uses. The following is the schedule of off-street parking requirements for residential uses: • Housing Units In the Following Zones. Off -Street Parking Required RS-1 and RS-E zones • 2 spaces in a garage or carport per dwelling unit with 2,500 square feet or less in floor area. 3 spaces, including 2 spaces in a garage or carport, per dwelling unit with more than 2,500 square feet in floor area. RS-2 and RS-3 zones 2 spaces, including 1 space in a garage or carport, per dwelling unit with 2,500 square feet or less in floor area. • 3 spaces, including 2 spaces in a garage or carport, per dwelling unit with more than 2,500 square feet in floor area. Ordinance No. 2010-2344 11 Amending Title 18 Westslde Specific Plan Standards 5i RS-4 zone 2 spaces, including 2 spaces in a garage or carport, per dwelling unit for units with more than 1,200 square feet in floor area, or 1.0 spaces, including one space In a garage or carport, per dwelling unit for units with 1,200 square feet or less. RT Zone .1.5 spaces per dwelling unit Exception: A detached home in this zone shall have the same parking requirement as the RS-3 zone. RM-1, RM-2 1.3 spaces per 1-bedroom unit and studio unit, plus 1.5 spaces per unit containing 2 or more bedrooms, and conveniently located guest parking of 0.5 spaces per unit for 20 units or less, plus 0.25 spaces for each unit over 20. Half of the required guest parking spaces may include parallel curb parking spaces on dedicated public streets contiguous to the site. Exceptions: A duplex built in this zone shall have the same parking requirement as the RT zone. A detached.home in this zone shall have the same parking requirement as the RS-3 zone. RM-3 Planned development permit RMH Two spaces per unit Additional Standards Off -Street Parking Required Boardinghouse and Lodging Houses 1 space per guest room Condominiums 2 spaces per dwelling unit and conveniently located guest parking in the numbers as specified above for RM zones. Garages or carports shall be provided for detached condominium homes as required In the applicable zone. (Not applicable to condominium conversions. Refer to Chapter 18.74.) Dormitories and Fratemity or Sorority Houses As required by conditional use permit Ordnance No. 2010 — 2344 12 Amending Title 18 Westslde Specific Plan Standards 5 18.58.245 Schedule of parklno requirements —Mixed use. The following Is the schedule of off-street parking requirements for mixed use: Structures and Uses Off -Street Parking Required Except for the MCR-1 and MCR-2 zones, ail other Mixed use See Chapter 18.140. MCR-1 and MCR-2 1.5 spaces per dwelling unit for units of more than 1,200 square feet of floor area and 1.0 spaces per dwelling unit for units of 1,200 square feet or less. In addition 5 bicycle parking spaces shall be provided for each 20 dwelling units (minimum 20 dwelling units) 18.58.280 Schedule of parking requirements —Office uses.. The following is the schedule of off-street parking requirements for business and commercial uses: Structures and Uses . Off -Street Parking Required . Administrative, clerical and professional offices, excluding health services, except within the MCR-1 and MCR-2 zones. For those zones see below. First 5,000 sq. it 1 space for every 200 sq. ft of gross floor area* (see Use Group 27, Section 18.104.310, for complete ftst of uses) 5,000 to 10,000 1 space for every 250 sq. ft of gross floor area* 10,000 to 30,000 1 space for every 300 sq. ft. of gross floor area* 30,000 to 100,000 1 space for every 350 sq. ft of gross floor area* Over 100,000 1 space for every 400 sq. ft. of gross floor area` MCR-1 and MCR-2 office and studios uses (Use group 27) For each 1,000 sq ft of gross leased area 2.9 spaces • For each building, and these formulas will not accumulate where there is more than one building on the property. OnSnance No. 2010 — 2344 13 Amending Tale 18 Westside Specific Plan Standards 51 18.58.290 Schedule of parkins► requirements —Business and commercial uses. The following is the schedule of off-street parking requirements for business and commercial uses. Structures and Uses Off -Street Parking Required Specifically within MCR-1 and MCR-2 zones p Y 3.6 parking spaces for each 1,000 square feet of gross floor area for retail uses, goods and sexes, and restaurant uses (Use groups 13, 14, 17, 18, and 19) . And 1 bicycle rack (minimum 4 bike spaces) for 10% of vehicle parking spaces Automobile and truck repair service establishments 1 space for every 800 square feet, or fraction thereof, of gross floor area, plus 1 space for any amount of vehicles used in conjunction with the business Automobile, thick, boat, camper vehicle, or similar vehicle sales, or rental establishment located in the commercial zones 1 space for each 2 employees of the shift of maximum employment, plus 1 space for each vehicle used In conjunction with the use Eating places, take-out and drive-thru 1 stall for every 100 square feet of gross floor area Existing commercial shopping centers with multiple uses Existing shopping centers shall be required to maintain the parking ratio which was applied during site plan approval Goods and services (Use Groups 17, 18 and 19) located in individual buildings with a single use 1 space for every 250 square feet of gross floor area Heavy equipment and machinery (Use Group 20) 1 space for every 2 employees of the shift of maximum employment, or 1 space for every 1,000 square feet of enclosed or covered area, whichever is greater. Hotels and motels 1 space per guest room, plus one extra parking space for every ten units up to 50. Over 50 units, 1 extra parking space shall be provided for every 20 units New commercial shopping centers with multiple uses 1 space for every 200 square feet of gross floor area . Restaurants, nightclubs, cocktail lounges, bars, and similar establishments for the sale and consumption of food or beverages on the - premises 1 space for every 5 fixed seats, plus 1 space for every 35 square feet of area available for assembly where there are no fixed seats. Shopping centers in the CSC zone (existing or new construction) 4.5 spaces for every 1,000 square feet of gross leasable floor area Video tape rental and sale; Laundromat (self- service); barber and beauty shops 1 space for every 100 square feet of gross floor area Ordinance No. 2010 —2344 14 Amending Thiele Westside Specific Plan Standards 5 Warehousing and storage 1 space, plus 1 space for each 2 employees Wholesaling and distribution 4 spaces, plus 1 space for every 1,000 square feet of gross floor area or fraction thereof over 4,000 square feet 18.58.300 Schedule of parting requirements —Manufacturing and related uses. The following is the schedule of off-street parking requirements for manufacturing and related uses: Structures and Uses Off -Street Parking Required MCR-1 and MCR 2 zones • 2.0 spaces for each 1,000 square feet of gross floor area for industrial uses and 1 bicyde rack (minimum 4 bike spaces) for 1096 of vehicle parking spaces • All uses in the industrial zones (unless otherwise specified) 1 space for every 500 square feet, or fraction thereof, of gross floor area, plus 1 space for each service vehide used in conjunction with the business, plus 1 space for visitor parking.- ' Food processing (Use Group15), light manufacturing (Use Group 22), medium manufacturing (Use Group 23), heavy manufacturing (Use Group 24), manufacturing tidelands (Use Group 25), mineral resources extraction and processing (Use Group 26), and research and development (Use Group 3i) 1 ace for e s p very 800 square feet, or fraction thereof, of gross floor area, pfust space for each service vehide used in conjunction with the business, plus 1 space for visitor parking. Scrap metal processing 1 space for every 7,000 square feet of yard area or fraction thereof, up to the first 42,000 square feet, plus 1 space for every 20,000 square feet of yard area, or fraction thereof, in excess of 42,000 square feet. Warehouse and storage B spaces, plus 1 space for every 2 employees and 1 space for visitor parking. Wholesale and distribution 5 spaces, plus 1 space for every 1,000 square feet, or fraction thereof, of gross floor area over 4,000 square feet, plus 1 space for visitor parking. 18.58.345 Dimensions for garage or carport area and openings. A. A orte•car garage or carport shall contain an unobstructed interior parking area of a minimum of eleven feet wide by nineteen feet deep. A two -car garage or carport shall contain an unobstructed interior parking area of a minimum of twenty feet wide by nineteen feet deep. B. A garage for more than two cars shall contain additional area consistent with Sections 18.58.310, 18.58.330 and 18.58.340. C. A single -car garage door or opening to a single space carport shall be a minimum of eight feet wide; a two -car garage door or opening to a two -space carport shall be a minimum of sixteen feet wide. For larger parking garages or carports serving multifamily residential or nonresidential development, openings shall be provided in accordance with Sections 18.58.330 and 18.58.340. Ordinance No. 2010 — 2344 15 • Amending nle 18 Westside Specific Plan Standards 61 D. A tandem parking garage for two vehicles shall be a minimum of ten feet wide by thirty-eight feet long. A tandem parking space within a parking structure shall be a minimum of 8.5 feet wide by 36 feet long. 18.58.350 Tandem aarkinq. Tandem parking spaces are permitted in the RS-4, and MCR-1 and MCR-2 zones and within the CL zone of the Westside Specific Plan. Section 8. Chapter 18.62 of the National City Municipal Code is hereby amended by amending Sections .18.62.030 and 18.62.105 to read as follows: 18.62.030 Definitions. As used in this Chapter, and in addition to the definitions in Chapter 18.04, the following definitions or concepts shall be applicable: A. 'Awnings and canopies" are any roof -like covers that project•from the wall of a building for the purpose of shielding a doorway or window from the elements. B. "Awning sign° is any sign copy or logo attached to or painted on an awning or canopy. C. "Banner" is any flexible material, such as cloth, plastic, vinyl, paper, cardboard or thin metal, with or without a "message", attached outdoors to a building, structure or mounting . device, or attached indoors to a building, structure or mounting device so as to be visible from the exterior of a building, or structure. The term "banner" includes a pennant, flag, or bunting. D. "Bunting" is a form of banner that is typically presented and displayed in a folded or gathered fashion or combination. It may include a display in combination with a flag or banner. Depending on the format of the display, the term may be synonymous with banner. E. "Business premises" refers to specific business occupancy within a buNding or upon a parcel of land, typically having a specific address and discrete entrance(s) and exits) so as to maintain a specific business identity and location. F. "Changeable copy sign" refers to a sign displaying a "message" that is changed by means of moveable letters, slats, lights, light emitting diodes, or moveable background material. G. "Civic event sign" is a temporary sign, other than a commercial sign, posted to advertise a civic event sponsored by a public agency, school, church, civic-fratemal organization, or similar noncommercial organization. H. "Convenience sign or directional sign" is a sign that conveys information (e.g. restrooms, no parking, entrance) or minor business identification for directional purposes, and is designed to be viewed by pedestrians and/or motorists. I. "Directional sign" is any individual sign used to provide directions to pedestrians and vehicular traffic. It shall not Include a grouping or mosaic of individual signs that are arranged in such a manner as to constitute a larger sign. J. "Directory sign" is a sign listing the tenants of a multiple tenant structure or center. K. "Double-faced sign° is a sign constructed to display its message on the otiter surfaces of two identical and opposite parallel planes. L. "Flag" is a form of "banner" that is mounted and displayed outdoors on a pole. M. "Freestanding sign" means a sign which is permanently supported on the ground by one or more uprights, braces, poles, or other similar structural components that are not attached to any building. This category includes both monument and pole signs. N. "Frontage" when used as a measurement reference of a building or business premises, shall refer to the distance between the two most distant comers of a building measured in a straight line along the building face bordering the adjoining street. See Section Ordinance No. 2010 — 2344 16 Amending Title 18 Westside specific Plan standards 6 18.04.280 pertaining to frontage when made applicable to a parcel of land. It shall also refer to the elevation of a building that abuts or adjoins a private or public right-of-way or parking lot. O. "Height" means the distance measured vertically from grade to the highest point or portion of the object to be measured or height limited. P. "illuminated sign" means a sign whose message is made readable by internal or external lights or light emitting diodes, typically during hours of darkness. Q. "install" or' installation" includes but is not limited to the act by which a sign is constructed or placed on land or a structure, or the act of attaching, painting, printing, producing, or reproducing, or using any other method or process by which a visual message Is presented or placed upon a surface.' R. "Message` means any form of visual communication presented on any type of media. It is not material whether the communication has any logical, practical, literary, or artistic significance or not it includes any form or combination of letters, graphics, symbols or designs. The term is not intended to indude mono -color paint applied to the exterior, trim, fascia, or other ardstedaual elements of a building for protection against the elements. S. "Monument sign" means a low -profile freestanding sign supported by a structural base or other solid structural features other than support poles and may contain signage on more than one side. T. "Mural" or "mural -type sign" means a sign painted on the exterior wail of a building consisting of graphics or images, either alone or in combination with letters. U. "Off -site" or "off -site sign" refers to a sign or banner that promotes or advertises goods, services or activities located or offered on a business premises or parcel that is separate from the parcel where the sign Is located, even 11 the two sites orparcels are contiguous to each other. V. "On -site" or "on -site sign" refers to a sign or banner that promotes or advertises goods, services, or activity located or offered on the business premises or parcel of property where the sign is located. W. "Outdoors" means a location on undeveloped property or to the exterior of a building or structure. X. "Outdoor advertising" refers to the placement of a message on signs or banners located outdoors, or located indoors In a manner such that the message Is visible from the exterior of a building or structure. Y. . "Parcels` or "property" or similar references or descriptions shall refer to parcels defined or delineated by assessor parcel numbers maintained by the County tax assessor or as defined by Sections 18.04.476 and 18.04.388 of this Code. Z. Pedestrian oriented sign" is a small, pedestrian -oriented sign (less than four square feet) that projects perpendicularly from a structure (bracket sign) or is hung beneath a canopy (blade sign). AA. "Pennant' is a banner with three sides. BB. "Permanent sign" means a sign that is solidly attached to a building, structure, or the ground by means of mounting brackets, bolts, welds, or other combination of attachment methods, thereby rendering the sign non -moveable or difficult to reposition without the use of machinery, cutting devices. or mechanical devices. See also `temporary sign." CC. "Pole sign" means a permanently mounted, freestanding sign which is supported above the ground by one or more uprights, braces, poles, or other similar structural components. DD. 'Portable sign" is a sign that is not affixed to a structure or the ground (e.g., A - frame or sandwich -board signs). EE. "Projecting sign is a sign that protrudes in a V-shape from the top of the round floor over the sidewalk, like a traditional theater marquee. Orcrinence No. 2010 —2344 17 Amending Tide 18 Westside Specific Plan Standards 6: FF. 'Shopping center" shall mean a group of commercial buildings as defined in Section 18.04.596. GG. "Sign" as used in this Chapter 18.62, shall generically refer to any medium through which a message is conveyed which is placed outdoors in any zone or is visible to the exterior of a commercial or industrial building or structure. It shall include a banner and any of the following: 1. Any advertising display defined in Section 9.32.010. 2. Any message painted, printed, or otherwise produced or affixed on or to: a. The exterior of a building or structure; b. A rigid or semi -rigid material or surface, such as wood, metal, or plastic, attached to a building, structure, or pole or which is itself free-standing; or c. An inflatable balloon or other three-dimensional object that is tethered or fastened to a building, structure, pole, or the ground. HH. "Temporary sign" means a sign that Is easily moveabte and which is not attached to a building, structure, or the ground in such a manner as to be rendered a permanent sign. II. "Visible to the exterior" refers to the placement of a sign or banner within the interior first eight feet of a commercial or industrial building or structure in such a manner so that it or its message is readily visible on an immediately contiguous public right-of-way, parking lot, or parcel. To be visible does not require that the message be understandable or readable. 18.62.105 A frame signs -Regulated. Freestanding A frame signs shall be permitted within the Westside Specific Plan area, positioned outside ofthe public right-of-way provided that: 1. 'The displays are properly maintained; 2. Maximum of one (1) sign may be displayed at a time. 3. The sign shall be limited to five (5) feet in height by three (3) feet in width. 4. The sign shall be limited to two (2) sign faces per sign, back-to-back. 5. There shall be no external or internal illumination. 6. The sign shall not be permanently affixed to any object, structure or the ground, inducting utility poles, light poles, trees or any merchandise o products displayed outside of buildings. 7.. The sign shall be portable, self-supporting, stable, and weighted or constructed to withstand overtuming or by wind or contact. 8. The sign shall not be displayed during non -business hours. 9. The sign shall be located directly in front of the buildingand/or business that It is advertising. 10. The sign shall not be placed in such a way as to interfere with pedestrian and/or vehicular sight lines or comer clear zone requirements as specified by the City. 11. The sign shall into be placed In such a way as to obstruct access to a public sidewalk, public street, driveway, parking space, fire door, fire escape, handicapped access or in such a way that it obstructs free passage over any public right-of-way. 12. The sign shall not obscure or interfere with the effectiveness of any official notice or public safety device. Section 9. Chapter 18.88 of the National City Municipal Code is hereby amended by amending Section 18.88.010 to read as follows: Section 18.88,010 Use as Dwelline-Restrictions. Except within the Westside Specific Plan area, a mobile home shall not be used for living or sleeping purposes except when located in an approved mobile home park. Within the Westside Specific Plan RS-4 zone, a new mobile home Ordinance No. 2010 —2344 18 Amending Title 18 Westside Specllic Plan Standards 6. or modular home may be installed upon obtaining appropriate building permits and provided that the mobile home or modular unit meets the design guidelines of the Westside Specific Plan and the City's Design Guidelines. Section 10. Chapter 18.104 of the National City Municipal Code is hereby amended by amending Section 18.104.01.0 to read as follows: 18.104.010 Description. A. A use group is a compilation of land use types having similarities which are compatible with each other and which, when grouped together, enable systematic consideration of location and other regulations, thus accomplishing the purpose(s) of the zones described in this title. B. Chapters 18.14 through 18.20 set forth the regulations for each zone. For each of these dmapters there is a table showing the use groups permitted in the zones. Use groups are Identified in Sections 18.104.050 through 18.104.410 by number and name and a descriptive statement. An alphabetical listing of typical uses allowed within respective use groups is found in Appendix D of the National City Land Use Code. The use groups with their respective examples of typical uses are found in Appendbc B of the National City (.,and Use Code: Except that specific use groups are identified for the Westside Specific Plan area and are identified in Appendix E of the Land Use Code. Section 11. Chapter 18.108 of the National City Municipal Code is hereby amended by amending Sections 18.108.030 and 18.108.100 to read as follows: 18.108.030 Enlaroements and alterations. No -existing building or premises designed, arranged. intended or devoted to a use not permitted in the zone in which such building or premises is located shall be enlarged, extended, reconstructed or structurally altered, except: A. Work done in any period of twelve months on ordinary structural alterations or replacements of walls, foctures or plumbing not exceeding twice the building's assessed value, according to the assessment thereof by the county assessor for the fiscal year in which such work is done, shall be permitted. B. These previsions shall not prevent the expansion, increase in capacity, modernization or replacement of such public utility buildings, structures, equipment, and features as are used directly for the delivery of or distribution of the service; provided, however, that all yard requirements of the zone In which the site Is located shall be maintained and there shall be no enlargement of the site. C. A single-family detached dwelling may be reconstructed or remodeled in accordance with the standards of the existing structure, i.e., in the same building location on the lot, the same size of the existing structure, and the same height as the existing structure; however, different materials and architectural details may be used. • D. A nonconforming use located in the Westside Specific Plan area that substitutes another nonconforming use in compliance with Section 18.108.100, may expand, enlarge, reconstruct or structurally alter the footprint of the existing building or Structure for that substituted nonconforming use up to twenty percent (20%) within die existing parcel in which It is located, subject to first obtaining a conditional use permit. 18.108.100 Substitution of nonconforming uses. A A nonconforming use may not be converted to any use except to a speciiicaily permitted use in the zone of the parcel on which it is located; except that conversion of a lawful nonconforming use to a nonconforming use found by the planning commission to be a lawful Ordinance No. 2010 — 2344 19 Iknending Title 18 Westside Specific Plan Standards 6, nonconforming use on another site within the sane zone may be allowed where a conditional use permit therefore has been approved; provided, that this shall in no way extend the abatement provisions otherwise contained in this chapter. The exception stated in this paragraph of allowing a conversion of a lawful nonconforming use to another nonconforming use within the same zone does not apply to nonconforming uses located within the Westside Specific Plan area. B. Nonconforming uses located within the Westside Specific Plan area. 1. A nonconforming use located on a parcel or parcels located within the Westside Specific Plan may not be converted to any use except to a specifically permitted use in the zone of the parcel or parcels on which it is located, except as follows: a. A nonconforming_ use may be converted to any use which is specifically permitted in the allowable uses for any of the zones identified in Appendix A of the 'Westside Specific Plan. 2. A nonconforming use that converts to another nonconforming use from Appendix A may enlarge and alter their footprint to the extent allowed in Section 18.108.030. C. In the CA zone where there exists commercial retail shopping facilities which became nonconforming at the time of the adoption of the National City Land Use Code, such facilities may be continued and may continue to lease commercial retail space to uses typical of such facilities but not otherwise permitted in the CA zone. Section 12. Chapter 18.140 of the National City Municipal Code Is hereby amended by amending Sections 18.140.030, 18.140.040, and 18.140.050 to read as follows: 18.140.030 ReculatiOnS aeneralty. limited commercial A. Mixed use may be permitted in the tourist commercial (CT), (CL), general commercial (CG), medium commercial (CM) and heavy commercial (CH) zones with the issuance of a conditional use permit, in accordance with Chapter 18.116 of this title. However, a single residence on a lot may be permitted with site plan review approval by the planning director where deemed appropriate in accordance with Chapter 18.128 of this title. B. Expansion, enlargement, and/or reconstruction of existing multifamily residential structures, not resulting in any additional dwelling units, may be permitted with site plan review approval by the planning director in accordance with Chapter 18.128 of this title where such expansion would not exceed ten percent of the size of the structure and where the number of units is permitted by Section 18.140.040. C. Mixed use shall be permitted within the mixed use commercial -residential (MCR- 1 and MCR-2) with site plan review approval by the Planning Division in accordance with Chapter 18.128 of this title. However, a single residence nce on a permit,lot within athenecMC-R zones may be permitted with the approval of a building permit 18.140.040 Number of dwelling units allowed. A. The maadmum number of dwelling units which may be permfttee in the CT, CG, CM and CH zones shall be limited to one dwelling unit per each full one thousand two hundred fifty square feet of lot area , in the CL zone to one dwelling unit per each full one thousand nine hundred square feet of lot area. B. In the MCR-1 and MCR-2 zones are, the minimum number of dwelling units for multi -family development is 24 dwelling units per acre with a maximum of 60 dwelling units per acre in accordance with Chapter 18.16. Ordinance No. 2010 —2344 20 Amending Title 18 Westslde Specific Plan Standards 6 18.140.050 Desirrn reeauiations. A. Residential development, and the residential component of a joint commerciaUresidential development shall be subject to the residential design regulations referenced in the City of National City Design Guidelines (1991) and as follows: 1. Single-family residential use shall be subject to the RS-2 design regulations. 2. Two-family residential use shall be subject to the RT design regulations. 3. Multi -family residential and mixed use commercial -residential shall be subject to the City's Design Guidelines for the MCR-1 and MCR-2 zones as additionally provided in the Westside Specific Plan (2010). B. Open space requirements for residential multi -family developments in the CL, CT, CG, CM, and CH, as required by Section 18.14.301 except that for the MCR-1 and MCR 2 zones a minimum of 300-sqaure feet of common usable open space and 75-feet of private open space shall be provided for each unit over three units. As an alternative for projects incorporating both commercial and residential uses required common open space may be provided es landscaped courtyard areas for passive use, integrated with both commercial and residential components for the development. C. The parking requirements for residential development in the CT, CL and CG zones shall be as follows: D. The parking requirements for residential development In the CT, CL and CG zones shall be as follows: 1. RS-2 parking requirements for one detached residence; 2. RT parking requirements for two attached unite 3. RS-3 parking requirements for two or more detached units; 4. RM-1 parking requirements for multi -family residential use. E. The following parking requirements shall apply for mixed -use development in the CT, CI, and CG zone: 1. The parking requirements for mixed -use development shalt be the sum of the requirements of the individual uses. Up to one-half of the required guest parking may be provided by the commercial parking facility. Where there Is an alley adjacent or abutting the property, access to the residential parking facility shallbe solely from that alley and the residential parking facility shall be adjacent to that alley where appropriate to avoid access to commercial collector or arterial streets. 2. The parking facility shall be designed and arranged to provide separation between the commercial and residential parking areas, and each parking area shall be designated. Residential parking shall be signed or marked to restrict commercial use. P. The following parking requirements shall apply to the MCR-1 and MCR-2 zones. Parking shall be also provided in accordance with Chapter 18.58. 1. The parking requirements in mixed -use development in the MCR-1 and MCR-2 zones shalt include 1.7 parking spaces for each dwelling unit of less than or equal to 1,200 square feet and 2.0 parkng spaces for each dwelling unit of more than 1,200 square feet. Shared parking may be considered where 50% of the parking may be shared between daytime uses (commercial and office) and nighttime uses (residential). 2. Joint parldng arrangements may be developed on -site or within a off -site parking lot or parking structure located within 500 feet of the property line of the development 3. A maximum of 25% of multi -family development may be provided with tandem parking spaces in accordance with Chapter 18.58. G. A comprehensive sign program shall be included with any conditional use permit application for a mixed use development or within any site plan review permit. Ordinance No. 2010 — 2344 21 Amending We 18 Westslde Specific Plan Standards 61 H. Exceptions to the design regulations listed or referenced in this section may be granted in conjunction with the required conditional use permit or site plan review application if consistent with the general plan. PASSED and ADOPTED this 3rd day of August, 2010. ATTEST: Michael R. Della, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: Claudia G. City Atto K% — llva, Esq. Ordinance No. 2010 — 2344 on Morrison, Mayor Amending lltta 18 Weetside Specific Plan Standards p 'ca { Schools 8 Colleges . I Park —Pubic or Private 2 -Area wide Conditional uses - - .These) uses as noted.below IPublic t t1ny&Tranohrssion Ch APPENDIX A Westside Specific Plan Land Use -• i ice. Area wide permitted uses — As noted below i . I 1 ♦ 1 f. f X x X• X X .- - I I • A. 0 0 X X •0 0. • O X• X X •X • • 1 0 •a X% 0 Xx o*• ice: .I .' (7 X •X X X ro o o: o Ca X- X C! A .1 Cf X- X X I • •. n CV I X X 0 0 X I X X X x. f ' I 1 .• cr. I I tic / i( I I :X X •X X X 0 6 APPENDIX A Wcsteilde Specific Plan -Land.Use • Group No Use # " Use Group' - zones Reference • - RS-4 MCR-1 MCR-2 CL • IC OSR • Auto Bect ordcs installation & Repair • - " - -' - - Auto Electronics Shop • - - _ - - - - '' • Auto Glass Stop. - - Auto Muffler Shop . . - - - - • - ' Atli) Parts 6 A Sales . :• - X X X - - - Auto Parts Exchange 1 - - Auto Pawn.Lot • - - - - Auto Rachator Shop - - - - - • Auto Repair. Minor & Major - . - - - - - Auto Rep* Mobile - X X . X - - .: Auto Sales •and Leasing - C C C - ,-- Auto Sales. Used - - C . C C . - - • Auto Services Otnce (Insurance. financing, etc.) " X X X • Auto Smog Emission Station _ - - -, - - - Auto Static Inspection• - • - - - • - Auto Storage !- Auto Towing (Dispatch Only - _ - -- Auto Trerusinission Repair• - - Auto Upholster - - - . - • Boat Sales & Leasing • - C. C . C - - Camper Sales. Leasing. Rental • . - C C• Car VNastt (Accessory Gas P.umps Permitted). - - - - - . . - - X = Permitted Use C = l}equlres approval of a - Conditional Use Permit = Not Permitted Use ii 2 111 :eSn PGI*41ed ION 18404U05 e jOlohnidde scuinbes = 3 esnUluMed =. X . • ^ - 3 ' 3 .. . 3. . - . . . clrltoltekr .' • . - - . • - - - (04001V ffultdeS)P14 etAIEG .0 - . Obilirl BerP00 . . • - - . - . • - - - • • .. ' - sTatinfe0 , ' . ' • • „ • • . amo4SAllePoloi pun tufwon.toceonbSolows . • 3 • . 0 • ; • . • - •..' . -• - . 3 • -0 ' 3 . - • . • . oponi*Iiiewoonuay. ,„ . • • - 3 3 • . - • . . . 3 - . . • .••cespoill . Tieru 864110 0113eictno Wit:Ifeq Pe1111w9d • Se soon 104*mA/ow . - . • Pbe lu.10.811441 ' . .9 . - •- - - - - . ' '• . . .. NjeiledSia .6119 101104040d Perin . . • ' - - . . 0 . 0 • , . _ . alOie WelliPtedea. la foossoonysota0Aodo)4 609 • . _ . -. - - • . - • .. . 'Mosso:QV 41PA !Willed WV . - . . - - _ • • . . • • - aplAtOS uorualtuo:ra ullA - - . tkrciP1Puorsell I80 Petah • ' . - - - .11114:198 Pluitt111/Pwal.'sews iPni1 . .... _ . .. 1. • . - . - . . - . . - . iledeU • ISAMU' ‘61:1illegl 'OOPS ie11111.1.. . • - - • - , - • . _ . _• . . iledeil Weil . tufsval soft itlAo4c4014 . . . ' . • -- - 0 . 3 - .3 . . . - • se188 eiliaH _ .. • ... _ . • - .. . . ..stpilft sett .. - - - . - • • - . . - - . . dn sok!. to-eApu - • .q180 . , - 01 .10 Z-1i0S1 • . • • I:NO' K. . . . t-ald • • . . aval910'41-. . • . ,Inctle nil - - oN &mug -'59UO2 ' • . • . • • es n peel !laid NiPecht-spie;sem • V XICIPladcilf • '' .. , . • . . .. . . . 9 71 APPENDIX A Westekle.Spsii.ktfic Plan ; Lakin Use No Usbit Use Grasp' Zones Reference • AS-4- MCR 1 . -SACR-" CL • IC OSR ' Pod HallBARard i iall - C C C - RestaucarnvwNh.Dandngafter ' . iSinnerHOUrs - - - X X X - 8 ' Com merdai recreedon indoor Uses 18.104.100 • —• •. - C C • - •C • C : ' r - 7 Comrnerddrrejxeation oetdobr 18.104.1.10 C- C - C - •- 8 COrrunuruy+, rxdintid. and . public reaeatiorlal services .18.104.120 - . C C G C . ... C .•+ 9 Dwelling, ai4e4anitly. . ('Exfeling SFR permitted and Wowed to In CI, , no• new Single family use' pem>Hlbdin CL•) • 18,104.130 X X X . X' X - 10 Dwelflng. two-tamtry ' _ •'18:104.140 • • - X - X . - . 11 Mutopse• rally dweilin9 18.104,150 X X _ 12 ' CWeileg, mobile tame -18.104.180 - — - - • - . - 13 Eating plaoes,-onesthan • takeout - 18.1042170 X X - 14 • eating places • 18.104.180 — X• X • X ' - - , '. 15 Fetid pmceslrig 18.104.180 — — - - - - 16 Gasoline sentice•steeons 18.104 200 . — - - 17 . ' Convanience"goods. & services • 18.104.218 - X . ' X " - X - - 18 Shopparg goods 4 services . • 18.204.22a - . X X :X - - - X = Perrpiaed Use • • C = Requires approval of -a Condidenai Use Permit - = Not Permitter! Use 7 " ' APPEID.tX A V.Ue$slde S lfic Plan land Use :, Group. N p Use #ueedroup.t • Reference Zones . RS•4 , MCi3-1 • MCR-2 CL IC OSR 19 . -. • .. . Other goods andseMces . except those prohibited uses noted below: Al services pemilited shag Provide storage within the building. No exterior storage Pereilited. 18.1D4.220 • — • •X . • • X X • Auto iElectiorilos installation and Rep* - - - - - _ - Auto Transmission Repair - - • - - - - - - - -. Car Wash - - - - - . .Ce►arnic Product Sales Yard • - - - - - - -- , Ur* Sales & Service - - - - - ' • a aYCleaning Plant ..• - - • • - .. - xderminng Service - - - _ • - - - . • Lumber Yard - - - - - - _ Nursery- G'er len Supplies - - - -• - - - rdMotorSalService OOutbo�avo. . - - - . - _ - : . Fiat er Castf9rkres'Sate ` • and Outdoor Display . - . - • - - -•. Sward and Ceramic Product - _- - L • :Recycling CoitecBor+ Carder • - - • - _ '.. Shipping containers Incidental b Reveres Vending Machines- with aLioeneed Recycling • Facility - • - - • - . - - - . Conditional Ilse Permit used as noted k► yea Group 19 - - C - C - X = Permitted Use C = Requires approval ofa . Conditional Use Permit = Not Permitted Use v i 7: . . • . . . A-PPEND-DC A WesiskielSppelfic Rtan Land Pse .• .... - .. . Group No Use # . Use Groupl . Zones . R • . • RS-4. MCR-1 . . MCR-2 • ' . CL . IC - .0SR 20 . . Heavy equipmerit & machinery Not pemitted except as noted. 18_104240 - ' :- - • • - - • • . • .. . - Public Transit Facility ' — -. X . - - . - 21 Hbtel, mete!, & related services • • ' 18.104250 - X X . • X , - • • • 22 . ' Light manufactUring - MI senricee noted.as permitted shall provide storage within the. building. No exterior storage permitted. . 18.104280 - • X. X . ' . .... .. • ,, Assembly • - . . . • _ , _ • Asaembly of Camper.Shelis - - - . - _ — • Assembly of Electronic. Circuits -. - - . • •- ,• • Assembly. or Par:laving. • - - - _. N._ . Auto Assembly • - - - - - - - Auto DetrAng - - , - - - . . - . _ .,... • , Mobile • •• - -• X X X •- - - Blackeinftit • - • - . - - - - - . - - -. . Building Materials Storage .Yard &Retail Sales - -, - . . - - Cabinet & Carpentry Shops C " C C . • • Chemical Ekihing Of . ' Manufactured Products - - •. - . Computer Maintenance and Installation X " • X X - -- - Contractofs Storage end Equipment Yard -• - . - - • - : - • - Deck Systems Packaging and SeMces- - - • - - - - , - - X =• Permitted Use - C = Requiter; upproval ota Conditional Use Permit =Not Permitted Use VI 6 7 •ittOirt#11,1),Z A Westsfite ipedffie-Piao •Leuid Group - Use # Use Group'. Delicatessen Diving (Comercial) Reference • SICR-1 moR-2 ci ?(: • • wing Emseansigmta.. Deadest Appilance-Assently eitilpmentPapalr . Femora Market " • c e • c c. 10 • ; • Film Processing • HYdraulie Repair. Marina & • Commercial • . Machine Shop • MaN Order Meuse Manufacture • 11004280- ' t Mattress Repair & Recoveling Meta Polishing - Packaging • • Pointing 9f Sinai Pmts & Natal Coming . Philo:v*0800Si °Togo Pang . IFlask Fithdeoling Sciarusion Pneuritatic& %fibulae Control Systems Repair • ••• 44 Refuse Disposal Truck & Container•Facillty .14 Repair of *1017 Equipment (Nng Machnes,- Lathes. Grinders, etc.) • Shaet.Meta. SfrIOp X = Permitted. USe C = Requires approval of a Conditional Use Permit - = Not Permitted Use 7 7, APPPDX A WetttOdSgietlfic Plan LandUse „ . Group : No Use* . . . 1-01i ProuP1 7-0!t; ....., 'es • . . Reference . RS-4 • - . * - .MCR-1 . MCR-2 . CL IC QSR : • . . . . The Rebuliding.or Rectiptilng ' • - - . - - - . -- ToRebies (Podtegkig) • • ' - ' - - - ' - - • - , • . Tod( * Die Shop - . - - - _ ... _ . ' . . Used Tire Sales • • - - - . - . . . -• - - . •• welding six* . - • .. — _ _ .1 . ., Wholesale Business Principal use -no retail) • • . • ' • • - - " . * - • - . , .... • ., Whoiesale.(in =Imam with ' retail) • , • - • -. • - . - . . - • Wood Sawing .. - - • - • • Wood Truss Fabrication f. • Sides . • • - . . ..•- • . -•- . - ' • 22- • AU Useti nutedei perrritted • with a CorsiNonal- Uses:would not be permitted. ' 18.104280 - - - -. • - . . 23 • Mediuni manufacturing ' • 18104270 . - - " -•• . . . .. - 24 Heavy manufacturing • ' . 18.164.280 - • - . . - - - Manufacturing tidelands . 108:104290 - •25 •- • - - - - . . 26 Mineral resource extraCtim and on:ceasing, - . .•• ' 108.104.300 - _ . --• _ • - - •- . ' 27 . Miceli and studios 18.164.610 - ?( , . k x • ' x - • • ' . Arfist and craft studios and similar ccittage Indirstnj . • . X. •X- - X • X. 7 : Schools, studios and Coieges Located Within an redsting ' bulking when adequate. parking can be estabilshed (as • determined by the Planning Director) • : • • X . -• • - • • X • • 'X • - • • X ' . X = Permitted Uie C = Requires approval °Ts Conditional Use.Permit •• 7 Not Permitted Use viii 7 APPENDIX A Westslde Specific Plan Land Use Group No Use # 28 29 30 31 • 3? 33 34 35 38 37 38 39 Use Group' off-etreet parldng Public protection factlides Public Utilities Research & Development Scrap metal processing Signs & Outdoor Advertising Zones Reference RS4 14CFt-1 )4CR-2 CL IC OSR 18.104.320 18.104.330 18.104.340 1&104350 18.104.380 X c x c X c* c Temporary Uses —with approval of alemporery Use Pam* Wholesaling. Warehousing & Distribution Tnx*TrairsPortation Facades Waterfront Open Space Reserve Om Space Reserve ismcno. 18.104280 18.104.390 18.104.400 18.104.410 18.104.420 18.104.430 X X X X X • X X X X X X X x X Use group numbers and reference sections correspond to standard nomenclature and definitions established in Section 18.104 of the NCLUC. 2 Ground floor retail required on Civic Center Drive. X = Permitted Use C = Requires approval of a Conditional Use Permit - = Not Permitted Use ix X X X X X X X X 7i I;� ga 1331 1,1l I I 1. le 1-1Z,1111 k1111 1111j1 11�1 111, 1�p� �10 111 11U 11111� 11111111111 111111 1111111110�11 Ij 1' ° W " I EhII 111111E � E L!Ue ells ®©®8®®© Ia 1� �c� OCR®� - J 7 Passed and adopted by the Council of the City of National City, California, on August 3, 2010, by the following vote, to -wit: Ayes: Counc€Imembers Morrison, Sotelo-Solis, Van Deventer, Zarate. Nays: None. Absent: None. Abstain: None. AUTHENTICATED BY: RON MORRISON By: Mayor of the City of National City, California MICHAEL R. DALLA City Clerk of the City of National City, California Deputy I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing ordinance was not finally adopted until seven calendar days had elapsed between the day of its introduction and the clay of its final passage, to wit, on July 20, 2010 and on August 3, 2010. I FURTHER CERTIFY THAT said ordinance was read in full prior to its final passage or that the reading of said ordinance in full was dispensed with by a vote of not Tess than a majority of the members elected to the Council and that there was available for the consideration of each member of the Council and .the public prior to the day of its passage a written or printed copy of said ordinance. I FURTHER CERTIFY that the above and foregoing Is a full, true and correct copy of ORDINANCE NO. 2010-2344 of the City Council of the City of National City, passed and adopted by the Council of saki City on August 3, 2010. A h4& City Clerk of theNational City, California Deputy ATTACHMENT 3 81 Recommendations for Ranking Properties with Nonconforming Uses in the Westside Specific Plan Area FINAL REPORT March 2011 8 Prepared Under: Contract No. EP-W-07-023 Prepared for: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response Office of Brownfields and Land Revitalization Washington, DC 20460 Prepared by: www.sra.com/environment www.vitanuova.net 8: Disclaimer This document and the related spreadsheet were prepared for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) in conjunction with the City of National City, California and are provided as draft final documents. SRA/Vita Nuova has relied upon outside sources for information and data presented in this report and related spreadsheet. Although all best efforts were used to confirm information and complete this report and related spreadsheet, no representation or warranties are made as to the timeliness, accuracy or completeness of the information contained herein or that the actual results will conform to any projections or recommendations contained herein. SRA/Vita Nuova holds no responsibility for how the process outlined in this document and related spreadsheet will be implemented on a community -wide or site -specific basis. Any reliance upon this material shall be without any liability or obligation on the part of SRA/Vita Nuova LLC. The ranking process and spreadsheet described in this document are intended for the purpose of ranking properties with nonconforming uses and identifying properties for the development of recommendations on amortization and timing of amortization. The ranking process outlined in this document has been tested by National City to determine if the resulting property ranking is consistent with the expectations of National City. This testing included the evaluation of the impact of each factor and sub -factor and their weights on the overall ranking. The draft final documents reflect the comments and inputs of National City and of business stakeholders consulted in a meeting hosted by the Chamber of Commerce on January 26, 2011. It is recommended that the factors and sub -factors used and the scores and weights assigned to these factors and sub -factors not be changed once the spreadsheet is used to rank properties in order to ensure consistency in the property ranking process. 8 Contents DISCLAIMER 1 National City Partnership for Sustainable Communities Brownfield Pilot Project 1 Study Area 1 Pilot Scope 1 PROPERTY RANKING PROCESS 3 Factors and Sub -Factors 3 Values and Scoring 3 Ranking 4 Weights 5 APPLICATION OF THE PROPERTY RANKING PROCESS 6 PROPERTY RANKING FACTORS AND SUB -FACTORS 9 Business Operations Factors 9 Value of Land Factor 9 Value of Improvements Factor 9 Improvement Depreciation Factor 9 Neighborhood Impacts 10 Adaptability Factor 10 Land Size Sub -Factor 10 Building Size Sub -Factor 10 Building Type Sub -Factor 10 Building Condition Sub -Factor 11 Building Setbacks Sub -Factor 11 Floor Area Ratio Sub -Factor 11 Height Sub -Factor 11 Parking Sub -Factor 11 Nonconformance Factor 12 Land Size Sub -Factor 12 Building Size Sub -Factor 12 Building Setbacks Sub -Factor 12 Floor Area Ratio Sub -Factor 12 Height Sub -Factor 13 Parking Sub -Factor 13 Business License Sub -Factor 13 Compatibility Factor 13 Proximity to Sensitive Area Sub -Factor 14 Proximity to Residential Parcels Sub -Factor 14 Residential Density Sub -Factor 14 Threats Factor 14 Compliance Violations Sub -Factor 14 Permits Sub -Factor 15 Storage, Handling, Generation, Disposal Permit Sub -Factor 15 8, Discharge Violation Sub -Factor 15 Open Storage Sub -Factor 15 Work Area Sub -Factor 16 Security Sub -Factor 16 PROPERTY RANICING SPREADSHEET 17 8 Partnership for Sustainable Communities EPA Brownfield Pilot cs National City, CA Final March 2011 Introduction NATIONAL CITY PARTNERSHIP FOR SUSTAINABLE COMMUNITIES BROWNFIELD PILOT PROJECT Study Area The National City Pilot is located in the Westside neighborhood, a primarily low-income, minority, urban neighborhood, wholly contained within the incorporated limits of National City, California. National City has a population of approximately 61,000 and is located five miles south of San Diego. Over the past 50 years, the Westside neighborhood has evolved from a primarily residential neighborhood to include a significant number of industrial uses, mainly auto body -related, in and around homes and an elementary school. Pilot Scope Over the past few years, the Westside neighborhood has started to address the numerous heavy industrial uses, mostly auto -related, that exist throughout the neighborhood. With approximately 389 polluters per square mile, this technical assistance project is focused on providing recommendations for redeveloping and revitalizing the Westside TOD Project site and Westside neighborhood to build upon the City and community's redevelopment efforts already in progress, such as auto -related business design guidelines and revised zoning. This Pilot also includes technical assistance on: 1) sustainable remediation; 2) redevelopment options for the City -owned open space site; and 3) habitat restoration for Paradise Creek. This assistance was delivered as a separate recommendations report in January 2011. National City, CA has recently revised its zoning code to incorporate the Westside Specific Land Use Plan. The revised zoning resulted in a number of properties in the Westside area where the current land use does not conform to the revised zoning. Under the National City Land Use Code Section 18.108.230 - Affirmative Termination by Amortization, the city council "may order a nonconforming use to be terminated within a reasonable amount of time, upon recommendation of the planning commission." The Land Use Code requires the consideration of the following eight criteria when making a recommendation to terminate a nonconforming use and in recommending a reasonable amount of time in which to terminate the nonconforming use: 1. The total cost of land and improvements; 2. The length of time the use has existed; 3. Adaptability of the land and improvements to a currently permitted use; 4. The cost of moving and reestablishing the use elsewhere; 5. Whether the use is significantly nonconforming; 6. Compatibility with the existing land use patterns and densities of the surrounding neighborhood; 7. The possible threat to public health, safety or welfare; and 8. Any other relevant factors. The process for making a recommendation regarding a nonconforming use is a multi -step process that involves first identifying properties with nonconforming uses, ranking these properties based on a consistent set of criteria, and then developing an amortization recommendation for each property in the order of its ranking Within the context of this multi -step decision making process, this report develops an approach for ranking these properties that incorporates factors consistent with the criteria outlined in the Affirmative Termination by Amortization ordinance and provides a simple, reproducible process that can be easily understood by business owners and other stakeholders. 8 Partnership for Sustainable Communities EPA Brownfield Pilot ca National City, CA Final March 2011 The ranking process is designed to rank multiple nonconforming properties with similar nonconforming uses in relationship to one another. It is not intended to provide a method to calculate a score for an individual property, independent of other properties. The ranking process is not intended to be used as a means of determining whether a property contains a nonconforming use, but rather as a means of prioritizing those properties that have otherwise been determined to contain nonconforming uses. Further, the ranking process is not intended to be used for the purpose of determining whether to terminate a land use or to develop the amount of time in which to terminate a nonconforming use. These decisions will be made in accordance with the requirements of the National City Land Use Code Section 18.108.230 - Affirmative Termination by Amortization. 2 8 Partnership for Sustainable Communities EPA Brownfield Pilot cc National City, CA Final March 2011 Property Ranking Process A deterministic approach using an additive value model was selected as the primary mechanism for the development of the ranking process. The additive value model has been characterized by Belton and Stewart (2002)1 as a method that has an acceptable level of sophistication to deal with the complexities of multiple factor decision problems, but is straightforward enough for a diverse group of stakeholders. It is a method that combines scores on individual factors with weights for each factor to estimate an overall score. FACTORS AND SUB -FACTORS Factors are quantitative (e.g., $/sq ft) or qualitative (e.g., Yes or No) information that influence the ranking. For example, when comparing several cars to purchase, the price, body style, color, options, and fuel mileage may be the factors that are most important to you in selecting the car that best meets your needs (or ranks the highest). In some cases, it is necessary to break a factor into several sub -factors to incorporate multiple sets of information necessary to assign a score to a factor. For example, the sound system, interior style, interior color, engine size, and transmission type may be important sub -factors when evaluating the available options for each car. The value you assign may be a specific value that bests represents the factor or sub -factor. For example, the value for color may be blue, while the value for fuel mileage may be 35 miles per gallon. VALUES AND SCORING Scores are assigned to each group, factor, and sub -factor based on a quantitative or qualitative value that represents the outcome of a sub -factor or a factor where no sub -factors have been identified. A discussion of the method for assigning values to each factor or sub -factor is provided in the section of this report titled Property Ranking Factors and Sub -Factors. These values are then normalized to a common scale, such as 0 to 100, in order to assign a score that has a common basis for comparison for all groups, factors, and sub -factors. The score may be based on the range of values assigned to a factor or sub -factor, or it may be based on a potential range of values independent of the actual factor or sub -factor value. The scoring process should be viewed as a relative ranking process, so that outcomes that would result in a higher ranking are given higher scores and outcomes that would result in a lower ranking are given lower scores for any particular factor or sub - factor. For example, if blue is the only acceptable color, using a scale of 0 to 100, where 100 is the most desirable outcome for the color factor, cars that are the color blue would be assigned a score of 100, while cars of any other color would be assigned a score of 0. If there are other colors that are acceptable, but blue is the most desirable, scores could be assigned based on the order of preference. For example, a score of 100 for blue, 66 for green, 33 for red, and 0 for any other color. This process of normalising the values allows for the comparison and combination of the scores for factors and sub -factors to develop an overall score. Two common approaches for assigning factor and sub -factor scores are proportional scoring and binned scoring. The proportional score approach is used with the actual values of the factor or sub -factor. The values are scaled to a score between 0 and 100. Where the value representing the preference for the highest ranking (e.g., score = 100) is the maximum value (A.) and the value representing the preference ' Belton V. and T.J. Stewart. 