HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Hearing TranscriptNATIONAL CITY MEETING
NATIONAL CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MEE i iNG
August 19, 2013
1-4
Page 1
2
3
4
7 DRAFT
7
9
10
11
12 NATIcNAL CITY PL7HN3G COFE+L9SICK METING
13 AUGUST 19, 2013
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24 Reported by Denise T. Johnson, CSR No. 11902
25
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 Sony, 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:
1 NATIONAL CITY, CALIFORNIA
2 MONDAY, AUGUST 19, 2013
3
4 MADAM CHAIR: The Planning Commission
5 conducts its meeting in the interest of community benefit
6 and your participation is helpful.
7 These proceedings are video recorded. We ask
8 that all cell phones and pagers be turned off during the
9 meeting.
10 Okay. We're going to start with rollcall.
11 SECRETARY: Commissioner Garcia?
12 COMMISSIONER GARCIA: Present.
13 SECRETARY: Commissioner Baca?
14 COMMISSIONER BACA: Here.
-15 SECRETARY: Commissioner Pruitt, absent.
16 Commissioner Flores?
17 COMMISSIONER FLORES: Here.
18 SECRETARY: Commissioner Alvarado?
19 COMMISSIONERALVARADO: Here.
20 SECRETARY: Commissioner Bush?
21 COMMISSIONER BUSH: Here.
22 SECRETARY: Commissioner DeLaPaz, absent.
23 MADAM CHAIR: Okay. Would everyone please rise
24 forthe Pledge of Allegiance led by Commissioner Baca.
25 (The Pledge of Allegiance is recited.)
Page 2
Page 4
1 Commissioners Bush, Alvarado, Flores, Baca,
2 Garcia, aye.
3 Commissioner DeLaPaz, Commissioner Pruitt,
4 absent.
5 MADAM CHAIR: Okay. Thank you.
6 Next were under oral communications. Under
7 state law, items requiring commission action must be
8 brought back on a subsequent agenda unless they are of a
9 demonstrated emergency or urgent nature.
10 Anyone here for oral communications?
1 1 SECRETARY: We have one for Michelle Krug.
12 MADAM CHAIR: Okay. That's not on the agenda
13 item.
14 Okay. Please approach the podium.
15 MS. KRUG: i can't see where it is.
16 MADAM CHAIR: It's right in front of you. Keep
17 going straight.
18 And you have a three -minute -time limit. Please
19 state your name and address for the record.
20 MS. KRUG: It's much shorter than that. Michelle
21 Krug. 2423 See Breeze Drive, San Diego 92139.
22 I Just realty want to comment on the exceptional
23 service that is provided by the head of your property
24 department, Martin Reader. He is just such a breath of
25 fresh air in terms of getting back to people, going out of
JESQUIRE
800.211.DEPO (3376)
Esquire Solutions. com
NATIONAL CITY MEETING
NATIONAL CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MEE
August 19, 2013
TING 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,
6 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 J 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 we'll discuss the recommendation.
6 So with that, George, please proceed.
7 MR. EISER: Thank you for the 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
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
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
16 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
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
consider making recommendations regarding a reasonable 10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Page 8
or amended.
Generally, a noncomforming use can be continued
indefinitely unless terminated by the user.
Because the goal of a zoning enactment or
amendment is to accomplish a change in land uses, it is
reasonable to expect that a noncomforming use could be
terminated by affirmative action of the city.
And, in fact, the courts have recognized the
authority of a city to accomplish the
affirmative termination ofa nonconforming use through
amortization.
Amortization. This is the definition. It's the
method of determining the useful life of a noncomforming
use or structure and prohibiting continuation of that use
or structure no later than the expiration of an
amortization period.