2002. Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis: An Integrated Approach. Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers. 3 8: Partnership for Sustainable Communities EPA Brownfield Pilot ost National City, CA Final March 2011 for the lowest ranking (e.g., score = 0) is the minimum value (Amin), the remaining results are assigned scores relative to these two endpoints, where the score (vp(P)) is equal to the difference between the value for a factor (Ai) and the minimum value (Am;n) divided by the maximum value (Amy) minus the minimum value (Amin). (See Equation la). Where the value representing the preference for the highest ranking (e.g., score = 100) is the minimum value (Amin) and the value representing the preference for the lowest ranking (e.g., score = 0) is the maximum value (An.), the remaining results are assigned scores relative to these two endpoints, where the score (vp(P)) is equal to the difference between the value for a factor (Ai) and the maximum value (Ama,$) divided by the maximum value (Am,„) minus the minimum value (Amin). (See Equation lb). This is multiplied by 100 to give a value between 0 and 100. (a) va(P)= A' —Anun x100 (b) vr(P)= Am _4 x100 (1) �—Amm where vp(P) _ Amin = Amax = proportional score for the specific value Ai for a property minimum value for the factor or sub -factor for all properties maximum value for the factor or sub -factor for all properties This approach assumes that the increments in values have equivalent increments in score over the entire range of the factor or sub -factor values. The binned score approach is used where a score is assigned based on an assessment of preferences at different value levels for a factor or sub -factor. Bins are defined by a range of values that are assigned the same score —the bin score. All values in each specific range are assigned a score based on the bins. Binned scores can be assigned based on a range of values or a descriptive scale. Table lillustrates the binned scoring approach. Table 1: Example scoring bins based on quantitative values Value (Fuel llilca%e) Greater than or equal to 40 miles per gallon SGIIT 100 Less than 40 miles per gallon but greater than or equal to 35 - miles per gallon 75 Less than 35 miles per gallon but greater than or equal to 30 miles per gallon 50 Less than 30 miles per gallon but greater than or equal to 25 miles per gallon 25 Less than 25 miles per gallon 0 A discussion of the method for assigning a score to each factor or sub -factor is provided in the section of this report titled Property Ranking Factors and Sub -Factors. RANKING In a general sense, the overall score for purposes of ranking (V(P)) is equal to the sum of the score for each factor (v,(P)) times the weight (wi) for that factor. Equation 2 provides the basic additive model presented in Belton and Stewart (2002). 8 Partnership for Sustainable Communities EPA Brownfield Pilot ca3 National City, CA Final March 2011 V (P) = t=1 (2) For the implementation of the ranking process, a common scale is used with a convention that sets the score that indicates the greater preference. For example, a common scale of 0 to 100 can be used with the higher scores representing the greater preference. For each factor that is used in the ranking, the specific direction of the scale is determined. The ranking is based on an overall score which is the combination of the scores for each group, factor, and sub -factor and their respective weights. Using Equation 2, the score for each factor is equal to the sum of the product of the score times the weight for each sub -factor of that factor, the score for each group is equal to the sum of the product of the score times the weight for each factor associated with that group. The overall score is then the sum of the product of the score times the weight for each group, as shown in Equation 3. n n n V(P)=EK'gEWfEwsv8(P) g=1 f=1 s.l WEIGHTS (3) In many cases, not all of the factors (or sub -factors) will be of equal importance. For example, the price of the car may be more important than the color. This will result in the selection of a car that meets the price range, but may not be the primary choice of color. To address this potential variability in the importance or contribution of a factor or sub -factor, a weight or importance is assigned to each factor or sub -factor. A sub -factor weight is based on its importance to the factor, a factor weight is based on its importance to the group, and a group weight is based on its importance to the overall ranking. Equal weights would indicate that all factors or sub -factors are of equal importance. The weights represent the importance of each factor or sub -factor relative to one another. Weights for a group of factors or sub -factors must add to 1. There are a number of approaches that can be used for developing weights for the ranking process. The simplest approach is to assign the weights equally based on the number (n) of groups, factors, or sub - factors where the weight (wi) for each group, factor, or sub -factor is equal to one divided by the number (n) of groups, factors, or sub -factors for a factor, as shown in Equation 4. 1 _ — (4) The weights can also be assigned based on input from stakeholders and general knowledge of the importance of each group, factor, or sub -factor in the ranking process. The assignment of weights in this manner may require trial and error to evaluate the impact of the variable weights on the contribution of a group, factor, or sub -factor to the ranking process. Another approach suggested by Belton and Stewart (2002) to assign weights is to assign the weight (w1) for each group, factor, or sub -factor based on the number (n) of groups, factors, or sub -factors included and the order of importance (k) of a group, factor, or sub -factor as shown in Equation 5. wf -E- na (5) This last approach for weighting requires an evaluation of the groups, factors, or sub -factors for a factor to rank the groups, factors, or sub -factors based on their order of importance in the overall ranking process. 91 Partnership for Sustainable Communities EPA Brownfield Pilot ca National City, CA Final March 2011 Application of the Property Ranking Process To implement the property ranking process in National City, factors that were potentially important to prioritizing nonconforming uses were initially identified based on the eight criteria outlined in the amortization requirements, the revised zoning requirements for the Westside Specific Planning Area, and conversations with representatives of the City. These factors were divided into two groups: 1) business operations and 2) neighborhood impacts. Six of the eight amortization criteria were identified as potential factors to be included in the ranking process and were divided among the two groups. For each factor identified, one or more sub -factors were identified to better define the factors. Factors related to the cost of moving and reestablishing the use elsewhere were not used because information needed to assign values to this factor was determined to be very site specific and more appropriately addressed as part of the amortization decision process. Quantitative or qualitative values and scoring approaches were identified for each sub -factor or a factor where no sub -factors had been identified (See Property Ranking Factors and Sub -Factors). A common scale of 0 to 100 was used, with higher scores indicating a greater preference for addressing a property with a non -conforming use. A Microsoft Excel® spreadsheet was developed to calculate the ranking scores and document the ranking process. The initial weights were set to equal weighting for each group, factor, and sub -factor as described in Equation 4. Figure 1 shows the initial grouping, factors, and sub - factors selected for the ranking process and their weights. Figure 1: Initial groups, factors, sub -factors, and weights 25% 25% etnxlu.ity¢o rmsitiv� area P rusuudytn re4iiteI tial panel i and site Nusihe,In nsr Irian:, Ina' Iiuildi i!nnaaraIati0 tarp rovrtnontvalue... ilu ildint" drupreylal on andvalue 33% 33% 3491 33% 33% 34% '1SiiiGlfng harsh[ • 12.5% 12.5% 12.5% 12.5% 12.5% 1ZS% u.5% 12.5% 9 Partnership for Sustainable Communities EPA Brownfield Pilot cc National City, CA Final March 2011 The initial version of the spreadsheet was provided to National City for review and testing. The testing evaluated the impact of each factor and sub -factor and the scores and weights for each factor on the overall ranking to determine if the resulting property ranking was consistent with the expectations of National City. Based on the initial testing, it was determined that equal weighting for the groups, factors, and sub -factors was not appropriate. To determine a weighting scheme that would result in rankings that were consistent with the expectations of National City, the City was asked to place each grouping of factors and sub -factors in order of importance. Revised weights were developed for each group, factor, and sub -factor based on the number of groups, factors, or sub -factors included and the order of importance of factors or sub -factors, for a factor as shown in Equation 5. Figure 2 shows the ordering of the groups, factors, and sub -factors. Figure 2: Revised groups, factors, and sub -factors and order of importance for groups, factors, and sub - factors Groups k Factors sub -factors R P�oxir uL to �nsiriv; : r� Proxiirit(to residentiali,,E1 Rde trntielrnsnv Nnnconiormartce nnYenreq value 2 roar co Viol,lti or 2 3 4 5 6 2 3 4 5 6 7 The spreadsheet was revised to incorporate the updated factor and sub -factor weights and a series of meetings were held with National City Council members, the Mayor, and Vice -Mayor on January 25, 2011. In addition, the Chamber of Commerce hosted a meeting with business stakeholders on January 26, 2011 to present the ranking process and spreadsheet and solicit comments and feedback on the process. Several modifications to the spreadsheet were identified as a result of the meeting with the business stakeholders. The business stakeholders questioned the use of time in business as a factor, noting that there was not clear evidence that a high score should be assigned to a business that was in place on a property for either the longest time or the shortest time. Based on this input, the time a property contained a particular business use was removed as a factor and the business operations grouping was revised to include three 7 9: Partnership for Sustainable Communities EPA Brownfield Pilot pa National City, CA Final March 2011 factors (i.e., improvement value, building depreciation, and land value). The business stakeholders also suggested that the factor and sub -factor values that were based on a Yes or No response be revised so that Yes always resulted in the lowest score (e.g., 0) and No always resulted in the highest score (e.g., 100). Based on this input, the method for assigning a value and a score to several of the sub -factors for the threat factor was revised to make the scoring process consistent with other factors and sub -factors. Figure 3 shows the final groups, factors, and sub -factors and revised weights estimated using Equation 5. Figure 3: Final groupings, factors, and sub -factors and weights Groups Weight Factors Sub -factors WalOt eight., 52% .,blic 1hit,ta Nouronfom;ancc toga nvonI Floildinl, tleprecialton - tdfll Vahie P nsirnity to sensitise ar a Prnzi miry to WO d Ldp.-COI 8esidu11.1al ticn ity vn phanm violatiors Ponni!. Serenity Wo r kat PA l�urdsite 'Huikildg t�pl - _ `•fliiJdiu., tonitlil toor�rva,aun 3711 23% 16% 11% 7% 4% 2% 34% 22% 15% 11% 8% 5% 3% 2% In addition to the above comments, the business stakeholders suggested that a planned redevelopment on a property and whether a business owner leased or owned the property be considered as factors. These comments were discussed in some detail; however, it was determined by National City that these are issues that should be addressed as part of the development of the amortization evaluation and recommendation, rather than as a ranking criteria. A comment was also raised that a property owner may not be aware of non-compliance by a tenant that would result in that property being higher ranked. This higher ranking could result in the property being considered earlier for amortization. While this is true, the inclusion of the threat factor in the ranking process is in recognition that business uses that present potential threats to the neighborhood be addressed earlier. Finally, it was suggested by the business stakeholders that all properties containing nonconforming uses in the Westside area be ranked together rather than addressing nonconforming uses in smaller groupings. The spreadsheet is currently designed to rank up to 50 properties, but could be expanded to include a larger number. 8 9 Partnership for Sustainable Communities EPA Brownfield Pilot caa National City, CA Final March 2011 Property Ranking Factors and Sub -Factors As discussed previously, factors were divided into two groups: 1) business operations and 2) neighborhood impacts. For each factor, one or more sub -factors were identified, where appropriate, to better define the factor. For each sub -factor, a method of assigning a value and a score to the factor or sub -factor for purposes of ranking was identified. The factors and sub -factors identified for each group are described in more detail below. Figure 4 provides a summary of the final values and weights for the factors and sub -factors. BUSINESS OPERATIONS FACTORS The business operations factors include those criteria that are specifically related to the operation of the business: 1. The value of the land; 2. The value of the improvements; and 3. Improvement depreciation. For each of these factors, a method of assigning a value was developed. Value of Land Factor The cost of the land is the current assessed value of the land the business currently occupies and is expressed as the value per square foot of land. Lower value land will contribute to a higher ranking for the property. The score is developed using the proportional score method where a score of 100 is assigned to the property with the lowest land value and a score of 0 is assigned to the property with the highest land value. Value of Improvements Factor The cost of improvements is the current assessed value for improvements on the property the business currently uses and is expressed as the value per square foot of building used by the business. In multiple story buildings, the total floor space of the building used by the business is included. For purposes of assigning a score to this factor, it is assumed that lower improvements will result in a higher score. Lower valued improvements will contribute to a higher ranking for the property. The score is developed using the proportional score method where a score of 100 is assigned to the property with the lowest value improvements and a score of 0 is assigned to the property with the highest value improvements. Improvement Depreciation Factor The amount of time a business may have had to recuperate investments in improvements can be represented by the relationship between the time since the last major investment in improvements and the typical depreciation time for these types of improvements. This can be expressed as the ratio of the number of years since the investment was made to the number of years typically used to depreciate the improvement. Current tax law allows depreciation of improvements on non-residential properties by equal amounts annually over 39 years for improvements in service on or after May 13, 1993 or 31.5 years for improvements in service before May 13, 1993. A larger ratio will contribute to a higher ranking. The score is developed using the proportional score method where a score of 100 is assigned to the property with the largest ratio and a score of 0 is assigned to the property with the smallest ratio. 9 9, Partnership for Sustainable Communities EPA Brownfield Pilot o3 National City, CA Final March 2011 NEIGHBORHOOD IMPACTS The second group includes those criteria that are generally related to the surrounding neighborhood: 1. Adaptability of the land and improvements to a currently permitted use; 2. Whether the use is significantly nonconforming; 3. Compatibility with the existing land use patterns and densities of the surrounding neighborhood; and 4. The possible threat to public health, safety, or welfare. For each of these factors, sub -factors were identified, where appropriate, and a method to assign a value to each sub -factor was developed. Adaptability Factor This factor measures the ability for the existing land and improvements to be utilized for a new use permitted under the revised zoning. This factor is based on information about the size of the land, size, type, and condition of improvements, and the requirements under the current zoning for highest and best use. Land Size Sub -Factor The zoning requirements have minimum lot sizes. A Yes or No is provided in answer to the question of whether the size of the land meets the minimum requirements for uses under the revised zoning. Lot sizes less than the minimum lot size will be limited in their use under the revised zoning and will contribute to a higher ranking. The land size sub -factor is assigned a value and score as follows: 1. Yes - The size of the land meets the minimum requirements for uses under the revised zoning (Score = 0). 2. No - The size of the land does not meet the minimum requirements for uses under the revised zoning (Score = 100). Building Size Sub -Factor The zoning requirements have minimum building sizes. A Yes or No is provided in answer to the question of whether the size of the building meets the minimum requirements for uses under the revised zoning. Buildings that do not meet the minimum building size will contribute to a higher ranking. The building size sub -factor is assigned a value and score as follows: 1. Yes - The size of the building meets the minimum requirements for uses under the revised zoning (Score = 0). 2. No - The size of the building does not meet the minimum requirements for uses under the revised zoning (Score = 100). Building Type Sub -Factor The type of building can provide an indication of the building's reuse under the revised zoning. A Yes or No is provided in answer to the question of whether the building type is usable under the revised zoning. Buildings that cannot be used under the revised zoning will contribute to a higher ranking. The building type sub -factor is assigned a value and score as follows: 1. Yes - The building type is usable under the revised zoning (Score = 0). 2. No - The building type is not usable under the revised zoning (Score = 100). 10 9 Partnership for Sustainable Communities EPA Brownfield Pilot cat National City, CA Final March 2011 Building Condition Sub -Factor The condition of the building provides an indication of a building's usability. Buildings in poor condition will contribute to a higher ranking. A value and score is assigned as follows: 1. Good condition and useable as is (Score = 0). 2. Useable but needing maintenance (Score = 25). 3. Needing minor rehab before being useable (Score = 50). 4. Needing major rehab before being useable (Score = 75). 5. Dilapidated and unusable (Score = 100). Building Setbacks Sub -Factor The zoning requirements have minimum setbacks. A Yes or No is provided in answer to the question of whether the building meets the setback requirements for uses under the revised zoning. Buildings that do not meet the setback requirements for uses under the revised zoning will contribute to a higher ranking. The building setback sub -factor is assigned a value and score as follows: 1. Yes - The building meets the setback requirements for uses under the revised zoning (Score = 0). 2. No - The building does not meet the setback requirements for uses under the revised zoning (Score = 100). Floor Area Ratio Sub -Factor The zoning requirements have minimum floor area ratio requirements. A Yes or No is provided in answer to the question of whether the building meets the minimum floor area ratio requirements for uses under the revised zoning. Buildings that do not meet the minimum floor area ratio requirements for uses under the revised zoning will contribute to a higher ranking. The floor area ratio sub -factor is assigned a value and score as follows: 1. Yes - The building meets the minimum floor area ratio requirements for uses under the revised zoning (Score = 0). 2. No - The building does not meet the minimum floor area ratio requirements for uses under the revised zoning (Score = 100). Height Sub -Factor The zoning requirements have minimum building height requirements. A Yes or No is provided in answer to the question of whether the building meets the minimum height requirements for uses under the revised zoning. Buildings that do not meet the minimum height requirements for uses under the revised zoning will contribute to a higher ranking. The height sub -factor is assigned a value and score as follows: 1. Yes - The building meets the minimum height requirements for uses under the revised zoning (Score = 0). 2. No - The building does not meet the minimum height requirements for uses under the revised zoning (Score = 100). Parking Sub -Factor The zoning requirements have minimum parking space requirements. A Yes or No is provided in answer to the question of whether there are sufficient parking spaces for uses under the revised zoning. Properties 11 9( Partnership for Sustainable Communities EPA Brownfield Pilot 03 National City, CA Final March 2011 that do not meet the parking space requirements for uses under the revised zoning will contribute to a higher ranking. The parking sub -factor is assigned a value and score as follows: 1. Yes - There are sufficient parking spaces for uses under the revised zoning (Score = 0). 2. No - There are not sufficient parking spaces for uses under the revised zoning (Score = 100). Nonconformance Factor The significance to which a current operation does not conform to current city, state, and federal regulations can be based on conformance with prior zoning requirements, required business licenses, and compliance violations. Are all required permits in place (environmental, health, fire, etc.)? Has the facility been cited for compliance violations that have not been resolved or cited repeatedly for the same violation? Land Size Sub -Factor The zoning requirements have minimum lot sizes. A Yes or No is provided in answer to the question of whether the size of the land meets the minimum requirements for uses under the prior zoning. Properties that do not meet the minimum land size requirements for uses under the prior zoning will contribute to a higher ranking. The land size sub -factor is assigned a value and score as follows: 1. Yes - The size of the land meets the minimum requirements for uses under the prior zoning (Score = 0). 2. No - The size of the land does not meet the minimum requirements for uses under the prior zoning (Score = 100). Building Size Sub -Factor The zoning requirements have minimum building sizes. A Yes or No is provided in answer to the question of whether the size of the building meets the minimum requirements for uses under the prior zoning. Buildings that do not meet the minimum requirements for uses under the prior zoning will contribute to a higher ranking. The building size sub -factor is assigned a value and score as follows: 1. Yes - The size of the building meets the minimum requirements for uses under the prior zoning (Score 0). 2. No - The size of the building does not meet the minimum requirements for uses under the prior zoning (Score = 100). Building Setbacks Sub -Factor The zoning requirements have minimum setbacks. A Yes or No is provided in answer to the question of whether the building meets the minimum requirements for setbacks under the prior zoning. Buildings that do not meet the setback requirements for uses under the prior zoning will contribute to a higher ranking. The building setback sub -factor is assigned a value and score as follows: 1. Yes - The building meets the setback requirements for uses under the prior zoning (Score = 0). 2. No - The building does not meet the setback requirements for uses under the prior zoning (Score = 100). Floor Area Ratio Sub -Factor The zoning requirements have minimum floor area ratio requirements. A Yes or No is provided in answer to the question of whether the building meets the minimum floor area ratio requirements for uses under the prior zoning. Buildings that do not meet the minimum floor area ratio requirements for uses under the 12 9 Partnership for Sustainable Communities EPA Brownfield Pilot ca National City, CA Final March 2011 prior zoning will contribute to a higher ranking. The floor area ratio sub -factor is assigned a value and score as follows: 1. Yes - The building meets the minimum floor area ratio requirements for uses under the prior zoning (Score = 0). 2. No - The building does not meet the minimum floor area ratio requirements for uses under the prior zoning (Score = 100). Height Sub -Factor The zoning requirements have minimum building height requirements. A Yes or No is provided in answer to the question of whether the building meets the minimum height requirements for uses under the prior zoning. Buildings that do not meet the minimum height requirements for uses under the prior zoning will contribute to a higher ranking. The height sub -factor is assigned a value and score as follows: 1. Yes - The building meets the minimum height requirements for uses under the prior zoning (Score = 0). 2. No - The building does not meet the minimum height requirements for uses under the prior zoning (Score = 100). Parking Sub -Factor The zoning requirements have minimum parking space requirements. A Yes or No is provided in answer to the question of whether there are sufficient parking spaces for uses under the prior zoning. Properties that do not have sufficient parking spaces for uses under the prior zoning will contribute to a higher ranking. The parking sub -factor is assigned a value and score as follows: 1. Yes - There are sufficient parking spaces for uses under the prior zoning (Score = 0). 2. No - There are not sufficient parking spaces for uses under the prior zoning (Score = 100). Business License Sub -Factor Each business is required to have a business license. The business license must be renewed on an annual basis. The presence of a business license provides an indication of the conformance with existing city requirements. Failure to obtain or maintain a valid business license will contribute to a higher ranking. There are two considerations for the business license. The first is whether a business license has ever been applied for and the second is whether the license is renewed on an annual basis. A value and score is assigned as follows: 1. A valid license has been issued (Score = 0). 2. A valid license has not been issued for the current year, but was issued in one or more of the last five years (Score = 50). 3. No license has ever been applied for or a valid license has not been issued within the last five years (Score = 100). Compatibility Factor Compatibility with the existing land use patterns and densities of the surrounding neighborhood can be based on the land use surrounding the site (e.g., commercial versus residential) and population density within a defined distance (e.g., 0.25 mile radius) of the property. 13 9' Partnership for Sustainable Communities EPA Brownfield Pilot cc National City, CA Final March 2011 Proximity to Sensitive Area Sub -Factor The proximity of a business to a sensitive area, such as a school or park, is an indicator of compatibility with the surrounding area. A smaller distance to a sensitive area will contribute to a higher ranking. The proximity to a sensitive area is assigned a value and score as follows: 1. Greater than 1000 feet from the sensitive area (Score = 0). 2. Equal to or less than 1000 feet but greater than 500 feet from the sensitive area (Score = 25). 3. Equal to or less than 500 feet but greater than 250 feet from a sensitive area (Score = 50). 4. Equal to or less than 250 feet but greater than 100 feet from a sensitive area (Score = 75). 5. Equal to or less than 100 feet from a sensitive area (Score = 100). Proximity to Residential Parcels Sub -Factor The proximity of a business to a residential parcel is an indicator of compatibility with the surrounding area. A business is considered adjacent to a residential parcel if it shares a property boundary with the residential parcel. A larger number of adjacent residential parcels will contribute to a higher ranking. The proximity to a residential business is assigned a value and score as follows: 1. No residential parcels adjacent to the business (Score = 0). 2. One residential parcel adjacent to the business (Score = 33). 3. Two residential parcels adjacent to the business (Score = 66). 4. Three or more residential parcels adjacent to the business (Score = 100). Residential Density Sub -Factor The density of residential parcels is an indicator of compatibility within the surrounding area of a business. A larger density of residential parcels will contribute to a higher ranking. A value and score is assigned as follows: 1. No residential parcels with 0.1 mile radius of the business (Score = 0). 2. Equal to or less than 20 residential parcels within 0.1 mile radius of the business (Score = 25). 3. Equal to or less than 40 residential parcels but greater than 20 residential parcels within 0.1 mile radius of the business (Score = 50). 4. Equal to or less than 60 residential parcels but greater than 40 residential parcels within 0.1 mile radius of the business (Score = 75). 5. Greater than 60 residential parcels within 0.1 mile radius of the business (Score = 100). Threats Factor Potential threats to human health, safety, security, and the environment can be based on compliance violations and citations and lack of required permits related to public health and safety. It can also include issues such as outside storage, accessibility to the property, and potential hazards or threats. Compliance Violations Sub -Factor Compliance violations can be an indication of potential public threats. A larger number of notices of violation will contribute to a higher ranking. The issuance of a notice of violation along with the response by the business to the compliance issue is assigned a value and score as follows: 14 9 Partnership for Sustainable Communities EPA Brownfield Pilot c4 National City, CA Final March 2011 1. No notices of violation issued in last five years (Score = 0). 2. One or more notices of violation issued in the last five years that were satisfactory addressed within the requirements of the notice of violation (Score = 50). 3. One or more notices of violation in the last five years that were not satisfactorily addressed or repeated notices of violation for the same issue (Score =100). Permits Sub -Factor Permits are required by several county and state regulatory agencies. There are a number of permits that may be required for automotive related facilities, including County of San Diego Department of Environmental Health Unified Program Facility, County of San Diego Air Pollution Control District, State of California Department of Toxic Substance Control, State of California Department of Consumer Affairs, Bureau of Automotive Repair, and California State Board of Equalization. Lack of permits can be an indication of potential public threats. Properties that do not have some or all of their required permits contribute to a higher ranking. A Yes or No is provided in answer to the question of whether each permit is in place and current. The presence or absence of required permits is assigned a value and score as follows: 1. Yes - Permits are in place and current (Score = 0). 2. No - Permits are not in place or in place but not current (Score = 100). Storage, Handling, Generation, Disposal Permit Sub -Factor Facilities that store, handle, generate, or dispose of hazardous substances or hazardous wastes that are used or generated on the property are required to have permits or are required to register with or notify local, state, or federal agencies. A Yes or No is provided in answer to the statement that no hazardous wastes or hazardous substances are stored, handled, generated, or disposed of on the property. The presence or absence of required storage, handling, generation, disposal permits, registrations, or notifications is assigned a value and score as follows: 1. Yes - No hazardous wastes or hazardous substances are stored, handled, generated, or disposed of' on the property (Score = 0). 2. No - Hazardous wastes or hazardous substances are stored, handled, generated, or disposed of on the property (Score = 100). Discharge Violation Sub -Factor Facilities that have air or liquid discharges of hazardous substances or hazardous wastes are required to comply with the city discharge permit requirements. The issuance of a notice of violation along with the response by the business to the compliance issue is assigned a value and score as follows: 1. No notices of violation issued in last five years (Score = 0). 2. One or more notices of violation issued in the last five years that were satisfactory addressed within the requirements of the notice of violation (Score = 50). 3. One or more notices of violation in the last five years that were not satisfactorily addressed or repeated notices of violation for the same issue (Score = 100). Open Storage Sub -Factor Open storage of hazardous substances or hazardous materials can present potential public threats. Hazardous substances or waste products that are stored in the open could present a public threat. A Yes or No is provided in answer to the statement that no hazardous substances or waste products are stored in the 15 101 Partnership for Sustainable Communities EPA Brownfield Pilot cat National City, CA Final March 2011 open. The presence or absence of open storage for hazardous substances or waste products is assigned a value and score as follows: 1. Yes - No hazardous substances or waste products are stored in the open (Score = 0). 2. No - Hazardous substances or waste products are stored in the open (Score= 100). Work Area Sub -Factor Work conducted within right-of—ways or otherwise off the property can present a potential public threat. A Yes or No is provided in answer to the question of whether work is conducted on the property and not in the right-of-way (including sidewalks and drive aprons) or off the property. Work conducted in the right-of-way or off the property will contribute to a higher ranking. The presence or absence of work conducted in the right-of-way (including sidewalks and drive aprons) or off the property is assigned a value and score as follows: 1. Yes - Work is conducted in appropriate locations on the property and NOT in the right-of-way (including sidewalks and drive aprons) or off the property (Score = 0). 2. No - Work is conducted in the right-of-way (including sidewalks and drive aprons) or off the property (Score = 100). Security Sub -Factor Lack of security, such as fencing or other means of restricting access to a property, is an indication of potential threats. A Yes or No is provided in answer to the question of whether vehicles or other work materials are stored or worked -on on the property and not in public spaces or hazardous substances, waste products, or other materials are stored in the open accessible to the public. Vehicles or other work materials stored in public spaces or open storage of hazardous substances, waste products, or other materials that are accessible to the public will contribute to a higher ranking. The presence or absence of vehicles or other work materials stored in public spaces or open storage of hazardous substances, waste products, or other materials accessible to the public is assigned a value and score as follows: 1. Yes - Vehicles or other work materials are stored or worked -on on the property and hazardous substances, waste products, or other materials are NOT stored in the open accessible to the public (Score = 0). 2. No - Vehicles or other work materials are stored in public spaces or open storage of hazardous substances, waste products, or other materials is accessible to the public (Score = 100). 16 10 Partnership for Sustainable Communities EPA Brownfield Pilot cat National City, CA Final March 2011 Property Ranking Spreadsheet A Microsoft Excel® 2007 workbook has been developed(PropertyRankingSpreadsheet(2-22-11.xlsx) to calculate the ranking scores described in the Property Ranking Process section of this document and valuing and scoring approaches outlined in the Property Ranking Factors and Sub -Factors section of this document. The workbook allows the user to enter information on up to fifty properties including the appropriate weights for each group, factor, and sub -factor and appropriate values for each factor and sub - factor. In addition, the user can enter a default score for factors or sub -factors where the value is not available or no response is provided. The scores are calculated based on the user entered values and the scoring approach outlined in the Property Ranking Factors and Sub -Factors section of this document. The user cannot change the scores. All cells within the workbook, with the exception of those cells that require user input, are locked and cannot be changed. There are eight worksheets associated with the workbook. In order to calculate ranking scores for a group of properties, the user must: 1. Enter information about the property in the Property Information worksheet. At a minimum, the user must enter the property Assessor Parcel Number (APN) and the business or owner name and property address. The APN and address information must be entered before attempting to enter factor or sub -factor values; otherwise a score will not be calculated. The remaining columns in this worksheet are provided for informational purposes, but are not required to calculate the ranking score. 2. Enter the weights for the business operations and neighborhood impacts groups in the Ranking Score worksheet. These are the only entries that can be changed on this worksheet. Once the factor and sub -factor information has been entered for all of the properties, the business operations, neighborhood impacts, and ranking scores will be displayed on this worksheet. 3. Enter the information for the factors associated with the business operations group in the Business Operations worksheet. The weights for each factor can be adjusted on this worksheet. The weights must add up to 1.000. The sum of the weights is presented above the factor score. A default score of 0 to 100 can also be entered for each factor. If a value is not entered, the default score will be assigned to the property. The following protocol should be followed for the values entered: a. Land value should be entered as the assessed value in dollars b. Lot size should be entered in square feet c. Improvement value should be entered as the assessed value in dollars d. Improvement size should be entered as total useable square feet of building e. Year of improvement should be entered as the year (only) that the last improvement was made, based on the assessor records 4. The neighborhood impacts factors have been divided into four separate worksheets (i.e., Adaptability, Nonconformance, Compatibility, and Threat), one for each factor. The user must select a value from the pull down list for each sub -factor on these worksheets. The pull down list contains the values discussed for each sub -factor in the Neighborhood Impacts section of this document. The weights for each factor or sub -factor can be adjusted on these worksheets. The weights must add up to 1.000. The sum of the weights is presented above the factor score. A default score of 0 to 100 can also be entered for each sub -factor. If a value is not entered, the default score will be assigned to the property. 5. Enter the weights for each factor in the Factors worksheet. The weights must add up to 1.000. The sum of the weights is presented above the factor score. The weights are the only entries that can 17 10: Partnership for Sustainable Communities EPA Brownfield Pilot cal. National City, CA Final March 2011 be made in this worksheet. The results of the scoring for each factor can be viewed on this worksheet. Once all of the worksheets have been updated, the ranking score and the ranking order for each property can be viewed in the Ranking Score worksheet. The Ranking Score worksheet can be copied from this workbook and pasted as values (i.e., Paste Values) only into a new workbook. 18 Partnership for Sustainable Communities EPA Brownfield Pilot cis National City, CA Draft February 2011 Figure 4: Summary of final factor and sub -factor values, scoring approaches, and weights Business Operations 9.4 Factors Compatibility I Factor Sub-FaQon I Value j I r Proximity to sensitive area Proximityto residential parcel 4-responsesfrom Range 0to3adjacent restdentialIprperties. Binned score 0.28 Residential density 5-responses from 0to60residential properties within 0.smile Binned ;core 0.11 pilancevkdatlons 3•responses(rom YlolaatWils,.violatiti rewlired, violation not resolved 8lnnedscore anPer llf...: . »----- Yes/No Alipennit4061ainetl8tidcurrent Blnraedsmre 0.23 f?pensror!r. Yes/ffo- Naha;erdtius .abslgucessmre..inupefi to ner7soure 015 .Securit Yes/No NomateriaisorWastesaccesslbletopublic Binned score 0.11. 0..07 Weight, 9sZ-+ Nonconformance 0.15.. 4daptabllity fmpnwementvalue 0.61 lldingdepreclation ~rt0.28 _and value 0.11 _Hazardouswa testora ,rt Discha evIolatlon Wore arew Score Type Sub -Facto Weight 5-response from Range 100:to loon feet from sensitive area ginned score" 0.61 Yes�Na No riltfitilti`nvesteStPredrbwntliedor. II osed einifedseore 1-responses t�rmh n WOi ylolaUo4...__ bred, sdoletion not►esolved Binnedsoare -.0 04 YesMo-Worksdndy�edadjtropertyandnotln,puhltcareas Blnnedscore 0:01 Yes/lo meet plt9rzmang.mlNmumla_ndsi Binned score 0.37 3-tesponses from cu itilr riae,,Qre_Yious license, no license Blnnedscore. --- 9.2a Ye5/No-meet pNorzonln�,aequirements Binned store .0.16 -... CesJNo•meet prior zoning nee thremems: Binned score 0:11 Buildin8size Yes/No•meet,priorzordng;,minimumbulldingstze 83gnedrscore 0.07 Floorarearatto�AR)•� . ._ Yes/No_mett rlorzgnin0requtrements 9lnnedis¢ore �0.04 Height Yes/No-meet priorzomng.tecipirements - Binned Score 0.02 Land size Yes/No-meet.curreft zenln minimum land size Mooed score 0.34 land sip Bustnessllcense 8ull9tng2etbacks Parking euildin Yes/Na usaWeornotusaWeundercurreMzoni Binnedscore 0.22 PFIcing Yes/N9 meetaxrentzonki retiuirements 0nnedscore 0.15 Building conddtlon" 5•responses irom_5ood, useable minor work, major work. unuseeble -Banned score 0.11 8uIdIngsefbaprs _ _ _ Yes No meetcurrentzomntre1uuements Binned score 0.0E1 gulldlnd[s.. ize _�. Yes/No minimum building, size Binned score. OAS meetcuneritzonang Floor area ratio (FAR) Yes/No- meet NrceM zorrn'le Iuhements _y •— Binned score 0.03 Height Yes/No-meetiurzeritsonin8requirements 'Wined score .0.02" Assessed value e#c[lfttf°buiidin _ _ ionalscore Yeatssincethet ildlnR^deprectationvears P rtionatscore Assessed value persquare foot of land Proportignal score e 19 10, 10 ELTi :559.064•15 560202-04 T560•':143,37 -5S9 580-21e-01 5:0142-14 560-Q85-09 559-085.05 104-14 555-04-12. 560-142=13 559-084-03 ' 560-143,27 560-443.38- 560=015-11 559.10501 560-E02-09 559-085-13 580=066-03 560-395-05 559 034=15 559r083-06 580:-085-08. 555,41803 560-14210 55941-22 559-101-02 -.559 064-16 580-06621 Ste$e'S West Coast:Autofnotliie- • Jose'.srAlto'€Iedtrid> "• SSS:Weld- �! raffon &T Auto Repalr Automatic Transmissions Moinax Truek'iZ ii> .School KO &!it " Framing MVptiftfibb1loitt! o ax7 `y'nV� •.i;ctiaol HP I'"t;. 11F0"�aJ 9`f . Gillett "21.OrreS' Greenwald's Autabody and Frameworks Uniuetsal St= ° 1 aFatic o`f no: Mission. C3frith of rl Christ California : r.Com • Sot. f Paint'` C&W.'Miig°Ser es;1 Expo Buiiderg aka we8*de Building = , ..,Mate taf ron= •.•,, C'-o•:io- •`•rdln" lea 'pressor re Ro (Alders Reliable S'• Sir: =nslon 101 1 560-141-07 559-033-17 560-202-06 560-146-03 560-015.08 559-063-13 559-065-02 560-061-15 560-392-11 560-012-09 559-034-13 559-121.15 559-086-05 559-062•05 •55 104-01 555-104-14 555-105-13 560-061.14 580-016-03 560-141-06 555,103-09 56.0-061-1 560-141-08 555-111-02 559-083-11 559=065-01 560-142-09 560-011-05 559-063-1.2 560-061-01 560-011-12 555-115-15 Motor Machine and Supply T e Grits School Blazers ose sAuto Electric 560-143-26 560-143-02 555-103-05 559=081-20 0-012-07 555-111-03 560-015-05 560-143-25 BJ Motors and Body & AA Accounting Plu EBCO La Rue Piumbin. Miller Marine/Water Jet Cutting Services Perry Ford - Used Car Dept. South.Ba Botle'Re•arr Pest Control SCI-Southern California Insulation (A), JJ & K Builders (C) Comartin Enterprises, Inc Complete Auto Repair, Nat anal Motor Works De -Lux -oat . Co Inc. Pu.. t Safari Dan Fab Crown Trucks C mens Motor Machine and Supply Southland Trahsmnlssion National Mechanical Services Inc. San DI = e • Crane end Hoist Neflans Car• =t C&W Diving Services, Inc. Marlo's Auto Specialties (Formerly: Platinum Auto and Paint Turbo Transmission SanDI-c• Pretzel:Co Morgan Linen and Uniform Service Parkin' a Lot Transmlasiorl'.SU• .1 JRP Auto Sales Sam's.Ali • •. ent and Brakes A keW:Hard-ware Products Colitris _ ne Re•"-ir DLP Ente writes Crown Transiniselon Services Bumper to Bumper Auto Detail, and JRP AutoSales r. 10 559-0 61-15 580-086-13 555-111-07 560=141=03 116-12 59-035-06 555-116-11 555-103-14 56w016=12. 560-015-13. 559-032-18 555-103-06 559-.• 04 559-065-05 560-065-06 555-115-14 559-086-13 559-062-04 560-015-06 56.0-01240 560-012-06 555-115-11 9.063-06 559-032-20 560-012-08 555-103-07 559.0:2-01 559- ' -13 560-011-11 555-111-0 559-032-21 560-144-01 559-063-08. 555-112-16 560-144-02 580-144-03 E5.iJaMMTI�c- 7 }mow CP Man acturin. - . 1, . and ,_LL. n. C "M All P Potter Elecliic Inc E & S Autoworks. Pa. CAuto Re. r Bosfrominstru tCu VIlarino Construction Services �eSSIQrl0,. Arts. Advanced -F Advanced MRF Ho. - Auto Re air San Die.. Auto Detail Comartln Enterprises, Inc A New Look • uto OF Desi a ns All Cou Industr al & Minn ACIM BJ Motors and a Misako Family Dentistry/ Universal Steel Fabrication/Aloha Insurance Services Mor. = n Linen and Uniform Service Alcorn Fenn Co Cal Am`Manufacturi Collins MarineRe Nathan's Stoneworld. Ins.: Test �.au.hn Sb3r= for V enciaStone 8 Tile Perry Ford Luna Construction Services Island aradise Perry Ford Perry Ford r 10 ATTACHMENT 4 111 BRINIG & COMPANY INCORPORATED FORENSIC ACCOUNTING AND BUSINESS VALUATION 401 B STREET, SUITE 2150 SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92101 TEL. (619) 687-2600 FAX (619) 544-0304 www.brinigco.com July 29, 2013 Mr. Brad Raulston Executive Director City of National City 1243 National City Boulevard National City, California 91950 Re: City of National City, Westside Specific Plan Amortization of Nonconforming Use Steve's West Coast Automotive Jose's Auto Electric Dear Mr. Raulston: We have been asked to perform research and financial analysis to render an opinion of the reasonable amortization period commensurate with the owners' investments in two businesses located in the Westside Specific Plan area of National City, California. We have also been asked to consider the effects of the cost of land and improvements as well as the length of operation of the businesses in determining a reasonable amortization period. Our research, analysis and conclusions are financial in nature; we offer no specific legal conclusions in this analysis. This report addresses the following businesses: 1. Steve's West Coast Automotive 1732 Coolidge Avenue National City, California 2. Jose's Auto Electric 108 West 18th Street National City, California Introduction The City of National City is proceeding with the amortization of nonconforming land uses in the Westside Specific Plan area, which is part of a long standing effort by the City to reestablish the Westside as a safe, healthy and vibrant neighborhood where people engage in community life. 11 Mr. Brad Raulston July 29, 2013 Page 2 Amortization is a process established by City Ordinance' in 2006 by which a legal nonconforming use can be terminated after a period of time sufficient to allow the business/owner to recoup his or her investment. Section 18.11.100 provides: "D. Affirmative Termination by Amortization. 1. The city council of the City of National City may order a nonconforming use to be terminated within a reasonable amount of time, upon recommendation of the planning commission...." In this report we summarize research and financial analysis that leads to a conclusion of reasonable amortization periods for the subject businesses that gives consideration to the owners' investment in the enterprises and the length of time the use has existed. Basis of Analysis Section 18.11.100, Subsection (D)(1) continues: "In making its recommendation to terminate a nonconforming use and in recommending a reasonable amount of time in which to terminate, the planning commission shall consider: a. The total cost of the land and improvements; b. The length of time the use has existed; c. Adaptability of the land and improvements to a currently permitted use; d. The cost of moving and reestablishing the use elsewhere; e. Whether the use is significantly nonconforming; f. Compatibility with the existing land use patterns and densities of the surrounding neighborhood; g. The possible threat to public health, safety, or welfare; and h. Any other relevant factors." We are advised that the California Supreme Court stated: "The California cases have firmly declared that zoning legislation may validly provide for the eventual termination of nonconforming uses without compensation if it provides a reasonable amortization period commensurate with the investment involved." Metromedia, Inc. v. City of San Diego (1980) 26 Cal. 3d 848 at 882. We are further advised that California case law supports a city's power to discontinue a nonconforming use through the process of amortization. In United Business Commission v. City of San Diego (1979) 91 Ca1.App. 3d 156, the court stated: "The determination of the length of a reasonable period of amortization is not merely a matter of accounting. It is not required that the nonconforming property concerned have no value at the termination date. The determination instead involves a process of weighing the public gain to be derived from a speedy removal of the nonconforming use against the private loss which removal of the use would entail (at p. 180)." In Metromedia, Inc., the Court further stated: "The reasonableness of an amortization period as applied to each billboard depends in part upon facts peculiar to that structure (citations 1 National City Municipal Code Section 18.11.100. BRINIG & COMPANY INCORPORATED 11: Mr. Brad Raulston July 29, 2013 Page 3 omitted). Such facts include the cost of the billboard, its depreciated value, remaining useful life, the length and remaining term of the lease under which it is maintained, and the harm to the public if the structure remains standing beyond the prescribed amortization period." (Metromedia, Inc. at pages 883, 884.) Discussion of Approach There are three factors in Section 18.11.100, Subsection (D)(1) of the National City Municipal Code that we have considered in arriving at our opinion of a reasonable amortization period to apply to the termination of the nonconforming uses of the subject business enterprises. They are: a. The total cost of the land and improvements; b. The length of time the use has existed, and; c. Other relevant factors. The Total Cost of the Land and Improvements. A business enterprise that operates under a real property lease does not own the land or real property improvements from which it operates. It occupies the real property under contract with the lessor for a defined period of time at a defined rental rate. Consequently, the historical cost of the land and improvements to the property are not relevant to the business owner although the terms of the lease may be. In the present analysis, we have obtained the assessed value of each property from the San Diego County Assessor's Office and considered the possibility that the assessed value of the real property and improvements may be relevant to the present analysis, but we have concluded that these values are not directly relevant. We have not been provided with copies of the leases of the business enterprises under consideration in this analysis. The Length of Time the Use has Existed In order to estimate a reasonable amortization period for a business enterprise, the length of operation of the business under its present ownership may be relevant. If the business has existed longer than the number of years of income indicated in its price/earnings ratio (discussed subsequently), the owner has achieved a payback period commensurate with the value of the business. Other Relevant Factors. As it is traditionally defined, amortization is essentially a cost allocation method by which the cost of an asset is applied to the asset's estimated useful life. By applying the cost of the asset to its useful life, the cost is charged as an expense against the benefit of the asset, with the benefit usually being measured by the revenues or profits that the asset will contribute to generating. By applying the cost of the asset to its anticipated benefits, the owner of the asset is effectively recovering the cost from the benefits to be derived. The recovery period of an asset or investment is the time period that it takes to recover the cost (or value) of the investment from the benefits that the asset generates. The recovery period is the amortization period of the asset, the time period over which the owner recoups the investment in the asset. In the present situation, the investments involved are particular business enterprises operated in the Westside Specific Plan area of National City. Each business has an initial cost (either BRINIG & COMPANY INCORPORATED • 11 Mr. Brad Raulston July 29, 2013 Page 4 initially purchased or accumulated over time) a length of operation, and a current value. The best measure of the value of an investment in a business enterprise is the fair market value of the business. Fair market value is defined as the most probable price at which the property would change hands between a willing buyer and a willing seller, both being adequately informed of the relevant facts, and neither being under any compulsion to buy or to sell. In concept, the fair market value of a business enterprise (or any asset) is the present value of its anticipated future returns, which consist of two things: return on investment and return of investment. Return of Investment and Return on Investment. The anticipated ongoing economic benefit from owning a business enterprise is composed of both a return of investment and return on investment. These returns are measured by the annual net income generated by the business and the residual value remaining at the termination of the enterprise. The ongoing financial benefit of a business enterprise is its ability to generate net income, as measured by the excess of its revenue over expenses, an amount that is typically measured annually. These annual earnings include an economic recovery of both the initial investment and compensation for the investment. In a business enterprise, the fixed tangible assets are used up in the process of generating revenue (and continuously repaired and replaced). The intangible assets (goodwill, going concern value, and other types of intangibles), if any, are constantly evolving. They are depleted and accreted during the ongoing operations of the enterprise. For example, the old processes become obsolete and they are replaced with new processes, or the reputation of the enterprise is replenished through new advertising or continued customer satisfaction. If the business is successful, its tangible assets are maintained (or increased) through repair and ongoing replacement and its intangible assets are maintained (or increased) through accumulated accretion. If the business is not successful, its tangible assets depreciate without replacement and its intangible assets become valueless. For a business enterprise, the return of investment and the return on investment cannot be specifically isolated from each other. If the two returns are contemplated serially, however, it can be said that a buyer of a business enterprise first recovers the investment from the early years' net earnings of the enterprise, and then the "recovered" investment continues to earn a return on investment in the subsequent years. This concept is analogous to the financial concept of "payback period," defined as the length of time required to recover the cost of an investment.2 From this perspective, the concept of a reasonable amortization period for the investment in the business can be contemplated. In the present analysis, we have not been provided with any financial information about the operations of the subject businesses, so it is not possible for us to identify specific financial facts about the businesses. We have not been advised of the revenues, expenses, net income, assets and liabilities of the businesses within the Westside Specific Plan area. Notwithstanding the absence of specific financial information about the subject businesses, we are able to estimate a reasonable amortization period that is commensurate with the investment involved for the types of businesses at issue. 