Jn order for the amortization period to be
considered reasonable and legally valid, it is not
necessary that the noncomforming use be exhausted at the
end of the amortization period. The determination of a
reasonable amortization period requires a weighing of
public gain against private detriment, and this is true in
the case, when you think about it, of -- in the case of
all zoning enactments. You have a public gain in enacting
the zoning regulation against some private detriment or,
ESQUIRE
800,211.DEPO (33M8)
Es q uire Soluti ores. co m
NATIONAL CITY MEETING
NATIONAL CITY PLANNING COMMISSION ME
August 19, 2013
ETING 9-12
P;�qe 9
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 e
b nonoomforming 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 noncomfom,ing use and in
11 recommending a reasonable amount of time fn 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
1 through each one of those.
2 The yellow or tan color is the single-family
3 residence zone, RS-4. You have two purple colors. The
4 lighter purple is a mixed -use residential/commercial zone,
5 MCR-1. And then a higher density, more Intensive zone,
6 the darker purple, also a mixed -use
7 residential/commercial, known as MCR-2.
6 Then In the pink, you have a commercial zone,
9 limited commercial or CL zone.
10 In the blue, you have a civiciinstitutional zone.
11 In this case, ft applies to Kimball School.
12 And then, in the green is an open space preserve
13 zone, which basically applies to Paradise Creek.
14 The two subject properties are indicated in the
15 red dots. If you can see a No. 1 to the left and a No. 2
16 to the right, the No. 1 indicates the location of Steve's
17 West Coast Automotive. That is at the northwest corner of
18 18th Street and Coolidge Avenue — I'm sorry. Hoover
19 Avenue.
20 And No. 2 is Jose's Auto Electric. That's
21 located at the southwest comer of 18th Street and
22 Roosevelt Avenue.
23 And here we zoom in a little closer. You can see
24 that Steve's West Coast Automotive is located in the
25 MCR-1 mixed -use residentlalfoommeroial — commercial zone,
rlry�� -
Page 10
1 other presenters this evening, 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 turn the presentation
5 over to Raymond Pe. I'd like to provide some biographical
6 information regarding Mr, Pe. He's had over25 years of
7 experience as a professional planner starting with a
8 planning aid_ 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 Gme 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 California 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
f-` zones that apply to the Westside Specific Plan. I'll go
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,
10 and in this case up to 24 dwelling units per acre in that
11 zone In addition to commercial uses.
12 This aerial gives you an indication of where the
13 two businesses are located adjacent or very close to
14 Kimball School, outlined in blue, which is treated as a
15 sensitive use, along with Paradise Creek outlined in
16 green.
17 And at this time, I think George Is going to
18 introduce Mike Garcia.
19 MR. EISER: Thank you, Ray.
20 Michael Garcia is a principal in Tierra West
21 Advisors, Incorporated. Mike has worked with local
22 government since 1993 and brings a wealth of knowledge and
25 experience to the client. His broad range of experience
21 involves real estate consulting services for development
25 projects, acquisition and relocation for right-of-way
Page 12
- ESQUIRE
800. 211. REPO (3376)
Esquire Solutions. core
NATIONAL CITY MEETING August 19, 2013
NATIONAL CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 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 annexationslincorporation
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 California, 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 16
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 ail 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 corning
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
16 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
6 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 subfactorweights 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,
ESQUIRE
800.211.DEPO (3376)
EsqurreSolufions. cam
NATIONAL CITY MEETING
NATIONAL CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MEE
TING
August 19, 2013
17-20
Page 17
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
B 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 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 l can address,
7 because my focus tends to be financial. And those three
8 factors are the total cost (gland 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 tums 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 business valuation and forensic accounting.
2 The city retained Mr. Brinig to determine a
3 reasonable amortization period far the termination of the
4 nonconforming uses and the Westside Specific Plan. And he
5 has applied business valuation analysis to the question of
6 reasonable amortization.
7 He'll explain the analytic steps he has taken in
8 his presentation and will give the commission his
9 conclusions.
10 Brian.
11 MR. BRINIG: Thank you, Mr. Eiser.
12 The objective of my analysis is to determine a
13 reasonable amortization period for the termination of
14 these nonconforming uses.
15 The basis of my analysis is the municipal code
16 section that George referred to earlier, that code section
17 that allows the termination of a noncomforming use within
18 a reasonable amount of time.