2 www.investopedia.com. BRINIG & COMPANY INCORPORATED 11, Mr. Brad Raulston July 29, 2013 Page 5 The Value of the Investment Compared to the Return on Investment If an appropriate amortization period to apply under National City Municipal Code Section 18.11.100 is mandated to allow the owner a reasonable time period to recover the cost or value of the investment, a reasonable measure of the appropriate period is the price/earnings ratio of the business, or the number of years of earnings that it takes to recover the value of the investment. This is the "payback period" for the value of the investment to the owner. To adequately amortize the value of the investment, the owner can operate the enterprise for a multiple of years, equal to the appropriate price/earnings ratio for the type and size of business, and the owner will have recouped the value of the investment through the business's annual net earnings. A price/earnings ratio is the mathematical relationship of the annual net income of a business to the total fair market value of the business. A price/earnings ratio states the total value of an enterprise as a multiple of its annual net income, following the fundamental valuation principle that the total value of an asset is the present worth of its anticipated annual net earnings. Stated simply, the price/earnings ratio is the number of years' earnings that equal the fair market value of the business. A direct way to approach the determination of a reasonable range of amortization period for the termination of a nonconforming use of a business is to investigate the range of price/earnings ratios that are applicable to that type and size business. Without knowing either the fair market value or the net earnings of a subject business, the price/earnings ratio can be used as a proxy for a reasonable amortization period of the investment because the P/E ratio represents the number of years of economic benefit (recovery) that is embedded in the total value of the investment. Application of Analysis to Subiect Business In order to estimate a reasonable range of price/earnings ratios to apply to the subject businesses of this analysis, we performed market data research relating to purchase and sale transactions for businesses in similar industries. The first step in applying the methodology was to obtain transaction information on business sale transfers with the primary Standard Industrial Classification Code3 (SIC) relating to the specific businesses. We reviewed transaction data compiled by PrattStats,4 the Institute of Business Appraisers, Inc.5 and BizComps6 for companies reported within the relevant SIC Codes. We also considered the 3 The Standard Industrial Classification (abbreviated SIC) is a system for classifying industries by a four -digit code that was established in the United States in 1937 and it was used by government agencies to classify industry areas. In the United States the SIC code is being supplanted by the six -digit North American Industry Classification System (NAICS code), which was released in 1997. 4PrattStats is a leading private company merger and acquisition database published by Business Valuation Resources, LLC, Portland OR. (www.bvresources.com) It contains financial details of transactions of over 19,400 acquired private companies. 5 The Institute of Business Appraisers IBA Market Database (www.go-iba.org) is the largest source of transaction data for privately held business sales in the U.S. with financial information on approximately 37,000 business sale transactions. 6 BizComps (http://bizcomps.com) is a collection of financial data on 12,000 privately brokered sales of businesses under $1 million. BRINIG & COMPANY 11 Mr. Brad Raulston July 29, 2013 Page 6 2013 Business Reference Guide' for market data information. Schedules 1 and 2, discussed subsequently, set forth the summary of our research. In any analysis of market transactions of business sales, caution must be exercised in evaluating the data because of both the reliability of the reported data and the comparability of the reported data to the subject businesses. With these qualifications in mind, we were able to identify a range of price/earnings ratios from the reported market data relating to sales of similar businesses to the subjects on a nationwide basis and we rely on this market -based information to provide a reasonable range of price/earnings ratios for the subject businesses. Steve's West Coast Automotive Steve's West Coast Automotive ("SWCA") is the proprietorship owned by Steve and Christine Vasquez located at 1732 Coolidge Avenue in National City. SWCA is a general automotive repair business that operates from a 2,400 square foot building (approx.) on 10,000 square feet (approx.) of property. The business has six repair bays and space to store approximately 20 vehicles outside of the building. The market area for the customers of the business is primarily the local neighborhood. SWCA has been owned and operated by Mr. & Ms. Vasquez since 2005 but the location has been an automotive repair shop since the 1970s. In order to apply the price/earnings methodology to Steve's West Coast Automotive to determine a reasonable amortization period for the value of the business investment, we obtained transaction information on business sale transfers with the primary Standard Industrial Classification 7538 (North American Industry Classification System$ — NAICS Code 811111), "General Automotive Repair." We initially reviewed transaction data for approximately 496 businesses compiled by PrattStats, the IBA Market Database and BizComps for companies reported within this NAICS Code. We also considered the 2013 Business Reference Guide for more generalized market data information. Schedule 1 to this report sets forth the summary of the data observed from PrattStats, the Institute of Business Appraisers, Inc. and BizComps for sales of companies reported within the relevant SIC and NAICS Codes. The studies report many financial statistics from the reported sales datafor the companies, but the data relevant to the present inquiry is the relationship of the selling price of the business to its reported Net Income. Each of the three studies reports this statistic with a slightly different definition and we rely on the aggregation of this information as indicative of market -determined price/earnings ratios for these businesses. 7 West, Thomas L., 2012 Business Reference Guide, 23'd ed., Business Brokerage Press, 2013. 8 The North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) is the standard used by Federal statistical agencies in classifying business establishments for the purpose of collecting, analyzing, and publishing statistical data related to the U.S. business economy. NAICS was developed under the auspices of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), and adopted in 1997 to replace the Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) system. It was developed to allow for a high level of comparability in business statistics among the North American countries. 9 PratlStats reports the statistic, "Market Value of Invested Capital to Discretionary Earnings." The IBA Market Database reports the statistic, "Price to Discretionary Earnings." BizComps reports the statistic, "Selling Price to Seller's Discretionary Earnings." For reporting data from the sale of small business enterprises, we consider these statistics to be essentially similar and they can be viewed in the aggregate as describing the relationship between the selling price of the business and the total net income to the business's owner. BRIN1G & COMPANY 111 Mr. Brad Raulston July 29, 2013 Page 7 A market -determined price/earnings ratio states the market value of the business in terms of a multiple of its annual net income, or the number of year's net income it takes to equal the total value of the business enterprise. In evaluating the spectrum of data reported for price/earnings ratios, it is our opinion that the medians of the statistical data are the most relevant benchmarks for determining a reasonable range for the amortization period for the investment. The median is defined as the midpoint of the reported statistical data, with half of the reported data falling above the median and half the observations falling below the median. The use of the statistical median to interpret the market -based data, as opposed to the mean, has the benefit of eliminating the outliers — the highest or lowest observations. The range of median price/earnings multiples for the businesses reported in these databases under SIC Code 7538 (NAICS Code 811111) is 1.69 to 2.19 times net earnings. As a proxy for a reasonable amortization period for the investment in Steve's West Coast Automotive, this market -based statistic can be converted into years, allowing the owner of the business to earn the business's net income for that number of years, thereby recovering the fair market value of the investment. It is our opinion, therefore, that a reasonable amortization period for the recovery of the fair market value of Steve's West Coast Automotive ranges from 1.69 years to 2.19 years. An amortization period falling within this range conforms to the median price/earnings ratios for businesses in the automotive repair business and provides for a reasonable period within which to recover the fair market value of the total investment in this type of business. See Schedule 1 for summary of market research data related to Steve's West Coast Automotive. Jose's Auto Electric Jose's Auto Electric is an automobile repair shop specializing in tune-ups and brake repair located at 108 West 8th Street, National City, California. The business was started by Jose and Alma Ramirez in late 2008. Jose's draws its customers primarily from the surrounding neighborhood. Jose's is open from 8 AM to 5 PM Monday through Friday and from 8 AM to 3 PM on Saturdays. In order to apply the price/earnings methodology discussed in this report to Jose's Auto Electric, we obtained transaction information on business sale transfers with the primary Standard Industrial Classification 7539, "Automotive Repair Shops, Not Elsewhere Classified," (North American Industry Classification System — NAICS Code 811118: "Other Automotive Mechanical and Electrical Repair and Maintenance"). Unlike the "General Automotive" category, the data in this SIC/NAICS code is much less extensive, providing transaction information on only 31 transactions. We reviewed reported transaction data for 31 business sales compiled by PrattStats, the IBA Market Database and BizComps for companies reported within this NAICS Code. We also considered the 2013 Business Reference Guide for market data information. We noted that the market -derived multiples were generally similar to the multiples for the broader group, General Automotive Repair (SIC 7538), and this fact supported our reliance on the data from the smaller population. Schedule 2 to this report sets forth the summary of the data observed from PrattStats, the Institute of Business Appraisers, Inc. and BizComps for sales of companies reported within the relevant SIC and NAICS Codes. Similar to our application of the market -based data to BRINIG & COMPANY INCORPORATED 11 Mr. Brad Raulston July 29, 2013 Page 8 Steve's West Coast Automotive, in applying the data to Jose's Auto Electric, we considered the data most relevant to the present inquiry to be the relationship of the selling price of the business to its reported Net Income. To apply the market -based data to Jose's Auto Electric to determine a reasonable range for the amortization period for the investment, we used the same rationale relating to the use of the median statistic as described earlier in this report. The range of median price/earnings multiples for the businesses reported in these databases is 1.64 to 2.77 times net earnings. As a proxy for a reasonable amortization period for the investment in Jose's Auto Electric, this market -based statistic can be converted into years, allowing the owner of the business to earn the business's net income for that number of years, thereby recovering the fair market value of the investment. It is our opinion, therefore, that a reasonable amortization period for the recovery of the fair market value of Jose's Auto Electric ranges from 1.64 to 2.77 years. An amortization period falling within this range conforms to the median price/earnings ratios for businesses in the automotive repair business and provides for a reasonable period within which to recover the fair market value of the total investment in this type of business. See Schedule 2 for summary of market research data related to Jose's Auto Electric. Conclusion of Analysis Based on the rationale described in this report and the related research of the range of price earnings ratios for businesses in the automobile repair industry, it is our conclusion that a reasonable range for an amortization period that is commensurate with the value of the investment in the businesses is as follows. For Steve's West Coast Automotive, a reasonable amortization period ranges from 1.69 to 2.19 years. For Jose's Auto Electric, a reasonable amortization period ranges from 1.64 to 2.77 years. Submission of the Report This report was prepared for the City of National City Planning Commission pursuant to its request to Brinig & Company, Inc. to render an opinion of the reasonable amortization period to recover the owners' investments in two businesses located in the Westside Specific Plan area of National City, California. We were not provided with financial information for either of the two businesses that are the subject of this report and that information could have an effect on the conclusions presented herein. The qualifications of Brinig & Company, Inc. are set forth in Exhibit A to this report. Rpectfully rian P. Brinig Brinig & Company, BRINIG & COMPANY INCORPORATED 11� SCHEDULE 1 City of National City - Westside Specific Plan Amortization of Nonconforming Use Summary of Market Data Steve's West Coast Automotive Research Source: Number of Median Observations Statistic Prat1Stats, (Business Valuation Resources, LLC, 2012, Portland, OR) SIC Code 7538 - General Automotive Repair Shops NAICS Code 811111 - General Automotive Repair Market Value of Invested Capital to Discretionary Earnings 149 2.19 X IBA Market Database, (The Institute of Business Appraisers, Inc., Salt Lake City, UT) SIC Code 7538 - General Automotive Repair Shops NAICS Code 811111 - General Automotive Repair Price to Discretionary Earnings 91 1.95 X BizComps, (www.bizcomps.com) SIC Code 7538 - General Automotive Repair Shops NAICS Code 811111 - General Automotive Repair Selling Price to Seller's Discretionary Earnings 256 1.69 X RANGE OF MEDIAN PRICE / EARNINGS RATIOS 1.69 X TO 2.19 X 11 SCHEDULE 2 City of National City - Westside Specific Plan Amortization of Nonconforming Use Summary of Market Data Jose's Auto Electric Research Source: PrattStats. (Business Valuation Resources, LLC, 2012, Portland, OR) SIC Code 7539 - Automotive Repair Shops, NEC NAICS Code 811118 - Other Automotive Mechanical and Electrical Repair and Maintenance Number of Median Observations Statistic Market Value of Invested Capital to Discretionary Earnings 7 2.77 X IBA Market Database, (The Institute of Business Appraisers, Inc., Salt Lake City, UT) SIC Code 7539 - Automotive Repair Shops, NEC NAICS Code 811118 - Other Automotive Mechanical and Electrical Repair and Maintenance Price to Discretionary Earnings BizComps, (www.bizcomps.com) SIC Code 7539 - Automotive Repair Shops, NEC NAICS Code 811118 - Other Automotive Mechanical and Electrical Repair and Maintenance Selling Price to Seller's Discretionary Earnings 7 1.64 X 17 1.67 X RANGE OF MEDIAN PRICE / EARNINGS RATIOS 1.64 X TO 2.77 X 12 EXHIBIT A 12 BRINIG & COMPANY INCORPORATED FORENSIC ACCOUNTING AND BUSINESS VALUATION 401 B STREET, SUITE 2150 SAN DIEGO, CA 92101 TEL. (619) 687-2600 FAX (619) 544-0304 www.brinigco.com COMPANY PROFILE Brinig & Company, Inc. is a financial consulting firm specializing in litigation consulting and business valuation services. Founded in 1983 as a business valuation firm, Brinig & Company, Inc. consists of a team of dedicated professionals with experience in financial and economic analysis, damages analysis, forensic accounting, business valuation and related disciplines. BUSINESS VALUATION SERVICES Brinig & Company, Inc. has extensive experience in the valuation of closely held businesses. The firm provides assistance in business valuation matters for: • Purchase and sale negotiations • Purchase and sale agreements • Marital dissolution/community property settlements • Partnership or corporate dissolutions • Eminent domain proceedings • Estate, gift and other tax matters • Stock contributions to charitable organizations • General business litigation The firm has completed more than 2,500 valuation assignments covering a wide spectrum of industries, including: • Automotive • Manufacturing • Contracting • Professional Practices • Distribution • Retail • Financial Services • Sports & Leisure • Hospitality • Service In addition, Brinig & Company, Inc. has experience and expertise in valuing the intangible assets of businesses, including: • Goodwill • Copyrights • Going Concern Value • Leasehold Interests • Existing Contracts • Licenses • Covenants Not to Compete • Patents The philosophy of Brinig & Company, Inc. is to provide thorough, objective valuation analyses of closely held companies. The firm accepts many of its valuation assignments by stipulation of the parties to a legal proceeding in which the value of a business entity is at issue. Brinig & Company, 12: Company Profile Inc. has acted as an arbitrator of business valuation matters and has been appointed by the courts on many occasions. Business valuations prepared by Brinig & Company, Inc. have been successfully defended in the courts many times. Community Property Matters The valuation of a going business or professional practice in a community property division is a complicated process requiring a broad -based knowledge of the laws pertaining to community property business valuations. Although Brinig & Company, Inc. does not render legal services, the firm has significant experience in community property assignments, including the valuation of non - salable professional goodwill and calculations relating to the allocation of business appreciation between community and separate property (Pereira and Vam Camp analysis). LITIGATION CONSULTING SERVICES Brinig & Company, Inc. provides a full spectrum of litigation support services to the legal community. The firm's areas of expertise include evaluating economic damages resulting from business torts breach of contract, personal injury, wrongful termination and other cause of action. Litigation support services range from document review and preliminary damage calculations to complete financial analysis and research culminating in a formal, written report or expert testimony. Financial and Economic Analysis Brinig & Company, Inc. provides financial and economic analyses to estimate damages in civil litigation matters. The professional staff at Brinig & Company, Inc. has expertise in analyzing damages and computing lost profits for many types of cases, including: • Antitrust • Lender liability • Breach of contract • Patent infringement • Business interruption • Personal injury • Business torts • Professional liability • Copyright infringement • Wrongful death • Fraud and embezzlement • Wrongful termination Forensic Accounting Services The firm performs investigative services in the areas of: • Tracing separate and community funds • Searching for unrecorded income • Analyzing expenses and expenditures • Reconstructing incomplete or inaccessible records 2 BRINIG & COMPANY INCORPORATED 12 Company Profile Arbitration and Receivership Services The principals of Brinig & Company have acted as arbitrators in disputes involving complex accounting and financial issues. The firm has been judicially appointed as receiver in business litigation matters. In receivership situations, representatives of Brinig & Company, Inc. assumed control of day-to-day operations of the subject business and reported detailed operating results to the court, shareholders and counsel. Other Consulting Services In addition to our other services, Brinig & Company, Inc. can facilitate discovery, settlement negotiation and trial preparation by: • Providing economic research • Reviewing financial documents and selecting key items to be analyzed • Conducting quantitative analysis for settlement negotiations • Locating outside information sources • Preparing questions for and interpreting responses of other financial witnesses • Assisting in cross-examination preparation • Critiquing opinions and providing rebuttal testimony Expert Testimony The principals at Brinig & Company, Inc. have significant litigation experience. The firm's philosophy is to present credible, defensible solutions to financial and economic issues in concise reports or through expert testimony, if required. The use of courtroom quality graphics helps to illustrate our findings in a readily understandable format. PROFESSIONAL FEES All Services of the firm are rendered on an hourly basis. Hourly rates for valuation and financial consulting services range from $105.00 to $425.00, depending on the nature of the work being performed and the billing rate of the financial analyst performing the services. Hourly rates for arbitration and receivership services are $425.00. Brinig & Company, Inc. accepts no commission or contingent fees. The services of Brinig & Company, Inc. are provided on a retainer basis. Fees, should they exceed the retainer, are billed at each month end during the course of the assignment. Retainers for business valuation services are fully refundable to the extent that they exceed the charges for services rendered. REPRESENTATIVE CLIENTS SERVED (Available upon request) 3 BRINIG & COMPANY INCORPORATED 124 BRINIG & COMPANY INCORPORATED FORENSIC ACCOUNTING AND BUSINESS VALUATION 401 B STREET, SUITE 2150 SAN DIEGO, CA 92101 TEL. (619) 687-2600 FAX (619) 544-0304 www.brinigco.com BRIAN P. BRINIG, JD, CPA, ASA Resume — January 31, 2013 QUALIFICATIONS Certified Public Accountant, California, 1977; Accredited in Business Valuation (ABV) Attomey at Law (not practicing), California, 1979 Past President, Financial Analysts Society of San Diego Accredited Senior Member (ASA) of American Society of Appraisers, Business Enterprise Valuation (Past Officer of National Business Valuation Committee) Adjunct Professor, University of San Diego School of Law, Finance & Accounting American Arbitration Association - Commercial Arbitrator California Real Estate Broker, 1981-1985 Member, Litigation Services Committee, California Society of Certified Public Accountants, (Past Chair - San Diego Chapter; Past California Chair - Business Valuation Section) Board of Directors, San Diego Society of CPAs (1992-1994) Conference Chair, California Society of CPAs, 1992 Litigation Services Conference Conference Co -Chair, Joint A.S.A. and Canadian Institute of Chartered Business Valuators, International Business Valuation Conference in San Diego, 1994 Member, Subcommittee for establishing Superior Court Family Law Rules relating to the appraisal of closely held business interests, S. D. County Bar Association, 1994-1995 Special Master of the U.S. District Court (F.R.C.P. 53) and the Superior Court (Corporations Code §2000, business valuation, community property tracing and allocation matters) AREAS OF SPECIALTY Business and professional practice valuation for purposes of purchase and sale, estate planning, condemnation and business litigation. Merger and acquisition consulting to acquirers, targets and the professional community regarding valuation, financing and transaction structuring. Financial analysis to determine economic damages from unjust enrichment, lost profits, diminution in value, business torts, or other causes of action. Emphasis on forensic accounting and complex litigation -related analysis. Arbitrator and mediator for complex accounting and financial issues. EDUCATION University of San Diego School of Law, JD, 1979 Georgetown University School of Business Administration, BSBA (Accounting), 1973 EXPERIENCE Price Waterhouse & Co., Atlanta, Georgia, 1973-1975 Arthur Young and Company, San Diego, California, 1975-1976 Vice President, Regional Business Brokerage Finn, 1979-1980 Partner, Business Appraisal and Brokerage Firm, 1980-1983 Principal, Brinig & Company, Inc., 1983 to present University of San Diego School of Law, Adj. Professor, Finance & Accounting, 1997 to present National University, Adj. Professor of Accounting, 1980-1983 12 Resume: Brian P. Brinig, Page 2 BOOKS Brinig, B.P., Finance & Accounting for Lawyers, (Portland, OR: Business Valuation Resources, LLC, 2011). Brinig, B. P. and Gladson, E., Developing and Managing a Litigation Services Practice, (New York: Harcourt Professional Publishing, 2000). Brinig, B. P. (co-authored with Carmichael, D. R. and Ladouceur, R. P., et al.), Guide to Litigation Support Services, (Fort Worth, TX: Practitioners .Publishing Company, 1999). PUBLICATIONS AND LECTURES Brinig, B.P., Developing the Financial Opinion in Litigation: The Process of Legal Reasoning, American Institute of CPAs Forensic and Valuation Services Conference, Orlando, FL, November 12, 2012. Brinig, B.P. and Kinrich, J.H., Risk and Economic Damages: Theoretical and Practical Issues, Dunn on Damages: The Economic Damages Report for Litigators and Experts, Summer 2012, p. 5. Bring, B.P., The Concept of Legal Reasoning: Developing the Financial Opinion, The Witness Chair, Issue No. 57, Summer 2012 (California Society of CPAs). Brinig, B.P., Achieving Reasonable Certainty in Quantifying Lost Profits Damages Dunn on pamares: The Economic Damages Report for Litigators and Experts, Spring 2011, p. 7. Brinig, B.P., Expert Testimony: Depositions and Trials, Internal Revenue Service Special Enforcement Program, Los Angeles, CA, August 6, 2010. Brinig, B.P., Valuing the Very Small Business, California Probate Referees Association Convention, Coronado, CA, April 29, 2010. Bring, B.P., and Kinrich, J.H., Discount Rates and Cost of Capital in an Economic Damages Context, American Institute of CPAs national webinar, February 27, 2010. Brinig, B.P., and Kinrich, J.H., Discount Rates, Risk & Economic Damages: Practical Considerations, Business Valuation Update, Vol. 15, No. 9, September 2009. Brinig, B.P., (with Luttrell, Andersen & Randall) Tax -Affecting S Corporations for Business Valuations —A Rebuttal, Family Law News, Issue 2, 2009, Vol. 31, No.2, pp. 20-26. Brinig, B.P. & Israel, T.D., Business Valuations After the Economic Downturn, California Society of CPA's 2009 Family Law Conference, Los Angeles and San Francisco, October 2009. Brinig, B.P., Business Damages: Three Derences Between Business Valuation and Lost Profits Analysis, AICPA/ASA Business Valuation Conference, Las Vegas, NV, November 10, 2008. Brinig, B.P., Adjusting Owner's Compensation: A Critical Issue in Business. Valuation, 2008 Business Valuation Conference of the California Society of Certified Public Accountants, Los Angeles, CA May 2008. Brinig, B.P., Business Damages: Discount Rate Theory and Practice, AICPA Business Valuation Conference, New Orleans, LA, December 3, 2007. BRINIG & COMPANY INCORPORATED 121 Resume: Brian P. Brinig, Page 3 Brinig, B.P. and Summers, S. Chris, Owner's Compensation: A Critical Issue in Business Valuation, California Society of CPA's Litigation Consulting Services Section (San Diego), November 6, 2007. Brinig, B.P., Business Damages: Lost Profits, AICPA National Conference on Fraud and Litigation Services, San Diego, CA, September 26, 2007. Brinig, B.P., panelist with Pratt, Shannon P., King, Hon. Donald B., et al., Business Valuation "Must Know" Issues, Business Valuation for Attorneys and Forensic Experts, Santa Rosa, CA, May, 2006. Brinig, B.P., interview, Goodwill under Financial Accounting Standards 142, National Public Radio's Marketplace, March 5, 2002. Brinig, B.P., Taking Effective Expert Depositions, State Bar of California, Annual Meeting, Anaheim, CA, 2001, San Diego, CA, 2000 and Monterey, CA, 1998. Brinig, B.P. (panel moderator), The Experts on Expert Testimony, American Institute of CPAs, Advanced Litigation Services Conference, Beverly Hills, CA, 2000; California CPA Education Foundation, Litigation Services Conference, Los Angeles, CA 2004. Brinig, B. P., Business Damages: Lost Profits or Lost Business Value, American Institute of CPAs, National Business Valuation Conference, Orlando, FL 2004; State Bar of California, Annual Meeting, San Diego, CA, 2000 and Monterey, CA, 1998. Brinig, B.P., The Court Appointed Expert, American Institute of CPAs, National Business Valuation Conference, Miami, FL, 2000. Brinig, B. P., instructor, Financial Statements in the Courtroom (Business Valuation), The National Judicial College, San Francisco, CA, 1998, Reno, NV, 1999 and Laguna Beach, CA, 2000. Brinig, B. P., Cutting Edge Divorce Issues: The Business Appraiser as a Jointly Retained Expert, American Society of Appraisers, 18th Advanced Business Valuation Conference, New Orleans, LA, 1999. Brinig, B. P. and Wagner, M. J., Commercial Damages: A Case Study on Lost Profits, American Institute of CPAs, Advanced Litigation Services Conference, Tempe, AZ, 1998 and Atlanta, GA, 1999. Brinig, B. P., Value of Owner's Services: Theory and Practice, California CPA Education Foundation, Business Valuation Conference, Los Angeles, CA, 1998. Brinig, B. P., The Accounting and Financial Expert: Developing, Documenting, Presenting and Defending Your Opinion, American Institute of CPAs, Nat'l Conference on Fraud, Las Vegas, NV, 1998; American Society of Appraisers, Advanced Business Valuation Conference, Memphis, TN, 1996. Brinig, B. P. and Athy, R. K., The Business Appraisers' Perspective on the Eminent Domain Process, CLE International, Eminent Domain Conference, San Diego, CA, 1998. Brinig, B. P., Tax Aspects of Marital Dissolutions, California Center for Judicial Education and Research, San Diego, CA, 1998. Brinig, B. P. and Friedman, C. H., Corporations Code §2000: Special Valuation Rules and Considerations, California Society of CPAs, Business Valuation Conference, 1998. BRINIG & COMPANY INCORPORATED 12 Resume: Brian P. Bring, Page 4 Brinig, B. P., Jointly Retained Business Appraisers, The Witness Chair, Winter 1996, Issue 5. Instructor, American Institute of CPAs, Business Valuation Program, course title: NBV-7 The C.F.A. Valuator - Expert Witness, 1996 to 1999. Brinig, B. P., Calculating Net Income Available for Support, California Center for Judicial Education and Research, 1996. Brinig, B. P., Complex Financial Issues in High End Divorces, American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers (Southern California meeting), 1996. Brinig, B. P., The Ethics of Expert Witnesses, The Witness Chair Vol. I, No. 3, July 1996 (California Society of CPAs). Brinig, B. P., Business Valuation Workshop, California Center for Judicial Education & Research, Monterey, CA, 1995 and Long Beach, CA 1996. Brinig, B. P., panelist, New Dimensions in Construction Litigation, Litigation Services Institute, Las Vegas, NV, March 1996. Brinig, B. P., Business Valuations Under Corporations Code §2000, California Society of CPAs, Litigation Services Conference, 1994. Brinig, B. P., Pratt, Shannon P. and Fishman, Jay E., Arbitrating a Small Business Valuation, American Institute of CPAs, Conference on Litigation Services, Chicago, IL and San Diego, CA, 1993. Brinig, B. P. and Summers, S. C., Valuing Professional Practices, California Society of Certified Public Accountants, 8-hour continuing professional education course, 1992 - 1995. Brinig, B. P., The Accountant's Role in Divorce: Valuation of the Small Business and Professional Practice, American Institute of CPAs, National Conference on Divorce, Chicago, I1, June 1992. Brinig, B. P., Calculating Damages in Personal Injury and Wrongful Death Actions, California Society of Certified Public Accountants, 8-hour continuing professional education course, 1992 - 1995. Brinig, B. P., Capitalization Rates, Discounts & Premiums in Business Valuation, American Institute of Certified Public Accountants, Annual Conference on Divorce, Atlanta, GA, June 1990. Brinig, B. P. and Prairie, M. W., Expert Testimony: The Business Appraiser as a Valuation Expert Witness, Business Valuation News Volume IV, No. 1, March 1985, pp. 8-24. McIntyre, M. A. and Brinig, B. P., Periodic Payments in Medical Malpractice Cases: Effect upon Attorney's Fee Awards, 8 Trial Bar News 12, April 1985. Brinig, B. P., Basic Finance for the Practicing Lawyer, 3-hour continuing education program, San Diego, CA, Los Angeles, CA, San Francisco, CA, Phoenix, AZ and Tucson, AZ, 1985 - 1993. BIuNIG & COMPANY 12 REID HUTCHISON LLC 22302 Redbeam Avenue Torrance, CA 90505 Leah Reid Hutchison Cell: (310) 529-3577 Stewart Reid Cell: (619) 992-6108 August 15, 2013 Planning Commission City of National City 1243 National City Blvd. National City, Ca 91950 Hand Delivered Attn: Brad Raulston, Executive Director RE: 108 W. 18th Street, National City, CA (APN 560-202-04 and -06) Dear Planning Commission: I write on behalf of myself and my brothers Stewart and Bruce Reid. Together, we own the property located at 108 W. 18th Street in National City — which is comprised of APNs 560-202-04 and -06. We are also the principals of Reid Hutchison, LLC. We write to voice our objection to the City's proposed amortization scheme. My brothers and I inherited this property from our parents in 2007 after our mother passed away. Our father, Malcolm Reid, purchased the property in the 60's and started South Bay Welding. We are long time residents of National City and Paradise Hills. My brother still owns South Bay Welding and has carried on the tradition of an honest, hardworking family owned company. To the best of our ability we have always taken care of issues and any requirements that have pertained to this property. At present, we have leased this property to Jose's Auto Electric — which is owned by Jose and Alma Ramirez. When we entered into this lease, Michael Fellows told Jose and Alma Ramirez and Stewart Reid that this business would be "grandfathered" in. We presently have a five (5) year lease with a two (2) year option with Jose's Auto Electric. We have a very good working relationship with Jose and Alma Ramirez. We are committed to giving them the full benefit of their lease with us. However, according to the City's website, the City is holding a hearing on August 19, 2013 on the issue of using an amortization process to terminate nonconforming land uses on the property. We object to the use of this process to prevent us and our tenants from pursuing our current use of the property. The amortization plan violates our due process and equal protection rights as it targets a very specific subset of previously conforming businesses to be regulated out of existence. Further, if the amortization plan is implemented, it will unlawfully take our property without just compensation. 131 Additionally, by regulating our current land use out of existence, the City is interfering with our ongoing business — including the lease we have with Jose's Auto Electric. For these reasons, we strenuously object to the City's proposed use of the amortization process against our property. Finally, we note that under the City's current amortization scheme, that parcel number 560-202-04 is ranked 2nd on the City's amortization list while parcel number 560-202-06 is ranked 48th. While the 108 W. 18th Street property is made up of these two parcel numbers, it is for all intents and purposes one unified property with one common address. We are confused as to why the City has ranked these two parcels so differently. It appears that this different treatment is just one more indication of the arbitrary and capricious nature of the City's amortization scheme. We sincerely hope that the City abandons its amortization plan before it inflicts additional harm on the property owners and citizens of National City. Leah Reid Hutchison Stewart Reid Bruce Reid Reid Hutchison LLC Cc: Members of the Planning Commission of National City NATIONAL CITY MEETING August 19, 2013 NATIONAL CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 1-4 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 NATIONAL CITY PLANNING COM>?4ISSION MEETING 13 AUGUST 19, 2013 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Reported by Denise T. Johnson, CSR No. 11902 25 DRAFT Page 1 Page 3 1 MADAM CHAIR: Okay. Next we're going to start 2 with the approval of minutes. 3 COMMISSIONER: That we approve. 4 COMMISSIONER: Second. 5 MADAM CHAIR: We have a first and second. 6 Please vote. 7 SECRETARY: Can you please enter your votes 8 again, please? 9 Sorry, I'm going to clear it one more time. 10 MADAM CHAIR: Okay. 11 SECRETARY: Thank you. Please vote. 12 MADAM CHAIR: Vote again. 13 SECRETARY: Thank you. 14 Motion carried by the following vote: 15 Commissioner Bush, Alvarado, Flores, Baca, 16 Garcia, aye. 17 Commissioner DeLaPaz, Commissioner Pruitt, 18 absent. 19 MADAM CHAIR: Okay. Next we have the approval of 20 agenda. 21 COMMISSIONER: Move that we approve. 22 COMMISSIONER: Second. 23 MADAM CHAIR: We have a first and second. 24 Please vote. 25 SECRETARY: Motion carried by the following vote: 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 NATIONAL CITY, CALIFORNIA MONDAY, AUGUST 19, 2013 Page 2 MADAM CHAIR: The Planning Commission conducts its meeting in the interest of community benefit and your participation is helpful. These proceedings are video recorded. We ask that all cell phones and pagers be turned off during the meeting. Okay. We're going to start with rollcall. SECRETARY: Commissioner Garcia? COMMISSIONER GARCIA: Present. SECRETARY: Commissioner Baca? COMMISSIONER BACA: Here. SECRETARY: Commissioner Pruitt, absent. Commissioner Flores? COMMISSIONER FLORES: Here. SECRETARY: Commissioner Alvarado? COMMISSIONER ALVARADO: Here. SECRETARY: Commissioner Bush? COMMISSIONER BUSH: Here. SECRETARY: Commissioner DeLaPaz, absent. MADAM CHAIR: Okay. Would everyone please rise for the Pledge of Allegiance led by Commissioner Baca. (The Pledge of Allegiance is recited.) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Page 4 Commissioners Bush, Alvarado, Flores, Baca, Garcia, aye. Commissioner DeLaPaz, Commissioner Pruitt, absent. MADAM CHAIR: Okay. Thank you. Next we're under oral communications. Under state law, items requiring commission action must be brought back on a subsequent agenda unless they are of a demonstrated emergency or urgent nature. Anyone here for oral communications? SECRETARY: We have one for Michelle Krug. MADAM CHAIR: Okay. That's not on the agenda item. Okay. Please approach the podium. MS. KRUG: I can't see where it is. MADAM CHAIR: It's right in front of you. Keep going straight. And you have a three -minute -time limit. Please state your name and address for the record. MS. KRUG: It's much shorter than that. Michelle Krug. 2423 Sea Breeze Drive, San Diego 92139. I just really want to comment on the exceptional service that is provided by the head of your property department, Martin Reader. He is just such a breath of fresh air in terms of getting back to people, going out of ESQUIRE 800.211.DEPO (3376) Esquire Sol utions. com NATIONAL CITY MEETING NATIONAL CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING August 19, 2013 5-8 Page 5 1 his way to make sure the people are informed whether 2 he -- you know, he's neutral but whether -- yeah, I can 3 feel, even if he's not necessarily, like, right there 4 on -- on the same page on the issue, he totally goes out 5 of his way to make sure that people are informed if 6 there's been changes in the agenda or if there's been, you 7 know, a change in what was the anticipation of the date, 8 like in terms of the Alliant thing. I just -- he's really 9 exceptional. And he does he what he says he's going to 10 do. He sends stuff out when he says that he's going to 11 send it. And he -- and he doesn't make you have to ask 12 the right question because you don't know what to ask. 13 He -- he's very forthright, and he just 14 epitomizes transparency and what I love to see public 15 servants doing, so -- 16 MADAM CHAIR: Thank you very much. 17 Is there anybody else in the audience for oral 18 communications? 19 Okay. Please let the record show that 20 Commissioner DeLaPaz is here. 21 COMMISSIONER DELAPAZ: Thank you. 22 MADAM CHAIR: Okay. Before we get started with 23 the rest of the agenda items, there are a lot of people 24 here. Thank you for coming to the Planning Commission 25 meeting. We will have to enforce the three -minute -time Page 7 1 recommendation for you to consider. Feel free to stop 2 any- -- anyone at any time. Interrupt if you have any 3 questions. There's a lot of information that will be put 4 before you, obviously. Then we'll take public comment and 5 well discuss the recommendation. 6 Stii'aese proceed. 7 M EISERt iifi .yw,tforthe introduction. 8 Good evening, Madam Chair, members of the 9 commission. It's a pleasure to be here this evening. 10 I'm going to start out with some introductory 11 remarks to introduce you to the topic of amortization and 12 then go on and discuss the legal basis of amortization. 13 First of all, the purpose of the hearing is to 14 request that the Planning Commission make two 15 recommendations to the City Council. First, to order the 16 termination of two nonconforming land uses; and second, to 17 establish a reasonable amount of time in which the land 18 uses must be terminated. 19 Two nonconforming land uses are the focus of the 20 requested action. The first is Steve's West Coast 21 Automotive, located at 1732 Coolidge Avenue. The second, 22 Jose's Auto Electric at 108 West 18th Street. 23 A nonconforming use. This occurs when a land use 24 that was lawful before a zoning regulation was enacted or 25 amended becomes prohibited after the regulation is enacted Page 6 1 limit, so I may have to interrupt you once you get to 2 three minutes. I may have to say, "Your time is up," 3 so -- because we have a lot of agenda items. And I 4 believe they're going to -- some of them will be taking 5 some time, so we have to definitely enforce that. 6 Okay. Next item, please. 7 SECRETARY: Item No. 3, public hearing to 8 consider making recommendations to the City Council to 9 order the termination of nonconforming land uses and to 10 consider making recommendations regarding a reasonable 11 amount of time in which to terminate the noncomforming 12 land uses located at 732 Coolidge Avenue, Steve's West 13 Coast Automotive, and 108 West 18th Street, Jose's Auto 14 Electric. 15 This item will be presented by? 16 MR. RAULSTON: I'll -- I'll start. And I'll 17 introduce the staff and the consultant team. But as was 18 stated, tonight we'll be presenting on the public hearing 19 for the termination of nonconforming land uses. 20 We have George Eiser from Meyers Nave as part of 21 our consultant team; Ray Pe, a principal planner on the 22 city staff; Mike Garcia from Tierra West; and Brian Brinig 23 from Brinig & Company. 24 They will be handling the majority of the 25 presentation. I will summarize at the end and provide a Page 8 1 or amended. 2 Generally, a noncomforming use can be continued 3 indefinitely unless terminated by the user. 4 Because the goal of a zoning enactment or 5 amendment is to accomplish a change in land uses, it is 6 reasonable to expect that a noncomforming use could be 7 terminated by affirmative action of the city. 8 And, in fact, the courts have recognized the 9 authority of a city to accomplish the 10 affirmative termination of a nonconforming use through 11 amortization. 12 Amortization. This is the definition. It's the 13 method of determining the useful life of a noncomforming 14 use or structure and prohibiting continuation of that use 15 or structure no later than the expiration of an 16 amortization period. 17 In order for the amortization period to be 18 considered reasonable and legally valid, it is not 19 necessary that the noncomforming use be exhausted at the 20 end of the amortization period. The determination of a 21 reasonable amortization period requires a weighing of 22 public gain against private detriment, and this is true in 23 the case, when you think about it, of -- in the case of 24 all zoning enactments. You have a public gain in enacting 25 the zoning regulation against some private detriment or, ESQUIRE 800.211.DEPO (3376) EsquireSolutions. com NATIONAL CITY MEETING NATIONAL CITY PLANNING COMMISSION M EETING August 19, 2013 9-12 Page 11 1 perhaps, inconvenience. 2 In 2006, the City Council added Section 18.11.100 3 to the municipal code titled "Affirmative Termination By 4 Amortization," providing that the City Council may order a 5 noncomforming use to be terminated within a reasonable 6 amount of time upon recommendation of the Planning 7 Commission. And so that's why we're before you this 8 evening. 9 Section 18.11.100 provides that in making the 10 recommendation to terminate a noncomforming use and in 11 recommending a reasonable amount of time in which that use 12 must be terminated, the Planning Commission shall consider 13 the following factors: 14 The total cost of the land and improvements. 15 The length of time the use has existed. 16 Adaptability of the land and improvements to a 17 currently permitted use. 18 The cost of moving and reestablishing the use 19 elsewhere. 20 Whether the use is significantly nonconforming. 21 Compatibility with the existing land use pattems 22 and densities of the surrounding neighborhood. 23 The possible threat to the public health, safety 24 or welfare and other relevant factors. 25 And as you'll see from the presentations by the Page 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 through each one of those. The yellow or tan color is the single-family residence zone, RS-4. You have two purple colors. The lighter purple is a mixed -use residential/commercial zone, MCR-1. And then a higher density, more intensive zone, the darker purple, also a mixed -use residential/commercial, known as MCR-2. Then in the pink, you have a commercial zone, limited commercial or CL zone. In the blue, you have a civic/institutional zone. In this case, it applies to Kimball School. And then, in the green is an open space preserve zone, which basically applies to Paradise Creek. The two subject properties are indicated in the red dots. If you can see a No. 1 to the left and a No. 2 to the right, the No. 1 indicates the location of Steve's West Coast Automotive. That is at the northwest corner of 18th Street and Coolidge Avenue -- I'm sorry. Hoover Avenue. And No. 2 is Jose's Auto Electric. That's located at the southwest corner of 18th Street and Roosevelt Avenue. And here we zoom in a little closer. You can see that Steve's West Coast Automotive is located in the MCR-1 mixed -use residential/commercial -- commercial zone, 1 other presenters this Page 10 evening, g, they --all of these 2 factors were taken into consideration in arriving at the 3 recommended amortization periods for these two businesses. 4 So at this point, I will tum the presentation 5 over to Raymond Pe. I'd like to provide some biographical 6 information regarding Mr. Pe. He's had over 25 years of 7 experience as a professional planner starting with a 8 planning amid for the City of Glendora. He worked his way 9 up to a senior planner for the City of Glendora. He then 10 became a senior planner for the City of Chula Vista, and 11 is currently a principal planner for the City of National 12 City. He's got a Bachelor's degree from California State 13 Polytechnic University in Pomona and a Master's degree in 14 urban and regional planning from Califomia State 15 Polytechnic University, Pomona. He's also certified by 16 the American Institute of Certified Planners. 17 MR. PE: Thank you, George. 18 Evening, Madam Chair, commissioners. 19 I just want to place the two subject properties 20 into context, specifically with regard to zoning and their 21 physical location. 22 The Westside Specific Plan was adopted in March 23 of 2010. The implementing ordinance which established the 24 zones was adopted in August of that year. There are six 25 zones that apply to the Westside Specific Plan. I'll go 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Page 12 1 and Jose's Auto Electric is located in the CL limited 2 commercial zone. 3 There — the permitted uses are listed in the 4 specific plan and codified in the municipal code. Under 5 the MCR-1 zone you see the list of permitted uses, 6 basically most retail sales and service type uses are 7 permitted. CL zone, most of the uses are identical, the 6 big difference being that in the MCR-1 zone, because it is 9 a mixed use zone, it allows for multifamily residential, and in this case up to 24 dwelling units per acre in that zone in addition to commercial uses. This aerial gives you an indication of where the two businesses are located adjacent or very close to Kimball School, outlined in blue, which is treated as a sensitive use, along with Paradise Creek outlined in green. And at this time, I think George is going to introduce Mike Garcia. MR. EISER: Thank you, Ray. Michael Garcia is a principal in Tierra West Advisors, Incorporated. Mike has worked with local government since 1993 and brings a wealth of knowledge and experience to the client. His broad range of experience involves real estate consulting services for development projects, acquisition and relocation for right-of-way ESQUIRE 800.211.DEPO (3376) EsquireSolutions. com NATIONAL CITY MEETING NATIONAL CITY PLANNING COMMISSION M August 19, 2013 EETING 13-16 1 projects, entitlement services for planning permit 2 applicants, field surveys for redevelopment plans, 3 economic development strategies, underwriting analyses for 4 economic development loans, the preparation of 5 organizational studies, personnel benefits and 6 compensation studies, conducting annexations/incorporation 7 studies, municipal service reviews, city budgeting, 8 preparing implementation plans and strategic plans, and 9 assisting with funding plans, and demographic analysis for 10 park master plans. 11 Mr. Garcia's experience with providing 12 governmental consulting services and project 13 implementation are enhanced by his skillful ability to 14 work with the local constituents and business community. 15 Mike has a Master's of Public Administration in 16 Urban Planning and Management from Cal State Fullerton, 17 and a Bachelor of Arts in Political Science from the 18 University of Califomia, Irvine. 19 As I said, he is currently a principal in Tierra 20 West Advisors. He was previously a senior associate with 21 the Rosenow Spevacek Group, and an economic development 22 and personnel technician with the City of Santa Ana. 23 Mike. 24 MR. GARCIA: Thank you. 25 Chair and commissioners, wanted to go down real Page 13 Page 15 1 owners in the future to meet conformance with the current 2 zoning. 3 It looked at values and weights that would come 4 up with, on the business operations side, looking at the 5 value of the property, the land, and the time that the use 6 existed at the location. And then for neighborhood 7 impacts, looking at the adaptability, the nonconformance 8 and compatibility of that land and improvement, and then 9 looking at the threat that that use poses to public 10 health, safety and welfare. 11 And so all of these types of uses come together 12 in determining the ranking of a nonconforming use. It 13 actually was put together in a formula in Microsoft Excel 14 by the EPA, the Environmental Protection Agency's 15 consultant. And one of the more important factors that 16 came out of the process in March of 2011 was identifying 17 the proximity to sensitive uses. That had a much higher 18 weight that was given during the ranking process, as well 19 as looking at incompatibility of uses and their 20 nonconformance with the current zoning. And so within 21 each of the factors, you have subfactors that were 22 considered for each property. There was a lot of data 23 collection, a lot of research, as well as actually going 24 in the field and trying to take a good look at, from the 25 public right-of-way, how those businesses are being Page 14 1 quickly a history of the ranking process. The city 2 actually began working through an EPA grant back in 2010, 3 and in -- working in concert with Environmental Protection 4 Agency and its consultant developed a process with coming 5 up with an objective way of analyzing the nonconforming 6 uses within the Westside Specific Plan area. 7 In 2012 -- 2011, March of 2011, the process was 8 finalized after significant community input and input from 9 staff and conducting many community forums. And 10 basically, it outlined the process for analyzing each 11 property by looking at collecting data from sources from 12 the state, county and local agencies such as the Regional 13 Water Quality Control Board, the Department of Public 14 Works with the county, the city's fire and code 15 enforcement divisions and departments, looking at storm 16 water discharges and actually conducting a 17 property -by -property analysis via a field survey to come 18 up with a ranking by property. And I make that 19 distinction because some properties, while they may have 20 one business on them, they are significantly larger; and 21 each property got ranked individually. So you could have 22 a property that has different rankings because there is 23 maybe a parking lot or maybe not a building on that one 24 parcel, and so rankings actually come out a little 25 different. But that allowed more flexibility for property Page 16 1 operated, storage of hazardous materials and discharges 2 into the water and working in the public right-of-way. 3 These type of factors were all considered during the field 4 survey, and working with the state and local agencies that 5 are collecting that type of information as well. 6 This gives a breakdown on how the factors 7 weighed -- were weighed in the formulas for the Excel. I 8 won't go into all the details. I mentioned that proximity 9 to sensitive uses at the very top, 61 percent. So 10 that -- that did weigh fairly heavily during the ranking 11 process. 12 And after you input all that information, the 13 formulas kick in to laying out the subfactor weights and 14 an overall weighting to come up with the ranking. And 15 after doing all of that research and collecting that data, 16 Steve's West Coast Automotive and Jose's Auto Electric 17 were ranked No. 1 and No. 2 among the nonconforming uses 18 that were looked at within the Westside Specific Plan, 19 based on that research and that data collected. 20 MR. EISER: Thank you, Mike. 21 We'll now have a presentation by Brian Brinig who 22 will present a quantitative analysis to present to you. 23 And he'll demonstrate how he arrived at the actual 24 amortization periods, the basis of the recommendation this 25 evening. ESQUIRpE 800.211.DEPO (3376) Esq uire Solution s. com NATIONAL CITY MEETING August 19, 2013 NATIONAL CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 17-20 1 Brian is a certified public accountant who has 2 specialized in business valuation work for over 30 years 3 in San Diego County. 4 He's the managing principal of a 20-person 5 business valuation and forensic accounting firm that he 6 formed in 1983 in San Diego. 7 Brian holds accreditations in business valuation 8 from the American Institute of Certified Public 9 Accountants and the American Society Of Appraisers. And 10 he has qualified as an expert witness in federal and state 11 courts over 100 times on the issue of business valuation. 12 He has been the state chairman of the California 13 Society of Certified Public Accountants Business Valuation 14 Committee and he has served on the board of directors of 15 the San Diego Society of Certified Public Accountants. 16 He holds a degree in business from Georgetown 17 University and a law degree from the University of 18 San Diego. 19 Mr. Brinig is the author of the law textbook, 20 "Finance and Accounting For Lawyers,' and he is adjunct 21 professor of law at the University of San Diego School of 22 Law. 23 He is past president of the Financial Analysts 24 Society of San Diego, and he has coauthored three other 25 professional books and many articles on the subjects of Page 17 Page 19 1 amortization period has to be commensurate with the 2 investment involved in the noncomforming use. 3 Focusing on — on the municipal code, there 4 are — it requires, of course, consideration of eight 5 factors that Mr. Eiser suggested. But three of the 6 factors have a direct financial aspect that I can address, 7 because my focus tends to be financial. And those three 8 factors are the total cost of land and improvements, the 9 length of time the use has existed, and any other relevant 10 factors. 11 Focusing on the first one that I could look at, 12 the total cost of land and improvements, I note that the 13 businesses -- the actual business owners do not own the 14 land and improvements here. The businesses are subject to 15 leases. And the lease is the thing that controls the cost 16 or the value of the land and improvement to the business 17 owner. So the actual cost of land and improvements is not 18 a factor that is directly relevant to the business owner. 19 And I suggest it is not — not directly relevant. 20 As it turns out Steve's West Coast Automotive has 21 six months remaining on its lease. 22 Jose's Auto Electric has six years on its lease. 23 But, in fact, the total cost of land and improvements is 24 not really directly relevant in my view to the 25 commission's assessment. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 business valuation and forensic accounting. The city retained Mr. Brinig to determine a reasonable amortization period for the termination of the nonconforming uses and the Westside Specific Plan. And he has applied business valuation analysis to the question of reasonable amortization. He'll explain the analytic steps he has taken in his presentation and will give the commission his conclusions. Brian. MR. BRINIG: Thank you, Mr. Eiser. The objective of my analysis is to determine a reasonable amortization period for the termination of these nonconforming uses. The basis of my analysis is the municipal code section that George referred to earlier, that code section that allows the termination of a noncomforming use within a reasonable amount of time. And a second basis of my analysis is the California Supreme Court case, Metro Media versus City of San Diego. And in the Metro Media case, the court clearly stated that a noncomforming use can be terminated if a reasonable amortization period commensurate with the investment involved in the use is allowed. So the focus of the California Supreme Court case is the reasonable Page 18 Page 20 1 Second factor that I can take a look at, the 2 length of time that the use has existed. 3 Steve's West Coast has been operated by its 4 present owner since 2004. 5 Jose's Auto Electric has been operated by its 6 present owners since 2008. And I note here that both 7 businesses have operated longer than the period necessary 8 to recover their investment or the investment in the 9 businesses. And that point will become clear in a couple 10 of minutes when I talk about the other relevant factors, 11 especially from a financial perspective that I, as a CPA, 12 can take a look at. 13 So the other relevant factors that I think should 14 be considered by the Planning Commission: 15 What is amortization? And George Eiser has 16 defined it as it is defined in the law for amortizing a 17 noncomforming use. 18 And then I ask the question: 19 Is there a financially logical way to quantify a 20 reasonable amortization period? Is there some objective 21 measure of a reasonable amortization period? 22 So let me briefly talk about, as a backdrop, the 23 concept of amortization. Amortization in accounting and 24 finance parlance is a cost allocation method by which the 25 cost of an asset is applied to the asset's useful life. ESQUIRE 800.211.DEPO (3376) EsquireSolutions. com NATIONAL CITY MEETING NATIONAL CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING August 19, 2013 21-24 Page 21 1 Through amortization, the cost of an asset is applied to 2 the benefit period that you gain from the asset. Or, 3 stated altematively, the cost is recovered during the 4 benefit period and the cost is recovered against the 5 benefits derived. 6 By way of brief example, if you buy a delivery 7 truck for $25,000 and it has a life of five years, you're 8 going to apply the cost of that delivery truck, the 9 $25,000, to the benefit period that you're going to get 10 from the truck, the five -year -benefit period. So you are 11 going to apply $5,000 of the cost of the delivery truck 12 over the life of the truck. And you are going to 13 essentially recover the cost of that truck from the time 14 period that you gain the benefits of the truck. The 15 useful life of the -- of the truck is the recovery period 16 of the truck. 17 So the recovery period of an asset or an 18 investment is the time that it takes to recover the cost 19 or value of the asset against the benefits derived. Or 20 stated another way, the recovery period is the 21 amortization period, the time period over which the owner 22 recovers the investment in the asset. 23 Now, recalling the basis of my analysis, we're 24 looking at the Metro Media case where we're looking for a 25 reasonable amortization period commensurate with the Page 23 1 Or thirdly, it's the payback period for the value 2 of the business. I pay $200,000 for it, if the 3 price -earnings ratio is two, I get my $200,000 back, 4 100,000 the first year, 100,000 the second year, that's 5 the payback period for the price of the business. 6 How can we apply the concept of price -earnings 7 ratio to the two businesses here? Well, looking at 8 recognized published data, we can determine the 9 appropriate price -earnings ratio for the size and type of 10 business under consideration here. When I know the 11 appropriate price -earnings ratio for the size and type of 12 business, I can use that price -earnings ratio to estimate 13 a payback period or a recovery period for the business. 14 Remember, the price -earnings ratio is the number 15 of years of annual income that's embedded in the price or 16 value of the business. So the range of reasonable payback 17 or recovery periods that can be seen by the range of price 18 earning ratio for this kind of business defines a 19 reasonable amortization period. 20 Now, I look at Steve's West Coast Automotive. It 21 is a general automotive repair shop. It's been owned by 22 Mr. and Mrs. Vasquez since 2004. Again, I said, "It's 23 been owned a longer period of time than is necessary to 24 recover the price of the business in the price -earnings 25 ratio." And Steve's has a NAICS code and an SIC code. Page 22 1 investment involved. So how do we determine that? How do 2 we objectively come up with a way that gives us a number, 3 a number of years to define the range of amortization 4 periods? 5 Let me briefly introduce the concept of 6 price-eamings ratio or the price -to -earnings ratio of a 7 business. The P/E ratio that we all hear on the financial 8 news, it's the relationship of the price of a business or 9 the value of a business, its price, the P, to its annual 10 earnings. It's simply a mathematical formula of the price 11 over the annual earnings. And the result of that 12 price -earnings ratio is a number that is stated as a 13 multiple that says the price of this business is some 14 multiple of annual earnings, some number of years of 15 annual earnings. 16 So a price -earnings ratio is the number of years 17 earnings embedded in the price of the business. That is 18 one way to say a price -earnings ratio, or the number of 19 years earnings that it takes to recover the value of the 20 business. 21 If I eam $100,000 a year, and the business has a 22 two times price -earnings ratio, the value of the business 23 is 200,000. If I pay 200 for the business, and I earn 100 24 a year, I recover that price, that $200,000 price in two 25 years. Page 24 1 Those are North American Industrial Classification System 2 and Standard Industrial Classification system, coding 3 systems by the government for types of businesses. 4 They -- Steve's has a -- those codes of general automobile 5 repair. 6 Other members have said the location of the 7 business. I could give you a description of the size of 8 the business. It's got 2400 square feet, six bays, can 9 park about 20 cars outside and it's operating on a 10 six-month lease. What I have done in order to evaluate 11 Steve's is -- oh, I'm sorry. Let me just talk about the 12 facts of Jose's briefly. 13 It is more specialized, a specialized auto 14 repair. Tune-ups and brake repairs, operated by Mr. and 15 Mrs. Ramirez since 2008. The codes -- the business codes 16 for Jose's are more specialized, other auto mechanical and 17 electrical repair and maintenance shops, but using -- 18 looking at those two types of businesses, how do we 19 determine appropriate price -earnings ratios for each 20 business. 21 What I did was I looked to the three nationally 22 recognized publications that summarize and report 23 financial data on small business sales. Those three 24 nationally recognized publications are Pratt Stats, which 25 is a merger and acquisition database with details on ESQUIRE 800.211.DEPO (3376) EsquireSolutions. com 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 NATIONAL CITY MEETING NATIONAL CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING August 19, 2013 25-28 1 19,000 transactions. 2 Business Comps, which is a collection of 3 financial data on 12,000 private sales of businesses, and 4 The Institute of Business Appraisers Market database, the 5 largest one, that has financial information on over 37,000 6 business sale transactions. 7 Looking at those recognized sources, for Steve's 8 I used the NAICS and SIC code for general auto repair. I 9 reviewed sales of general auto repair businesses in the 10 last 15 years, and I looked to the median price -earnings 11 ratios of the — for price -earnings ratios for each of 12 those business sales from those three sources of data. I 13 used the median rather than an average, because a median 14 is the midpoint and it tends to eliminate what we call 15 outliers. It tends to eliminate some business that sold 16 for a thousand times eamings, and it eliminates the 17 business that are sold for zero times earnings, and it 18 picks the midpoint, which is different from the average by 19 eliminating those outliers. 20 And for Steve's, I concluded, looking at the 21 three databases, that the median price -earnings ratios 22 ranged, for general automotive repair businesses in sales 23 of the last 15 years, from 1.69 times, which is about a 24 year and nine months, to 2.19 times, which is about two 25 years and three months. 1.69 to 2.19 times Page 25 Page 27 1 questions now or at the end of the presentation, but that 2 is my analysis and my conclusions. 3 Mr. Eiser? 4 MR. EISER: Thank you, Brian. 5 If there are no more questions, we're going to go 6 back to Mike Garcia. Mike is going to discuss how Brian's 7 economic analysis and conclusions were considered with the 8 eight factors set forth in the municipal code and the 9 facts specific to each of the businesses to arrive at the 10 ultimate conclusions and recommendations for the 11 amortization periods to be applied. 12 MADAM CHAIR: Mr. Eiser, can you take questions 13 now or do you want until your presentation -- 14 MR. EISER: Certainly, we can take questions now. 15 MADAM CHAIR: We have a question from 16 Commissioner Bush. 17 COMMISSIONER BUSH: And is it pronounced Brinig? 18 MR. BRINIG: Brinig, yes. 19 COMMISSIONER BUSH: Okay. So when determining 20 the earnings of the business, why not use the tax info 21 from the IRS for their earnings for each specific 22 business? 23 MR. BRINIG: I think the commissioner should be 24 aware that I have not been provided specific financial 25 information on any of these businesses. So it would be Page 26 1 earnings -- let me jump forward to my conclusion. For Steve's West Coast Automotive, using the price earnings -- median price -earnings ratios published in those three nationally recognized sources, using the medians from the sources, my conclusion is that a reasonable amortization period for Steve's West Coast Automotive to recover the cost of -- of the business or the price of the business is from 1.69 to 2.19 times. Stated in years, a year and nine months to two years and three months. Going back to doing the same type of analysis for Jose's Auto Electric, I looked to the three nationally recognized databases, using the median price -earnings ratios for the sales of those types of businesses, and the median price-eamings ratios ranged from 1.64 to 2.77 times. That's one year and eight months to two years and ten months. My conclusions for Jose's, based on that objective financial analysis, is that a reasonable amortization period for terminating the noncomforming use in Jose's would be one year and eight months to two years and ten months. That's the basis of my analysis considering the three factors, focusing on trying to provide the commission with a quantifiable objective financial analysis to quantify the range. I'd be happy to answer Page 28 1 better if I had their detailed financial information. But 2 without that information, I have looked to the -- the 3 general statistics that are published that give 4 a generalized median price -earnings ratio for this type of 5 business, which, Commissioner Bush, I believe that in 6 concept, I can apply without knowing the specific details 7 of this particular business. I could simplistically say, 8 "Generally this type of business sells at a price -earnings 9 ratio of two times." 10 Therefore, if I had, I don't know this. But if I 11 had the information from this business and I evaluated 12 this business in relation to the market studies, I would 13 conclude that this business would sell for two times 14 earnings as well. 15 COMMISSIONER BUSH: Thank you. 16 MADAM CHAIR: Commissioner Garcia? 17 COMMISSIONER GARCIA: Thank you. 18 First, I want to say thank you for your very 19 thorough report. Very excellent work. 20 And I think it is a question for Mr. Garcia. And 21 maybe I missed it in the report. But I wanted to know if 22 once the land use is changed, what improvements will have 23 to be made to that property or that land in order to -- in 24 order for it to be adequate for a commercial use? Maybe I 25 missed it on the report. But I don't want those ESQUIRE 800.211.DEPO (3376) EsquireSolutions. com NATIONAL CITY MEETING August 19, 2013 NATIONAL CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 29-32 1 properties to tum into brown fields. So just -- if you 2 can answer that question, that would be awesome. 3 MR. GARCIA: With the case of Steve's West Coast, 4 it could go to any type of office retail or even a 5 mixed use with residential over office or retail. 6 In my analysis, we -- we determined it would be 7 quite substantial, it would be a major rehabilitation of 8 Steve's West Coast to convert to that nonconforming use. 9 In speaking with the property owner, we talked 10 about ideas about selling the property to interested 11 developers. That was something he had brought up because 12 he said he wasn't -- wasn't open to trying to go through a 13 development process himself. 14 With Jose's Auto Electric, also similarly, it's 15 in a limited commercial zone. That would lend itself 16 towards retail and office uses. In that case, it would 17 have to also go through some major rehabilitation because 18 it has got open bays as well for an auto repair. That 19 would be something. It could even go to an auto sales, 20 auto parts. If they have existing contracts with folks 21 who they buy shocks and electrical parts from, it could 22 convert to that type of use. 23 MADAM CHAIR: Okay. 24 COMMISSIONER GARCIA: Thank you. That makes 25 sense. Page 29 Page 31 1 MR. BRINIG: Madam Commissioner, may I add one 2 comment that I think may be somewhat supportive of that? 3 It -- initially, it is a little frustrating that 4 somebody like me does not have the specific financial 5 information on the business, on the one hand. 6 On the other hand, I would candidly tell you 7 that, sort of the way I answered Commissioner Bush's 8 question, even if I have specific financial information on 9 a business, it doesn't -- it rarely would tell me what the 10 value of that business is in relation to its earnings. 11 Unless the business was bought from somebody six months 12 ago and then I saw their financial information, I would 13 have difficulty relating specific financial information of 14 a business to the value of the business. 15 So in addition to Madam DeLaPaz' comments 16 that -- you have all questions about the accuracy of the 17 data and the volume of the data, I'm not sure it would 18 bring me any closer to being able -- I would do the same 19 thing. If I knew this business netted 50,000 or 100,000, 20 I would still kind of go to the same general data to draw 21 some conclusion about what is a reasonable price -earnings 22 ratio for this particular business, whether it nets 30,000 23 or 50,000 or 100,000. 24 COMMISSIONER DELAPAZ: So we are really looking 25 at the market value of the business, not the book value. Page 30 1 MADAM CHAIR: Commissioner DeLaPaz? 2 COMMISSIONER DELAPAZ: I want to hold my general 3 questions and comments until the end. But just to 4 piggyback off the specific question that was asked of 5 Mr. Brinig's presentation, the question about, "Why wasn't 6 business -specific information used?" And I appreciate the 7 response as far as that not being provided. I can 8 imagine, and we'll discuss later, that we are probably 9 setting precedence as far as what will be used in the 10 future. There is obviously an entire list of -- of 11 businesses to be considered for amortization and — and 12 the same exact idea. I recall those conversations when we 13 first had them back during the specific plan and 14 limitation. But I can just imagine that if we were to 15 request that information from the business owners, that 16 one, most likely a small business owner would not have 17 audited financials; and therefore, they would be -- we 18 would be at the mercy of the accuracy of the data that 19 they chose to provide. So I can understand where going to 20 external market data would be somewhat neutralized. 21 Unless we were to obtain the businesses financials and get 22 them audited, it would be really hard to rely on. So I 23 just wanted to add that comment under that discussion. 24 Again, I'II leave the rest of our discussion until the 25 end. Thank you. „Page32 1 MR. GARCIA: That's correct. •EP..1N10- 2 COMMISSIONER DELAPAZ: Thank you. 3 MADAM CHAIR: Commissioner Bush? 4 COMMISSIONER BUSH: I'm sorry. Could you go into 5 more detail about the market value versus the book value? 6 I'm still not understanding, like, what -- what the 7 difference is in relation to creating this formula. 8 MR. BRINIG: Sure. 9 What this -- the price-eamings ratio shows is 10 just mathematically — forget a specific business, it 11 mathematically shows the relationship of a business's net 12 income to the market price of that business. Okay? 13 If I just -- if I brought you the financial 14 statements of, let's use one of these businesses as an 15 example, Jose's, it would have an income statement and a 16 net income. But we wouldn't know what the market value of 17 that business was from its own financial statements. It 18 would have some old equipment that had been accounting 19 depreciated down to some number. And maybe it — it would 20 be of a particular type of business that is worth many, 21 many multiples of its earnings. Its balance sheet or its 22 financial statements wouldn't show that. 23 My study indicates -- I won't restate the ranges 24 that I gave you. But my study indicates that the values 25 of these types of businesses is what I said it was. ESQUIRE 800.211.DEPO (3376) EsquireSolutions. com NATIONAL CITY MEETING August 19, 2013 NATIONAL CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 33-36 1 Does that answer your question? 2 COMMISSIONER BUSH: Yes, it does. Thank you. 3 MADAM CHAIR: Commissioner DeLaPaz? 4 COMMISSIONER DELAPAZ: And just on that same 5 topic of the calculations, are we saying that in using the 6 P/E ratio to apply to the amortization period, that the 7 idea is that if they went out to sell their business 8 because they're a nonconforming use at this time, that 9 we're saying that if we give them three years to cease and 10 desist, basically, that -- that would correspond the idea 11 that in their line of business, they should expect to get 12 almost a three times price versus their earnings ratio, 13 and therefore, they'd get three times of an annual 14 earnings of their business in a price that they would 15 obtain in the market and they have about three years to do 16 that? 17 MR. BRINIG: That's -- that's exactly correct. 18 If -- if three is -- if my study indicated three, that's 19 what I'm saying is -- is -- and again, I'm -- I have to 20 say this generally because you can always find an 21 exception. But speaking generally, if I go out and do a 22 study and learn that this business nets $75,000 a year and 23 my study indicates that two times is the standard 24 price -earnings ratio, coming down the standards, this 25 business is worth $150,000. This person could sell the Page 33 Page 35 1 with amortization on — with the top two ranked 2 businesses, in late March through mid April, attempts were 3 made not only over the phone but through personal 4 meetings, to meet with each of the top two ranked 5 businesses, Steve's West Coast and Jose's Auto 6 Electric -- Auto Electric to collect additional detailed 7 business information that we could then forward on to 8 Mr. Brinig for his report. 9 And during that data collection, we also included 10 kind of our analysis that we had collected during the data 11 and research portion that occurred from December 2011 12 through May of 2012. And what we determined, looking at 13 both of them, is that there were a history of municipal 14 code violations at both business operations. In the case 15 of Steve's West Coast, there had been notice that 16 some -- at some points during their business operations, 17 not every day, not every hour, were conducted in public 18 right-of-way. Oil stains and hazardous material storage 19 present on both, which represent threats to storm runoff, 20 and proximity to sensitive uses in the area. As I 21 mentioned, those -- that weighed very heavily in the 22 ranking process and the formula prepared by the EPA's 23 consultant. 24 And then we also looked at information like what 25 would it cost to bring these businesses, these buildings Page 34 1 business for $150,000 at other things being equal. 2 Or stated another way which I think is important 3 for your consideration in -- in using amortization in the 4 fact that you are kind of taking something away from 5 somebody, if the guy who came in and paid $150,000 for 6 that business would then get the -- the price paid back to 7 him in two years, a payback period of two years of 8 $75,000, which is a payback or a recovery period. 9 COMMISSIONER DELAPAZ: Thank you. Thank you for 10 clarifying. 11 As far as the rationale or what we should use, 12 I'll Just save those comments until later now that I 13 understand the mechanics of -- and I understand that we're 14 continuing with the presentation. And we'll continue our 15 discussion later. Thank you. 16 MADAM CHAIR: Okay. Thank you. 17 Mr. Eiser? 18 MR. EISER: Yes. Mr. Garcia? 19 MR. GARCIA: In doing our due diligence, we 20 actually began collecting information and meeting with the 21 business owners and the property owners back in the second 22 week of December. That was not only to provide 23 information about amortization and the process, but also 24 to collect information, answer questions from them and 25 In -- after it was decided by City Council to move forward Page 36 1 in particular, into conformance and that these would 2 require major rehabilitation efforts. 3 So we looked at each of the eight factors in 4 taking the Brinig report and coming up with a recommended 5 amortization schedule. I have more detail in your report 6 there. I'm going to hit some of the -- some of the 7 highlights. We took into additional considerations stuff 8 like the six -year lease with the two one-year additional 9 renewal options in the Jose's Auto Electric lease. We 10 looked at the fact that even though they've only been at 11 that current location for over seven years, they were also 12 located on other portions of 18th Street nearby, so they 13 are longtime business operators. 14 We looked at what it might cost to convert that 15 building to a retail or office use and what external 16 factors like flooding from the Paradise Creek would cause 17 as far as getting that building into a use -- an office or 18 retail use allowed on their limited commercial zone. 19 We looked at estimates for relocating and 20 reestablishing the business, how significantly 21 nonconforming that use is compared to its current limited 22 commercial zone, and its compatibility with other 23 nonconforming uses. And what I mean by that is, it's 24 compatible with some other auto repair uses that are also 25 nonconforming. So they're significantly not incompatible, ESQUIRE 800.211.DEPO (3376) EsquireSolutions. com NATIONAL CITY MEETING August 19, 2013 NATIONAL CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 37-40 Page 37 1 — significantly -- significantly nonconforming with the 2 Westside Specific Plan. 3 We looked at other threats to the storage of 4 hazardous materials and threat to adjacent sensitive uses. 5 In particular, flooding occurs at this property between 6 November and January, even as late as February during the 7 rainy season and can get as high as 24 inches, even higher 8 on the property. And so the fact that you are doing an 9 auto repair right next to Paradise Creek, that also 10 presents a threat to the water quality in Paradise Creek. 11 So we looked at those factors. And even though 12 the use presents a significant threat to public health and 13 safety, we looked at other additional factors such as the 14 cost to convert that building to a nonconforming use that 15 would be used by an office or retail and the cost to 16 relocate or re-establish that business. And after that 17 consideration, analyzing the information provided by 18 Brinig & Company, we were recommending on the higher end 19 of the amortization range for the schedule for Jose's Auto 20 Electric. 21 We also looked at Steve's West Coast by looking 22 at all eight factors. They have a lease that actually 23 ends in February 2013. But this auto repair use has been 24 there for many years. It's been an auto repair use since 25 the 70s, when it was built in, I believe, 1972. And so it 1 But they're threats to environmental quality, potentially 2 for children having to walk into the street from time to 3 time. We took all of that into consideration, as well as 4 looking at what the cost would be to convert the building 5 to a nonconforming use, cost to relocate and re-establish 6 a business. And we were also recommending on the higher 7 range of the amortization schedule for Steve's West Coast. 8 MR. RAULSTON: Okay. Thank you. 9 MR. BRINIG, Mr. Garcia -- 10 MR. EISER: Excuse me, Brad, before we go on to 11 the recommendation, I wanted to clarify a point. 12 There was a question raised about the specific 13 financial information or lack thereof. And I believe it's 14 the case that that information was requested by Mr. Garcia 15 from the property owners and it was not provided. So if 16 that's correct, I'd like -- 17 MR. GARCIA: That's correct. The property owners 18 are very friendly and nice. Unfortunately, significant 19 details from the businesses were not provided during phone 20 calls, personal meetings, e-mails, faxes, everything I 21 could try to do to establish a connection with those 22 business operators because I wanted to go above and beyond 23 my efforts in late March and through mid -April to 24 establish contact with the businesses to get as dear a 25 picture about their business operations as we could. Page 39 Page 38 1 represents a long-term business that has actually exceeded 2 its PIE ratio range in the Brinig report. 3 We looked at what it would cost to bring that 4 building into a nonconforming use, considered that it 5 might take upwards of $15,600 to relocate the business and 6 possibly another 9,300 to re-establish that business. And 7 in looking at that, we looked at details as far as how 8 many movers, how many trucks, how many flatbeds would be 9 required to move each of their -- each of their cars. 10 They — we have to consider that they may have cars during 11 the relocation process that need to be towed from their 12 customers. So we got into pretty good detail in coming up 13 with the estimate. 14 We looked at the fact that this is a 15 significantly nonconforming use in the MCR-1 zone. And 16 while it is compatible with other auto repair uses in the 17 area, it is significantly incompatible in the MCR-1 zone. 18 And then we looked at other information in the 19 Brinig report, and information such as notes from the 20 community as well as what was noted during the field 21 survey that we did about working and parking cars an 22 sidewalks. 23 So after considering all of that, even though 24 there is a threat to public health and safety — and when 25 I say "threat," this is not, you know, life and death. Page 40 1 Because from that point, all of our data had been 2 collected by noting equipment and furniture, machinery and 3 other types of business operation implements that were on 4 site from the public right-of-way, from sidewalks, from 5 alleyways, from stuff of that nature. So we could take 6 pictures and collect as good of information as we could 7 from them. And in the end, the business owners decided 8 not to provide the information based on counsel they had 9 received. 10 MR. RAULSTON: Okay. Well, thank you again. 11 So both the financial and legal basis have been 12 presented to you this evening for the termination by 13 amortization of these two nonconforming uses. Taking into 14 consideration all of the factors set forth in the 15 municipal code, the city staff and consultants are 16 recommending an amortization period of 2.19 years for 17 Steve's West Coast Automotive and 2.77 years for Jose's 18 Auto Electric. 19 As noted, these are the high end of the range 20 based on all of the analysis provided before you this 21 evening. 22 If you could, go to the next slide. 23 So in conclusion, it is requested that the 24 Planning Commission make the following recommendation to 25 the City Council and that is on your screen before you, ESQUIRE 800.211.DEPO (3376) Esquire Solutions. com NATIONAL CITY MEETING August 19, 2013 NATIONAL CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 41-44 1 but I'll read it for the record. 2 "That the City Council order the termination of 3 the nonconforming uses doing business as Steve's West 4 Coast Automotive and Jose's Auto Electric. 5 "That the time period within which Steve's West 6 Coast Automotive be ordered to cease its current operation 7 is two years and 69 days after the date of final action by 8 the City Council. 9 "And that the time period within which Jose's 10 Auto Electric be ordered to cease its current operation is 11 two years and 281 days after the date of final action by 12 the City Council." 13 And that concludes the staff report. 14 MADAM CHAIR: Thank you, Mr. Raulston. 15 Okay. Commissioners, do any of you have any 16 questions of the presenters of the report? 17 COMMISSIONER DELAPAZ: You know, Madam Chair, I 18 have several questions. But I was waiting to see if 19 there's any comments left, and I would rather just wait. 20 MADAM CHAIR: Okay. How many people have 21 submitted speaker slips to speak on this subject? 22 SECRETARY: I have a total of 15. 23 MADAM CHAIR: 15? Okay. 24 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: On this topic? 25 SECRETARY: On Item No. 3, yes. Page 41 Page 43 1 We inherited this property from our parents in 2 '07 when our mother passed away. 3 My father bought the properties in the '60s and 4 started South Bay Welding. We are longtime residents of 5 National City and Paradise Hills. 6 I still own South Bay Welding and have carried on 7 the tradition of an honest, hardworking, family -owned 8 company. To the best of our ability, we have always taken 9 care of issues, any requirements that have pertained to 10 this property. 11 At present we have leased the property to 12 Jose's Auto Electric, which is owned by Jose and Alma 13 Ramirez. 14 When we entered into this lease, Michael Fellows 15 told Jose and Alma Ramirez and Stuart Reed that this 16 property would be grandfathered in. We presently have a 17 five-year lease with a two-year option with Jose's. 18 We have a good working relationship with Jose and 19 Alma. And we are committed to giving them the full 20 benefit of the lease. 21 I object to the use of this process to prevent us 22 and our tenants from pursuing our current use of the 23 property. The amortization plan violates our due process 24 and equal protection rights as it targets a very specific 25 subset and previously conforming business to be regulated 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Page 42 MADAM CHAIR: Okay, thank you. Okay. As I -- as I said at the beginning of the meeting, we will be enforcing the three -minute -time limit. And I will have the secretary call the speakers one by one. UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Go last. Go last. MADAM CHAIR: I'm sorry? UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Go last. MADAM CHAIR: Okay. So please start. SECRETARY: Okay. The first up is Stuart Reed. MADAM CHAIR: Good evening. Could we please have your name and address for the -- MR. BRUCE REED: I'm Bruce Reed, Stuart's brother. MADAM CHAIR: And your address, please? MR. BRUCE REED: Home address? MADAM CHAIR: Business address is fine. MR. BRUCE REED: Oh, this is regarding 108 West 18th Street, Jose's Auto Electric. MADAM CHAIR: Okay, thank you. MR. BRUCE REED: Oh, I'm already 15 seconds in. My brother and sister own the property at 108 West 18th. We write to voice our objection to the city's proposed amortization scheme. Page 44 1 out of existence. 2 Further, the amortization plan, if implemented, 3 it unlawfully takes out property without just 4 compensation. 5 Additionally, by regulating our current land use 6 out of existence, the city is interfering with our ongoing 7 business, including the lease we have with Jose's Auto 8 Electric. 9 For these reasons, we strenuously object to the 10 city's proposed use of amortization process against our 11 property. 12 We sincerely hope the city abandons its 13 amortization plan before it inflicts additional harm on 14 the property owners and citizens of National City. 15 One final thing regarding the flooding. The 16 flooding never used to occur. That is all tidal. When 17 there's a high tide right now, the tide flows up into the 18 street. You can see the salt on the sidewalk and on the 19 dirt all around there. And that is because Paradise Creek 20 has been so filled with silt. There is no more -- nowhere 21 for the tidal flow to go now. 22 When I was a child there, there was no flooding. 23 It all happened when 30th and 24th Street were continued 24 across Paradise Creek and was restricted water flow. 25 MADAM CHAIR: Okay. Thank you. ESQUIRE 800.211.DEPO (3376) EsquireSolutions. com NATIONAL CITY MEETING August 19, 2013 NATIONAL CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 45-48 1 MR. BRUCE REED: Thank you. 2 MADAM CHAIR: Thank you. 3 Ms. Silva? 4 MS. SILVA: Thank you, Madam Chair. 5 I just wanted to let the commission and the 6 chairperson know that in this — this is a matter of 7 hearing where the actual property and business owners do 8 have an opportunity to also present their information and 9 their evidence. Thus, to the extent they have additional 10 information they'd like to present, it would be an 11 appropriate opportunity and time for this commission to 12 allow them to do so. And if need be, to extend their time 13 period to do so. 14 MADAM CHAIR: Okay. So do that before we hear 15 from the rest of the public? 16 MS. SILVA: That would be your -- that ultimately 17 is your call. But it would be my recommendation you give 18 them an opportunity to respond and provide any information 19 at this point now. 20 MADAM CHAIR: Okay. Thank you. 21 Commissioner Baca? 22 COMMISSIONER BACA: Yeah, I just have two 23 questions in regards to the letter that he was reading 24 from. 25 Who is Michael Fellows who told you you could Page 45 Page 47 1 MADAM CHAIR: Could you show that on the map. 2 I'm sorry to interrupt. 3 MR. GARCIA: The building itself is -- the 4 building itself is located on the northern parcel, so it 5 receives a different ranking than the other southem 6 parcel, -06. And that was the case in very few 7 circumstances, but definitely in the case of Jose's Auto 8 Electric, so — 9 COMMISSIONER BACA: Okay. Because according to 10 them, they were kind of confused as to why the city took 11 this. I don't know if that clarified for them what you 12 wanted out of that. 13 MR. STUART REED: It's one address. I'm still 14 confused. It's 108 West 18th Street. It always has been. 15 It is two parcels, but it's one piece of property. 16 MR. GARCIA: And in this case, unfortunately, 17 with it being a smaller parcel, it doesn't lend itself to 18 splitting the parcels in the future, but even — even with 19 Jose's Auto Electric, if they wanted to sell the southern 20 parcel to the adjacent property owner on the south in the 21 future. 22 We ranked each individual parcel separately, so 23 we didn't do it by prop — by — by business, let's say. 24 So there are some cases where a business operates three 25 separate assessor parcels, so like a portion of it is Page 46 1 grandfather this information? I never heard of this 2 person. 3 MR. RAULSTON: Michael Fellows is a planning 4 technician with the Planning Department, Commissioner 5 Baca. 6 COMMISSIONER BACA: That's who he is? 7 MR. RAULSTON: He is a city staff member, yes. 8 COMMISSIONER BACA: Okay. And then the second 9 thing was a question on two parcels. Here it stated it 10 was ranked No. 2 for Parcel No. 5620204 and -206 was 11 ranged No. 48 and that is one property? So could you 12 clarify that? I mean, what is the difference between the 13 rankings? 14 MR. GARCIA: The difference in the rankings is 15 that there are two separate properties even though there 16 is one business on them. We decided to do it that way 17 because there are other larger parcels in the -- that are 18 nonconforming where you could achieve, in the future, if 19 you wanted to convert to a conforming use and it was big 20 enough to allow it. You could have two separate 21 businesses on those two separate properties. 22 In this case, the -- the parcels are very small. 23 But on the northern parcel, -04, Assessor Parcel 24 No. 202 -- this is off of the top of my head -- 20256204, 25 I believe, that's the northern parcel -- Page 48 1 covered by the parking lot. So the parking lot receiveda 2 different ranking. So it was done by -- by property, not 3 by business, so it gets a little confusing. 4 In this case, though, we're focused mainly on 5 this property, the entire business as being nonconforming 6 and -- 7 MR. RAULSTON: Just try to further -- further 8 clarify that. A business will have one address. However, 9 a business can be on many parcels. Parcels are how 10 property is recorded. So as pointed out by Mike, we use 11 parcels because you had to deal with proximity to 12 sensitive uses, and there were certain measurements. So 13 that's why in certain cases, you have one business that 14 has two rankings, or in some cases I think there's more 15 than two. Because again, the ranking was based on the 16 parcels because of the measurements that were needed to 17 take place. 18 COMMISSIONER BACA: Does that answer your 19 question? 20 MR. GARCIA: And then, Mr. -- Commissioner Baca, 21 regarding grandfathered in, their business is 22 grandfathered in. And it's grandfathered in unless the 23 city moves forward with an amortization process. So 24 legally, they're operating now. They're nonconforming. 25 They have been since the specific plan was put into place. ESQUIRE 800.211.DEPO (3376) EsquireSolutions. com NATIONAL CITY MEETING NATIONAL CITY PLANNING COMMISSION M EETING August 19, 2013 49-52 Page 49 1 And they're -- they're grandfathered in as a nonconforming 2 use until the city exercises its amortization. 3 MR. STUART REED: We were not told that. 4 MADAM CHAIR: Okay. Could the property owner 5 please come to the podium as Ms. Silva recommended. You 6 can both come up. And please state your name and 7 record again -- address for the record, again, please. 8 MR. STUART REED: My name is Stuart Reed. 9 MR. BRUCE REED: I'm Bruce Reed. 10 MADAM CHAIR: Anyway, please, do you have 11 anything to add? You can speak now. And as Ms. Silva 12 said, you don't have the time constraint. 13 MR. BRUCE REED: Oh. 14 MR. STUART REED: On the -- what he had mentioned 15 on it being grandfathered in, I expected, when they said 16 grandfathered, that meant until the grandfather died, I 17 guess. So we made improvements on the property. And we 18 were grandfathered in. And then we were told we were 19 grand in, so we made the improvements on the property. 20 And we leased it. We didn't think -- nobody told us that 21 we were halfway grandfathered in. We were grandfathered. 22 MADAM CHAIR: Okay. And -- 23 MR. BRUCE REED: And we have no violations as was 24 stated earlier. 25 MADAM CHAIR: Okay, thank you. Page 51 1 provided the definition. If you'd like some further 2 elaboration, I'm happy to do so on some of the historical 3 pieces of that legal nonconforming use definition. 4 MADAM CHAIR: Okay. Thank you. 5 MR. STUART REED: There was one thing one of the 6 gentlemen said, that as owners, we did not provide 7 financials. We were not asked for financials, we were 8 asked for a copy of the lease. 9 MADAM CHAIR: Okay. 10 MR. STUART REED: So it would have been the 11 tenant that was asked for financials, not us, because our 12 financials is 2200 a month and it's — that's the lease. 13 MADAM CHAIR: Okay. Do any of the commissioners 14 have questions of these two gentlemen? Okay. 15 Commissioner Bush. 16 MR. STUART REED: Thank you. 17 COMMISSIONER BUSH: Yeah. So -- well, actually, 18 yeah, that was my question, as to why the financial info 19 wasn't provided. So is the city saying that they did 20 indeed request the financial info? I wanted that 21 clarification. 22 MR. GARCIA: Yes, we did from the business owner. 23 COMMISSIONER BUSH: So it's just one word against 24 the other, okay, at this point. 25 MR. GARCIA: The property owners or from the Page 50 1 Would someone please define what "grandfathered" 2 means so that it is clear to everybody. 3 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: In the code, is the code 4 applicable? 5 MR. RAULSTON: I can state grandfathered 6 is synon- -- you know, we use legal nonconforming as a 7 term that is equivalent to grandfathered, again. So if 8 you're legal, however, you're nonconforming use. 9 And the amortization ordinance was established in 10 order to deal with legal nonconforming uses and to 11 terminate them by means of amortization. I think it was 12 pointed out that the ordinance was -- was finally approved 13 by the counsel in 2006. The Westside Specific Plan was 14 finally approved in 2010, 1 believe. So, you know, not 15 knowing when these conversations took place — obviously, 16 this has been an evolving subject within the city. And, 17 you know, the planning technician was correct in stating 18 that the property was grandfathered in. And that is 19 information we provide to a lot of businesses. And we 20 don't further that with the caveat that the amortization 21 ordinance could be applied to these legal nonconforming 22 uses. 23 MADAM CHAIR: Okay, thank you. 24 Ms. Silva? 25 MS. SILVA: Actually, I think Mr. Raulston Page 52 1 business owners to collect personal financial information. 2 COMMISSIONER BUSH: And the lessee. 3 MR. GARCIA: From business owners, you got to go 4 directly to business owners. 5 MR. STUART BUSH: We provided them what they 6 asked. 7 MR. GARCIA: Yes, they did. They 8 absolutely — and Ms. Leah Hutchinson, who's also part of 9 the Reed Hutchinson LLC was, like I said, very, very 10 cooperative and provided us with the lease, so -- 11 COMMISSIONER BUSH: Okay. Thank you. 12 And then my second question was to -- to Mr. Reed 13 or either of the Reeds. How — because you stated in a 14 letter that the proposed amortization violates your due 15 process. Could you explain how you believe that it 16 violates your due process? 17 MR. BRUCE REED: You'd have to ask our lawyer. 18 -MR. STUART REED: I can't explain that. We'd 19 have to have attorneys involved. 20 COMMISSIONER BUSH: I understand. 21 MR. STUART REED: Our attorney's involved. 22 COMMISSIONER BUSH: Okay. 23 MR. BRUCE REED: We have them writing a letter. 24 COMMISSIONER BUSH: Sure. No, and the only 25 reason I ask that is because this is a process. And so ESQUIRE 800.211.DEPO (3376) EsquireSolutions. com NATIONAL CITY MEETING NATIONAL CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MEE TING August 19, 2013 53-56 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 COMMISSIONER GARCIA: I see. Okay. Thank you. 25 MR. BRUCE REED: Thank you. Page 53 just wanted, you know, your side as to how exactly, you know, detailed -- but thank you. I understand. MR. BRUCE REED: Thank you. MADAM CHAIR: Commissioner Garcia? Gentlemen. Gentlemen, please return to the podium. Mr. Reed? MR. STUART REED: Oh, I'm sorry. MADAM CHAIR: Yes, they still have questions. MR. STUART REED: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER GARCIA: Again, just to follow up on some of the questions that my colleagues have been asking, in regards to the letter, because all of us read the letter. And there is a portion in there, too, about talking just — talking about just compensation. And I wanted to know, based, like, from your point of reference, what does -- what does that mean to you? MR. BRUCE REED: Fulfilling our five-year lease. COMMISSIONER GARCIA: And that is for one — one of the businesses. And the other one, the lease is over at -- in February 2014; is that correct? MR. BRUCE REED: That's another company. UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: It's on the other property. MR. BRUCE REED: Steve's. Page 55 1 about the grandfathered in as opposed to when we made that 2 amendment. I recall during the process that it 3 originally -- it was understood that certain businesses 4 would be grandfathered in. Things evolved and changed. 