19 And a second basis of my analysis is the
20 California Supreme Court case, Metro Media versus City of
21 San Diego. And in the Metro Media case, the court clearly
r:2 stated that a noncomforming use can be terminated if a
23 reasonable amortization period commensurate with the
24 investment involved in the use is allowed. So the focus
of the California Supreme Court case is the reasonable
Page 18
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
2' finance parlance is a cost allocation method by which the
25 cost of an asset is applied to the asset's useful life.
Page 20
0 ESQUIRE
800.211.DEPO (3376)
EsquireSolutions. com
NATIONAL CITY MEETING August 19, 2013
NATIONAL CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 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 alternatively, 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
1 B 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-eamings
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 -earnings ratio or the price -to -earnings ratio of a
7 business. The PIE ratio that we all hear on the financial
B 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 eamings. It's simply a mathematical formula of the price
11 over the annual earnings. And the result of that
12 prioe-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 eamings.
16 So a price-eamings 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 eam 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 Sys[em
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 taik 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 Stets, which
25 is a merger and acquisition database with details on
ESQUIRE
800.211. REPO (3376)
Esquire Solutions. col`
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 date 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 MACS 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.
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 these 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 analysts 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 Brtnig?
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
2 Steve's West Coast Automotive, using the price earnings --
3 median price -earnings ratios published in those
4 three nationally recognized sources, using the medians
5 from the sources, my conclusion is that a reasonable
6 amortization period for Steve's West Coast Automotive to
7 recover the cost of -- of the business or the price of the
8 business Is from 1.69 to 2.19 times, Stated in years, a
9 year and nine months to two years and three months.
10 Going back to doing the same type of analysis for
i 1 Jose's Auto Electric, I looked to the three nationally
12 recognized databases, using the median price -earnings
13 ratios for the sales of those types of businesses, and the
14 median price -earnings ratios ranged from 1.64 to 2.77
15 times. That's one year and eight months to Iwo years and
16 ten months.
17 My conclusions for Jose's, based on that
18 objective financial analysis, is that a reasonable
19 amortization period for terminating the nonoomforming use
20 in Jose's would be one year and eight months to two years
21 and ten months.
22 That's the basis of my analysis considering the
23 three factors, focusing on trying to provide the
24 commission with a quantifiable objective financial
25 analysis to quantify the range. I'd be happy to answer
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 28
better if I had their detailed financial information. But
without that information, I have looked to the — the
general statistics that are published that give
a generalized median price -earnings ratio for this type of
business, which, Commissioner Bush, I believe that In
concept, I can apply without knowing the specific details
of this particular business. I could simplistically say,
"Generally this type of business sells at a price -earnings
ratio of two times."
Therefore, if I had, I don't know this. But if I
had the information from this business and 1 evaluated
this business in relation to the market studies, I would
conclude that this business would sell for two times
eamings as well.
COMMISSIONER BUSH: Thank you.
MADAM CHAIR: Commissioner Garcia?
COMMISSIONER GARCIA: Thank you.
First, I want to say thank you for your very
thorough report. Very excellent work.
And i think it is a question for Mr. Garcia. And
maybe ! missed it in the repot. But! wanted to know if
once the land use Is changed, what Improvements will have
to be made to that property or that land in order to -- in
order for it to be adequate for a commercial use? Maybe I
missed it on the report. But I don't want those
ESQUIRE
800. 211. DEPO (3376)
EsquireSolutions. com
NATIONAL CITY MEETING
NATIONAL CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
August 19, 2013
29-32
1 properties to turn 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
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 31
MR. BRINIG: Madam Commissioner, may I add one
comment that I think may be somewhat supportive of that?
It -- initially, it is a little frustrating that
somebody like me does not have the specific financial
information on the business, on the one hand.
On the other hand, I would candidly tell you
that, sort of the way I answered Commissioner Bush's
question, even if I have specific financial information on
a business, it doesn't — it rarely would tell me what the
value of that business is in relation to its earnings.