5 And to be honest — I mean, if there is a specific code 6 that we could reference that would help them, because some 7 of the code -- earlier code does read that, you know, that 8 the -- cont- — there's a continuance code that allows 9 certain business uses to continue. And Mr. Raulston 10 explained the lawful nonconforming. 11 And then throughout the process, it was clearly 12 discussed. And there are records indicating the 13 discussion as to the decisions made to add the 14 amortization as a tool that the city will use to implement 15 this Westside Specific Plan. 16 I would like to hear from the rest of the 17 speakers and go into further detail. But I'm sensitive to 18 the timing involved and the calculations used. I don't 19 know if that amortization clause identified what the 20 time -- what aspects would be taken into consideration in 21 determining a reasonable amount of time. 22 I understand that the consultant provided one 23 case for basis of what that time would be. I don't know 24 if there are any other cases that may be referenced. I'm 25 sure there's more than one property owner that attempted 1 MADAM CHAIR: Wait. Wait. 2 Commissioner DeLaPaz? 3 COMMISSIONER DELAPAZ: Not for the applicant, 4 thank you. 5 MADAM CHAIR: Okay. You can have a seat. I'm 6 sorry. Go ahead and sit down. Thank you. 7 COMMISSIONER DELAPAZ: I'm sure you'll be back, 8 but for now -- thank you. 9 For -- just to help in this discussion, I was 10 curious, I don't know if this is handy. But if staff has 11 the actual code reference available for the amendment that 12 addresses amortization, that would be helpful for the 13 business owners and property owners to reference. I 14 understand that that was an amendment we did separate than 15 the actual Westside Specific Plan code amendment. And so 16 the actual code amendment that modifies or amends the code 17 to provide for amortization would be helpful. I vaguely 18 recall that amendment, because that was quite a sensitive 19 subject within the Westside plan process. 20 I am very -- I'm -- I'm very familiar with the 21 fact that what we did when we implemented this Westside 22 Specific Plan would involve amortization and that some 23 businesses would be affected. And I agree with the 24 discussion that It might have been time sensitive as to 25 when the gentlemen took over the property and were told Page 54 Page 56 1 to settle or -- or take an issue to court regarding that. 2 I don't know if there's any other cases out there that 3 would be of reference or applicable to our situation. But 4 I am sensitive to that from the business owner's 5 perspective. 6 But again, there will be more issues I am 7 interested in discussing further. 8 MR. RAULSTON: Just to answer your question, the 9 code section is here, which is 18.11.100, which is part of 10 the municipal code, which is available online. It's -- so 11 anyone goes online. And the eight factors that are also 12 listed in the presentation, I'll bring them up in a 13 second, are part of that — part of that code section. 14 MR. EISER: If I may, it was also included in the 15 agenda materials which were posted online. 16 If I may -- if I may comment on the due process 17 issue, it's a matter of whether or not it's a taking to 18 impose this type of amortization period and, in fact, 19 there are -- and these cases were cited also in the agenda 20 materials, that if the amortization period is reasonable, 21 there are many, many court cases. So it's firmly 22 established that it's not considered a taking, applying an 23 amortization period. 24 MADAM CHAIR: Okay. Thank you. 25 And Attorney Silva, you said the property owners OESQpjj1E 800.211.DEPO (3376) EsquireSolutions. com NATIONAL CITY MEETING NATIONAL CITY PLANNING COMMISSION M August 19, 2013 EETING 57-60 Page 57 1 could come and speak. What about the renters? Or is it 2 just the property owners are able to speak? 3 MS. SILVA: And the business owners. 4 MADAM CHAIR: Okay. Thank you. Would the 5 business owners of Mr. Reeds — are they here? 6 MR. BRUCE REED: No. 7 MADAM CHAIR: Okay. And the next property, the 8 other property owners, are they here? 9 Steve's, are you the property owner? 10 MR. WALTON: Yes, I am. 11 MADAM CHAIR: Yes. Please state your name and 12 address for the record. 13 MR. WALTON: My name is Gary Walton. I own the 14 property at 1732 Coolidge Avenue, Steve's West Coast 15 Automotive. They lease the property from me. 16 And I just came down here. Just like my lawyer 17 Vincent Bartolotta said, till the city shows its hand he 18 can't -- we can't do anything to stop the amortization 19 process. 20 I'm just mainly curious, once Steve's West Coast 21 Automotive leaves or has to leave, the value of my 22 property, I'm curious -- I think it's — I don't think 23 it's going to be worth as much. And I'm kind of curious 24 how I could be made whole. Just doesn't seem right. That 25 is why, just on principal, I will probably fight this Page 59 1 lose value in m y property, not be reimbursed any way, 2 shape or form. I haven't heard anybody speaking about 3 that, you know, the loss of monies once Steve gets -- you 4 know, he'll probably just leave because he's been getting 5 more and more inspections. 6 And thank you for your time. 7 MADAM CHAIR: Thank you. 8 City Attorney Silva, did you have an answer for 9 him? 10 MS. SILVA: I wanted to respond if the commission 11 had any question about the issue of eminent domain versus 12 amortization. I'm happy to answer those questions. There 13 was, as you will recall, historically, a lot of that 14 discussion came up beginning in 2006 when the ordinance 15 was first adopted. We have to present it. And I do 16 notice that the department and the -- and Mr. Eiser did 17 actually provide quite a few legal cases. And the 18 statutes are in there. And I believe those were provided 19 to the business owner and the tenant -- the property owner 20 and the business owner. 21 MADAM CHAIR: Okay. 22 Mr. Eiser? 23 MR. EISER: Yes, Madam Chair, I can elaborate on 24 that a little bit. 25 I did include in my written materials a reference Page 58 1 because it just doesn't seem fair. 2 You know, if somebody is going to — what is it, 3 eminent domain? That is what used to occur. They'd buy 4 the property, and you haggle over the price. But 5 if -- this is why I'm here. I'm just curious how you are 6 going to show your hand. 7 And I'm going to probably lose value in my 8 property. Not to mention Steve's Automotive, you know, 9 they're -- they're going to have a big problem because 10 they're going to have to pay a lot more money for 11 relocating I would guess. 12 MADAM CHAIR: Okay. 13 MR. WALTON: There was one thing on the board 14 there. When they fined the business here last year, I 15 believe it was storm water runoff. This property, I 16 actually put the plumbing in years ago. I was with the 17 subcontractor who built it, Corky McMillin. And it's a 18 wash rack. It's an outside wash rack for washing cars. 19 It does — it runs into the sewer line. It doesn't go out 20 in the streets. And I was fined for that. I should have 21 probably fought it, but I didn't really want to get that 22 involved at the time. 23 So that — there were some other violations. And 24 anyway, I just came down to see how this is all going to 25 come about. And just doesn't seem fair if I'm going to Page 60 1 to the U.S. Supreme Court case Lingle versus Chevron 2 U.S.A. and in that case, it was held that a land use 3 regulation, which this is, does not constitute a taking 4 unless it deprives the property owner of all economically 5 viable use of his or her property. 6 And as indicated by Mr. Pe, you know, there are 7 many, many uses other than be the current use that could 8 be made of both of these properties. So far from 9 depriving the owners of all economically viable use, there 10 are many other options that they have. And it's debatable 11 whether there is actually a loss of value or not. 12 MADAM CHAIR: Okay. Thank you. 13 All right. Is -- is Steve's here? The business 14 owner for Steve's? 15 MR. WALTON: I don't believe so. They were going 16 to come. Oh, there they are. 17 MADAM CHAIR: Okay. Would you like to approach 18 the podium and add anything? No? Okay. Thank you. 19 So, Commissioner Garcia, you had a question? 20 COMMISSIONER GARCIA: No, I think some of the 21 questions that I had were already answered, and then I 22 guess just a comment for Mr. — 23 MR. WALTON: Walton? 24 COMMISSIONER GARCIA: -- for Mr. Walton. 25 Yeah, I think that is -- you have a really valid ESQUIRE 800.211. DEPO (3376) EsquireSolutions. com NATIONAL CITY MEETING NATIONAL CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING August 19, 2013 61-64 1 Page 61 question in terms of the value of your property. And I 2 don't think Mr. Garcia or Mr. Brinig addressed that issue, 3 too. But if anything, I think your value should — the 4 value of your property should increase if it's tumed into 5 a mixed -use or something that's more useful for the 6 community. You could easily fit — 7 MR. WALTON: We had a hard time ever getting a 8 soils test. 9 MADAM CHAIR: Could you please come to the -- 10 COMMISSIONER GARCIA: That was a question that I 11 asked earlier to Mr. Garcia, the specialist in plan or -- 12 sorry, land uses. And he mentioned that there shouldn't 13 be any property with you doing any toxic waste evaluations 14 on your property. So I don't see why — why -- why — 15 why — why would the property lose any value if you can 16 easily change to a different usage. So that is — 17 MADAM CHAIR: Mr. Walton, if you could come to 18 the podium if you are going to be answering him. 19 COMMISSIONER GARCIA: Actually, that is all I had 20 to say, so -- 21 MADAM CHAIR: I'm sorry. But he does have -- 22 MR. WALTON: What I understand -- if Steve's West 23 Coast Automotive is run out of business and all of a 24 sudden I have this property -- I worked in the building 25 trades for 35 years. And I don't know if I could get a 1 investment would be returned. 2 But oftentimes with property owners -- and Brad 3 was developer for many years, he could also elaborate if 4 need be. But typically, property owners will enter into 5 an agreement with their contribution towards the 6 development being the cost — the value of the land and 7 any improvements on it that could be utilized for the 8 future development of that property. 9 MR. WALTON: And also, 1 was concerned with 10 Steve's West Coast Automotive as far -- I haven't heard 11 how -- you say two years, nine months, how you are going 12 to implement that. I haven't heard anything. You know, 13 legally what? Do you mail him a letter, come in and say, 14 "Well, you have to cease business, your business," or -- I 15 haven't heard how the amortization shutdown, I call it, 16 would be implemented. And that is kind of why I was here, 17 because, you know, they're a real hardworking brother and 18 sister. And they've built up a business that is really 19 going well. And I -- that's nothing -- that bothers me, 20 it doesn't seem right. All of a sudden, "Okay. It's 21 rezoned. You can't have an auto repair business." 22 It was all done by the book with my parents in 23 the early'70s with the help of Ron Morrison in the last 24 redevelopment on Roosevelt and 24th Street. They had been 25 leasing a automotive repair shop, and that was to be Page 63 Page 62 1 permit because it wouldn't pass soils tests, you know, if 2 I developed it myself. Or if someone was going to buy it, 3 I -- they would probably wonder if they could develop it, 4 too. And just right off the bat, you have to get a soils 5 test. And I don't know if that could ever pass, which 6 would mean the property would be basically worthless if I 7 couldn't sell it to a developer or if I developed it. 8 COMMISSIONER GARCIA: Mr. Garcia, could you 9 address that comment? 10 MR. GARCIA: Well, in development you could 11 definitely work as -- what often happens with property 12 owners who don't want to undertake the development process 13 as far as putting up their own money for due diligence, 14 planning, any general planned zoning changes that might be 15 required, they end up entering into a partnership, 16 sometimes a limited liability situation with development 17 partners. And that would be a situation which Mr. Walton 18 might want to consider. 19 If you wanted to take it on on a zone 20 that — there would be considerable expense if you wanted 21 to convert the property to a mixed -used zone for retail 22 office. So he's — he's correct, that would be quite 23 an -- quite an expense and one that he would have to 24 consider given -- weighing his options as far as what his 25 return on that investment would be and how quick that Page 64 1 redeveloped. So they helped them build this place. And 2 up until just lately, there's never been a problem with 3 any fines or inspections that didn't come out just right. 4 And I -- it just seems wrong to me. You know, in my heart 5 it just doesn't seem right, especially for Steve and 6 Christine, you know? What are they going to do, you know? 7 They've got a business. It's costing them a Id of money 8 to move. And then it is probably going to cost them a lot 9 more for a lease. And I just -- just doesn't seem like 10 America to me. You know, I -- as you can tell I'm 11 not -- you know, I was always a construction worker. And 12 I'm not very well -versed in the law. But I know Vincent 13 Bartolotta, I had a consult with him and his lawyer that I 14 understand won a case against the city here a while back 15 against Beechum. I forget his first name. 16 Anyway, I talked to him. I don't want to spend a 17 lot of money on a lawyer. It's probably, you know, a 18 no -win situation. But I just might, you know, just out of 19 principle, just to see, you know, how you are going to do 20 this. And that's why I'm here, just to kind of get a 21 pulse on what -- how you are going to go about shutting 22 them down and more likely devaluing my property 23 and -- that's about all I have. Thank you. 24 MADAM CHAIR: Thank you. 25 Do any commissioners have any questions of ESQUIRE 800.211.DEPO (3376) Esq uire Solutions. com NATIONAL CITY MEETING August 19, 2013 NATIONAL CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 65-68 1 Mr. Walton? 2 Okay. Thank you. Page 65 3 MR. EISER: Madam Chair, if you wish, I can 4 address the implementation of the ordinance. 5 MADAM CHAIR: Okay. Thank you. 6 MR. EISER: Assuming the Planning Commission 7 makes a recommendation to the City Council that in order 8 to termination of these businesses and also make a 9 recommendation as to the amortization period, then the 10 counsel will take that recommendation -- or those 11 recommendations into account. And the counsel will make a 12 final decision as to whether to adopt those 13 recommendations. 14 If the counsel does adopt those recommendations, 15 then at the end of the amortization period, which 16 would — the period would start to run from the date of 17 final action by the City Council. At the end of that 18 period, then, the business would be nonconforming and no 19 longer grandfathered or lawfully nonconforming. To 20 continue operation at that point as they currently are 21 would actually be a code violation. And it would end up 22 being a code violation matter, an enforcement matter. 23 MADAM CHAIR: Okay. Thank you. 24 Commissioner DeLaPaz? 25 COMMISSIONER DELAPAZ: Yes. Page 67 1 city and the property. We're actually dealing with three 2 parties. We've got the city and the property owner who 3 mostly, in both cases, have to do with the lease and the 4 payback on those leases. And then you've got the business 5 owners who are the ones who would actually have to either 6 close up shop, relocate shop, or otherwise deal with their 7 business and -- and their financial situation. 8 And so when I think about these eight factors, I 9 guess I kind of had the impression that when we say -- we 10 talk about the cost of moving and the -- and the 11 adaptability of the land and improvements, I guess I kind 12 of expected that we would take all those costs into 13 consideration. 14 And if appropriate, if the business owners 15 provided information on earnings and whatnot, I understand 16 that the business owners -- if I were to get a call and 17 ask for my business information, I'd be very reluctant to 18 give up that that private information. But yet I don't 19 know if they understood that it might actually be 20 beneficial to do so. If they were to give us a type of 21 earnings per year and then we justified, "Okay. Well, how 22 many years' worth of earnings would it take them to save 23 up the money to move or to re-establish their business 24 somewhere else?" And look at those costs of establishing 25 this business, the cost of moving the business, et cetera, Page 66 1 With regard to the amortization — well, in 2 general, I just want to say that I believe in the Westside 3 Specific Plan and I believe in the amortization structure 4 and the idea behind it. And that the — there are quality 5 of life characteristics and designations in the Westside 6 Specific Plan which we've set as goals in implementing 7 this plan. And we all know the history behind it. We 8 don't have to go through the whole history of the Westside 9 Specific Plan. But basically, there are -- you know, the 10 Paradise Creek, Kimball Elementary School with all of the 11 ailments that the children are facing including asthma and 12 other issues due to the environmental factors of the 13 businesses in the surrounding areas, with the types of 14 businesses that were mixed in with residential areas. 15 I do believe in the plan. And I believe that 16 amortization needs to happen. I would like to address and 17 identify and work on interpreting what an appropriate 18 amortization period would be. 19 Some of -- the code, you know, the 18.11.100 20 piece of the code, Section D that really specifically 21 talks about the affirmative termination by amortization 22 and those eight factors, you know, I — I understand the 23 talk about the P/E ratio and the value of the business and 24 if the businesses were to move. I also hear and 25 understand that we're not dealing with two parties, the Page 68 1 et cetera, that would be much more relevant to me in 2 helping these business owners than the P/E ratio. That's 3 just my opinion. 4 I understand the price to earnings. 5 Unfortunately we don't have the specific earnings to the 6 business. But again, it's a ratio, so it almost doesn't 7 matter. 8 I also have a little bit of an issue with 9 applying a ratio that is meant on dollars, a price for 10 selling the business to the earnings of the business and 11 then suddenly call it years. Where is the implementation? 12 Do we take those numbers of — that number for the 13 earnings and multiply it by the number of years it would 14 take to get those earnings back? I mean, I don't -- I 15 have trouble kind of saying the, "P/E ratio is now the 16 number of years." So I have a little bit of an issue. 17 1 understand that these things need to happen. I 18 would like to see some discussion. I mean, I would have 19 no problem continuing this. I mean, we don't want to beat 20 it forever and make this last years or what- -- whatnot. 21 I would be okay with evaluating the amortization period a 22 little bit more. 23 I don't speak -- I only speak for myself here. I 24 don't know if that is a desire of the rest of the 25 commission. But something like the adaptability of the ESQUIRE 800.211.DEPO (3376) EsquireSolutions. com NATIONAL CITY MEETING August 19, 2013 NATIONAL CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 69-72 Page 69 1 land, you know, hearing the issues with the soils tests. 2 1 mean, we've seen certain lots in the city that have been 3 aerating. I don't know the construction term. But we've 4 seen them aerating or -- or -- or correcting the land 5 issues for years. And -- and there's not a lot 6 of -- there's not a lot you can do with it until that's 7 corrected, as has been discussed this evening. And the 8 number of years it took would be relevant information to 9 the business owners and property owners. 10 If we're talking about -- obviously, since we've 11 established that this is not a taking, this is not eminent 12 domain, what we're doing in amortizing is giving them a 13 certain number of years to, on their own, take care of the 14 situation, to become conforming, lawfully conforming. And 15 that may be changing their businesses. That may be that 16 the current businesses relocate and new businesses come on 17 site. 18 If the property owners have to deal with the 19 soils issues and other issues regarding today's 20 marketplace, then I would like to see economic data 21 surrounding that information that I kind of consider to be 22 more specifically relevant. 23 But I do understand the valuation. Believe me, I 24 mean, I do understand the valuation that's been presented. 25 And I have a great deal of respect, and I believe it was 1 forward. 2 So another thing that I wasn't quite sure about 3 is at one part of the report mentioned that we have left 4 in our fiscal budget the ability to address two of them. 5 And since we're not, you know, paying the applicants or 6 the business owners or property openers anything, I wasn't 7 sure what that part — how that came into play, if that 8 was just a consulting part or -- 9 MR. RAULSTON: Yeah, I can address that. And I 10 think, again, a lot of these comments, you know, we could 11 probably address after public comment. But specific to 12 the two businesses, you know, there was a budget allowed 13 for legal and I think what we called business or nonlegal 14 expenses relative to the process. So there was $50,000 15 budgeted the last two fiscal years, which essentially have 16 paid for the process that has gotten us to this point. It 17 doesn't consider any costs relative to compensating the 18 businesses or the property owners or defending any actions 19 against the city. So this, again, just process -related 20 costs that have gotten us to the point that we are today. 21 MADAM CHAIR: Thank you. Who's the next speaker? 22 SECRETARY: Okay. Next up we have Jose Medina 23 followed by Margarita Garcia. 24 MADAM CHAIR: Okay. Jose Medina. Please state 25 your name and address for the record. And you have three Page 71 Page 70 1 prepared very carefully and correctly. I just want to 2 address whether that was the right piece of information to 3 apply to the amortization. I think the number of years as 4 presented is fairly short. 5 I also understand that we will be setting 6 precedence in what -- how we establish and how we deal 7 with future businesses that come on board. 8 One of the — a couple of questions as I read 9 this -- 10 MR. RAULSTON: Excuse me real quick. I don't 11 want to interrupt you. But I just want to remind you that 12 we are in the middle of a public hearing. There's still 13 public comment. And you sound like we are moving into 14 final comments, so I would -- 15 COMMISSIONER DELAPAZ: But the idea that maybe -- 16 perhaps we can guide some of the comments. I hope to kind 17 of share some of my take on this. 18 No. 1, I thought we'd see more of the auto body 19 paint shops. And I -- and those were not at the top of 20 the list; although, I do see some of them on the list. 21 And also, if we were to set a longer time frame, 22 we have to have, you know, a basis for what time frame we 23 recommend. And I don't know if I completely agree with 24 what we've said here tonight. But it needs to be 25 applicable or easily applied to other businesses coming 1 minutes. Thank you. 2 MR. MEDINA: Good evening, Planning Commission 3 Members. 4 My name is Jose Medina, and I'm a 44-year 5 resident at 321 Civic Center Drive. 6 Tonight I'm here in support of the first sites in 7 the neighborhood to be put under amortization as called 8 for by the Westside Specific Plan that was approved by 9 City Council back in 2010. I've been involved as a 10 resident in helping to shape the plan since 2005 via my 11 input and the input of other residents on what we want our 12 neighborhood to be, which is simply the return the healthy 13 environment to the Westside. 14 Westside residents once enjoyed a 15 healthy neighborhoods as one of the oldest residential 16 neighborhoods in San Diego County, going back to the 17 founding of the city in the 1800s -- 1880s rather. In the 18 1950s, this changed with the rezoning of the neighborhood 19 to a mixed -industrial use. This resulted in my fellow 20 residents enduring 50 long years of living in an unhealthy 21 environment with all the effects that resulted in 22 toxic -related diseases and deaths upon all of us from our 23 children to our grandparents, an unhealthy era that with 24 the implementation of this plan will soon come to an end. 25 Currently, auto body sites, light manufacturing Page 72 ESQUIRE 800.211.DEPO (3376) EsquireSolutions. com NATIONAL CITY MEETING August 19, 2013 NATIONAL CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 73-76 Page 73 1 warehouses are interspersed throughout our community. 2 This mixture of land uses has resulted in -- into issues 3 of traffic, parking, noise, air quality and hazardous 4 materials and exposure. These effects that have more 5 intense uses, overflow parking, car and truck traffic, 6 noise, public safety, threats related to hazardous 7 materials, storage and use show that many of these uses 8 are simply not compatible with a residential neighborhood. 9 Hazardous materials near residences, and 10 especially by Kimball School increase the risk of 11 catastrophic accidents. Our concerns related to hazardous 12 material exposure and potential risk to human health as 13 well as traffic, parking, noise and air quality concerns 14 have, of course, accelerated the preparation of the 15 specific plan. 16 Reacting to community concerns, of course, City 17 Council embarked on preparation of specific planning 18 (inaudible). At various public forums, myself and other 19 community members expressed concern that the conflicting 20 land uses were impacting our health and our welfare. The 21 purpose of the plan was to comprehensively address 22 environmental and land use issues and to offer 23 opportunities for more cohesive land use pattems and 24 future development and redevelopment. 25 The result of the Westside Specific Plan shows a Page 75 1 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Your Honor, we have a 2 3 4 5 6 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 picture. MADAM CHAIR: You have a what? UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: I just don't know -- UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: We have a picture. MADAM CHAIR: Oh, okay. MARGARITA GARCIA: (In Spanish). INTERPRETER: Hi, I'm going to translate for Margarita. "Good evening, Planning Commissioners. "My name is Margarita Garcia. I live in 1333 Coolidge Avenue in Old Town, in the Old Town area. I'm here to support amortization business -- the amortization of the business is Steve's West Automotive and Jose's Auto Electric. Both auto repair facilities are really close to Kimball School and represent a threat to the health of children in the community. They use us toxic materials and do not follow storage regulations. This business has blocked the walkways children take to go to school. "This is a photo that you see of Jose's Auto Electric. It is a pickup that is blocking the sidewalk. This is one of many times we have watched both businesses block the sidewalk. "On top of all this risk, this business is parked in the public way and operate during night hours when it's 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Page 74 reflecting vision and aspiration of our community. Amortization is one of the tools needed to change towards a cleaner and a healthier neighborhood. We have waited. All of us residents have waited for a long time to the return of a healthier environment. My father died of cancer. My mother's a cancer survivor. One of my neighbors on the Coolidge area by the Civic Center has been suffering through a thyroid condition also. Dukie Valderrama, who represents us in the port, when he lived here for a while, his son contracted asthma also. He, too, has been waiting. All of us have been waiting, again, for a healthier environment. And with that, we as residents support the use of amortization upon the polluting sites next to Kimball School for the safety and health of our children. Thank you. MADAM CHAIR: Thank you, Mr. Medina. The next speaker? SECRETARY: Margarita Garcia. MADAM CHAIR: Is she going to need a translator? SECRETARY: Yes. MADAM CHAIR: Okay. Your name and address, please? Page 76 1 not allowed. This auto repair facilities are -- profiting 2 at the expense of the health and safety of our children 3 and should be amortized as soon as possible. 4 "Thank you for your attention." 5 MADAM CHAIR: Thank you. 6 Next speaker? 7 SECRETARY: Next we have Edith Maldonado, 8 followed by Dr. Ruth Heifetz. 9 MADAM CHAIR: Good evening. 10 Your name and address — reset the timer. 11 and address for the record, please. 12 MS. MALDONADO: (In Spanish.) 13 INTERPRETER: "Good evening, Planning 14 Commissioners. 15 "My name is Edith Maldonado. I live in 2015 West 16 14th Street in Old Town, National City. 17 "I'm here to support the recommendation to 18 amortize the businesses, Steve's West Coast Automotive, 19 because it would be -- because it should — it should not 20 be near a school. 21 "I am a mother of two children, ages six, eight 22 years old, attending Kimball School Elementary. Most of 23 the times I'm walking with my kids to school, the sidewalk 24 is blocked with cars from Steve's Automotive. And you saw 25 it in the picture before this one. This forces us to get Name ESQUIRE 800.211.DEPO (3376) EsquireSolutions. com NATIONAL CITY MEETING NATIONAL CITY PLANNING COMMISSION M August 19, 2013 EETING 77-80 Page 77 1 off the sidewalk and walk on the street which puts us an 2 the high risk of an accident. 3 "I have personally placed complaints in the 4 morning because the sidewalk that leads to the school was 5 blocked by cars. You can see it in the picture. 6 "In addition to cars parked on the sidewalk, this 7 automotive business pollutes the water dumping oil on the 8 sidewalk. This was also reported to the city and the 9 picture was taken. These auto repair facilities should 10 not be near our schools because they pollute the 11 environment and the children are really close as well as 12 the residents. 13 "I support the amortization. 14 "Thank you very much." 15 MADAM CHAIR: Thank you. 16 SECRETARY: Ruth Heifetz. 17 DR. HEIFETZ: I appreciate the opportunity. 18 MADAM CHAIR: Name and address, please. 19 DR. HEIFETZ: Yes. 20 My name is Ruth Heifetz. I'm a physician on the 21 faculty of the UCSD School of Medicine since 1971 in the 22 department of family and preventative medicine. Our 23 medical students, our faculty, our residents, our 24 physicians at spend time providing health care in various 25 programs here in National City. Page 79 1 consideration today, but the following health effects have 2 been linked to commonly used chemical products in similar 3 commercial activities: 4 Diminished lung function in children. 5 Reproductive problems in terms of infertility, 6 miscarriages, birth defects, nervous system problems and 7 cancer, heart and lung diseases. 8 Everyone exposed to these toxics is at risk. 9 However, certain groups are especially vulnerable: 10 Infants and children; pregnant women; the elderly and 11 individuals who have chronic health problems. 12 We support phasing out the presence of these two 13 companies, reducing toxic exposures and enhancing 14 pedestrian safety in the neighborhood with homes and in 15 elementary school present. 16 And I know there's been a lot of mention about 17 costs. But I remind you there are also costs when the 18 public's health is impacted. Not only financial costs but 19 human suffering, and I think these things have to be 20 factored in as well, and then they don't conform to such 21 easily formulas. 22 By implementing this land use decision, National 23 City's Planning Commission will be taking a significant 24 step toward improving the health -- 25 MADAM CHAIR: Okay. Thank you. Page 78 1 My own work focuses on preventing and controlling 2 work -related and environmental health problems. 3 I would like to express the concerns of many 4 fellow health professionals who have cosigned the 5 statement that the land uses located — and we -- I won't 6 repeat that -- should be phased out because of their 7 potential impact on the health of local residents. Both 8 businesses are in close proximity as has been mentioned to 9 the Kimball School. Children are especially vulnerable to 10 the effects of environmental toxics. 11 The two establishments under consideration have 12 hazardous waste stored onsite, including hydrocarbons, 13 waste soils, organic liquids that have metals in them. 14 Public records provide evidence, and I think it 15 is already mentioned about various kinds of violations; 16 and I won't repeat those. 17 On the level of safety for local residents, the 18 businesses as you have seen block the sidewalk resulting 19 in young children walking and playing in the streets and 20 having to walk in the streets on their way to school. 21 The companies often operate after hours impacting 22 the quality of life of families living nearby. 23 Auto shops use products containing toxic metals 24 and organic solvents that become air pollutants. I don't 25 know the specific chemicals used in the settings under Page 80 1 DR. HEIFETZ: -- and quality of life of the 2 neighborhood residents, creating a healthier future for 3 the community and their children. 4 Thank you very much. 5 MADAM CHAIR: Thank you. 6 SECRETARY: Next we have Sonia Ruan. 7 MADAM CHAIR: Name and address, please? 8 MS. RUAN: Sonia Ruan, 302 West 18th Street, 9 Kimball School. 10 Good evening, Madam Chair, members of the 11 Planning Commission. 12 My name is Sonia Ruan. And I am the principal of 13 Kimball School. Our student enrollment is 415. Let me 14 just hold on. I think I was holding my breath until I 15 came up here. So I'm going to take a breath. 16 Okay. So our school enrollment is 415, which 17 includes our preschool, part of our preschool is a special 18 ed preschool as well, through sixth grade. All our 19 students qualify for the free lunch program due to our 20 socioeconomic status. 21 As principal, I try to form community 22 partnerships that provide resources for our school. As a 23 former student of Kimball School, I am very proud of our 24 students' accomplishments. We've had many return as 25 college graduates, so I'm very proud of them as well. I'm ESQUIRE 800.211.DEPO (3376) EsquireSolutions. com NATIONAL CITY MEETING August 19, 2013 NATIONAL CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 81-84 Page 81 1 very proud of the community because it is the community 2 that I grew up in. My mother still lives down the block a 3 little bit on Coolidge Street. 4 I'm here to ask the Planning Commission to 5 support the recommendation to amortize the businesses 6 discussed this evening. You are city leaders and have the 7 power to protect the children in our community. 8 In particular, tonight I'd like to talk a little 9 bit about the Steve's West Coast Automotive. It's 10 important to me to publically acknowledge that the 11 mechanic has a reputation of being an honest and skilled 12 mechanic. I know from his customers that he demonstrates 13 integrity. So my concern is not with him personally. 14 It's just that — it's with the auto mechanic shop. His 15 shop is located across the street from the Kimball School 16 as you've seen, and an auto shop just does not belong so 17 close to a school, bottom line. 18 It is not safe for students to walk to school. 19 As you've already seen, customers block the sidewalk and 20 force our students to walk on the street. I see this 21 every morning and after school. 22 I currently have a parent safety patrol that goes 23 out there to help the students cross the street. So I 24 have parents that volunteer their own time to stand on the 25 corners just to watch over them as they cross. 1 MADAM CHAIR: Thank you, Ms. Ruan. 2 MS. RUAN: My time's is up? 3 MADAM CHAIR: Yeah. 4 Mr. RUAN: Oh, okay. 5 So basically, thank you for your -- for your 6 time. 7 MADAM CHAIR: Thank you. 8 SECRETARY: Next we have Shaila Serpas followed 9 by Toussaint Lewis Clark. 10 DR. SERPAS: Good evening, Planning Commission. 11 My name is Sheila Serpas. I'm a family 12 physician, and I've worked in National City since 1994, a 13 block up the street at the community clinic, as well as 14 delivering their babies in the hospital locally as well as 15 Scripps. And I come here to, again, testify. I was here 16 in 2010. I was very impressed with the forward thinking 17 and the way that you've designed the environmental land 18 use plan and how smart and forward thinking I thought that 19 was to be approved. 20 Now comes the challenge of implementation. And I 21 can see that you face a lot of challenges. I'm here 22 really to encourage you to continue to stay the course, to 23 not lose sight of why this land use redesign was 24 originally approved. That is the health of the National 25 City community. Page 83 Page 82 1 Parents picking up or dropping off children also 2 compete with customers who often park, as you've seen the 3 cars blocking the public access. So I'm concerned that 4 there is a danger to the children that are crossing the 5 street. Oftentimes the vehicles from the shop are parked 6 on the street for several days, taking away public access 7 to parents and school employees. But I think what is the 8 most offensive, and maybe it's due to the nature of the 9 business, is the health risk due to the many rusting cars 10 that are -- rusting car parts, accumulation of sofas, 11 tires, scrap, aluminum cans standing outside, accumulation 12 of rusting material, as well as at one point, there was a 13 lot of animal -- dog feces that was there. 14 So tonight I just want to ask you, the Planning 15 Commission, to look after our students' best interest by Page 84 1 I've delivered enough babies here and have been 2 around long enough. Some of those babies are now juniors 3 at Sweetwater High School. And I'm here on their behalf, 4 to help those families who are not here tonight to 5 testify, who are living within this zone. They have 6 asthma. When you look at the data for the Kimball 7 Elementary and you look at fifth grade fitness, you can 8 see that 56 percent of the children in fifth grade do not 9 meet the fitness standards for body -mass index. And that 10 is very complicated. But a lot of that issue has to do 11 with the environment in which they're able to work, live 12 and play, and walk 10 school as you've heard this evening. 13 And so I'm -- I won't take up more of your time. 14 And I thank you for your professional courtesy for taking 15 the time this evening to listen to so many voices from the 16 supporting the recommendation to amortize the businesses. 1 17 It's your voice that will allow protection of the children 1 18 and the families of Kimball School. 1 19 Lastly, I want to invite you to visit our school, 20 visit our neighborhood and ask yourself if you would want 21 your children to be surrounded by these businesses. I've 22 noticed -- I've heard from the business owners. They're 23 very good people. They have good businesses. It's just 24 that they don't belong so close to children. That's just 25 my main thing that I want to let you know. 6 community. 7 MADAM CHAIR: Thank you. 8 SECRETARY: Toussaint Clark. 19 DR. CLARK: Hi, good evening. 20 My name is Toussaint. I'm a family physician, 21 resident physician. I have primarily worked in the 22 community clinics in National City. And although, I have 23 only been here for about two months, I will say that it 24 has been -- has become quite clear to me the profound 25 health effects that the mixed zoning has had on the ESQUIRE 800.211.DEPO (3376) EsquireSolutions. com NATIONAL CITY MEETING August 19, 2013 NATIONAL CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 85-88 1 patient population here. 2 Now, the evidence that 1 have is primarily 3 anecdotal. I want to talk to you about the patients I've 4 seen, the children that I've seen that struggle with 5 obesity, that struggle with diabetes and hypertension at a 6 young age, that struggle with self-esteem issues. And the 7 answer of why is that? It's is primarily because of the 8 environment that they live in, not having places to play, 9 not having safe environments on their way — walking on 10 their way to school. 11 I tell the story of the children who are 12 hospitalized with asthma, multiple asthma attacks month 13 after month. Yes, I can treat the symptoms with multiple 14 of high -- high doses of IV steroids. But the cause of 15 this is because of the — a lot of it is because of the 16 environment, because of the toxic chemicals and the 17 inhalants and the carcinogens that are produced by a lot 18 of the industries that are in our neighborhood. 19 I told the story of the children who walked to 20 school, who -- thank goodness, I haven't heard of any 21 fatalities so far, but because of the high risk. I tell 22 the story of the mothers who are worried about the journey 23 their children take from their home to the elementary 24 school. 25 I tell the story about the high school student Page 85 Pae 87 1 MADAM CHAIR: Name and address for the recordg? 2 MR. RYAN: Cody Ryan. I live at 322 Ash Avenue, 3 Chula Vista. 4 So my name is Cody Ryan. I'm a resident 5 physician in my first year of family medicine residency 6 training. 7 I'd like point out a few observations which B support the phasing out of the automotive businesses from 9 Old Town National City. It's a well -established fact that 10 children and adolescents who are exposed to environmental 11 toxins, often those who live in poverty, are at 12 significantly increased risks of diseases like cancer, 13 asthma and anemia. 14 In our community, you only have to take a look 15 around to see that there's a very high density of 16 automotive businesses that often lie very close to homes 17 and schools. The auto industry is notorious for its use 18 of volatile organic compounds which are known to cause a 19 variety of symptoms from headaches and nausea, to damage 20 to the central nervous system. 21 As the automotive industry is one of the most 22 important sources of toxins in the environment of this 23 particular community, and because the health of our 24 children is held to be of the utmost importance, I support 25 the amortization of the two automotive businesses in Page 86 1 who has difficulty, who has Cs and Ds in his class, not 2 because he is intellectually incapable of getting As and 3 Bs, but because he has difficulty sleeping at night 4 because of the constant work, the rattling that happens 5 just next door in the auto body shops or in the auto 6 industries. 7 And I tell these story primarily to bring to your 8 attention how important and how severe and how -- how -- 9 how -- I guess how important it is to really start 10 thinking about really reorganizing the way that our 11 community, National City, has its -- has its industrial 12 society and also its residential society. 13 I think there is no reason to think that National 14 City cannot uphold itself to the highest standards, the 15 highest levels of community, of healthy lifestyle, of 16 providing its -- its -- its members with a safe, 17 supportive and healthy place to grow and raise their kids. 18 And I encourage you to continue thinking about ways 19 to -- ways to improve the lives of the people that you 20 guys take care of. 21 So thank you so much for your help. 22 And health and wellness to you all. 23 MADAM CHAIR: Thank you. 24 SECRETARY: Next we have Cody Ryan followed by 25 Carolina Martinez. 1 question. 2 Thank you. Page 88 3 MADAM CHAIR: Thank you. 4 Next speaker. 5 SECRETARY: Carolina Martinez. 6 MS. MARTINEZ: Good evening, Planning 7 Commissioners. 8 My name is Carolina Martinez with the 9 Environmental Health Coalition. 10 We strongly support the recommended amortization 11 period for Steve's West Coast Automotive and Jose's Auto 12 Electric. They're a threat to the public health, safety 13 and welfare. This is about toxic uses located at the 14 wrong place. Residents walk -- walking through the 15 ten-year community planning process and demonstrated how 16 these businesses have impacted their lives, as well as 17 Paradise Creek. 18 You've also heard from medical doctors and the 19 damage these businesses are causing to human health and 20 safety. Every day 415 elementary school students are 21 having to deal with this, every day. They're located 22 within 200 feet. It's right next to them. 23 According to the California Air Resource Board, 24 industrial sources that use pollutants of concem such as 25 solvents like in the case of these two businesses pose a ESQUIRE 800.211.DEPO (3376) EsquireSolutions. com NATIONAL CITY MEETING NATIONAL CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MEE August 19, 2013 TING 89-92 1 significant health risk to nearby sensitive individuals 2 such as the students at Kimball Elementary. 3 Last Monday, just last Monday, Air Quality 4 Control District inspected Steve's Automotive and they 5 found a smell of motor oil at Level 2, stains from oil 6 that have been there for many, many years, and unregulated 7 solvents. So they're using unregulated materials, and 8 this was reported by APCD. 9 As well as last year, the Department of 10 Environmental Health issued a violation for Jose's 11 Automotive Electric by failing to properly contain, 12 manage, and dispose hazardous waste. So they're 13 not -- they don't -- they're not managing their waste, 14 their hazardous materials correctly as the regulation 15 mandates. 16 But all this is not new, and you could see it 17 here. Please look at the record. You can see the long, 18 long history they have of bypassing the law, causing 19 health threats to children, adults and workers themselves 20 every day. 21 It is reasonable to amortize these two 22 significantly nonconforming businesses in less than two 23 years. The recommendation resulted from six years of a 24 lot of research and analysis, not just overnight, They 25 have been given a reasonable amount of time to Page 89 Page 91 1 MS. BORAK: Livia Borak, my work address is 1140 2 South Coast Highway 101, Encinitas, 92024. That is Coast 3 Law Group. I'm an attorney here on behalf of 4 Environmental Health Coalition. 5 I would ask that I have time ceded from Joy 6 Williams. She would testify, but she's ceded time on my 7 behalf -- 8 MADAM CHAIR: I don't believe we can do that. 9 think it's just three minutes per person. 10 MS. BORAK: Okay. Well, I'll try to be as quick 11 as possible. 12 MADAM CHAIR: Thank you. 13 MS. BORAK: The picture that you see before you 14 is a picture from Google maps. It's one of the street 15 views that you can just access, any — anybody can see 16 that off the Internet. It is Steve's West Coast. This is 17 a view from -- from the school, looking right across the 18 street at Steve's. And you can see, this is, you know, 19 somebody from Google, or, you know, one of their people 20 going out there and getting a street view that you can 21 upload to Google maps. And right at that point, it 22 happened to be blocking the right-of-way, and somebody's 23 working in the driveway. This is where daily students are 24 crossing the street. 25 And this is -- this is what I'm talking about Page 90 1 re -cooperate their investment, and that was part of the 2 analysis as well. 3 EHC is also committed to bringing in a green auto 4 body industrial park to National City that locates at the 5 right place and away from homes and schools and provides 6 alternatives to transitioning businesses. 7 It is a time for Steve's Automotive and Jose's 8 Auto Electric to relocate away from schools, homes and 9 other sensitive populations so that the families in the 10 Old Town area -- 11 MADAM CHAIR: Thank you. 12 MS. MARTINEZ: -- can begin to heal. 13 MADAM CHAIR: Time's up. 14 MS. MARTINEZ: Please stand if you support for 15 the amortization. 16 MADAM CHAIR: Okay. Thank you. 17 MS. MARTINEZ: Thank you. 18 SECRETARY: Next we have Livia Borak followed by 19 Joy Williams. 20 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: I'm ceding my time to 21 Olivia. 22 MADAM CHAIR: No, you can't. 23 MS. BORAK: Livia Borak. 24 MADAM CHAIR: Okay. Name and address for the 25 record, please? Page 92 1 (indicating). That is Steve's West Coast (indicating). 2 That is the crosswalk from the school. And in that 3 right-of-way is where that other property — or where the 4 car was. 5 So I'll try to be as quick as possible about, 6 um -- I guess the point that we're trying to make here is 7 not that these uses are somehow bad inherently or that 8 these people are doing inherently terrible things. It's 9 that these are things that shouldn't be going on in their 10 present location. That's what the general plan says. 11 That's what the Westside Specific Plan was adopted for. 12 And like you've heard, this is the implementation phase. 13 And the amortization ordinance was passed years 14 ago, seven years ago. 15 The Westside Specific Plan was passed in 2010. 16 This didn't happen ovemight. And in calculating how much 17 time these businesses have had to relocate, to plan, to 18 get the full use of their business, it's been since 2006, 19 2010. So it's not just the amortization period. They've 20 actually had the benefit of all of those years. 21 And I would encourage you to look at the list of 22 factors, the improvements to land or the total, you know, 23 investment made. 24 As you heard, these aren't even factors here 25 because these people don't own the land, but yet there's ESQUIRE 800.211.DEPO (3376) EsquireSolutions. com NATIONAL CITY MEETING August 19, 2013 NATIONAL CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 93-96 Page 93 1 been so much focus on how much money these people are 2 going to make and how they realize the cost they've put 3 into it. 4 There are eight factors. Public safety, health, 5 welfare. You've heard from people who live this daily. 6 Those are the things that you should be considering as 7 well. And you have a general plan, a Westside Specific 8 Plan, and the findings for those that say, "We've already 9 determined the zoning doesn't allow for colocation of the 10 uses because it impacts public welfare, health, safety." 11 So I urge you please, consider the other factors 12 and adopt the recommendation of staff and forward it to 13 City Council. 14 Thank you. 15 MADAM CHAIR: Thank you. 16 SECRETARY: Next up is Julie Williams. 17 Okay. Next up is Ted Godshalk followed by 18 Michelle Krug. 19 MR. GODSHALK: Madam Chairman, before I start, 20 can staff put up the aerial photo that you have in your 21 report? Good. 22 Okay. My name is Ted Godshalk, 2143 Cleveland 23 Avenue in National City. 24 My credentials, I'm a science teacher at Gompers 25 Preparatory Academy with a specialization in environmental Page 95 1 and it was investigated by the City of National City. 2 Also, both of these businesses are in the water 3 shed which includes about 1300 acres of Paradise Creek 4 which drain into the Sweetwater National Wildlife Refuge 5 that starts at 24th Street and runs south, and also from 6 there into the San Diego Bay and the Pacific Ocean. So 7 we're talking about impacts to a lot larger area than this 8 small part of Paradise Creek. 9 The parcel at Jose's is a small parcel. It's 10 very close to National City Boulevard and needs to have 11 renovations carried out on it. 12 So my conclusion is that not having an auto 13 repair shop next to Paradise Creek is a good thing. It is 14 a way that we need to move forward. And my direction to 15 you, I was hopeful that you will weigh all the relevant 16 factors and proceed with the recommendation to the City 17 Council. 18 Thank you, Mr. Bush and Ms. DeLaPaz for clearing 19 up the due process issue, and Mr. Eiser's input on both 20 due process and the takings issue. 21 Thank you. 22 MR. GODSHALK: Thank you. 23 Next. 24 SECRETARY: Our final slip is Michelle Krug. 25 MADAM CHAIR: Hi, name and address again? 1 science, earth sciences. 2 I'm a 27-year resident of National City and 3 married to a long-term family. My mother-in-law, Maria 4 Avalos, bless her heart, is 102 years old. 5 I'm a director at the nonprofit group, Paradise 6 Creek Educational Park, Incorporated. And we've been a 7 nonprofit since 1999. 8 The green stripe through your map and through our 9 town is near and dear to my heart and many others. 10 Volunteers have worked there since 1993 advocating for 11 protection of Paradise Creek, that includes National City 12 residents, students and people from outside of town. 13 Two things about the properties you are 14 considering tonight: Parking cars and working on cars in 15 the street is a sign that those businesses are successful. 16 They've outgrown their site. They need to move to a 17 larger site. 18 It's also important to remember that we're 19 looking for investment in our community by the property 20 owners. 21 Let me talk a little bit about Paradise Creek, 22 and in this case, Jose's Auto Electric. It used to 23 operate at 104, which is between the creek and the blue 24 rectangle of the creek -- of the school. And at 104, 25 liquids and fluids were in their runoff into the creek, Page 94 Page 96 1 MS. KRUG: Hi, Michelle Krug, 2423 Sea Breeze 2 Drive, San Diego, 92139. 3 Adamantly, I think that I support the phasing out 4 of these businesses as soon as possible. I have watched 5 and participated in the residents of the West Side taking 6 a step forward and then having two steps back consistently 7 over the last, at least, 10 to 20 years. I think that it 8 is important that the nonconforming businesses be outside. 