Unless the business was bought from somebody six months
ago and then I saw their financial information, I would
have difficulty relating specific financial information of
a business to the value of the business.
So in addition to Madam DeLaPaz' comments
that — you have all questions about the accuracy of the
data and the volume of the data, I'm not sure it would
bring me any closer to being able — I would do the same
thing. If I knew this business netted 50,000 or 100,000,
I would still kind of go to the same general data to draw
some conclusion about what is a reasonable price-eamings
ratio for this particular business, whether it nets 30,000
or 50,000 or 100,000.
COMMISSIONER DELAPAZ: So we are really looking
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
23 just wanted to add that comment under that discussion.
24 Again, I'll leave the rest of our discussion until the
25 end. Thank you.
„Page 32
1 MR. GARCIA_ That's correct. It. j
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.
0 ESQUIRLJT1E
800.211.DEPO (3376)
EsquireSolutions. com
NATIONAL CITY MEETING August 19, 2013
NATIONAL CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 33-36
Page 33
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 PIE 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 eamings 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 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 S150,000 all other things being equal.
2 Or stated another way which !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 pald $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 S75,000, 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 l
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. Elser?
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, bLit also
24 to collect information. answer questions from them and
2b 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 iocalion 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 significancy
21 nonconforming that ruse 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
nonconforming. So they're significantly not incompatible,
ESQUIRE
800. 211. REPO (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
6 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
16 Brinig & Company, we were recommending on the higher end
19 of the amortization range for the schedule for Jose's Auto
2D 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 7Ds, when it was built in, I believe, 1972. And so Jt
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2D
21
22
23
24
25
But they're threats to environmental quality,Page 39
y potentially
For children having to walk into the street from time to
time. We took ail of that into consideration, as well as
looking at what the cost would be to convert the building
to a nonconforming use, cost to relocate and re-establish
a business. And we were also recommending on the higher
range of the amortization schedule for Steve's West Coast
MR. RAULSTON: Okay. Thank you.
MR. BRINIG, Mr. Garcia --
MR. EISER: Excuse me, Brad, before we go on to
the recommendation, 1 wanted to clarify a point.
There was a question raised about the specific
financial information or lack thereof. And l believe it's
the case that that information was requested by Mr. Garcia
from the property owners and it was not provided. So if
that's correct, I'd like --
MR. GARCIA: That's correct. The property owners
are very friendly and nice, Unfortunately, significant
details from the businesses were not provided during phone
calls, personal meetings, e-mails, faxes, everything I
could try to do to establish a connection with those
business operators because I wanted to go above and beyond
my efforts in late March and through mid -April to
establish contact with the businesses to get as clear a
picture about their business operations as we could.
Page 38
1 represents a long-term business that has actually exceeded
2 its P/E 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 on
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
16 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 Commissionmake the following recommendation to
25 the City Council and that is an your screen before you,
ESQUIRE
800.211.DEPO (3376)
EsquireSolutions. 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 tho timc 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
B 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 1 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 thls 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
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
6
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2C,
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 tine.
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.
ES()Ui E
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 tide! 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.
2` MADAM CHAIR: Okay. Thank you.
800.211.DEPO (3376)
Esquire Solutions. com
NATIONAL CITY MEETING
NATIONAL CITY PLANNING COMMISSION ME
August 19, 2013
ETING 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: Thal would be your -- that ultimately
17 is your call. But it would be my recommendation you give 1
18 them an opportunity to respond and provide any information 1
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?s
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 southern
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,
7 with it being a smaller parcel, it doesn't lend itself to
8 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
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 46
Page 48
1 covered by the parking lot. So the parking lot received -a
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.
0 ESQUIRE
800.211.DEPO (3376)
EsguireSolutions. core
NATIONAL CITY MEETING August 19, 2013
NATIONAL CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 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 R. 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.
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 fora 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 51
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
118
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Page 60
Would someone please define what "grandfathered"
means so that it Is clear to everybody.
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: In the code, is the code
applicable?