9 But I was really appreciative of the commissioner trying 10 to truly do due diligence and making this as fair as 11 possible. And I was just wondering if it might be 12 possible to compensate financially in some other way, may 13 be an excusing of property taxes or, I mean, some other 14 creative way to make it that fairness. 15 I do think it is important that they be phased 16 out quickly and as quickly as possible. I'm not budging 17 on that. But I really appreciate trying to -- the 18 fairness aspect. And if that can be done in some other 19 creative way, I think that would go along with what 20 everyone here at this commission is trying to do. 21 Thanks. 22 MADAM CHAIR: Thank you. 23 Okay. This is a public hearing. Is there 24 anybody else in the audience wishing to speak for or 25 against this? Okay. I see none. OESQVJ13,.., 800.211.DEPO (3376) EsquireSolutions. com NATIONAL CITY MEETING NATIONAL CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING August 19, 2013 97-100 Page 97 1 Commissioners, would you like to -- Commissioner 2 Bush. 3 COMMISSIONER BUSH: Yeah, I just wondered if the 4 city could actually respond to that. I don't know if that 5 idea has been proposed in the past, but it is an 6 interesting idea, if that there are other ways to 7 compensate the property owners if the city chooses to move 8 forward with the amortization process as is. 9 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Madam Chair, I can address 10 that. 11 MADAM CHAIR: Okay. Thank you. 12 MR. EISER: There's no legal requirement that the 13 business owners or property owners be compensated in this 14 type of situation. If the city wants to consider some 15 part -- as part of some negotiation, that's -- that's a 16 different question that I think would be more appropriate 17 for the city attorney to respond to. But there is no 18 legal requirement that that be done. 19 MADAM CHAIR: Okay. Commissioner DeLaPaz. 20 COMMISSIONER DELAPAZ: Under that same topic, I 21 have a little bit of a problem with that. The city is 22 pretty strapped as it is. And it was very clear that 23 since it is not an eminent domain issue, that it is not a 24 taking, that we are considering the amount of time that 25 the business owners, property owners can address the Page 99 1 precedents and it could be argued later, "Well, you gave 2 them special treatment on their taxes or money." And like 3 I said, the money would run out very quickly if we had to 4 go down the entire list. And that's why I did ask the 5 question as far as what was the financial limitation of 6 addressing just two of them this year. And it sounds like 7 it is more so the consulting costs involved and the 8 analysis. But I just wanted to share that thought as far 9 as that issue. 10 I appreciate the suggestion, I do as far as a 11 matter of fairness. But I do understand our city's 12 limitations and just the principle behind -- or the 13 impression that might be given that we would be almost 14 rewarding them financially for polluting. You know, I 15 just have a little bit of trouble. It would be hard to 16 deal with, especially on a case -by -case -by -case basis. 17 We'd be going with the, "Well, why was this business given 18 this much benefit, and this business given that much 19 benefit? They pollute more, or they have 20 special dealing." I wouldn't want to open ourselves up to 21 that he said/she said type of stuff, so I have a little 22 bit of difficulty with that. 23 That's my opinion. 24 MADAM CHAIR: Thank you. 25 MR. RAULSTON: I can just provide a little Page 98 1 situation on their own. 2 That I do agree with the Environmental Health 3 Coalition's comments that this is not new; this has not 4 been a surprise. And I cannot recall specifically whether 5 these particular business owners were there back in 2010 6 and 2006. But this whole process has been made very 7 public and those records are available. 8 I understand some of these properties have been 9 transferred since then. And sometimes -- whether that 10 background was provided or not, I don't know. But it is 11 very clear that it was amended in the code. And I 12 think it -- I would have a little bit of an issue 13 considering that these are the first two in a very long 14 list of properties and businesses that are nonconforming 15 and that pose a risk. I would be hesitant to give any 16 kind of financial compensation or special preference or 17 tax abatement to a business and — and -- and I choose my 18 words carefully because I -- as you can tell, I would like 19 to be as fair as possible to the property owners and 20 business. But to businesses that are causing health 21 concerns or have any type of -- of issues that we've seen 22 in the past, I really have trouble giving preferential 23 treatment as far as any tax abatement or compensation. 24 And it's clear we have no legal obligation to do so. 25 And again, I'm concerned that we'd be setting Page 100 1 background, because, first of all, the city has no 2 authority or power to abate taxes or to waive taxes of any 3 kind, so that's not an option. 4 As pointed out, you know, we've struggled in the 5 last several years, as most cities have, to balance our 6 budgets. And there is no budget for any land acquisition. 7 However, what was discussed and has been 8 discussed, particularly during the times of redevelopment, 9 was the potential to acquire the sites for affordable 10 housing purposes, and as affordable housing is being 11 discussed up and down the state in terms of how it gets 12 reinvented, at least a funding source for it. You know, 13 that's the one viable option that, you know, we have 14 discussed and considered. Where, you know, again using 15 affordable housing dollars, we could acquire these sites 16 and work on projects that would be consistent with the 17 Westside Specific Plan. 18 MADAM CHAIR: Commissioner DeLaPaz? 19 COMMISSIONER DELAPAZ: The other one piece of 20 information that kind of came to mind as we were 21 discussing, I don't know that this is a question, more so 22 a comment. But it seems to me that based on the fact that 23 it's not a taking, it's not an acquisition, it is 24 something to be implemented for the property owners and 25 business owners to address and we hope to give them the ESQUIRE 800.211.DEPO (3376) EsquireSolutions. com NATIONAL CITY MEETING NATIONAL CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING August 19, 2013 101-104 Page 101 1 right amount of time to do so, is -- is that it sounds to 2 me that the property owner in particular, potentially 3 business owner, would be the one responsible for any type 4 of cleanup. So say, for example — I mean, I don't know 5 the specific situation with the land underneath these two 6 parcels or the land at these two sites and whether 7 there are issues. Obviously, the city does not have the 8 ability nor, I believe, the responsibility to go in and 9 clean that up. If we proceed tonight and it goes to City 10 Council with a certain time frame, say a recommended three 11 years or something to that effect, and the City Council 12 approves and that three-year clock starts ticking, those 13 businesses and property owners have three years to either 14 conform or -- or convert their business to a use that's 15 allowed, they can change their auto repair to an auto 16 accessory sales or some other acceptable use within that 17 list that was provided at the beginning of the 18 presentation. Or they can relocate and allow a different 19 use to come in and set up shop. 20 But as far as I know, if they were just to simply 21 abandon the site and walk away, I don't know whose 22 responsibility it is to clean up that site. I would 23 assume that that would rest with the property owner. 24 MR. RAULSTON: It rests with what is called "the 25 responsible party." And that ends up being a Page 103 1 time period, this would be an appropriate time. 2 MADAM CHAIR: Any commissioners want to respond 3 to Commissioner DeLaPaz regarding going from what was 4 recommended to a different time period? Commissioner 5 Bush? 6 COMMISSIONER BUSH: Yeah, so I'm -- I'm just 7 confused. So are you saying, process -wise, don't we have 8 to close the public hearings first before we make those 9 recommendations or -- 10 COMMISSIONER DELAPAZ: We can continue the 11 discussion. And at any point, we can close the hearing if 12 we choose. And then at that -- the motion could be to 13 close and make a recommendation, or we can chose to close 14 it first and then a recommendation. It depends on how we 15 want to treat it; is that correct? 16 MS. SILVA: Ideally, once your public -- you want 17 to close the public hearing and then have your discussion. 18 In an ideal world, you can do it in the way you've 19 described it. It would make a very -- a cleaner record, a 20 more easier record to follow to close the public hearing, 21 have the discussion, and make your motions as to your 22 recommendations so that staff can then return with 23 resolutions that would reflect what your directions and 24 motions were. 25 COMMISSIONER DELAPAZ: The reason -- the reason Page 102 1 determination that's made by both the state and the county 2 through different regulatory agencies that deal with, you 3 know, environmental mitigation issues. 4 So -- and a point I wanted to make actually 5 earlier when -- when, I believe it was Steve's 6 Automotive — Steve's that was being discussed is the 7 grandfather of the legal nonconforming use has nothing to 8 do with, you know, the environmental remediation. You 9 know, if there is toxic soils or any environmental issues, 10 those can -- orders for remediation can come at any time. 11 So grandfathering is -- has nothing to do with that. 12 So again, you know, as a response to that, you 13 know, those issues would be responsive -- be subject to 14 whoever was responsible for the — for the spill or the 15 waste or the cost. 16 MADAM CHAIR: Okay. Any other commissioners? 17 No? Okay. 18 COMMISSIONER DELAPAZ: I'll just state that under 19 discussion, I think we need to -- I've expressed my intent 20 and my opinion. I believe that we should provide a 21 recommendation to Council. I think we need to discuss the 22 actual term that we recommend for the amortization period. 23 There was a recommendation given in the report. And if 24 that's going to be what the motion is made tonight, so be 25 it. If there is any interest in discussion of any other Page 104 1 I've opted to leave it open in the past is because 2 sometimes when we discuss some great point may be made and 3 either an applicant, or a business owner, property owner, 4 or even staff might be able to comment that helps the 5 discussion. But I do believe in -- in the process that 6 was stated as far as making the record cleaner. I'm up 7 for either one. 8 And if we were to close it first, wed make a 9 motion to close and then again, after discussion, make a 10 new motion to make a recommendation; is that correct? 11 MS. SILVA: Correct. 12 COMMISSIONER DELAPAZ: Thank you. 13 MADAM CHAIR: Commissioner Bush? 14 COMMISSIONER BUSH: Oh, yeah. So do we need to 15 close both public hearings separate, because I see two 16 public hearings here, No. Items 3 and 4? So we need to 17 close both of them separate, or we can — 18 COMMISSIONER DELAPAZ: 4 is the resolution. 19 COMMISSIONER BUSH: There's a number -- 20 MADAM CHAIR: No. 4 is — 21 COMMISSIONER BUSH: Oh, I'm sorry. Yes, you're 22 right. 23 MS. SILVA: It's is one public hearing for both 24 items. 25 COMMISSIONER BUSH: Okay. ESQUIRE 800.211.DEPO (3376) EsquireSolutions. com NATIONAL CITY MEETING August 19, 2013 NATIONAL CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 105-108 1 COMMISSIONER GARCIA: 2 the public hearing on item -- help. 3 MADAM CHAIR: No. 3. 4 COMMISSIONER GARCIA: Yes, I make a motion to 5 close public hearing on Item No. 3. 6 COMMISSIONER BUSH: Second. 7 MADAM CHAIR: Okay. We have a first and second. 8 Please vote. 9 SECRETARY: Motion carried by the following vote: 10 Commissioners Bush, Alvarado, Flores, Baca, and 11 Garcia, aye. 12 DeLaPaz, no. 13 Pruitt absent. 14 MADAM CHAIR: The public hearing is now closed. 15 So now we want to know if we want to continue to discuss 16 it among ourselves. Do we need a motion for that? No? 17 Okay. Any further discussion? 18 COMMISSIONER GARCIA: I'd like to take 19 Commissioner DeLaPaz' more into this issue specifically 20 because obviously, we've seen two -- two parties, one in 21 the sense where, you know, we're talking about dollars and 22 cents of properties and businesses. But then on the other 23 hand, too, we're talking about the health risks that these 24 businesses are posing to the individuals that live in this 25 community. Page 105 I make a motion to close On Item No. 3. Page 107 1 it's okay for us to continue observing these types of 2 businesses and, obviously, increasing some of the health 3 risks that some of the physicians have expressed. It's 4 just — it just concerns me, you know, that she mentioned 5 that 50 percent of the kids are not meeting the fitness 6 standards. I mean -- I mean, you know, you are 7 considering their health problems, you know, with your 8 lungs, skin, I mean, so many things that it's really 9 troubling, you know, to -- to hear those types of 10 statistics, especially because, you know, there is success 11 in our community. There are kids that are going to 12 colleges and coming back. And we want them to stay here, 13 but we don't want them to be in an environment where their 14 kids would probably suffer the same health risks that they 15 did. 16 So I'm just putting that up to conversation 17 again. And I totally understand, you know, 18 doing — following due diligence and the process. But 19 we're here to challenge the process. We're here to 20 understand that, yes, there is a process and we are 21 following it. But at the same time, we also need to be 22 considerate of the time that it's taking for this process 23 actually to be implemented. 24 MADAM CHAIR: Commissioner DeLaPaz. 25 Okay. Commissioner Baca? Page 106 1 So I personally believe that both businesses and 2 property owners have been given enough time for them to 3 actually prepare for this amortization process. So I 4 would like to recommend then, instead of taking the 5 awesome reports and recommendations from staff, that we 6 actually reduce the time from 2.7 to the minimum 7 or -- yeah, the minimum, which was 1.6 I think. So that's 8 my personal point of view. And I'll be open to 9 discussion. 10 MADAM CHAIR: Okay. Any other commissioners? 11 COMMISSIONER BUSH: Yeah, I just feel just like, 12 just legally we're safer giving them the longer extension. 13 I mean, I do -- I do hear you, Commissioner. And I -- to 14 a certain extent, I do agree with you. But I just feel 15 like the city staff, they did definitely more than their 16 due diligence. They've worked on this for, you know, I 17 don't know how many years, you know, at least six or seven 18 years. And I feel like that we should just go along with 19 their -- with their recommendation for the longer period 20 of time. That would also give the property owners, you 21 know, their time to make adjustments. 22 So I do agree with the spirit of what you are 23 saying, but I just personally think that we should follow 24 the staffs recommendation on that one. 25 COMMISSIONER GARCIA: So what I'm hearing is that 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 COMMISSIONER BACA: I would agree with Commissioner Garcia. I think, you know, we've been discussing this and going with it. And I think we do need to act on this ASAP. And that is my personal opinion. COMMISSIONER BUSH: So am I understanding that you guys would want to make a motion to recommend to the city the faster option, right? I don't — I kind of would like the city's comment on that, just what they think about that. I don't know legally if there is an opinion on it. Page 108 COMMISSIONER GARCIA: Our recommendation is to the City Council and of course -- City Council. COMMISSIONER BUSH: Okay. COMMISSIONER GARCIA: Staff — staff already made their recommendation so it is up to us now to make a recommendation to City Council. MADAM CHAIR: Any other commissioners? Attorney Silva? MS. SILVA: Yes. In regard to the recommendation, staff — staff has advocated, the department has advocated a recommendation for you all to consider. It is now the Planning Commission's prerogative to determine, based on those eight factors, what they believe is the appropriate recommendation based on all the facts before you to make ESQUIRE 800.211.DEPO (3376) EsquireSolutions. com NATIONAL CITY MEETING August 19, 2013 NATIONAL CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 109-112 1 to the City Council. 2 In making whatever recommendation you do make, I, 3 once again, do point you to the eight various factors and 4 to articulate reasons consistent with those factors for 5 whichever recommendation you -- you move forward to make. Page 109 6 MADAM CHAIR: Thank you. 7 Any other commissioners? Commissioner Alvarado. 8 COMMISSIONER ALVARADO: I do agree with 9 Commissioner Garcia and the Commissioner Baca. We will 10 make a recommendation, but the City Council will have the 11 final say. 12 MADAM CHAIR: Commissioner DeLaPaz? 13 COMMISSIONER DELAPAZ: I think — my personal 14 opinion is that I would lean more towards a three-year 15 amortization. I -- I wouldn't -- I -- I 16 agree -- I -- I've voiced my concerns and my opinions 17 throughout the presentation. I certainly appreciate all 18 of the -- both -- what both sides have discussed. And I 19 would -- I would at least maintain what staff has 20 recommended with the higher end of the range, even if we 21 were to round it off to three just to give the business 22 owners and property owners the time that -- that it takes. 23 I'm happy that were making this happen, that we are 24 implementing and that we are setting the clock to start 25 ticking. And -- but I do believe that a more conservative Page 111 1 ballpark, rounding off on a conservative side on the point 2 of view of protecting the city from issues and providing 3 the business owners and property owners the issue -- the 4 concerns that they need to take into consideration. 5 But, again, very glad to realty start this clock 6 ticking for the benefit of improved health and welfare of 7 the residents and community. 8 COMMISSIONER BUSH: See, my problem with that 9 three years, now it is getting to be a little more 10 subjective and a little outside of -- I feel like what the 11 analysis here that was done is fairly quantitative 12 enough. Well, not fairly. It is thoroughly quantitative 13 enough. And I feel like if we use that three-year 14 figure — I understand the intent of being conservative 15 and, you know, to kind of help out the property owners. 16 But then I feel like it's getting more outside of — it's 17 getting more subjective. And I feel like so far this 18 process has been fairly quantitative. 19 And so, yeah, I'd like to hear someone -- anyone 20 else's comments about that. But moving forward, I would 21 support -- if you guys -- if your recommendation, if 22 someone wants to make a motion to -- for the -- the 23 shorter time period, I would -- I would not vote against 24 that. I would support that. 25 MADAM CHAIR: Commissioner Baca? Page 110 1 approach from the business side would at least -- at least 2 help to protect the city a little bit. 3 Like I said, if the businesses have at least a 4 little bit more time, I'd be willing to compromise in that 5 regard as -- as somewhat of a means of -- of compromise, 6 and also to protect the city and really how aggressive the 7 applicants — sorry, not the applicants, but the property 8 and business owners would be in fighting it. Because, 9 again, we are setting precedent, and a lot of businesses 10 will be subject to this. But I'm glad we're starting the 11 process. 12 MADAM CHAIR: Commissioner Bush? 13 COMMISSIONER BUSH: Yeah. My question would be 14 what is that three-year number based on out of curiosity? 15 Because I just was looking up there, and I didn't see the 16 three years. 17 COMMISSIONER DELAPAZ: There is no three years. 18 I'm just saying to round it off given the qualitative 19 factors and other considerations that really aren't 20 quantified. Based on what I see have been quantified and 21 some of the inputs we used in the quantitative analysis, 22 addressing some of the qualitative — but, again, those 23 qualitative aspects include issues of health. 24 COMMISSIONER BUSH: I see. 25 COMMISSIONER DELAPAZ: So it is more so just a Page 112 1 COMMISSIONER BACA: Just one statement I want to 2 make is, again, depending on the outcome of the vote, this 3 is going to go to the City Council. They will deal with 4 it. And if they have any further input, I'm sure they 5 will let us know as members of the Planning Commission. 6 But again, I'm looking at the issues, too, of 7 what the residents have gone through. And the person that 8 was mentioned, I know that my nephew went through that and 9 especially when that scrap disposal was over there and we 10 finally cleaned up the place over there. 11 So the whole thing is, I would go with a shorter 12 route. And I think we had ample time in dealing with this 13 throughout the years since I've been on the Planning 14 Commission. And I think it's time that we move on this. 15 MADAM CHAIR: Okay. Attomey Silva? 16 MS. SILVA: Thank you, Madam Chair. 17 As a reminder, there is the two areas of 18 discussion for you all and for recommendation, the first 19 being whether to terminate the nonconforming uses doing 20 business as Steve's West Coast Automotive and Jose's Auto 21 Electric. And then the second one is what's the 22 reasonable amount of time for those respective businesses 23 for amortization. So it is two parts. 24 MADAM CHAIR: So would it be one motion or two 25 separate motions? OESQLTLI,R_Es 800.211. DEPO (3376) EsquireSolutions. com NATIONAL CITY MEETING NATIONAL CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MEE August 19, 2013 TING 113-116 Page 113 1 MS. SILVA: It could -- it could be done either 2 way. I would treat each business separately. 3 MADAM CHAIR: Okay. 4 COMMISSIONER DELAPAZ: In clarifying that, then, 5 potentially we could vote almost four times. We could 6 actually have four motions. One to — I mean, we could. 7 I think it is pretty clear that we would all support 8 terminating the use for both, and we can make that in one 9 motion. And then we can decide on the term for one as a 10 motion and then vote and then a term for the second on a 11 motion and vote. 12 Is that appropriate? 13 MS. SILVA: Yes. And I believe the last slide 14 from staff, I think, broke out how — broke out the 15 recommendation, I think, into three parts. And it is 16 consistent with what is for your discussion, whether the 17 usage should be terminated, and then the second 18 question -- or the second and third question, what are the 19 appropriate amortization periods for recommendation? 20 MR. RAULSTON: Yeah, and I can move it to that 21 last slide, but I'm just keeping this slide up since the 22 discussion seems to be on the range right now. When 23 you're prepared for a motion, I'm happy to move it to the 24 back. 25 MADAM CHAIR: Commissioner Garcia? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Page 115 specifically stated by the Westside Specific Plan, so currently nonconforming. No. 7, the possibility of threat to our public health, safety and welfare. Obviously, there was expert advice here from physicians, as well as doctors. And any relevant factors that, of course, we have discussed. So given these parameters, I would like to make a motion to give City Council the opportunity to discuss this and take the least amount of time that is necessary for these -- these businesses or these properties to be converting into a legal conforming usage. And based on the recommendations, if Mr. -- put him on, please. MR. RAULSTON: It would be 1.69 for Steve's and 1.64 for Jose's. MADAM CHAIR: That was a rather long motion, so -- COMMISSIONER DELAPAZ: So under discussion I would just like to add that I would have rather seen the motion first to terminate the uses and then a separate motion to address the term. So I would have supported the termination and I may have had a separate — I would not have supported those timeframes. So given that the motion was combined, I will not be supporting this. MADAM CHAIR: And I agree with Commissioner Page 114 1 COMMISSIONER GARCIA: So I would like to make a 2 motion first to address the first point which is, yes, 3 we'd like to terminate the land uses that are currently -- 4 MADAM CHAIR: That are nonconforming? 5 COMMISSIONER GARCIA: That are currently 6 nonconforming. 7 And second, based on the eight parameters that 8 were provided to us: 9 A, the total cost of land and improvements, which 10 were discussed by Mike Garcia. 11 The length of time that the use has existed and 12 which we have obviously, seen that the 13 properties -- sorry, the businesses have obtained their 14 investment to continue on the adaptability of the land and 15 improvements currently permitted by use. It was discussed 16 that it will take a certain amount of investment to turn 17 the current usage into a legal conforming use so that's 18 been taken care of. 19 The cost of moving, reestablishing the business 20 elsewhere, those parameters have been discussed, too. 21 Further on, No. 5, whether the use is 22 significantly nonconforming, we have, obviously, seen that 23 through the reports provided by staff. 24 Compensability and the existing land use planners 25 in the cities of the surrounding neighborhood, that's 1 DeLaPaz on this one as well. 2 COMMISSIONER DELAPAZ: In the event that this 3 motion fails, then we would have the opportunity to make a 4 new motion. 5 MADAM CHAIR: Okay. 6 COMMISSIONER GARCIA: Well, would you be willing 7 to rephrase it for me? 8 COMMISSIONER BUSH: I mean, I'm fine with it, so 9 you know. 10 MADAM CHAIR: She would like to break it into two 11 separate motions. 12 COMMISSIONER DELAPAZ: I want to be able -- you 13 made the motion that we will — we will recommend to 14 terminate the uses and we've established the time frame 15 for each of the two businesses. We have the option to 16 make the motion individually as three separate decisions, 17 and I would support that. I would prefer that because I 18 am in favor of the termination and I have a differing 19 opinion as to the time frame and since you have combined 20 them all three in one motion, I will not support it as 21 you've made the motion. 22 COMMISSIONER GARCIA: I see. 23 COMMISSIONER BUSH: So maybe do you want to go 24 ahead and make the motions? 25 COMMISSIONER DELAPAZ: The motion is on the Page 116 ESQUIRE 800.211.DEPO (3376) Esquire Sol utions. com NATIONAL CITY MEETING NATIONAL CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MEE TING August 19, 2013 117-120 1 floor, we have to vote. If it does not carry, then I'll 2 make the motion. 3 MADAM CHAIR: So there is a first and second, and 4 I believe Attorney Silva would like to add something? 5 MS. SILVA: For clarification, there is a motion, 6 there is a second on the floor. If there is a discussion 7 of a friendly amendment which is accepted by the maker and 8 the second of the motion, that amendment can be made. 9 MADAM CHAIR: Okay. 10 COMMISSIONER DELAPAZ: So would the maker like to 11 amend the motion or would we vote, if it were to fail we 12 can make a new motion? 13 COMMISSIONER GARCIA: Well, I don't think I'd 14 like to amend it because 1 think I know what you are going 15 to say which is basically to increase the time that they 16 need, which obviously I have strongly mentioned that 17 we -- they have -- they have had enough time to prepare 18 for this. So no, I would not like to amend it. 19 COMMISSIONER DELAPAZ: Okay. 20 COMMISSIONER BUSH: Okay. So let's vote. 21 MADAM CHAIR: Okay. Please vote. 22 SECRETARY: Motion carried by the following vote: 23 Commissioner Bush, Alvarado, Baca, Garcia, aye. 24 Commissioner DeLaPaz, Flores, no. 25 Commissioner Pruitt, absent. Page 117 Page 119 1 necessary in order to construct a fast food restaurant in 2 this location. So the language that staff came up with 3 and it was agreed upon by the applicant accommodates the 4 needs of the developer, as well as protects the city's 5 interests and it would require a conditional use permit if 6 approved so that we'd be able to look at things on a 7 case -by -case basis. There is a conditional use permit 8 moving along concurrently with this, it will be the next 9 item, and basically the code amendment is proposed to take 10 effect in the MXC-2 and MXD-2 zones. MXD-2 being the 11 major mixed -use district. 12 So here is a proposed site plan. You can see the 13 existing Auto Zone on the left side of the picture and on 14 the right, the proposed drivethrough restaurant. There 15 was a reconfiguration of the parking, unless you go more 16 into that in the conditional use permit. 17 So here is the amended language. So basically it 18 would allow -- or actually it would -- the caveat would be 19 MXC-2 and MXD-2 properties will be exempted from the 20 300-foot requirement based on the fact that they would 21 need to get a conditional use permit. 22 And also add additional noticing requirements so 23 all occupants as well as property owners within 300 feet 24 of a particular project would be notified in order to make 25 sure that all of the renters or nonowners also receive Page 118 1 MADAM CHAIR: Okay. I'm going to call a 2 five-minute recess because we've been here almost two and 3 a half hours. 4 Thank you. Thank you. Be back at 8:45. 5 Thank you. 6 (A recess was taken.) 7 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Highland Avenue, adjacent 8 to the Auto Zone at 22nd and Highland. You initiated the 9 code amendment that would have allowed — that would allow 10 fast food restaurants within 300 feet, that is a request, 11 of residential zoned properties, as well as minimum 12 turning radius for drivethroughs. 13 So just to recap, it is almost 12,000-square-foot 14 property, it's in the MXC-2 zone, which is the major 15 mixed -use corridor. There are 38 parking spaces existing 16 and there's an undeveloped pad on the southeast -- excuse 17 me, southwest corner of 21st and Highland. 18 The applicant proposes to build a 19 2,150-square-foot fast food restaurant. At the moment 20 there are negotiations with a particular outlet. However, 21 it's unsure if that will be the ultimate tenent depending 22 on how things progress. 23 So as I mentioned. there is a -- or I didn't 24 mention, but there is a residentially zoned property to 25 the west across the alley so the code amendment would be 1 notice, which they did for tonight's conditional use 2 permit. 3 We talked about the minimum turning radius, it is 4 25 feet for the internal turning radius of a drivethrough 5 aisle. The applicant's proposal shows 20 feet. Rather 6 than reduce the requirements to 20 feet in the code, we're 7 adding language to say that the City Engineer can approve 8 a reduced radius if appropriate. And in this case the 9 City Engineer has looked at that and decided that that is 10 appropriate in this case and will work. 11 As far as the land use code requirements for 12 design guidelines for drivethrough restaurants, we've 13 already talked about the radius. There is a minimum 14 vehicular queuing distance as well as the encouraged 15 location of the drivethrough window and protection by 16 landscaping. So those are in the code already which 17 allows for a case -by -case analysis. And we'll go more 18 into that in the conditional use permit. 19 As far as existing uses in these particular zones 20 that would be exempted if approved, they're the previous 21 general commercial zone which is high intensity retail 22 uses so that would be consistent with those types of uses. 23 Most of the MXC-2 zones, which is the project areas along 24 Island Avenue, also along East 8th Street whereas the 25 major mixed -use district areas are the more concentrated Page 120 ESQUIRE 800.211.DEPO (3376) EsquireSolutions. com NATIONAL CITY MEETING August 19, 2013 NATIONAL CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 121-124 Page 121 1 areas of high intensity such as Plaza Bonita, Sweetwater 2 Crossing, Sweetwater Square, et cetera. 3 As far as the amount of parcels that are 4 affected, about 547 will be affected in total, most of 5 those being within the MXC-2 zone properties which is what 6 we are dealing with now. So as far as how many are 7 within — are within 300 feet -- so I guess I misspoke. 8 There are 547 parcels total. 139 would be affected by the 9 change in the code, so that would be 25 percent of the 10 547. So in that case that would be 408, or thereabouts. 11 Excuse me, I think that -- anyway, 42 are developable at 12 this stage. 13 So the rest are already developed. These 42 are 14 vacant and potentially could be developed with a fast food 15 restaurant if approved with the CUP in the near future. 16 So here is the overall map. The lighter brown is 17 the MXC or major mixed use corridor zones. The dark brown 18 is the major mixed -use district. The green properties are 19 ones that are outside of the 300-foot realm as we speak, 20 so those would not be affected. They can already have a 21 fast food restaurant on there with a CUP today. 22 In looking at the general plan and policies that 23 mention fast food, there are two in the health and 24 environmental justice section of the general plan. The 25 first one, 4.2, encourages development of healthy food Page 123 1 cumulative -- potential cumulative effect. So we did a 2 checklist, which is the long document that is attached to 3 your staff report, that ultimately led to a negative 4 declaration. So we looked at all those different impacts 5 regarding land use, air quality, traffic, noise, about 6 10 -- I believe 10 or 11 different sections, and no 7 impacts were found that would be any greater than the 8 existing high intensity commercial uses that were 9 permitted under the environmental impact report for the 10 recent land use update. So there is a negative 11 declaration as part of that CEQA checklist. 12 As far as the next step, if the Planning 13 Commission chooses to -- well, actually once the Planning 14 Commission has made the decision to approve it or deny it, 15 the next step would be another public hearing, this time 16 with the City Council. And Planning Commission's 17 recommendation would be transmitted to them with another 18 staff report for their review and ultimate approval and/or 19 denial. 20 So in summary, the newest iteration of the land 21 use code has, both for fast food restaurant requirements, 22 it has added specific requirements to ensure that the uses 23 would function well with neighboring properties; it would 24 not impact them. The 300-foot buffer is still appropriate 25 in other zones, for example, the minor mixed -use district, Page 122 1 establishments s in areas with a high concentration of 2 fast food establishments. Also convenience stores and 3 liquor stores. 4 In this case, in the area from along Highland 5 Avenue, from Plaza Boulevard down to 30th, there are eight 6 existing fast food restaurants or restaurants with 7 drivethroughs, so there is not a huge concentration 8 necessarily; that is less than one per block. There are a 9 couple of blocks where there are more than one when you 10 count both sides of the street. So there is not a huge 11 concentration. 12 As far as the second policy refers to the 13 discouragement of unhealthy fast food outlets. As I 14 mentioned, there is no -- we don't actually know at this 15 point who the ultimate tenant may be. The nearest two 16 schools, those being Otis Elementary and Olive Wood 17 Elementary to the north and south respectively, are about 18 a quarter mile away. So although they are a fair distance 19 away, of course, the kids do come up and down Highland 20 Avenue on their way to and from school. But these 21 policies will also be addressed under the conditional use 22 permit as a more site specific. 23 With regard to CEQA, the Califomia Environmental 24 Quality Act, rather than an exemption when dealing with 25 over 400 properties, we would look at that as a Page 124 1 the minor mixed -use corridor zones, so the eastem side of 2 the city which is predominantly single-family residential 3 and low density residential would continue to be 4 protected. Obviously, a conditional use permit is still 5 required and is being applied for in this case, in which 6 case staff would be able to bring information to the 7 commission related to lighting, noise, traffic, parking, 8 aesthetics, so on and so forth. 9 And as I mentioned previously, the approval of 10 the code amendment would not be automatic permission for 11 fast food in just any area of the city. It would only be 12 within the particular zones and based on geographical 13 restrictions and based on a conditional use permit. 14 So this particular item is specifically for the 15 code amendment and the recommendation to adopt a negative 16 declaration as part of that. It is a subsequent item that 17 will deal with the conditional use permit. The 18 conditional use permit would not be able to take effect 19 without the code amendment being processed first. And 20 that concludes the staff report. 21 By the way, the applicant is here and if you have 22 any question, I'd be happy to answer them. 23 MADAM CHAIR: Okay. Thank you. 24 Would the applicant please approach the podium? 25 MR. FRITZEN: Good evening. ESQUIRE 800.211.DEPO (3376) EsquireSofutions. com NATIONAL CITY MEETING NATIONAL CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MEE August 19, 2013 TING 125-128 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Page 125 MADAM CHAIR: Yes, name and address, please. THE WITNESS: Thomas Scott Fritzen, 5203 Green Willow Lane, San Diego, California. MADAM CHAIR: Thank you. MR. FRITZEN: Here on behalf of the focus group who is the applicant for the proposal and back again after being here in June. And Martin Reader has been a great assistant in putting the package together. This project as he said is at the 2100 block of Highland Avenue. It is a vacant lot next to the Auto Zone. Martin was interested in trying to do something different here and that was to give not just the owners of nearby properties notice but the actual occupants, the people who reside in the apartments and who are more affected. The number of owners was, I think, in the 20s. The number of people actually living in the neighborhood in the three -- in the radius circle was in the hundreds, and they all received notice. We thought that was a good idea. We had some outreach to the tenants previously, some meetings, and they were generally supportive of the concept so we were pleased to do that. The -- the amendment would allow for the drivethrough restaurants within the 300-foot radius but 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 subject to stringent CUP guidelines. There were a lot of 24 potential sites that were affected because you're making a 25 Page 127 didn't do much frying, they did more grilling and things like that, pretty basic stuff, and they said they tasted pretty good. So we're here with both the zone amendment to allow for the restaurants within the 300-foot radius with notice, which is the new requirement, and then at the same time, to get a conditional use permit approved with the stringent conditional use provisions that apply with respect to fast food restaurants. And I should have said, I'm the attorney representing the focus group. Todd Dwyer who was here last time came down with the flu, and he is not here to join me tonight. MADAM CHAIR: Thank you. Do any commissioners have questions of the applicant? Okay. Commissioner Bush. COMMISSIONER BUSH: I do. 1 just wanted to know if the applicant was made aware -- oops -- was made aware of the — of the possible -- that the proposal is against the general plan in particular, the health policies and if so, what would be their ways of kind of mitigating those possible negative effects. MR. FRITZEN: Right, I am aware of that. First of all, the two items that you hit against in the general Page 126 1 zone change to two of your more intense zones, the MXC-2 2 and the MXD-2, but when you look at the map and see what 3 vacant lots are affected, it was around 40 — something 4 less than 45, and of those, a number of them had already 5 been allocated for other uses. So it — it — it sounded 6 like a big number and it was a concern. And when we 7 really drilled down as far as any vacant land that could 8 be affected, it was a pretty -- percentage -wise it was a 9 pretty small number. 10 With the CUP we want to set a precedent for how 11 developments like this should occur, with the proper 12 buffering, the sound attenuation for the speakers, the 13 overall feel and flow and the architecture for the 14 development. 15 It is a fast food restaurant. The Popeye's chain 16 actually started as a single restaurant in New Orleans, 17 and because of the seasoning it is very popular now. It 18 is the second largest chicken restaurant in the country. 19 In 2011, they launched four new menu items which I became 20 curious about myself to see what they were doing to try to 21 have a healthier menu. There is actually online there is 22 some reviews and generally it seemed like it was a pretty 23 positive experience to some of the diners that actually 24 went in and tested the — the -- the low -- the four 25 low -calorie, low -fat offerings. They basically just Page 128 1 plan are proximity to schools, and we're a little bit a 2 ways from the school even though you definitely could have 3 kids passing by the schools so it's not right next door in 4 very close proximity. 5 And secondly, 1 think all these fast food 6 restaurants are challenged. 1 mean, you saw New York go 7 for the super -sized — Mayor Bloomberg tried to prevent 8 all the super -sized drinks, and they're like — I think 9 there is a general sense that they should be serving 10 healthier fare. They also have the demand for 11 what -- what sells. That is why I was curious about what 12 they might be doing. I was glad to see that they were 13 making some offerings and that they were fairly 14 well -received. At some point we're not the ones preparing 15 the menu, but I think your point is well taken. 16 And on balance, I think it's one thing you should 17 consider and it was a consideration for us. But on the 18 other hand, you have a vacant lot, it is an appropriate 19 use. And there is a Popeye's which is the — across the 20 street kind of in an older building that they're looking 21 to move over if they can work something out with their 22 existing landlord. That is kind of why that is held up a 23 little bit. So your point is well taken. 24 MADAM CHAIR: Commissioner Garcia? 25 COMMISSIONER GARCIA: Just to piggyback on what ESQUIRE 800.211.DEPO (3376) EsquireSolutions. com NATIONAL CITY MEETING August 19, 2013 NATIONAL CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 129-132 Page 129 1 Commissioner Bush mentioned. I feel like sometimes, too, 2 when it comes to environmental issues or just health in 3 general, you know, we can't really control what people are 4 consuming because that is what they want. But one of the 5 things I mentioned to Sonic, which came --1 can't 6 remember when, but they're going to be opening up next to 7 one of the main entrances to the city, but one of the 8 things 1 suggested was maybe including some sort of fruit 9 trees outside of the property, you know, consider more 10 aesthetic things that would, you know, portray that image. 11 I also mentioned to them maybe installing some 12 sort of solar panels to reduce the carbon footprint of the 13 business, so little things like that. You know, if they 14 were to take that into consideration 1 think it would be 15 great for — not only for the city, but for the image of 16 the business in the city. 17 MR. FRITZEN: I agree. There is a buffering 18 requirement, and it is not just a hedge to kind of get 19 some privacy, but there's some trees. The principals at 20 the focus group really go in for design. So I think that 21 when you look at something like this where you might 22 be -- where you will be setting a precedent, you are 23 having to decide who you are partnering with. And 1 think 24 in this case, you've -- you've got a good partner. 25 Someone that gets it who isn't going to try to get by with Page 131 1 if you will. If it goes too small, then obviously they 2 run the risk of larger vehicles not making the turn, and I 3 think that given in this case — I believe well look at 4 it in the conditional use permit there's over 100 feet of 5 queuing, so once a vehicle makes it to that point I'm sure 6 it would be very difficult for them to turn back around. 7 So hopefully that's been addressed in the design. 8 COMMISSIONER DELAPAZ: Thank you. 9 And I wanted to confirm that the City Engineer 10 would approve of 20-foot, on a case -by -case basis but in 11 this case, was open to a 20-foot -- 12 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: That's correct. Yeah, in 13 this case, the City Engineer took a look at the proposed 14 site plan that you have just seen and agreed that that 15 would work in this case. 16 COMMISSIONER DELAPAZ: Okay. Now after 17 clarifying that I just wanted to share my thoughts on this 18 issue. We've got two pieces to amend in the code. One is 19 to allow a fast food with less than 300-foot distance from 20 residents within the MXC-2 and MXD-2 zones, those are both 21 mixed -use zones. That is one issue. Since it's mixed 22 use, I'm kind of on the fence a little bit on that issue 23 because obviously, if you are in a residence and a 24 mixed -use zoning, you are close to -- you are going to be 25 close to residents -- excuse me, restaurants and other Page 130 1 the minimum requirements but actually wants to make if a 2 successful project, and someone who would actually like to 3 do more business in National City and is mindful of the 4 reputation that they would have once they undertake a 5 project like this. 6 So, thank you. 7 MADAM CHAIR: Any other commissioners? Okay. 8 Thank you. 9 MR. FRITZEN: Thank you, Madam Commissioner. 10 MADAM CHAIR: This is a public hearing. Is there 11 anybody here in the audience who would like to speak 12 either for or against this? 13 Okay. Commissioner DeLaPaz. 14 COMMISSIONER DELAPAZ: Yeah, I had a question of 15 staff. The 20-foot turning radius, does staff recall any 16 sites within the city that has a 20-foot turning radius in 17 a drivethrough that we can kind of visualize? 18 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Not specifically, 19 Commissioner. There are obviously a lot of very old 20 drivethroughs and there are a lot of newer drivethroughs 21 and they all vary. 22 The one — for example, Sonic that was just 23 approved was I think somewhere in the neighborhood of 24 33 feet turning radius, interior turning radius which is 25 quite wide. You know, 25 is sort of the industry standard Page 132 1 retail uses. But again, there is a reason why you put 2 that in there and I wouldn't mind upholding it. A little 3 bit on the fence on that one, to be honest. 4 No. 2 that we have to consider is whether we 5 would allow a -- where the code now calls for a 25-foot 6 turning radius, the code will be amended to allow a 7 smaller radius if approved by the City Engineer through 8 the conditional use permit process. I do appreciate that 9 it would be subject to the process. I personally drive a 10 very large vehicle, but to be honest, if my vehicle didn't 11 fit in your drivethrough, I wouldn't be your customer and 12 therefore, the business takes care of that. I mean, that 13 issue is taken care of from the business standpoint 14 anyway. That business will have to decide if their — if 15 they can't make the site work and they have a smaller 16 turning radius than most, then the larger vehicle 17 customers which are pretty common in the City of National 18 City, we residents like our big cars and trucks and et 19 cetera, et cetera, that is just kind of the nature of the 20 business so I almost kind of leave that in the hands of 21 the City Engineer, the CUP process and the business 22 owners. If they're willing to make that choice, then, you 23 know, people like me just wouldn't be a customer as much 24 as I love chicken. We've got another Popeye's on Plaza 25 Boulevard anyways, so -- ESQUIRE 800.211.DEPO (3376) Esquire Solutions. com NATIONAL CITY MEETING NATIONAL CITY PLANNING COMMISSION M EETING August 19, 2013 133-136 Page 133 1 I think that's more a site specific. I'm not 2 really too hung up on that so much -- so long as -- I do 3 rely a lot on the City Engineer's expertise in the 4 conditional use permit process that we are very familiar 5 with. So I'm not as concerned on that one. 6 The proximity to the residential does tug a 7 little bit more on the heartstrings as though what do we 8 want for the -- for -- in addressing the goals of 9 our -- our general plans so that may be a little bit 10 different. 11 And I welcome any other discussion from the 12 commissioners. 13 MADAM CHAIR: Any other commissioners? 14 COMMISSIONER BUSH: I think I would generally 15 agree about the distance from residents. I would say 16 though that I think long term our general plan we're 17 trying to -- we're projected to grow but we have no space 18 to grow. So I think what I can probably foresee 19 personally is that the kind of space issues like this, 20 it's -- were going to have to kind of possibly rethink 21 this because if we're going to grow as a city, you know, 22 if we're going to increase density, then some of these 23 uses are going to have to be closer to residents. That is 24 how I would address it, that is my thoughts on that. 25 MADAM CHAIR: Anybody else? Any other Page 135 1 SECRETARY: Item No. 5, Resolution 19-2013, 2 taking action on a recommendation to adopt a negative 3 declaration for a proposed code amendment of Sections 4 18.30, .360 and 18.41.010 Subsection C-2 of the land use 5 code related to fast food restaurant locational 6 requirements and drivethrough restaurant design 7 guidelines, Case File No. 2013-12AIS. 8 COMMISSIONER DELAPAZ: Move for approval. 9 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Second. 10 MADAM CHAIR: Okay. We have a first and second. 11 Please vote. 12 SECRETARY: Motion carried by the following vote: 13 DeLaPaz, Bush, Alvarado, Flores, Baca and Garcia, 14 aye. 15 Pruitt, absent. 16 MADAM CHAIR: Okay. Now it is Item No. 6. 17 SECRETARY: Item No. 6 is a public hearing 18 conditional use permit for a fast food drivethrough 19 restaurant to be located at 2100 Highland Avenue. This 20 item will be presented by principal client and Martin 21 Reeder. 22 MADAM CHAIR: Mr. Reeder, thank you. 23 MR. REEDER: Thank you, again, Madam Chair, 24 members of the commission. I know by now you're very 25 familiar with this property. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 commissioners? Okay. What is the pleasure of the commission? COMMISSIONER: I propose the public hearing and recommend approval of the amendment to Section 18-30.36 and 18-41.02, the land use code based on the attached findings, and Case File 2013-12A.IS. COMMISSIONER DELAPAZ: Question. Does the motion have to include the adopting the negative declaration? Would the maker and second like to add that to the motion? MADAM CHAIR: Would you like to add the negative declaration to the motion? COMMISSIONER: Yeah. Yeah, I would. MADAM CHAIR: And the second agrees? UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Yes. MADAM CHAIR: Do we have a first and second? Please vote. SECRETARY: Motion carried by the following vote: DeLaPaz, Bush, Alvarado, Flores, Baca, Garcia, aye. Page 134 Pruitt, absent. MADAM CHAIR: Okay. Next we have Item No. 5. SECRETARY: Item No. 5 — MADAM CHAIR: Oh, 6. 6? MS. SILVA: 5. COMMISSIONER DELAPAZ: It's 5. Page 136 1 Sony, another quick overhead showing the 2 existing with the development upon it. So Auto Zone on 3 the left. You can see the alley to the west of the 4 property and the apartments next door, and the pad on the 5 lower right-hand corner of the picture. 6 There are 38 parking spaces existing. So the 7 applicant wishes to construct a 2,150-square-foot fast 8 food restaurant. The dining room would be about 9 900 square feet based on these plans. Obviously if a 10 tenant other than Popeye's comes along that may change a 11 little bit. I'll get into that when I'm talking about the 12 parking. 13 So Popeye's is currently located on the other 14 side of Highland Avenue, about two blocks down, 2300 15 block, and they wish to move to the current location and 16 build a new restaurant. 17 We talked about the radius also, so that would be 18 the request — the official request for the reduced 19 turning radius will be part of this request. It is not 20 technically an exception but it would be looked at as part 21 of the design which is the -- the attached plans would 22 currently reflect. So this is obviously running 23 concurrent. 24 This is a site photo looking to the southwest 25 roughly. We talked about general plan consistency. There ESQUIRE 800.211.DEPO (3376) EsquireSolutions. com NATIONAL CITY MEETING NATIONAL CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING August 19, 2013 137-140 Page 137 1 are, again, eight fast foot outlets between Plaza and 30th 2 so that is less than one per block. There are more 3 concentrated areas of the city where there are more than 4 one next to each other, you know, all the way down the 5 street. So based on other areas, staff is of the opinion 6 this isn't the highly concentrated area of fast food 7 restaurants. 8 And, again, regarding the health aspect of the 9 menu, there are a few menu items that have been added to 10 address lower calories, lower fat with Popeye's. 11 The schools are a little bit further away. But 12 again, between -- you know, three or four of the 13 elementary schools being up and down Highland Avenue and 14 the high school, there are definitely going to be children 15 in the area walking up and down Highland Avenue. 16 So based on the recent amendment, which, of 17 course, would still need to go to the City Council, the 18 use would now be allowed in the MXD-2 zone with the 19 approval of a conditional use permit. In this case, this 20 conditional use permit is conditioned on ultimate approval 21 of the code amendment before this becomes active. 22 Chapter 18.41 applies in this case as those are 23 the site planning standards we have been talking about. 24 The minimum clearing distance in this case is about 25 100 feet shown on plans, which would be the exhibit Page 139 1 reallocates some of the spaces, adds spaces where there 2 was blank space, and have recouped all but one of those, 3 so there's 37 proposed. Based on a 900-square foot dining 4 area in the restaurant, there would only be 35 parking 5 spaces required, so there is a condition that limits the 6 maximum area of any dining room of any potential 7 restaurant that opens at this location cannot be higher 8 than 1,000 square feet. That way a -- for example, with 9 1,000-square-feet dining room, 38 parking -- excuse me, 37 10 parking spaces will be required, and seeing as there is no 11 other room to add anymore we'd want to make sure there is 12 a condition ensuring that the appropriate amount of 13 parking is provided. 14 As far as circulation, a restaurant of this size 15 would generate approximately 1400 average daily trips. 16 That is based on SanDAG's data, San Diego Association of 17 Governments and their transportation staff. As far as 18 Highland Avenue in this particular location, which is the 19 segment between 18th and 24th, I believe, the current 20 level of service or the grade to the operation of that 21 street is a C, so it's the -- A being the highest. So 22 it -- C is still considered to be passing, E and F would 23 be failing. So -- and based on that additional 1398 or 24 1400 average daily trips per the general plan and the 25 appendix referring to the capacity of the streets, Page 138 1 attached to this resolution should it be approved. 2 We talked about the minimum turning radius, and 3 the drivethrough location, the code requires that it not 4 be located between a right-of-way and the building unless 5 there is a minimum ten -foot -wide landscape buffer. That 6 includes three-foot shrubs and trees, which are trees 7 every 20 feet I believe. That is a condition of approval. 8 It's not necessarily shown on plans at the moment. There 9 is a landscape buffer, quote -unquote, shown but the 10 details are not there yet. So there is a condition 1 requiring that a full landscape and underground irrigation 12 plan be provided as part of any construction documents 1 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 submitted for -- for building a restaurant. As far as issues to look at with a conditional use permit, generally speaking, we're looking at parking and circulation of vehicles, air quality, light and glare from signage or restaurants, and, of course, noise. And I already mentioned that unless the code amendment is approved, the conditional use permit would not take affect. So regarding parking, again there are 38 parking spaces existing. The proposal shows 37. Obviously, putting a drivethrough aisle through the property would reduce quite a bit of parking and it took quite a few away, but the developer has shown a site plan that Page 140 1 Highland Avenue's location has a capacity of 30,000 2 average daily trips, only about 18,000 exist, so the 3 additional 1400 would not trigger a — a worse grade, or 4 in this case, a level of service of D. So it would not be 5 happen in this case, it would remain as a C. 6 As far as air quality is concerned, this was 7 analyzed, it was one of the main points in the CEQA 8 checklist, air quality, and there were no impacts that 9 were identified over and above anything else that would be 10 at this location. So the negative declaration related to 11 the code amendment does address that. 12 As far as light and glare is concemed, we do 13 have a specific chapter of the land use code that refers 14 to light impacts and generally requires that all impacts 15 or all tight sources that would be generated by a 16 particular use be directed away from adjacent properties 17 or sensitive uses. In this case that could be a challenge 18 given that there are apartments next door. The staff has 19 added a condition that requires that any signage that is 20 facing that direction or is elevated, such as a pole sign 21 or a monument sign or anything that would be more prone to 22 shine light further be directed either north or south or 23 both, not east or west. So to — to limit impacts to the 24 amount feasible to adjacent residential uses. 25 As far as noise, most noise will be generated if ESQUIRE 800.211.DEPO (3376) Esquire Solutions. com NATIONAL CITY MEETING August 19, 2013 NATIONAL CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 141-144 Page 141 1 you have vehicle queuing areas or vehicle queuing 2 basically close to residential uses which would be the 3 most sensitive use with regard to noise. The drivethrough 4 is located on the opp- -- the building is on the opposite 5 side of the lot to the adjacent property that has the 6 apartments upon it, and then there is 100 feet roughly of 7 queuing space which takes the cars around the corner so 8 they would be directed away from the adjacent uses. 9 Also, as part of the application and has also 10 been conditioned, the developer has mentioned that there 11 are noise attenuating speakers now so that they take into 12 account the ambient noise levels such as the vehicles next 13 door, the street next door, and in times of low noise such 14 as in the middle of the night or, you know, late in the 15 night depending on how late the business is open, the 16 noise coming from the speakers would be significantly 17 less. So therefore, mitigating any noise issues with 18 neighboring properties to quite a significant extent. 19 As far as public notice, as you recall, the 20 amendment also took into account the necessity or the wont 21 of staff to include occupants as well as property owners. 22 In this case there were only 34 property owners nearby. 23 Although there are a lot of units all those units are on 24 one property. But 379 occupants were identified, or 379 25 separate units and they all received or they were all 1 MR. REEDER: That's correct. The required 2 parking of 37 parking spaces is based on what Auto Zone 3 needs and the restaurant needs. So combined they would 4 need 37 spaces. 5 COMMISSIONER DELAPAZ: Okay. All right. Thank 6 you. 7 MADAM CHAIR: Would the applicant please come to 8 the podium? 9 Name and address again? 10 MR. FRITZEN: Thomas Scott Fritzen, 5203 Green 11 Villa Lane, San Diego, California. 12 MADAM CHAIR: Do you have anything else to add to 13 the report? 14 MR. FRITZEN: The only thing I would add, and 15 I'll be very brief, is that that Auto Zone is -- was built 16 in 2011, I believe. It doesn't park very heavy. If you 17 go by an auto place there's a couple people in there. So 18 the fact that it is sharing the parking is a plus. 19 I've learned about these noise attenuating 20 speakers, it's not even an upgrade or a fancy one. It is 21 how they are all made now so I think there is probably a 22 lot of different ages of speakers if you go to different 23 fast food restaurants and the newest ones. 24 So with that, I would have no other comments but 25 I'm available to answer questions. Page 143 Page 142 1 mailed copies of that notice. 2 So in summary, the proposed fast food restaurant 3 is generally consistent with the general plan given that 4 there is not a huge concentration of fast food outlets in 5 this particular segment of Highland Avenue. Unhealthy 6 restaurants are discouraged near schools, but the property 7 is over a quarter of a mile or about a quarter mile away 8 from the nearest two elementary schools. 9 The use is consistent with the land use code, 10 particularly 18.41, regarding the design standards given 11 that the City Engineer has bought off on the reduced 12 interior radius of the drivethrough and, of course, as 13 usual, conditions of approval are designed to ensure 14 operation of the business in harmony with the existing 15 uses and cause as few impacts as possible. 16 Adequate parking is available in this case. And 17 as usual, the restaurant will contribute to the viability 18 of the property and develop an existing vacant area that 19 has been sitting for some time. 20 So that concludes the staffs report and I'm 21 available for questions. 22 COMMISSIONER DELAPAZ: I have a question, 23 Mr. Reeder. Would -- I couldn't tell, but are they going 24 to be sharing the parking lot with Auto Zone? I couldn't 25 really tell. Page 144 1 MADAM CHAIR: Okay. Have you read and do you 2 understand all the 22 conditions of approval? 3 MR. FRITZEN: I have. 4 MADAM CHAIR: And — 5 MR. FRITZEN: I find them — that they're 6 acceptable. 7 MADAM CHAIR: Okay. All right. And I don't 8 know, Commissioner Garcia or Commissioner DeLaPaz have 9 questions of you or not? 10 Okay. Okay. Commissioner DeLaPaz. 11 COMMISSIONER DELAPAZ: I was just curious as fair 12 as the site specific planning on this application. I was 13 just curious as far as why the ordering is so far into the 14 driveway. I mean, the order and pickup windows are very 15 close together. I was curious as to the thought process 16 there. I thought maybe it was because they didn't want it 17 south -facing, if that's correct, or maybe even further 18 south in that east facing. I was just curious. 19 MR. FRITZEN: I know that the order window needs 20 to be away from the residences and in that buffer zone. 21 COMMISSIONER DELAPAZ: I'm just curious why it 22 wasn't further over though on the same side. 23 MR. FRITZEN: Right. That -- that came up. 24 COMMISSIONER DELAPAZ: Just curious. 25 MR. FRITZEN: Yeah, there is -- I can't remember ESQUIRLT E 800.211.DEPO (3376) EsquireSolutions. com NATIONAL CITY MEETING August 19, 2013 NATIONAL CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 145-148 Page 145 1 what that was but there was a discussion. That window 2 actually moved a number of times so I can't remember why 3 that -- and Mr. Dwyer who is not here tonight might have 4 been able to help me on that, but I can't tell you. 5 COMMISSIONER DELAPAZ: Mr. Reeder should be able 6 to help, he knows everything. 7 MR. REEDER: I think we had several 8 conversations while they were coming up with the potential 9 design, and one of my concems was making sure that 10 vehicles were out of the parking area and not obstructing 11 any parking spaces, and given the constructed nature of 12 the property, this was one of the solutions we talked 13 about was maybe having a little bit longer space. This is 14 quite a bit, but it would definitely get several vehicles 15 out of the parking area to the extent possible. We wanted 16 to make sure that nothing backed up into the parking area 17 and heaven forbid, into the street. 18 COMMISSIONER DELAPAZ: I would agree and 19 disagree, because I almost feel that if you give a greater 20 distance between order and pickup, you get the cars out of 21 there completely quicker. If it was further back on the 22 same side, we'd probably have -- 1 don't know the distance 23 as many -- how many car lengths fit between the entrance 24 of it and the order window. If it were further back on 25 the same side, if that would still fit a car length or 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Page 147 comment, but I wanted to know if Mr. Reeder can put up that image of the side -- the one with the — shows the apartments and the building. Oh, yeah, that one. So -- so I'm thinking about this buffer zone right between the residence and the businesses, because obviously, it was brought up by Commissioner DeLaPaz that, you know, these residents live fairly close to this business and, of course, as it was discussed there is issues of noise pollution and so forth. So I guess this is a comment for the developer, maybe in the future, I don't know if it is possible or feasible, if there were to be a possibility of maybe building a structure -- maybe not a structure. Maybe 'structure' isn't the right word. But basically what I'm envisioning is a wall of green, just like flowers or some sort of green that would make a clear separation between, you know, the businesses and, of course, the residents. And I think it will create, you know, two purposes. One, aesthetically and then the other one to, again, mitigate some sort of, you know, carbon footprint from the businesses as well as the businesses that are -- or the cars that are going in there. So it was just an idea to consider. So, yeah, I just want to throw that out there and hopefully it will be heard. MR. FRITZEN: There's not too much green in that 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Page 146 two, maybe even three that might help, but still give them time to fill the orders and get them out of there before they start really queuing and backing up. I don't know, I leave that up to the experts, but I just thought I'd — I was curious. I'm not concerned at all about refusing to support this item because of that. MR. FRITZEN: That's the kitchen side. Where the window and the pickup is, that will be the kitchen side and then the other -- COMMISSIONER DELAPAZ: Is the dining area? MR. FRITZEN: Is the dining area, yeah. So that might have been why they were brought together. I think if you go to In and Out Burger, which gets a lot more volume, they've obviously gone to having the people in the parking lot taking the orders. So I think that is to your point, if you can get that order sooner you can move them through faster. COMMISSIONER DELAPAZ: Okay. I leave that up to the experts. I did have a question for staff but I can wait, wait for my turn. MADAM CHAIR: Thank you. Mr. Garcia, did you have a question of the applicant? COMMISSIONER GARCIA: Actually, maybe it's like a 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Page 148 photo right there, is there? I will definitely pass that on. Thank you. MADAM CHAIR: Thank you. This is a public hearing. Is there anybody here in the audience wishing to speak for or against this? Okay. Seeing none, do the commissioners have any other questions of the staff or any questions to bring up? Commissioner DeLaPaz. COMMISSIONER DELAPAZ: I just had a question on the Condition No. 18, that the plan shall conform to the minimum turning radius requirements for drivethrough businesses unless the code is amended to approve a lesser radius. It doesn't really say in there that the City Engineer needs to sign off and we're already approving this so I guess we are signing off on the 20 foot based on the CUP in front of us; is that correct? UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Correct. This is -- the request is for the 20 feet which is, obviously, subject to 18.41 which allows the City Engineer to reduce that. I think it was written — I think I rewrote it a couple of times, I just tried to make it fairly broad. COMMISSIONER DELAPAZ: So in this application as presented, we're giving the City Engineer the authority to establish the lesser? THE WITNESS: Correct. ESQUIRE 800.211.DEPO (3376) EsquireSolutions. com NATIONAL CITY MEETING August 19, 2013 NATIONAL CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 149-152 Page 149 1 COMMISSIONER DELAPAZ: Now we never put in this 2 condition the lesser with the limit of 20 at minimum, 3 right? As it is written? 4 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Correct. It was just 5 basically -- 6 COMMISSIONER DELAPAZ: Assumed that it wasn't -- 7 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: 18.41, which would have to 8 be -- now that will not be part of the code so that would 9 have to be -- that would be the go -to standard for -- for 10 when we were plan checking. 11 COMMISSIONER DELAPAZ: I wonder if it might be 12 appropriate to clarify 18? Probably won't hurt since 13 they're concurrent. 14 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: We could probably add 15 language or a manager approval lesser radius. 16 COMMISSIONER DELAPAZ: No lower than 20? 17 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Or per the City Engineer's 18 recommendation. 19 COMMISSIONER DELAPAZ: Now, we haven't documented 20 the City Engineer's recommendation in here, or did I just 21 miss it? Is it just part of the report? 22 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: It was mentioned as what 23 happened with the amendment, but that was about it. 24 COMMISSIONER DELAPAZ: Okay. I -- I just want to 25 bring that up. I don't know if the commissioners want to 1 MADAM CHAIR: Okay. Is there a second? Page 151 2 COMMISSIONER BUSH: Thank you for that 3 clarification. 4 COMMISSIONER BACA: Second. 5 MADAM CHAIR: Okay. Thank you. We have a first 6 and second. Please vote. 7 COMMISSIONER BUSH: And I will never make another 8 motion again. 9 SECRETARY: Motion carried by following vote: 10 DeLaPaz, Alvarado, Flores, Baca, Garcia, aye. 11 Pruitt, absent. 12 MADAM CHAIR: Okay. Thank you. 13 Now we're on to item No. 7. 14 SECRETARY: Item No. 7, Resolution 20-2013, 15 taking action on a conditional use permit fora new fast 16 food drivethrough restaurant to be located at 17 2100 Highland Avenue. 18 MADAM CHAIR: Okay. Commissioners? 19 COMMISSIONER DELAPAZ: Move approval. 20 COMMISSIONER BACA: Second. 21 MADAM CHAIR: Okay. First and second, please 22 vote. 23 SECRETARY: Motion carried by following vote: 24 DeLaPaz, Bush, Alvarado, Flores, Baca, Garcia, 25 aye. 1 entertain further clarifying 18. We can read that into 2 the motion if we so choose; otherwise, that's all I had on 3 that particular issue. 4 MADAM CHAIR: Okay. Any other commissioners? 5 Okay. What is the pleasure of the commission? 6 COMMISSIONER BUSH: I'll make a motion -- 7 Oops. HI make a motion to close the public 8 hearing on Item No. 6. 9 MADAM CHAIR: And? 10 COMMISSIONER BUSH: Do I have to do an and? I 11 can't just close item number -- can't we move on to Item 12 No. 7? So I -- oh, didn't I finish it? 13 MADAM CHAIR: You just want to close it, but do 14 you want the pass it? 15 COMMISSIONER BUSH: Sure. Sure. I'll amend the 16 motion and to pass it, too. It's quicker that way. 17 COMMISSIONER DELAPAZ: You'd like to -- 18 COMMISSIONER BUSH: I'm sorry. Let me clarify. 19 I will make a motion to close the public hearing on Item 20 No. 6 as well as approve Item No. 7, the resolution. 21 COMMISSIONER DELAPAZ: No. No. No. You would 22 like to approve the 2013-12 CUP based on the conditions -- 23 subject to the conditions and based on the findings in the 24 report? 25 COMMISSIONER BUSH: Yeah. Page 150 Page 152 1 Pruitt, absent. 2 MADAM CHAIR: Okay. Item No. 8. 3 SECRETARY: Item No. 8, general plan conformity 4 review for the city acquisition of the property located at 5 1726 Wilson Avenue for use as a Public Works yard pursuant 6 to Govemment Code Section 65402, Subsection A. 7 MR. REEDER: Yes, briefly the City intends to 8 acquire this property to relocate the Public Works yard in 9 order to allow for the WI-TOD affordable housing project. 10 The project is in the Westside Specific Plan area in a 11 limited commercial area, which is allowed -- which allows 12 a Public Works yard by conditional use; therefore, we're 13 recommending that you determine that the city's 14 acquisition of the property is inconformity with the 15 general plan. And that concludes my report. 16 MADAM CHAIR: Okay. Any questions? Any -- any 17 commissioners have questions? 18 COMMISSIONER BACA: I recommend that the 19 acquisition of the subject property — property in the 20 Class 1 category exemption pursuant to Section 15301, the 21 Califomia Government Quality 8 Guideline, go ahead with 22 the recommendation. 23 COMMISSIONER BUSH: Second. 24 MADAM CHAIR: Okay. First, second. Please vote. 25 MS. SILVA: Madam Chair, for purposes of ESQUIRE 800.211.DEPO (3376) EsquireSolutions. com NATIONAL CITY MEETING NATIONAL CITY PLANNING COMMISSION M August 19, 2013 EETING 153-156 Page 153 1 clarification, I -- I note that the commissioner made the 2 findings for the environmental review for the category 3 exemption, which is appropriate. I -- what I didn't catch 4 in the motion is what is also following the recommendation 5 regarding general plan conformity? 6 COMMISSIONER BACA: Yes. 7 MS. SILVA: I couldn't hear. Okay. Thank you. 8 SECRETARY: Motion carried by following vote: 9 Bush, Alvarado, Flores, Baca, Garcia, aye. 10 DeLaPaz, abstain. 11 Pruitt, absent. 12 MADAM CHAIR: Okay. Now we're on to Item No. 9. 13 SECRETARY: Item No. 9, "discussion of request by 14 Sweetwater Union High School District Superintendant Brand 15 and National City Chamber of Commerce asking the 16 chairperson to call a special meeting regarding Alliant 17 University and the previously continued public hearing." 18 MADAM CHAIR: Okay. So who will be -- well be 19 the hearing by -- by Attorney Silva as to what our 20 option -- okay. Thank you. 21 ATTORNEY SILVA: The item before you is a 22 discussion item of the request. There's two letters 23 attached in Agenda Item No. 9 with underlying request, but 24 the items before you really is only to discuss those 25 requests, not to take any particular action in specifics 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Page 155 people in the National school district and the Sweetwater school district to come and speak on behalf of them. Some are out of town. Some don't like to come before organizations like this. Um, I know that National City Adult School is a very important part of our city. It took a lot of work to get that built. We have a lot of residents here who, for whatever reasons, transportation, money, they like to go to school here. We have a lot of non-English speakers. And National City Adult School should be left just for that. I know that the tuition, I guess if that's what you want to call it, the price that you pay to go to classes there has gone up extensively in the last several years. With everything that's going on with the Sweetwater Union High School District, I think that it is out of touch with what the City of National City residents want. And if they want to bring in Alliant University, there's lots of options. There's a building across the street from the school, National City Adult School, where they could go in there. I know they've had a lot of tenant improvements in there, and they have leasing options available. If they want a university, a four-year university, let them go in there and leave our adult school alone. Um, like I said, people — you know, I don't want to give out any of my resources, the people that came to 1 to those requests. 2 MADAM CHAIR: Okay. And also to clarify, are 3 members of the public allowed to speak or is this just for 4 the commissioners to discuss? 5 ATTORNEY SILVA: No, members of the public, if 6 they have speaker slips, can always comment on the 7 specific agenda item. 8 MADAM CHAIR: Okay. Commissioners, would you 9 like to hear from the public first? Okay. How many 10 speakers do we have? 11 SECRETARY: We have eight speakers on this 12 subject. 13 14 15 Page 154 MADAM CHAIR: Okay. We have eight speakers. Once again, it will be a three -minute time limit that we'll have to enforce. 16 Okay. First speaker. 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 SECRETARY: Speaker No. 1 is Cheryl Howey Culmonaro (phonetic) followed by Fran Brinkman. MADAM CHAIR: Okay. Name and address, please? MS. CULMONARO: Hi. My name is Cheryl Howey Culmonaro. I'm a 51-year resident of the City of National City. I live at 305 J Avenue. I have been asked by numerous people within the city community members, people within the school district, 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Page 156 me and talked to me, but they're very influential. They feel that there could be repercussions from the superintendant's office if they came before you to discuss this matter. But I think it — this is just an open discussion. And before any action is carried forward, there should be more of a community forum to discuss — to discuss the options. If it's just about the money, let them pay the rent somewhere else. MADAM CHAIR: Thank you. SECRETARY: The next speaker, Fran Brinkman. MADAM CHAIR: Okay. Name and address, please. MS. BRINKMAN: Fran Brinkman, 3246 Bonita Mesa Road. Good evening, Commissioners. I'm a retired teacher from Sweetwater School District and have advocated for students for over 38 years. The photo I have given you as you — as you -- as will come to you is about the financial information about Alliant from their own website and which you probably have already read in The Reader, the UT and the Star News. There's also a brief comparative list of the tuition costs between Southwestern and Alliant. The difference is alarming. Please take the time to look over this information. ESQUIRE 800.211.DEPO (3376) Esquire Sol utions. com NATIONAL CITY MEETING NATIONAL CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING August 19, 2013 157-160 Page 157 1 My focus tonight is to share some reasons why the 2 National City Adult School needs to keep all of its space. 3 One, as principal of National City Adult, Mr. Banalay 4 mentioned that in a good economy, students return to adult 5 school and our economy is improving. 6 Two, the immigration bill includes a path to 7 citizenship which requires citizenship classes. President 8 Obama stated, "We've got to lay out a path, a process that 9 includes learning English among other requirements." 10 Three, in two -- in two years the State of 11 California will increase the level of funding for adult 12 school. The Govemor's budget maintains a status quo for 13 two years and puts $50 million into planning better 14 partnerships between community colleges, not universities 15 and school districts. About $500 million in total will be 16 put into adult education by 2015-16. The district has 17 already met with the superintendant of Southwestern 18 College, and they have agreed to work together to form a 19 consortia which is required by the Governor's budget. 20 Four, adult education classes provide career 21 paths for adults and increase the success of the children 22 of the adult students. That is good for the economy as 23 well as for the education and social fabric of citizens of 24 National City. 25 Five, because of the way that the plan to install Page 159 Next speaker. 2 SECRETARY: Next we have Maddie Addotto followed 3 by Aurora Maria Clark. 4 MADAM CHAIR: Okay. Name and address, please. 5 MS. ADDOTTO: Yes, my name is Maddie Addotto. I 6 live at 2297 Hilton Head Road, Chula Vista. And I also 7 own a property here in National City, 22 West 35th Street. 8 How could a plan for a university come to 9 fruition if there are no responsive documents for putting 10 this plan together? Please see the attached 11 correspondence that you'll be passed around I received 12 from Sweetwater. There are no responsive -- there were no 13 responsive documents for staff time, legal fees or a 14 strategic plan. For me, this is not a thoroughly thought 15 out or vetted plan to be implemented. 16 A four-year university should not be opened on a 17 whim with no background information or staff time invested 18 in the process. That is Sweetwater's words, not mine. 19 You have in front of you a copy of a MOU that 20 Sweetwater signed with Alliant way before the district 21 came to you for a change in the CUP. 22 You also have a copy of the contract with the 23 San Diego Metropolitan Transit District and a copy of some 24 e-mails between myself and Ms. Reynoso. I find it strange 25 that your mayor was sitting next to Dr. Brand when the MOU 1 Page 158 1 Alliant was rushed, the larger taxpaying community is 2 still unaware and, therefore, unable to weigh in. 3 Six, tuition per credit is ten times more at 4 Alliant than it is at Southwestern which offers hundreds 5 of dasses versus the six classes that will -- Alliant 6 will offer. 7 Seven, Alliant is not a good fit for the 8 community and they offer no benefit to the district or to 9 the city because they will not be paying rent because of 10 your Metro Agreement. 11 Dr. Brand boasted he will have Alliant University 12 in the Sweetwater Union High School District regardless of 13 what happens here. However, the program may actually have 14 to pay rent if not allowed space at the National City 15 Adult School. There is a space on the — there is space 16 on the L Street property which Sweetwater has and is 17 centrally located. Why not locate the university there? 18 Is it only about paying rent? 19 Also, we should all be wondering, why is 20 Dr. Brand leaving his scheduled board meeting tonight at 21 Sweetwater when he should be representing the 7th through 22 12th graders and the school district in order to advocate 23 a private university. 24 Thank you for your time. 25 MADAM CHAIR: Thank you. Page 160 1 was signed knowing full well that Sweetwater did not 2 gather the necessary permits, and I must ask why. 3 So first I'd like to draw your attention to the 4 MOU, Section 4. "Will the housing -- housing Alliant at 5 the facilities which are currently National City Adult 6 School free of charge, giving them custodial, maintenance, 7 utilities and support staff. 8 It also states that Sweetwater will secure all 9 necessary permits. And since they're here requesting an 10 emergency, I guess they have yet to do so. 11 This partnership has been in the works for a very 12 long time. And the district has had ample time for 13 permits. Having the commission consider an emergency 14 meeting, in my opinion, is a slap in the face regarding 15 the process. This is not an emergency. It's just plain 16 and simple lack of organization and planning. 17 I ask you what monetary benefits this has to the 18 city. Actually, nothing because there will be no income 19 received from the university. The only one that has 20 anything to gain is them. 21 The district and Alliant are claiming that you 22 will have a monetary boom because the students attending 23 the university will shop and eat at National City. But 24 the majority of the students are from Sweetwater, and 25 they're in their own backyard. ESQUIRE 800.211.DEPO (3376) Esq uire Sol utions. com NATIONAL CITY MEETING August 19, 2013 NATIONAL CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 161-164 Page 161 1 Now, please take a look at No. 7 of the MOU 2 indicating that there will be public informational 3 meetings. I'd like to inform you there have been none. 4 Now, to the third handout, this is a contract 5 from the Metropolitan Transit Board which was signed 6 November 1st, 1994. If you look at Section 1.02 under 7 "Uses," you will see the very first sentence that, "This 8 facility is to be used as an adult education facility." 9 Now, Dr. Brand may say that the adult school 10 enrollment is down. But as you know, they've raised the 11 prices almost to double and they've eliminated certain 12 classes. This is not what it was intended for. 13 If you turn to Section 7.06, this is regarding 14 the assignment of subletting. It specifically states, 15 "Without the prior written consent of the MTDB, its 16 contract is void and shall be a breach of the lease 17 agreement." 18 So I ask the Planning Commission to take the 19 following items under consideration: 20 What is the emergency? National City had nothing 21 to do with Sweetwater not following the correct protocol. 22 MADAM CHAIR: Excuse me. Your -- your time limit 23 is up. I'm sorry. 24 MS. ADDOTTO: Okay. No, that's fine. 25 Thank you. Page 163 1 I am very concemed about many of the things that 2 have happened and I'm pretty sure all of you have been 3 reading what's going on at Sweetwater of what was 4 mentioned before. There is a very bad track record 5 already of a lot of things going on wrong for students. 6 They -- it seems to be that that has not really been a 7 priority in the benefit and the welfare of the community 8 has not either. 9 I would like to ask, why would we be providing 10 public facilities to a private entity that is going to 11 just double profit and increase their profits? It almost 12 sounds like bailing out of the banks all over. And we 13 really cannot do that. The education of our children 14 should remain a priority because they're going to be the 15 citizens coming back that need to buy the homes, that need 16 to have a stable job and have not had an education that 17 has not been well thought out because somebody just wants 18 to put their name out there without really thinking things 19 through. 20 What is going to happens if the classes do not 21 meet the minimum requirement of students? If a student 22 signs up and they cancel that class, how much time are 23 they going to have to go register somewhere else and try 24 to get that class they just lost? There's a lot of risks 25 that are going to be taken, and I think that it would be a 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 SECRETARY: Aurora Maria Clark. MADAM CHAIR: Hi, name and address? MS. CLARK: Good evening. My name is Aurora Maria Clark. I live at 808 Plaza Sierra in Chula Vista. And I'm here because I got very concerned when I heard about the urgency in which they're trying to open up a university that doesn't sound at all like a university. I have already two students that -- two students -- the children that go to the university. And six classes only offered does not sound like a university at all. It doesn't sound like choices that will benefit or increase in any way the potential of that child becoming a really prepared substantial career person. My other concern was, when I was listening to my messages finding out that I was being invited by the Sweetwater district to go attend and to have my child recruited to Alliant, a private institute. My number is on the do -not -call list, meaning that nobody should be calling my house to be soliciting. And yet someone has taken it up on them the freedom to give my number away, which should be respected as a privacy issue. The other thing was that my son, he is still underage even though he graduated already. And still his information, violating the Green Act, was given out. Page 162 1 very sad story to add to another tragedy. 2 And — well, I want to leave it at that because I 3 ran out of time. Thank you. 4 MADAM CHAIR: Thank you. 5 SECRETARY: Okay. The next speaker is Michelle 6 Krug followed by Stuart Payne. 7 Hello. 8 MS. KRUG: Good evening, again. 9 Michelle Krug, 2423 -- I know the drill -- Sea 10 Breeze Drive, San Diego, 92139. 11 There is no rationale for changing the date from 12 what was publicly decided to September 16th. That date 13 has already been put out to people. They have it 14 calendared. The fact that it is even being asked to be 15 changed points to the sloppiness of this entire 16 transaction. The fact that the MOU was signed publicly 17 without any public meetings, the fact that they had not 18 even asked for the conditional use permit, no discussion 19 has happened with MTS, the fact that Dr. Brand is here 20 instead of where his employment is at the Sweetwater board 21 meeting, all of these are not a reason for National City 22 to be capitulating to pressure because they haven't done 23 their job. 24 You know, I've already expressed and I will 25 express again as I anticipate either September 16th or Page 164 ESQUIRE 800.211.DEPO (3376) EsquireSolutions. com NATIONAL CITY MEETING NATIONAL CITY PLANNING COMMISSION ME August 19, 2013 ETING 165-168 Page 165 1 whenever you do conduct that meeting that I think Alliant 2 is not good for our community, not — not in the way that 3 it's being presented, i.e., that it's in the public arena, 4 that why are we putting public funds or helping them 5 exist? If they want to take the property that's now going 6 to be amortized on the west side, that might be a good 7 idea. You know, they — they need to survive as a 8 business. And that's fine. I have no problem with their 9 coexistence as a business, but not when they are taking 10 away from our -- from our students and from our community 11 on public funds. 12 I also think that if you are going to give 13 the -- the rooms to anyone, it should be the Southwestern, 14 and as they are going to be part of this consortium, I've 15 spoken to four out of the five board members. And they 16 are definitely looking at how they might interface with 17 either having the adult school. But they're -- they're 18 considering all of those options of having the adult 19 school. 20 San Diego is free. Adult school of the ESL 21 classes, English as a second language, ASL, American sign 22 language, parenting classes, citizenship classes, all of 23 these are completely free. And that's what we need to 24 bring back to National City. 25 MADAM CHAIR: Thank you. Page 167 1 an option. They have National University as an option, 2 and I'm talking in the South Bay. They have the 3 University of Phoenix as an option in Bonita. 4 We have Grand Canyon University, which is similar 5 to Alliant, a brain child of Ed Brand, that he brought on 6 a whim, the board voted for it, and nobody knows what is 7 happening with Grand Canyon University. And that wasn't 8 even a year ago that that was approved. 9 You have United States University, which is an 10 institution of questionable character involved in some 11 type of Pell Grant fraud. 12 You have Califomia College San Diego right here 13 in National City that you have that campus. 14 You have UEI in Chula Vista. 15 You have Kaplan College. 16 So we have a lot of options for education in the 17 South Bay and waiting to hear this item discussed on 18 September the 16th isn't going to affect those options in 19 any way whatsoever. 20 Thank you for your time. 21 MADAM CHAIR: Thank you. 22 SECRETARY: Okay. Next we have Ed Brand followed 23 by Jacqueline Reynoso. 24 MADAM CHAIR: Yes. Name and address, please? 25 DR. BRAND: Ed Brand, superintendent Sweetwater 1 SECRETARY: Stuart Payne. 2 MR. PAYNE: Good evening. 3 Stuart Payne, North Fox Run Place, Chula Vista, 4 California. 5 Good evening, Commissioners. 6 I just want to share with you why I believe that 7 you should not entertain a special meeting for -- for this 8 item. One, earlier this month, I think it was two weeks 9 ago, you did a very thorough job in asking your questions 10 and identifying the information that you wanted brought 11 back to you. And you decided on a very specific date that 12 you wanted that information brought back to you. So I 13 think you did your due diligence. 14 Second of all, I've read the letter that was sent 15 to you and, you know, it cites some great economic benefit 16 to the City of National City as the reason for bringing 17 this forward early. Nobody has identified what that 18 economic benefit is to National City. So there is no 19 economic urgency as it relates to this issue. 20 And the next thing they'll have you believe is 21 they want our children to have more options. And somehow 22 by you having an emergency meeting is going to give them, 23 you know, all the options they need. Well, our children 24 already have a lot of options. They have the Compact For 25 Success as an option. They have Southwestern College as Page 166 Page 168 1 District, 1130 5th Avenue, Chula Vista. 2 Members of the Commission, distinguished staff, 3 in all due respect to the previous speakers, I believe 4 that many of the statements made are incorrect. I'd be 5 happy to share those with you. 6 However, I think more importantly that the 7 purview of the commission is really to determine whether 8 or not the staff of the Sweetwater District in meeting 9 with the staff of National City met its obligations. It's 10 my understanding that, in fact, we did. We did show that 11 there was ample classroom space without harming any 12 current adult school students. 13 We did show that there was adequate parking. 14 We did show that there was easy freeway and 15 trolley access for the facility use to maximize it. 16 There's been many myths that have been stated both at 17 the previous meeting and the current one. 18 The myth about Alliant International being a 19 for -profit. Not correct. It's a 501(c)(3) nonprofit 20 university. Some of the credits that the staff of the 21 Sweetwater District were giving Alliant was based on 22 tuition reduction for our students. 23 The idea that we're forcing students to go, no, 24 it's another situation. Families can make up their own 25 mind. ESQUIRE OLLT 800.211.DEPO (3376) EsquireSolutions. com NATIONAL CITY MEETING August 19, 2013 NATIONAL CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 169-172 Page 169 1 Dr. Corona and our team from Alliant do make a 2 very positive presentation. There does seem to be 3 interest. If there is interest, then students will have 4 that option. 5 That it's a prohibitive cost for students, not 6 accurate. If students fill out a FAFSA and if they are in 7 a situation, they can get much of the tuition given to 8 them through the grant process. 9 That we were going to displace a single adult 10 school student, not accurate. We aren't replacing anyone. 11 Heard the commission look at several concerns 12 about bringing green industry to your city. I worked in 13 Sweetwater High for five years. It's very evident to me 14 that Sweetwater and the City of National City have had a 15 long and storied history of working together. There's a 16 lot of students that for whatever reason don't feel like 17 they can be a part of the compact. See Southwestern as an 18 option. This is just another option for them. But 19 ultimately, it's the students' choice and the staffs 20 21 22 23 24 25 choice. The Sweetwater District board of trustees deliberated on all the things that the previous speakers met. Their role is to determine the curriculum and instruction. We believe the city's role is to determine whether or not that there is space to be provided. And we Page 171 1 plan, it would be very disruptive to move the students if 2 the determination of the commission was to move forward 3 with the allowable use of the adult school for the 4 university. And so that is the reasoning behind the 5 request. 6 And above and beyond, we do believe that students 7 should have options. Now, this is not to say that you are 8 going to tailor your student to be able to go to Alliant 9 University. I'm sure we all want our children to go to 10 Harvard University and probably the best schools that are 11 offered. But just as in high school, you have career 12 technical training. You have different internships in 13 different areas in different industries with different 14 options that are available for them while they're even in 15 school. The same would be to have options once they 16 graduate and to have different options of higher 17 education. 18 The other question I would just put before you 19 is, this commission did approve Concord University, 20 ITT Technical Institute, Southwestern College, California 21 College and why not Alliant University? So it would just 22 be an additional option before the students. 23 I would echo the comments by Dr. Brand in terms 24 of the responsibilities and the oversight of the Planning 25 Commission in terms of reviewing the applicant and looking 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Page 170 would respectfully request the opportunity to move that date up because it is a hardship in that if students are not allowed to go to the facility, then we'll have to make other arrangements and that could be a hardship for students. We'll find a way to do it, but we would rather not. Respectfully submitted. MADAM CHAIR: Thank you. SECRETARY: Jacqueline Reynoso. MADAM CHAIR: Name and address, please? MS. REYNOSO: Good evening, Commissioners. Jacqueline Reynoso, presidency over the National City Chamber of Commerce and also resident of National City. Business address 901 National City Boulevard. Home address, 2700 Jasmyne Street. I'm here to respond to -- to some of the statements but also just to clarify the position of the economic development committee of the National City Chamber of Commerce, who did issue the letter requesting that the date be moved up. The reason we did that was we didn't really have a clear statement from the commission as to why an arbitrary date of six weeks out was -- was proposed. And the immediacy to look at this issue before you earlier so that the students can transition into the scheduled start date of August 26 with sufficient time to Page 172 1 at the facility use and whether that's being used 2 appropriately through the conditional use permit. And it 3 is a conditional use permit, so there is always the 4 opportunity to pull the permit if the tenant is not 5 fulfilling their obligations. 6 And that's pretty much it, so I'm here to answer 7 any questions you may have. 8 Thank you. 9 MADAM CHAIR: Thank you. 10 Any other speakers? 11 SECRETARY: No other speakers. 12 MADAM CHAIR: Okay. Please come up. 13 Okay. Name and address? And you have three 14 minutes. 15 MS. CORONA: Good evening. 16 Guadalupe Corona, 3618 Oxy Street (phonetic), San 17 Diego, California 92105. 18 I was able to provide to the commissioners a 19 packet of the requested material that includes the 20 PowerPoint presentation that we present to high school 21 students and some of the myths that has been out there in 22 terms of being a nonprofit WOS accredited institution. 23 I also want to clarify that the six courses being 24 offered are freshman first -year courses. Those are not 25 the only courses we are offering. Those are the courses ESQUIRE 800.211.DEPO (3376) Esquire Solutions. com NATIONAL CITY MEETING NATIONAL CITY PLANNING COMMISSION ME August 19, 2013 ETING 173-176 Page 173 1 offered for the first semester for the cohort we have. 2 It's about 25 to 30 students. And we are honoring the 3 students. So -- and one of the challenges in this permit 4 being delayed is that the students are not going to be 5 transported to the main campus to ensure they have a good 6 transition for orientation and their first -year 7 experience. 8 So this is not about Alliant at this point. It's 9 about the students and their family having now to make 10 some other adjustments that we are working with them and 11 we are honoring them and making sure that they have a 12 great experience being part of their first university 13 experience. 14 The majority of students are first -generation 15 students. And I also want to clarify because I think part 16 of the selling point is that all the students have the 17 option to opt out even after they're admitted. My 18 philosophy is that they have to make a very important 19 decision with them and their parents involved. And it's 20 not until they talk to their financial aid advisor and 21 they review their packet that that's when they decide if 22 this is a good choice for them. 23 There's no signed contract upfront. There's no 24 selling point about meeting numbers. It's about, is this 25 a good choice for the family. And the family that -- we Page 175 1 Memorandum of Understanding was not given to the community 2 even though it existed. 3 About a month ago — about three or four weeks 4 ago, there was another Memo of Understanding that was also 5 signed. It was very publicly done. That Memo of 6 Understanding was not approved by the board. And I've 7 only missed one meeting throughout my four -- my — my 8 five years that I've been there. 9 I am -- also, Dr. Brand did say that it was — it 10 was deliberated amongst the board members. It was 11 actually told to us that Sweetwater University was going 12 to — Alliant was going to be part of Sweetwater 13 University. That was the extent. 14 Now, there's one thing that you need to know. I 15 have a lot of my parents that do attend National City 16 adult schools. The reason why classes are lowering in 17 enrollment is because the fees were raised about a month 18 ago from $15 a class, the parenting class, to $115. So 19 figure that out. Do you think our community is going 20 to — and I say "my community" because I've been here for 21 38 year. My community is going to pay from $15 to $115 22 for -- now all of a sudden the fees are increased. 23 So, you know, we want to do what's best. I -- 24 like I said before, I want my kids, I want my kindergarten 25 kids to go to Stanford, to go to Harvard, to go to every 1 have a bilingual counselor that explains the whole 2 process. If they feel it's a good choice for their son or 3 daughter, at that point they make a decision, "Yes, it's a 4 good choice." "No, it's not a good choice." 5 So there is no hard selling. There's no 6 contract. It isn't about numbers. It's about a choice 7 for our students in our community. 8 MADAM CHAIR: Okay. Thank you. 9 MS. CORONA: Thank you. 10 MADAM CHAIR: Anybody else in the audience wish 11 to speak? 12 Yes. Your name and address, please? 13 MS. LOPEZ: My name is Bertha Lopez. And I live 14 on 542 Galveston Way in Bonita, California. 15 I've been an educator here in National City for 16 the past 38 years, so this is actually my second home 17 because this was where I -- I teach. And I've taught for 18 38 years. 19 I just wanted to let you know the process that 20 this has taken place. Back in, I think, the month of 21 March or May, we were given -- the board was given a 22 memo — a Memorandum of Understanding which was later on 23 asked by the community and it was not given to them. It 24 was a Memorandum of Understanding between Sweetwater — 25 Sweetwater District and Alliant University. That Page 174 Page 176 1 university. And, you know, like, Dr. Corona says, "Why 2 not Alliant?" But why Alliant, you know? It's not the 3 memo. Is that where we're — where Sweetwater is in 4 the -- it's in the business of doing? We're in the 5 business of educating kids 7 through 12 and adult. And 6 that adult school was basically made -- it -- it was there 7 for adult school. 8 So my time is running out, but thank you for 9 listening to me. We just came out of another board 10 meeting, so I -- I rushed here as fast as I can. 11 So thank you very much for listening. 12 MADAM CHAIR: Thank you. 13 Are there any other speakers? 14 Okay. Commissioner DeLaPaz. There were no other 15 speakers. 16 COMMISSIONER DELAPAZ: (Inaudible). 17 MADAM CHAIR: Oh, I'm sorry. 18 Commissioner Garcia? 19 COMMISSIONER GARCIA: Ah, yes -- I think this 20 question — well, first I'd like to acknowledge all the 21 points that were brought up. I think all of them are 22 really valid. 23 And I think I had a question or clarification for 24 Dr. Brand on this MOU that's been discussed so thoroughly, 25 specifically Item No. 4, which is — ESQUIRE 800.211.DEPO (3376) EsquireSolutions. com NATIONAL CITY MEETING August 19, 2013 NATIONAL CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 177-180 Page 177 1 MADAM CHAIR: Excuse me, before you continue 2 Ms. Silva wants to make a comment. 3 MS. SILVA: Commissioner. Thank you, Madam 4 Chairman. 5 The scope of the discussion for tonight is very 6 limited. It is merely those letters that were requesting 7 underlying action. The underlying actions and the 8 underlying facts regarding those actions are not before 9 nor on the agenda. It really is limited to what was the 10 request by the two — by the Sweetwater Union High School 11 District's letter and the Chambers letter asking to call 12 a special meeting regarding Alliant University and 13 continued public hearing. The actual underlying merits or 14 items of those actions are not before you for discussion. 15 COMMISSIONER GARCIA: But I thought this MOU was 16 provided to us by Mr. Reed. 17 MS. SILVA: No. The items that were passed out 18 on the dais were provided by public speakers who can -- do 19 present information, but that doesn't necessarily make it 20 within the scope of the discussion. 21 MADAM CHAIR: The scope of the discussion is 22 whether or not to -- to change our meeting date from 23 September 16th to an earlier date. 24 MS. SILVA: Yeah. 25 MADAM CHAIR: Okay. Just to be clear. Page 179 1 there is a lot of underlying discussion that may be done 2 at the public hearing, this is not the public hearing. So 3 the scope of discussion is limited. It's very easy to 4 fall into the underlying discussion of the underlying 5 actions that are part of a public hearing process. But I 6 just wanted to be clear that in the discussion by this 7 Commission, it is limited to just that request as the 8 commissioner referenced the actual dates of the public 9 hearing. 10 MADAM CHAIR: Okay. Commissioner Bush. 11 COMMISSIONER BUSH: Yeah, for full public 12 disclosure, I just want to state for the record that I am 13 a member of the National City Chamber of Commerce board of 14 directors whose economic development committee did make 15 this recommendation to send the letter. 16 I was present at the meeting. I abstained from 17 the vote in order to stay — remain unbiased. And just to 18 add to that for the perception of bias or unbiased, again, 19 in my position, I'm not paid as a — as a member of the 20 board of directors. I am paid on this -- on this board. 21 1'11 — I'll tell you personally that I have met 22 with Jacqueline Reynoso, the CEO of the Chamber last 23 Friday. She made no appeals to specific -- or no push, no 24 personal persuasion or anything to -- to vote one way or 25 another. If she did, I would abstain and I would feel I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Okay. Commissioner Baca? Page 178 COMMISSIONER BACA: Yeah. I agree that we should stick to the original date that we have proposed on that letterhead. I think there's a lot of clarifications that need to be made here, questions that I would have as far as whether residents that live in this city that are low income -- I mean, they meant to say that there's also San Diego State, which has the OPS program that students can get into there as well. If it is a for -profit agency, why not relocate along with ITT and the rest of those colleges in there? I'm sure they have ample parking and ample building there as well. But I think when the adult school was set up, it was for the purpose of what's specifically designed and a lot of us have to do for that school when we were in education to make sure that that's what the intent of that adult school was. So that is my personal opinion that I would not vote in favor of changing the date. I would stick with what we have (inaudible). MADAM CHAIR: Thank you. COMMISSIONER BACA: And submitted to City Council as well. MADAM CHAIR: Attorney Silva? MS. SILVA: Sorry for, once again, pushing my button, but I just want to remind the Commission, while Page 180 1 would have to recuse myself because I would feel that 2 pressure. So I just want to say that I did not feel 3 pressure from Jacqueline Reynoso, the CEO, nor any of the 4 board members to vote one way or another, so I feel that I 5 can make an unbiased opinion. 6 My question would be, as far as the scope goes of 7 this particular item, is it appropriate to ask when were 8 the flyers and advertisements of Alliant International 9 University, when were they dispersed because I feel like 10 that's an appropriate question in terms of granting them a 11 special consideration or not. Because if they -- I guess 12 what kind of troubles me is that it seems like these 13 pamphlets and flyers were already distributed, but then I 14 don't understand why the public hearing was so late, why 15 the rush to judgment. That would be my question is 16 whether that's an appropriate question to ask. Hopefully, 17 that made sense. 18 MS. SILVA: The — that question as to when the 19 flyers were produced, when flyers may have been 20 distributed or any commitments -- and I don't have a copy 21 of the flyers, so I'm trying to venture what flyers you 22 are referencing. Those would be appropriate for the 23 public hearing process and during the public hearing. If 24 they don't bear on this discussion of the request to call 25 a special meeting then it would -- that would -- I would ESQUIRE 800.211.DEPO (3376) EsquireSolutions. com NATIONAL CITY MEETING August 19, 2013 NATIONAL CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 181-184 Page 181 1 say the discussion of any flyers and such that relate to 2 when Alliant may or may not have planned on coming into 3 existence at the location would be relevant for the public 4 hearing discussion. But it's not within the scope of this 5 item. 6 COMMISSIONER BUSH: Okay. Because -- the point 7 that I'm trying to make is that I do personally feel like 8 it's legitimate, whether any business or organization, if 9 they have a specific deadline, I think -- I think it is 10 appropriate to request that we -- to expedite that as long 11 as they did their due diligence in the process. And 12 that's what I'm trying to determine, is if they made their 13 full due diligence in the process. That's where -- that's 14 where I would -- what I would ask. 15 MADAM CHAIR: Okay. Commissioner DeLaPaz? 16 COMMISSIONER DELAPAZ: Thank you. 17 A couple of items. One in response to the 18 comment immediately is that I don't know if some of this 19 material that we see before us would change my mind as far 20 as them doing due diligence, honestly. 21 Me -- but I think Ms. Silva has already addressed 22 that being a valid question or not. As far as the date, 23 when we had the public hearing the first time, we 24 determined that there were so many questions that were 25 unanswered that we wanted to continue the discussion. Page 183 1 they want to accelerate as far as getting the school year 2 off to a start at this point. But I'm — I'm a little bit 3 torn because really when we see -- and what I've discussed 4 before with the city attorney and other staff resources 5 in -- in prior -- many, many years ago, actually, is that 6 a lot of times, if we see somebody come up in our 7 public -- in our open hearing at the beginning of the 8 meetings and we have -- you know, if you just have any 9 general public comments, we can vote on whether we add 10 that to the agenda right then and there or otherwise take 11 something out of turn or in -- in advance of due process. 12 And that's usually reserved for -- examples that were 13 given to me were when there's an emergency, when there's, 14 you know, some kind of natural disaster of some sort, we 15 have got to set up an emergency shelter and we need to 16 violate some codes or some issues in order to have that 17 set up. And it's -- and it's -- and it's an imminent, 18 very urgent and emergency situation. 19 I don't know if one university school year 20 calendar really qualifies. I -- I just have trouble 21 and — with all due respect, I have trouble making that 22 determination tonight. I am happy to see the 23 superintendent here and the other interested parties 24 present. In fact, we were hoping to see some of the 25 additional interested parties at the last hearing. That's Page 182 1 There were several reasons cited and read into the record. 2 And obviously, the interested parties have every access to 3 that. I validated myself that the actual recording was 4 online. And so it would appear that -- that the 5 superintendent has been made aware of it or 6 has — has -- if not heard it, has been made aware of some 7 of the issues because we heard some of the summary in 8 response to it. 9 When we looked at the available dates to continue 10 it, we felt that — or at least I felt when and -- and 11 suggesting the date that the next soonest meeting, meaning 12 tonight, would be too soon to have some of these questions 13 answered, some of the research that we were hoping to have 14 done in the meantime or people present that we would love 15 to hear from, it would be a little bit aggressive to 16 address that, too. The Labor Day holiday meant that we 17 are not having a meeting in the first Monday of September. 18 And the next soonest meeting was September 16th. So 19 this — these are the reasons why. I don't know if it's 20 appropriate to regurgitate some of the reasons or items 21 that were — you know, questions that were out there that 22 need to be addressed. And we can discuss further how 23 each -- how we feel about the issues that are out there 24 when the discussion continues as a public hearing. 25 But as far as the dates, we heard briefly why Page 184 1 one of the reasons why we continued it. And I would like 2 to see that continued as — as noticed and as discussed in 3 public. 4 That's my position. 5 MADAM CHAIR: Thank you. 6 Commissioner Garcia? 7 COMMISSIONER DELAPAZ: Was that appropriate? Did 8 I do okay? 9 COMMISSIONER GARCIA: Yeah, I'd like to just echo 10 the words of Commissioner DeLaPaz. And I would like to 11 make a motion to dismiss Item No. 9, that we do not call a 12 special meeting regarding Alliant University and stick to 13 the original plan so that we continue to review this 14 information that's been coming in. 15 COMMISSIONER BACA: I would second that motion, 16 assuming that the city attorney thinks its the right 17 course on that. 18 MS. SILVA: I want to make sure I understand the 19 motion. Motion to not call a special meeting? 20 COMMISSIONER BACA: Yes. 21 MS. SILVA: Okay. That is within the scope of 22 this discussion, so thank you. 23 MADAM CHAIR: And Commissioner DeLaPaz wants to 24 add a comment. 25 COMMISSIONER DELAPAZ: Can I add one ESQUIRE 800.211.DEPO (3376) EsquireSolutions. com NATIONAL CITY MEETING August 19, 2013 NATIONAL CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 185-188 Page 185 1 comment under discussion? One other thing that we 2 considered is unfortunately the -- not all interested 3 parties -- interested parties were there that night to 4 help us in deciding that date, but the applicant was. And 5 they did not state any opposition to that date. 6 MADAM CHAIR: Commissioner Alvarado? 7 COMMISSIONER ALVARADO: The same thing as 8 Commissioner DeLaPaz. And I know we're just voting on the 9 date, to change it. But can we make the request for 10 other -- other people to be here at that hearing? 11 MADAM CHAIR: Such as? 12 COMMISSIONER ALVARADO: I'm thinking about MTS 13 regarding their parking lot, whether they can take more 14 cars. I know it is very busy there. I use that parking 15 lot often. And also Southwestem College, whether this 16 does affect their enrollment. 17 MS. SILVA: During the public hearing process, 18 those would be fair requests to make. I believe the issue 19 of MTS, at least, came up or some references to MTS came 20 up at the last public hearing. Thus, I would expect at 21 those. But at this meeting, it wouldn't be appropriate to 22 inquire as to certain specific areas of evidence you'd 23 like explored. 24 COMMISSIONER ALVARADO: Thank you. 25 MADAM CHAIR: Commissioner Bush? Page 187 1 facilities. We were meeting with city assigned staff on 2 the project. To the best of our knowledge, there was no 3 indication that there was going to be a delay or a 4 potential delay. We understood that the time frame that 5 we needed to follow would work very, very closely with the 6 city's Planning Commission date, which was originally 7 scheduled for, I believe, August 9th and then the City 8 Council date, which would be, I believe, tomorrow. 9 As a result of the decision on the last Planning 10 Commission date, that caused us to ask for the special 11 meeting based on the fact that we had no indication prior 12 to that, that there was going to be any objections or the 13 type of objections. We were led to believe by the city 14 staff that we had made all the necessary facility -- 15 answered all the facility questions that the city had 16 asked and met their criteria. 17 Respectfully submitted. 18 MADAM CHAIR: Okay. Any further discussion among 19 the commissioners? 20 MS. SILVA: Is there a motion? 21 MADAM CHAIR: Yeah, there's a motion, and it has 22 been seconded. So if there's no further discussion, 23 please vote. 24 SECRETARY: Motion carried by the following vote: 25 DeLaPaz, Bush, Alvarado, Flores, Baca, Garcia, Page 186 1 COMMISSIONER BUSH: Yeah, I just want to say, 2 again, I do think it is appropriate to schedule a special 3 meeting if the applicant did their due diligence. So am I 4 allowed to call up, you know, the applicant to — to 5 address that issue about the flyers? I think that's the 6 determination for my vote, if they did their due diligence 7 beforehand in order to qualify and, you know, a special 8 meeting. And if not, then my vote would -- yeah, my vote 9 would be "no." 10 MS. SILVA: To the extent you are looking how 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 to -- if it affects your discussion of the particular question, it's narrowly tailored to that and it is not getting into the underlying merits, then it's an appropriate line of inquiry as to how it bears on this discussion item. MADAM CHAIR: So he can proceed with his question? MS. SILVA: Sorry. Yes. MADAM CHAIR: Okay. Thank you. COMMISSIONER BUSH: So if Dr. Brand can address why -- why the rush, essentially. DR. BRAND: Members of the Commission, ladies and gentlemen, about three months ago, we approached, I believe, City Manager Dietz about the process. Our person, Tom Calhoon, is the executor director of 1 aye. 2 Pruitt absent, to not call a special meeting. 3 MADAM CHAIR: Okay. Thank you. I know it's 4 late. And I thank you everybody for coming and sharing 5 your opinion. 6 Now we go to the deputy city attorney. Do you 7 have a report? 8 DEPUTY CITY ATTORNEY: It's a pleasure being with 9 you this evening and working through all the items with 10 you all, and thank you for indulging my information as it 11 came along. 12 MADAM CHAIR: Okay. Thank you. 13 Executive Director Olson. 14 EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OLSON: No report. 15 MADAM CHAIR: Mr. Reeder? 16 MR. REEDER: No report, other than to say I won't 17 be here at the next meeting. So I will see you in 18 October. But other staff will be covering for me, and 19 you'll probably still see my handiwork -- 20 MADAM CHAIR: Okay. 21 MR. REEDER: -- as far as your reports. 22 MADAM CHAIR: Thank you. 23 MR. REEDER: Thanks. 24 MADAM CHAIR: Commissioner Garcia. 25 COMMISSIONER GARCIA: I would like to commend Page 188 ESQUIRE 800.211.DEPO (3376) EsquireSolutions. com NATIONAL CITY MEETING NATIONAL CITY PLANNING COMMISSION ME ETING August 19, 2013 189-192 Page 189 1 Mr. Reeder for all the awesome work that he's doing. He 2 obviously, was -- you know, there was a lot of great 3 comments that were made by him. So, yeah, all power to 4 you (inaudible). 5 MR. REEDER: Much obliged, Commissioner. Thank 6 you. 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MADAM CHAIR: Commissioner Baca. COMMISSIONER BACA: Yes, a little follow-up on Butterfield Park -- • MADAM CHAIR: Commissioner Baca, I'm sorry, can you speak into the mic, please? COMMISSIONER BACA: Yeah. I just want to report that there's some couches at the north far end that were thrown down near the fence. There's also car seats, and there has been some graffiti put on some of the mosaic or whatever it is called there on the side. So it -- it looks like they're getting there, and quite a bit of bottles and things that are transpiring a little bit further down, dead branches and things like that. So the gentleman that -- that works there, he's the one that informed me that, you know, he could probably get a little bit of a help over there in getting the city to either remove some brushes and all this stuff. He's, like, about 70-something years old. And I guess he works there a few hours, and he's limited. Page 191 1 comment, just one quick comment to Commissioner Garcia. I 2 know you like -- you talk about green a lot. I just want 3 you to know that I've had solar -- solar power at my home 4 for seven years. And we're adding more panels next month, 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 so just so you know. And with that, we're adjourned until September 16th. (Reporter's transcript of proceedings concluded.) T f R 1 But anyway, If we could get somebody out there 190 2 to, you know, maybe look at it and take care of it, 3 then -- it's coming along. But I think there's still a 4 little bit more to be done in that particular area there. 5 So, you know, its already been required — I told him I 6 would report it to -- in the Planning Commission and maybe 7 have the city follow up on that. Okay? 8 MR. REEDER: We will follow up. Thank you. 9 MADAM CHAIR: Commissioner DeLaPaz? 10 COMMISSIONER DELAPAZ: No report. 11 MADAM CHAIR: Commissioner Busch? 12 COMMISSIONER BUSH: No, I just want to comment to 13 my fellow commissioners and the staff. Martin, you've 14 done a great job in the last few weeks just doing all the 15 research and providing us all the information. I do 16 appreciate that. And I just want to say that even though 17 we're here till 10:30 and it's really, really exhausting, 18 I actually do really appreciate hearing everyone's 19 comments. And even though we may not agree on everything, 20 it's -- it's just really insightful. And it just — I'm 21 learning so much just being here serving with you guys so 22 I just want to say it's a pleasure serving with you all. 23 MADAM CHAIR: Commissioner Alvarado? 24 COMMISSIONER ALVARADO: No report. 25 MADAM CHAIR: Okay. Oh, and I just have a 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Page 192 REPORTER'S CERTIFICATION I, Denise T. Johnson, Certified Shorthand Reporter, in and for the State of California, do hereby certify: That the foregoing proceedings were reported stenographically by me and later transcribed into typewriting under my direction; that the foregoing is a true record of the proceedings taken at that time. In witness whereof, I have subscribed my name this 23rd of September, 2013. llQrrm- -7•1,4A✓ Denise T. Johnson, CSR No. 11902 ESQUIRE 800.211.DEPO (3376) EsquireSolutions. com CITY OF NATIONAL CITY, CALIFORNIA COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT MEETING DATE: November 5, 2013 AGENDA ITEM NO. 16 ITEM TITLE: Temporary Use Permit —Promotion of Certified Pre -Owned Vehicles with outdoor tent and inflatable attachment sponsored by Frank Motors at 2829 National City Boulevard from November 6, 2013 to November 6, 2014 from 8 a.m. to 9 p.m. with no waiver of fees. PREPARED BY: Vianey Rivera PHONE: {619) 336-4364 EXPLANATION: DEPARTMENT: Neig APPROVED BY: • 'Ai d Services Division This is a request from Frank Motors and Promotional Design Group to conduct the Promotion of Certified Pre -Owned Vehicles and have an outdoor tent with inflatable attachment at 2829 National City Boulevard from November 6, 2013 thru November 6, 2014 at 8 a.m. to 9 p.m. Setup for this event will commence on November 6, 2013 at 9 p.m. and dismantling on November 6, 2014 by 9 p.m. Applicant will install a 20' x 40' canopy tent with a 20' inflatable attached to the top portion of the tent reading "Monster Sale" with an attached exterior light system to the tent's frame. The purpose of the tent is to attract customers and sell vehicles to the general public. FINANCIAL STATEMENT: ACCOUNT NO. APPROVED: APPROVED: Finance MIS The City has incurred $237.00 for processing the TUP through various City departments, $400.00 for Fire Department fees. Total fees are $637.00 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: N/A) ORDINANCE: INTRODUCTION: FINAL ADOPTION: STAFF RECOMMENDATION: 'Approve the application for a Temporary Use Permit subject to compliance with all conditions of approval for 3 to 6 months only and with no waiver of fees. Staff does not recommend a one year approval period. BOARD / COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: N/A ATTACHMENTS: Application for a Temporary Use Permit with recommended approvals and conditions of approval. Type of Event: Public Concert Parade Motion Picture Fair Demonstration _ Grand Opening Festival Circus Commur Block Pa Event Title: Promotion of Certified Pre -Owned Vehicles. Event Location: Frank Motors Group, 2829 National City Blvd., National City, CA 91950 Event Date(s): From: 11/06/13 to 11/06/14 Actual Event Hours: 8:00 am to 9:00 pm Total Anticipated Attendance: 100 daily basis (N/A Participants N/A Spectators) Setup/assembly/construction Date: 11/06/13 Start time: 9:00 am Please describe the scope of your setup/assembly work (specific details): Installation of 20' x 40' Canopy Tent with 20' Inflatable attached to the top portion of the tent. Dismantle Date: 11/06/14 Completion Time: 9:00 am List any street(s) requiring closure as a result of this event. Include street name(s), day and time of closing and day and time of reopening. N/A Sponsoring Organization: Promotional Design Group Chief Officer of Organization (Name) Adam Melendez Applicant (Name): Ernie Maldonado Address: 2002 Salto Drive, Hacienda Heights, CA 91745 Daytime Phone: (626) 602-6950 Evening Phone: (J Fax: (626) 579-5561 E-Mail: erneApromotionaldesisnzroup.com Contact Person "on site" day of the event: Michael Wilkes Cellular: (619) 247-6272 NOTE: THIS PERSON MUST BE IN ATTENDANCE FOR THE DURATION OF THE EVENT AND IMMEDIATELY AVAILABLE TO CITY OFFICIALS f.a.:....tsr.'r a� p.rx jff is rp Is your organization a "Tax Exempt, nonprofit" organization? Are admission, entry, vendor or participant fees required? If YES, please explain the purpose and provide amount(s): YES XNO YES X NO $ N/A Estimated Gross Receipts including ticket, product and sponsorship sales from this event. $ N/A Estimated Expenses for this event. $ N/A What is the projected amount of revenue that the Nonprofit Organization will receive as a result of this event? Please provide a DETAILED DESCRIPTION of your event. Include details regarding any components of your event such as the use of vehicles, animals, rides or any other pertinent information about the event. Selling vehicles to the general public. X YES _ NO If the event involves the sale of cars, will the cars come exclusively from National City car dealers? if NO, list any additional dealers involved in the sale: YES X NO Does the event involve the sale or use of alcoholic beverages? _ YES X NO Will items or services be sold at the event? If yes, please describe: _ YES X NO . Does the event involve a moving route of any, kind along streets, sidewalks or highways? If YES, attach a detailed map of your proposed route indicate the direction of travel, and provide a written narrative to explain your route. _ YES _ NO Does the event involve a fixed venue site? If YES, attach a detailed site map showing all streets impacted by the event. X YES _ NO Does the event involve the use of tents or canopies? If YES: Number of tent/canopies 1-Tent with 1- Inflatable Sizes 20' x 40' Tent with 20' Inflatable NOTE: A separate Fire Department permit is required for tents or canopies. YES X NO Will the event involve the use of the CAL or your stage or PA system? SPECIFY: In addition to the route map required above, please attach a diagram showing the overall layout and set-up locations for the following items: Alcoholic and Nonalcoholic Concession and/or Beer Garden areas. Food Concession and/or Food Preparation areas Please describe how food will be served at the event: If you intend to cook food in the event area please specify the method: GAS ELECTRIC CHARCOAL OTHER (Specify): Portable and/or Permanent Toilet Facilities Number of portable toilets: _ (1 for every 250 people is required, unless the applicant can show that there are facilities in the immediate area available to the public during the event) Tables # and Chairs # Fencing, barriers and/or barricades Generator locations and/or source of electricity Canopies or tent locations (include tent/canopy dimensions) Booths, exhibits, displays or enclosures Scaffolding, bleachers, platforms, stages, grandstands or related structures Vehicles and/or trailers Other related event components not covered above Trash containers and dumpsters (Note: You must properly dispose of waste and garbage throughout the term of your event and immediately upon conclusion of the event the area must be returned to a clean condition.) Number of trash cans: Trash containers with lids: Describe your plan for clean-up and removal of waste and garbage during and after the event: Please describe your procedures for both Crowd Control and Internal Security: N/A _ YES X NO Have you hired any Professional Security organization to handle security arrangements for this event? If YES, please list: Security Organization: Security Organization Address: Security Director (Name): Phone: _ YES _ NO Is this a night event? If YES, please state how the event and surrounding area will be illuminated to ensure safety of the participants and spectators: N/A Please indicate what arrangement you have made for providing First Aid Staffing and Equipment. N/A Please describe your Accessibility Plan for access at your event by individuals with disabilities: N/A Please provide a detailed description of your PARKING plan: Vehicles can park on the streets, in addition, parking area at location. Please describe your plan for DISABLED PARKING: Location has reserved parking for the disabled. Please describe your plans to notify all residents, businesses and churches impacted by the event: N/A NOTE: Neighborhood residents must be notified 72 hours in advance when events are scheduled in the City parks. YES X NO Are there any musical entertainment features related to your event? If YES, please state the number of stages, number of bands and type of music. Number of Stages: Number of Bands: Type of Music: _ YES X NO Will sound amplification be used? If YES, please indicate: Start time: am/pm Finish Time am/pm YES X NO Will sound checks be conducted prior to the event? If YES, please indicate: Start time: amlpm Finish Time am/pm Please describe the sound equipment that will be used for your event: N/A _ YES X NO Fireworks, rockets, or other pyrotechnics? If YES, please describe: X YES _ NO Any signs, banners, decorations, special lighting? If YES, please describe: Attaching exterior light system to the tent frame. Revised 02/29/12 City of National City PUBLIC PROPERTY USE HOLD HARMLESS AND INDEMNIFICATION AGREEMENT Persons requesting use of City property, facilities or personnel are required to provide a minimum of $1,000,000 combined single limit insurance for bodily injury and property damage which includes the City, its officials, agents and employees named as additional insured and to sign the Hold Harmless Agreement. Certificate of insurance must be attached to this permit. Organization: Frank Motors Person in Charge of Activity: Michael Wilkes Address: 2829 National City Blvd., National City, CA 91950 Telephone: (619) 247-6272 Date(s) of Use HOLD HARMLESS AGREEMENT As a condition of the issuance of a temporary use permit to conduct its activities on public or private property, the undersigned hereby agree(s) to defend, indemnify and hold harmless the City of National City and the Parking Authority and its officers, employees and agents from and against any and all claims, demands, costs, losses, liability or, for any personal injury, death or property damage, or both, or any litigation and other liability, including attomeys fees and the costs of litigation, arising out of or related to the use of public property or the activity taken under the permit by the permittee or its agents, employees or contractors. Signature of Applicant Official Title Date For Office Use Only Certificate of Insurance Approved Date O0/14/2U13/MON U3:3fj FM pr. tional design FAX No, bLbb/y "1 r, uul aa,�r„rp-',�z�u•x�+r.�:.:,x�c..u�r..xrYsgr�n:'w w��;�eeradvxaeeni:.oRL:rx-.rris cw,�:�;or�vs;��f� arn'sn•r••."•� 1 BUSINI�SS LICENSE CITY OF SOUTH EL MOINTE. Thepetsan. Arm or. corporation, parried below. Is granted this cartlfkate pursuant m the praNctons of th@G�ty BuslneseTSX Or111nanw to angaAa to dargr uli•ar cc," fne: bGsineas, trade, caring, protesaion, exhlbltion'or occupstion described below- issuance of Canifl a is not an endorsement, nor oartificahon of cohiptfance 17 other ordinances;' 4 or laws.• n6f art assurance that the proposed Use 15 in Conramance with tna otty mntng• relations : The certlfiratp is issuedw1U?*ut verifiristiOn that the tawpiiiint a subject:tq p.r exempt trdm Gcansin9 by the State of California.... . BUSINESS NAME: Promotional Design Concepts, Inc, 13USINES3 GLASSITYPE: 062 DESCRIPTION: MANUFACTURING REGISTRATION BUSINESS LOCATION: 9872 Rush St, South El Monte, CA 91733 BUSINESSOWNIR: Adam Melendez PROMOTIONAL PESIGN CQNCEPTS, 812:RUSFi pm, EL MONTE CA: 91733 Businerd Liberise Number: ,-007858' No. of Employees: Ef#ecttve. [Sate, March 04, 2013 Expitatton D ,';F lilBpt`: 8r Q9'd. City Manager'-: TO Bf~POStED IN. A.cDNSRICuOV& f'tAC6 �7rss:�sRte4�r4'rs}�1i1P-9ma..�r'�r7Es�,.,.��;:.."_.. Nat TRANSFERABLE CITY OF NATIONAL CITY NEIGHBORHOOD SERVICES DIVISION APPLICATION FOR A TEMPORARY USE PERMIT RECOMMENDATIONS AND CONDITIONS SPONSORING ORGANIZATION: EVENT: Promotion of Certified P DATE OF EVENT: November 6, TIME OF EVENT: 8:00 a.m. to 9 APPROVALS: DEVELOPMENT SERVICES RISK MANAGER PUBLIC WORKS FINANCE FIRE COMMUNITY SERVICES POLICE CITY ATTORNEY Frank Motors re -Owned Vehicles Inflatable 2013 through November 6, 2014 p.m. YES [ x ] NO [ ] SEE CONDITIONS [ x ] YES [ x ] NO [ ] SEE CONDITIONS [ x ] YES [ x ] NO [ ] SEE CONDITIONS [ x ] YES [ x ] NO [ ] SEE CONDITIONS [ x ] YES [ x ] NO [ ] SEE CONDITIONS [ x YES [ x ] NO [ ] SEE CONDITIONS [ x ] YES [ x ] NO [ ] SEE CONDITIONS [ x YES [ x ] NO [ ] SEE CONDITIONS [ x ] CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: DEVELOPMENT SERVICES (619) 336-4318 The Engineering Department and Building Department have no comments on this TUP. Planning Department: A one year TUP for a temporary sign is not within the spirit and intent of the sign or the TUP ordinance. Planning is of the opinion that a 3 to 6 month TUP would be more appropriate, with possibility of extensions per the prerogative of the City Council. RISK MANAGER (619) 336-4370 Provide Additional insured endorsement naming the City of National City as an additional named insured. All else looks fine. PUBLIC WORKS (619)366-4580 Public Works has no involvement in this event FINANCE The address has a business license under "Frank Subaru". No Stipulations FIRE (619) 336-4550 Stipulations required by the Fire Department for this event are as follows: 1) Access to all businesses to be maintained at all times Access to entrances and Fire Department connections for fire sprinkler systems, standpipes, etc 2) Fire Department access into and through all business areas are to be maintained at all times. Fire apparatus access roads shall have an unobstructed width of not less than 20 feet and an unobstructed vertical clearance of not less than 13 feet 6 inches 3) Fire Hydrants shall not be blocked or obstructed 4) Participants on foot are to move immediately to the sidewalk upon approach of emergency vehicle(s) 5) Vehicles in roadway are to move immediately to the right upon approach of emergency vehicle(s) 6) A permit from the Fire Department must be obtained. Cooking shall not be permitted under tents or canopies unless the tents or canopies meet "State Fire Marshal approval for cooking. Please see Fire Department for direction. Certificate of State Fire Marshal flame resistancy shall be provided to the National City Fire Department if applicable. Fees can only be waived by City Council Canopies: Tents: 0 — 400 sf - $0 401 — 500 sf - $250.00 501 — 600 sf - $300.00 601 — 700 sf - $400.00 0 —200 sf - $200.00 201 — (+) sf - $400.00 7) Internal combustion power sources that may be used for inflatable shall be of adequate capacity to permit uninterrupted operation during normal operating hours. 8) Internal combustion power sources shall be isolated from contact with the public by either physical guards, fencing or an enclosure. Internal combustion power shall be at least 20 feet away from the ride. 9) Any electrical power used is to be properly grounded and approved. Extension cords shall be used as "Temporary Wiring" Only COMMUNITY SERVICES No involvement. POLICE No comments. CITY ATTORNEY Requires an indemnification and hold harmless agreement, and a policy of general liability insurance, with the City and its officials, employees, agents and volunteers as additional insured's, with amounts of coverage to be determined by the Risk Manager. CITY OF NATIONAL CITY, CALIFORNIA COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT MEETING DATE: November 5, 2013 AGENDA ITEM NO. 17 ITEM TITLE: Temporary Use Permit —21st Annual Fiesta Filipiniana-Mexicana Karaoke hosted by the Seafood City Supermarket on November 9, 2013 from 10 a.m. to 10 p.m. at 1420 E. Plaza Blvd with no waiver of fees. PREPARED BY: Vianey Rivera PHONE: 1(619) 336-4364 EXPLANATION: DEPARTMENT: Neighb , o• s. ervices Division APPROVED BY: This is a request from the Seafood City Supermarket to conduct the 21st Annual Fiesta Filipiniana — Mexicana Karaoke Competition at 1420 E. Plaza Blvd on November 9, 2013. Set-up for the event begins on November 8, 2013 at 8 a.m. and the actual event runs from 10 a.m. to 10 p.m. on November 9th 2013. This yearly event will include a kid's corner, arts and crafts displays, dance exhibition and karaoke presentations. All entertainment will be on a stage supplied by the sponsor. FINANCIAL STATEMENT: APPROVED: ACCOUNT NO. ( APPROVED: The City has incurred $237.00 for processing the TUP, plus $200.00 for the Fire Permits, Total Fees are $437.00 pNVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: N/A ORDINANCE: INTRODUCTION: FINAL ADOPTION: Finance MIS STAFF RECOMMENDATION: "Approve the Application for a Temporary Use Permit subject to compliance with all conditions of approval with no wavier of fees. BOARD / COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: "N/,A ATTACHMENTS: 'Application for a Temporary Use Permit with recommended approvals and conditions of approval. Type of Event: _ Public Concert _ Fair _ Festival _ Community event _ Parade _ Demonstration — Circus — Block Party — Motion Picture _ Grand Opening _ Other Event Title: 2151 Annual Fiesta Filipiniana Mexicana Karaokee Competition Event Location: Seafood City 1420 E. Plaza Blvd. Event Date(s): From 11/9/13 to 11/9/13 Actual Event Hours: 10 am/pm to 10 am/pm Total Anticipated Attendance: 200+ ( 50 Participants 100+ Spectators) Setup/assembly/construction Date: 11/8 Start time: 8 a.m. Please describe the scope of your setup/assembly work (specific details): Entertainment stage will be set up 11/8/13 a day prior to the event. Sound system, tables, chairs, decorations will be done on 11/8/13. Dismantle Date: 11/11 Completion Time: 1 am/gym List any street(s) requiring closure as a result of this event. Include street name(s), day and time of closing and day and time of reopening. N/A Sponsoring Organization: Seafood City National City Market Chief Officer of Organization (Name) Fily Applicant (Name): Pedro Sanchez Address: 1420 E. Plaza Boulevard Daytime Phone: (619) 477-6080 Evening Phone: (619) 477-6080 Fax: (619) 477-1024 E-Mail: Contact Person "on site" day of the event: Susan DelosSantos_ Cellular: (619)755-0755 NOTE: THIS PERSON MUST BE IN ATTENDANCE FOR THE DURATION OF THE EVENT AND IMMEDIATELY AVAILABLE TO CITY OFFICIALS Is your organization a "Tax Exempt, nonprofit" organization? _ YES NO/ Are admission, entry, vendor or participant fees required? YES VNO If YES, please explain the purpose and provide amount(s): Estimated Gross Receipts including ticket, product and sponsorship sales from this event. $ Estimated Expenses for this event. $ What is the projected amount of revenue that the Nonprofit Organization will receive as a result of this event? Please provide a DETAILED DESCRIPTION of your event. Include details regarding any components of your event such as the use of vehicles, animals, rides or any other pertinent information about the event. G _ . a_J n, a-rt 174,E ter''-°- 'J 9 G'lMti^� t ,- C U 1 l _ YES _ NO If the event Ives the sale of cars, will the cars come exclusively from National City car dealers? If NO, list any additional dealers involved in the sale: — YES NO Does the event involve the sale or use of alcoholic beverages? _ YES _1/NO Will items or services be sold at the event? If yes, please describe: 1717, _ YES 0 Does the event involve a moving route of any kind along streets, sidewalks or highways? If YES, attach a detailed map of your proposed route indicate the direction of travel, and provide a written narrative to explain your route. YES 1 NO Does the event involve a fixed venue site? If YES, attach a detailed site map showing all streets impacted by the event. !'_"' S ? NO Does the event involve the use of tent or canopies? If YES: Number of E Xtent/canopies ,� - . Sizes GO (D NOTE: A separate Fire Department permit is required for tents or canopies. _ YES ✓NO Will the event involve the use of the City or your stage or PA system? SPECIFY: In addition to the route map required above, please attach a diagram showing the overall layout and set-up locations for the following items: Alcoholic and Nonalcoholic Concession and/or Beer Garden areas. Food Concession and/or Food Preparation areas Please describe how food will be served at the event: If you intend to cook food in the event area please specify the method: GAS ELECTRIC CHARCOAL OTHER (Specify): n Portable and/or Permanent Toilet Facilities Number of portable toilets: (1 for every 250 people is required, unless the applicant can w that there are facilities in the immediate area available to the public during the event) Tables # 4 and Chairs # J� Fencing, barriers and/or barricades enerator locations and/or source of electricity Canopies or tent locations (include tent/canopy dimensions) Booths, exhibits, displays or enclosures Scaffolding, bleachers, platforms, stages, grandstands or related structures Vehicles and/or trailers Other related event components not covered above Trash containers and dumpsters (Note: You must properly dispose of waste and garbage throughout the term of your event and immediately upon conclusion of the event the area must be returned to a clean condition.) Number of trash cans: / -'2' Trash containers with lids: Describe your.plan for clearlgtp and removal of waste and arbage during and after the event: -wit 444.1,e9ta»—C(- 747 ot- 1e4A4 - C Please describe your procedures for,both Crowd Control aad Internal Security: - *4- 0 j ram" i I/ YES _ VO Have you hired any Professional Security organization to handle security arrangements for this event? If YES, please list: Security Organization:^A2Cai Security Organization Address: 640 71`",-' C7' /"'' 4 # gib 9 Security Director (Name): tirk Phone: ‘ / 6 YES NO Is this a night event? If YES, please state how the event and surrounding area will be illuminated o ensure safety of the participants^ n � and Please indicate what arrangement you hav/� a mafde for prow ding First Aid Staffing and Equipment. Ateu Please describe your Accessibility Plan for access at your event by individuals with disabilities: Please provide a�pp� detailed desc^ iption urPRKKINNGG plan: Please describe your plan for DISABLED PARKING: GALA — Please describe your plans to notify all residents, businesses and churches impacted by the '—t event: .ts NOTE: Neighborhood residents must be notified 72 ho sin advanc4 when events are scheduled in the City parks. YES _ NO Are there any musical entertainment features related to your event? If YES, please state the number of stages, number of bands and type of music. Number of Stages: ( Number of Bands: I i U0 17-4.1,L.r.t, VYES NO Will sound amplification be used? If YES, please indicate: Start time: 'b Type of Music: /0 m Finish Time am ES NO Will sound checks be conducted prior to the event? If YES, please indicate: Start time: r O amlpm Finish Time trO am Please describe the sound equipment that will be used for your event: _ YES ENO Fireworks, rockets, or other pyrotechnics? If YES, please describe: (kr YES _ NO Any signs, banners, decorations, special lighting? If YES, please describe: fir 7 14A,4, t 1441-5 -h Revised 02/29/12 City of National City PUBLIC PROPERTY USE. HOLD HARMLESS AND INDEMNIFICATION AGREEMENT Persons requesting use of City property, facilities or personnel are required to provide a minimum of $1,000,000 combined single limit insurance for bodily injury and property damage which includes the City, its officials, agents and employees named as additional insured and to sign the Hold Harmless Agreement. Certificate of insurance must be attached to this permit. ‘iirP1 -/1" CA Person in Charge of Activity !�`'L'i GtCQt) 46ti% Address )icao E . (7/ `71 C CA `'/ j'j'u Telephon( () J✓e'3�' O Date(s) of Use Organization HOLD HARMLESS AGREEMENT As a condition of the issuance of a temporary use permit to conduct its activities on public or private property, the undersigned hereby agree(s) to defend, indemnify and hold harmless the City of National City and the Parking Authority and its officers, employees and agents from and against any and all claims, demands, costs, losses, liability or, for any personal injury, death or property damage, or both, or any litigation and other liability, including attorneys fees and the costs of litigation, arising out of or related to the use of public property or the activity taken under the permit by the permittee or its agents, employees or contractors. Signature of Applicant Official Title Date /44.4X AVISIA-. toplu For Office Use Only Certificate of Insurance Approved Date A 3 D CERTIFICATE OF LIABILITY INSURANCE 1oi3I oDi3 ) THIS CERTIFICATE IS ISSUED AS A MATTER OF INFORMATION ONLY AND CONFERS NO RIGHTS UPON THE CERTIFICATE HOLDER. THIS CERTIFICATE DOES NOT AFFIRMATIVELY OR NEGATIVELY AMEND, EXTEND OR ALTER THE COVERAGE AFFORDED BY THE POLICIES BELOW. THIS CERTIFICATE OF INSURANCE DOES NOT CONSTITUTE A CONTRACT BETWEEN THE ISSUING INSURERS), AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE OR PRODUCER, AND THE CERTIFICATE HOLDER. IMPORTANT: ff the certificate holder is an ADDITIONAL INSURED, the policy(ies) must be endorsed. If SUBROGATION IS WAIVED, subject to the terms and conditions of the policy, certain policies may require an endorsement. A statement on this certificate does not confer rights to the certificate holder in lieu of such endorsement(s). PRODUCER Michael Ehrenfeld Company 2655 Camino Del Rio North #2 00 San Diego CA 92108 AME Jim Eggert are- fa No. F»L• (619) 683-9990 OVC. NoI: (619) 683-9999 ADo:jeggerteehrenfeldinsurance.com INSURER(S) AFFORDING COVERAGE NAIC 9 INsuRERAArgonaut Great Central Ins Co name' a :Springfield Insurance Company INSURED Fortune Management INSURER0: Fortune Commercial Corp. SFC Markets Incorporated 2883 Surveyor Street Pomona CA 91768-3251 INSURER D: INSURERE: INSURER F: 13-14 GL/BA/WC/ REVISION NUMBER: THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT THE POUCIES OF INSURANCE LISTED BELOW HAVE BEEN ISSUED TO THE INSURED NAMED ABOVE FOR THE POLICY PERIOD INDICATED. NOTWITHSTANDING ANY REQUIREMENT, TERM OR CONDITION OF ANY CONTRACT OR OTHER DOCUMENT WITH RESPECT TO WHICH THIS CERTIFICATE MAY BE ISSUED OR MAY PERTAIN, THE INSURANCE AFFORDED BY THE POUCIES DESCRIBED HEREIN IS SUBJECT TO ALL THE TERMS, EXCLUSIONS AND CONDITIONS OF SUCH POLICIES. LIMITS SHOWN MAY HAVE BEEN REDUCED BY PAID CLAIMS INSR LTR TYPE OF INSURANCE ADOL MR SUBR WVD POLICY NUMBER POLICY EFF fMMIDD/YYYYI POLICY EXP tMNUDDTYYYY) LD$ITS A GENERAL X IJAEILITY COMMERCWL GENERAL LIABILITY X SIR915148608 6/3/2013 6/3/2014 EACH OCCURRENCE $ 1,000,000 GE 10 REARED PREMISES(E occurrence) $ 300,000 ony o 0) $ Excluded I CLAIMS -MADE a OCCUR PERSONAL 8ADV INJURY $ 1,000,000 X SIR $25,000 GENERAL AGGREGATE $ 5,000,000 PRODUCTS- COMPIOP AGG $ 2,000,000 GENT. AGGREGATE GE x 1 POLICY LIMIT APPLIES PER: I tf a [1 LOC Liquor Liability $ 1,000,000 A AUTOMOBILE X X LIABILITY ANY AUTO AiLTOS OWNED ANON-OWJED HIRED Aims = X SSCCHEEDDULED AUTOS BA915148608 6/3/2013 6/3/2014 COMBINED (Ea accident) SINGLE LIMIT $ 1.000.000 $ BODILY INJURY (Per person) BODILY INJURY (Per accident) $ PROPERTY DAMAGE (Par accident) $ SPEC $ A X UMBRELLA LIAB MESS LIAB OCCUR CLAMSMADE 0M5915148608 6/3/2013 6/3/2014 EACH OCCURRENCE $ 10,000,000 AGGREGATE $ 10,000,000 DED X RETENTION$ 10,000 p,cd, lCanpAuo $ 10,000,000 B WORKERS COMPENSATION AND EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY Y/ N N/A NCD00173310 12/1/2012 12/1/2013 X TORY LIMITS ER EL EACH ACCIDENT $ 1,000,000 ANY PROPRIETOR/PARTNER/EXECUTIVE H)GYrr rlDCfi9 (hlaMabry M NH) {Mandatory Its describe under DESCRIPTION OF OPERATIONS belux EL DISFASP. EA EMPLOYEE$ 1,000,000 E.L DISEASE - POLICY LIMIT $ 1,000,000 A WA Stop Gap 81R9151413608 6/3/2013 6/3/2014 DESCRIPTION OF OPERATIONS / LOCATIONS / VEHICLES (Attach ACORD 101, Additional Renarks Schedule, a more space Is required) Certificate Holder is named as Additional Insured as required by written contract, as respects to Comm'1 General Liability, but limited to the operations of the Insured under said contract, and always subject to the policy terms and conditions. Re: Fiesta Filipina Mexican, November 2, 2013. CERTIFICATE HOLDER CANCELLATION susands4@yahoo.com City of National City 1243 National City Blvd. National City, CA 91950 SHOULD ANY OF THE ABOVE DESCRIBED POLICIES BE CANCELLED BEFORE THE EXPIRATION DATE THEREOF, NOTICE WILL BE DELIVERED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE POLICY PROVISIONS. AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE Jim Eggert/TONI ACORD 25 (2010105) INS025 (201005).91 ©1988-2010 ACORD CORPORATION. All rights reserved. The ACORD name and logo are registered marks of ACORD A� R©� CERTIFICATE OF LIABILITY INSURANCE DATE o) THIS CERTIFICATE IS ISSUED AS A MATTER OF INFORMATION ONLY AND CONFERS NO RIGHTS UPON THE CERTIFICATE HOLDER. THIS CERTIFICATE DOES NOT AFFIRMATIVELY OR NEGATIVELY AMEND, EXTEND OR ALTER THE COVERAGE AFFORDED BY THE POLICIES BELOW. THIS CERTIFICATE OF INSURANCE DOES NOT CONSTITUTE A CONTRACT BETWEEN THE ISSUING INSURER(S), AUTHORIZE REPRESENTATIVE OR PRODUCER, AND THE CERTIFICATE HOLDER. IMPORTANT: if the certificate holder is an ADDITIONAL INSURED, the policy(ies) must be endorsed. If SUBROGATION IS WAIVED, subject to the terms and conditions of the policy, certain policies may require an endorsement. A statement on this certificate does not confer rights to the certificate holder in lieu of such endorsement(s). PRODUCER Michael Ehrenfeld Company 2655 Camino Del Rio North #200 San Diego CA 92108 W Tl. Jim Eggert PHONE Ent (619) 683-9990 I (Aft, Nol: (619) 683-8999 ADDRESS: jeggerteehrenfoldinsuranee.com INSURER(S) AFFORDING COVERAGE NAIC # INSURERA:Argonaut Great Central Ins Co INSURED Fortune Management Fortune Commercial Corp. SFC Markets Incorporated 2883 Surveyor Street Pomona CA 91768-3251 INSURER S:Springfield Insurance Company INSURERC: INSURER 0: INSURER E: INSURER F: •13-14 GL VMY M.,,.v--..... .-... - ..-.-.--... THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT THE POLICIES OF INSURANCE LISTED BELOW HAVE BEEN ISSUED TO THE INSURED NAMED ABOVE FOR THE POLICY PERIOD INDICATED. NOTWITHSTANDING ANY REQUIREMENT, TERM OR CONDITION OF ANY CONTRACT OR OTHER DOCUMENT WITH RESPECT TO WHICH THIS CERTIFICATE MAY BE ISSUED OR MAY PERTAIN, THE INSURANCE AFFORDED BY THE POLICIES DESCRIBED HEREIN IS SUBJECT TO ALL THE TERMS, EXCLUSIONS AND CONDITIONS OF SUCH POLICIES. LIMITS SHOWN MAY HAVE BEEN REDUCED BY PAID CLAIMS. INSR LTR TYPE OF INSURANCE IDOL"SUER m13R MIND POLICY NUMBER {MMIPOLICY YDiWYYYi (MIA DDNYYY) LIMITS GENERAL X LIABILITY COMMERCIAL GENERAL LIABILITY X SIR.915148606 6/3/2013 6/3/2014 EACH OCCURRENCE $ 1,000,000 DAMAGE TO (RENTED PREMISESMAG(Ea WTED 300 000 $ , MED EXP (Any one psreon) $ Excluded A ' CLAIMS -MADE I X j OCCUR PERSONAL. &AV/ INJURY $ 1,000,000 X SIR $25,000 GENERAL AGGREGATE $ 5,000,000 PRODUCTS- COMP/OP AGO $ 2,000,000 GENL AGGREGATE LIMIT APPLIES PER n PRO- n POLICY I I ,IFf:7 LOC Liquor Liddlly $ 1,000,041 $ 1,000, $ A AUTOMOBLE X X LIA&CITY ANY AUTO ALL OWNED AUTOS H92E0 AUTOS X SCHEDULED AUTOS NON -OWNED AUTOS BA915148608 6/3/2013 6/3/2014 SINGLE LIMB ICE accident) BODILY INJURY (Per person) BODILY INJURY (Per accident) $ PROPERTY DAMAGE !Per sodded) $ SPEC A X UMBRELLALIAB EXCESS LIMB — OCCUR CLAIMS -MADE IM41391514E608 6/3/2013 6/3/2014 EACH OCCURRENCE $ 10, 000, 000 AGGREGATE $ 10,000,000 Prod, amp Ago $ 10, 000, 000 DED X I RETENTIONS 10,000 B WORKERS COMPENSATION AND EMPLOYERS' LIABIUTY ANY PROPRIETOR/PARTNERIEXECUTIVE YlN Mandatory In N) EXCLUDED? C N l A p)CD00173310 12/1/2012 12/1/2013 X TORY LIMWC BS I TH ER E.L EACH ACCIDENT $ S,000 000 E.L. DISFASF - EA EMPLOYEE $ 1,000,000 E.L DISEASE - POLICY LIMIT $ 1,000,000 A WA Stop Gap S1R915148606 6/3/2013 6/3/2014 DESCRIPTION OF OPERATIONS! LOCATIONS /VEHICLES (Attach ACORD 101, Additional Remarks Schedule, 1 more space is required) Certificate Holder is named as Additional Insured as required by written contract, as respects to Comm'' General Liability, but limited to the operations of the Insured under said contract, and always subject to the policy terms, conditions and exclusions per endorsement RE: Fiesta Filipina Mexican, November 2, 2013 CERTIFICATE HOLDER SusanDS4eYahoo.com ROIC Bay Plaza Center A California LLC c/o Retail Opportunity Investment Corp. 8905 Towne Center Dr. #108 San Diego, CA 92122 SHOULD ANY OF THE ABOVE DESCRIBED POLICIES BE CANCELLED BEFORE THE EXPIRATION DATE THEREOF, NOTICE WILL BE DELIVERED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE POLICY PROVISIONS. AUTHORED REPRESENTATIVE Jim Eggert/TONI ACORD 25 (2010/05) INS025 (201005).01 19 1958-2010 ACORD CORPORATION. All rights reserved. The ACORD name and logo are registered marks of ACORD c4ckuLo DOBDU, Lirve)( CITY OF NATIONAL CITY NEIGHBORHOOD SERVICES DIVISION APPLICATION FOR A TEMPORARY USE PERMIT RECOMMENDATIONS AND CONDITIONS SPONSORING ORGANIZATION: Seafood City EVENT: 20th Annual Fiesta Filipiniana-Mexicana Karaoke DATE OF EVENT: November 9, 2013 TIME OF EVENT: 10:30 a.m. to 10 p.m. APPROVALS: DEVELOPMENT SERVICES YES [ x ] NO [ ] SEE CONDITIONS [ x ] RISK MANAGER YES [ x ] NO [ ] SEE CONDITIONS [ x ] PUBLIC WORKS YES [ x ] NO [ ] SEE CONDITIONS [ x FINANCE YES [ x ] NO [ ] SEE CONDITIONS [ x FIRE YES [ x ] NO [ ] SEE CONDITIONS [ x ] COMMUNITY SERVICES YES [ x ] NO [ ] SEE CONDITIONS [ x ] POLICE YES [ x ] NO [ ] SEE CONDITIONS [ x CITY ATTORNEY YES [ x ] NO [ ] SEE CONDITIONS [ x CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: DEVELOPMENT SERVICES (619) 336-4318 The Engineering Department has no comments on this TUP. RISK MANAGER (619) 336-4370 Provide Additional insured endorsement naming the City of National City as an additional named insured. All else looks fine. PUBLIC WORKS (619)366-4580 Public Works has no involvement in this event FINANCE Seafood City has a current business license. All other participating vendors, if any, should be licensed also. FIRE (619) 336-4550 Stipulations required by the Fire Department for this event are as follows: 1) Access to Seafood City and surrounding businesses to be maintained at all times. Access to Fire Department connections for fire sprinkler systems, standpipes, etc. must be clear and unobstructed. 2) Fire Department access into and through the booth areas are to be maintained at all times. Fire apparatus access roads shall have an unobstructed width of not less than 20 feet and an unobstructed vertical clearance of not less than 13 feet 6 inches. 3) Fire Hydrants shall not be blocked or obstructed. 4) Participants on foot are to move immediately to the sidewalk upon approach of emergency vehicle(s). 5) Vehicles in roadway are to move immediately to the right upon approach of emergency vehicle(s). 6) Provide a 2A:10BC fire extinguisher at stage. Extinguisher to be mounted in a visible location between 31/' to 5' from the floor to the top of the extinguisher. Maximum travel distance from an extinguisher shall not be more than 75 feet travel distance. 7) Any electrical power used is to be properly grounded and approved. Extension cords shall be used as "Temporary Wiring Only". Extension cords lying on the ground shall be organized to prevent trip hazards 8) A ten foot separation distance must be maintained between tents and canopies. 9) Fees must be paid to the Fire Department Administration Office prior to event occurrence. 10) First Aid will be provided by Operation Samahan Note: A $200.00 inspection fee for an after hour/weekend fire inspection shall be required. Total cost for this event shall be $200.00 paid directly to the National City Fire Department under permit. Fees can only be waived by City Council. If you have any questions please feel free to contact me. COMMUNITY SERVICES No involvement. POLICE They have the option of hiring 4 licensed security guards or two NCPD Officers for the security that day. CITY ATTORNEY Requires an indemnification and hold harmless agreement, and a policy of general liability insurance, with the City and its officials, employees, agents and volunteers as additional insured's, with amounts of coverage to be determined by the Risk Manager. CITY OF NATIONAL CITY, CALIFORNIA COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT MEETING DATE: November 5, 2013 AGENDA ITEM NO, 18 ITEM TITLE: City Council Meeting Schedule — December 2013 through January 2014. (c oi PREPARED BY: '!Michael R. Dalla,, DEPARTMENT: City Clerk PHONE: 1619-336-4220 APPROVED BY: EXPLANATION: See Attached Memo; 2 FINANCIAL STATEMENT: ACCOUNT NO. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: ORDINANCE: INTRODUCTION: FINAL ADOPTION: APPROVED: APPROVED: Finance MIS STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Review and provide direction. BOARD / COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: ATTACHMENTS: Memo to the Mayor and Members of the City Council DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK 1243 National City Blvd., National City, CA 91950-4397 619-336-4226 phone / 619-336-4229 fax Michael R. Dalla - City Clerk November 5, 2013 Honorable Mayor and City C uncil Michael Dalla, City Clerk City Council Meeting Schedule — December 2013 and January 2014 The City Council approved work furlough will result in City Hall being closed from December 23, 2013 until January 6, 2014. Consequently, the City Council Meeting Schedule will need to be modified to accommodate the furlough closure. It is recommended that the City Council approve one of the two alternative schedules listed below: Alternative Schedule A December December January January 03 Regular Meeting 17 Regular Meeting 07 Regular Meeting (DISPENSE WITH MEETING) 21 Regular Meeting Note: This alternative will result in a five week period between meetings (December 17 — January 21) Alternative Schedule B December December January January January 03 Regular Meeting 17 Regular Meeting 07 Regular Meeting (DISPENSE WITH MEETING) 14 Adjourned Regular Meeting 21 Regular Meeting Note: This alternative will result in a four week period between meeting and two meetings back to back in January (January 14 and January 21). Item # 19 11/05/13 DISCUSSION OF POTENTIAL WORKSHOP DATES FOR CITY COUNCIL POLICY MANUAL REVIEW. (City Manager)