MR. RAULSTON: I can state grandfathered
is synon- -- you know, we use legal nonconforming as a
term that is equivalent to grandfathered, again. 5o if
you're legal, however, you're nonconforming use.
And the amortization ordinance was established in
order to deal with legal nonconforming uses and to
terminate them by means of amortization. i think it was
pointed out that the ordinance was -- was finally approved
by the counsel in 2006. The Westside Specific Plan was
finally approved in 2010, I believe. So, you know, not
knowing when these conversations took place -- obviously,
this has been an evolving subject within the city. And,
you know, the planning technician was correct in stating
that the property was grandfathered in. And that is
Information we provide to a lot of businesses. And we
don't further that with the caveat that the amortization
ordinance could be applied to these legal nonconforming
uses.
MADAM CHAIR: Okay, thank you.
Ms. Silva?
MS. SILVA: Actually, I think Mr. Raulston
Page 52
1 business owners to collect personal financial informafion.
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 --
i 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 expiain 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: Dur a, orney's involved.
22 COMMISSIONER BUSH: Okay.
23 MR. BRUCE REED: We have them writing a letter.
24 COMfv1ISSIONER BUSH: Sure. No, and the only
25 reason I ask that is because this is a process. And so I
ESQUIRE
800.211.DEPO (3376)
EsquireSolutions. com
NATIONAL CITY MEETING August 19, 2013
NATIONAL CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 53-56
Page 53
1 just wanted, you know, your side as to how exactly, you
2 know, detailed -- but thank you. I understand.
3 MR. BRUCE REED: Thank you.
4 MADAM CHAIR: Commissioner Garcia? Gentlemen.
5 Gentlemen, please return to the podium. Mr. Reed?
6 MR. STUART REED: Oh, I'm sorry.
7 MADAM CHAIR: Yes, they still have questions.
8 MR. STUART REED: Yes, sir.
9 COMMISSIONER GARCIA: Again, just to follow up on
10 some of the questions that my colleagues have been asking,
11 in regards to the letter, because all of us read the
12 letter. And there is a portion in there, too, about
13 talking just — talking about just compensation. And
14 wanted to know, based, like, from your point of reference,
15 what does — what does that mean to you? 1
16 MR. BRUCE REED: Fulfilling our five-year lease. 1
17 COMMISSIONER GARCIA: And that is for one — one 1
18 of the businesses. And the other one, the lease is over 1
19 at — in February 2014; is that correct?
20 MR. BRUCE REED: That's another company.
21 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: It's on the
22 other property.
23 MR. BRUCE REED: Steve's.
24 COMMISSIONER GARCIA: I see. Okay. Thank you.
25 MR. BRUCE REED: Thank you.
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
5 this Westside Specific Plan.
6 I would like to hear from the rest of the
7 speakers and go into further detail. But I'm sensitive to
8 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
Page 54
15 the actual Westside Specific Plan code amendment. Arid so 1
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 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. Ifs — 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
5 agenda materials which were posted online.
16 If I may -- if I may comment on the due process
17 issue, ifs 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
ESQUIRE
800.211.DEPO (3376)
EsqufreSolu#Ions. cam
NATIONAL CITY MEETING August 19, 2013
NATIONAL CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 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. Reed's -- 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 my 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 lnspect'ons.
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 l did Include In my written materials a reference
1 because it just doesn't seem fair.
2
3
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. Wher they fined the business here last year, 1
15 believe it was storm water runoff. This property, i
16 actually put the plumbing in years ago. l 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
2e 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.
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 58
You know, if somebody is going to — what Is it,
eminent domain? That is what used to occur. They'd buy .
QESQUIRE
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.
0 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 auluaiiy 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?
COMMISSIONER GARCIA: No, i think some of the
questions that ! had were already answered, and then I
guess just a comment for Mr. --
2:71 MR. WALTON: Walton?
71 COMMISSIONER GARCIA: -- for Mr. Walton.
Yeah, I think that is -- you have a really valid
800.211.DEPO (3376)
EsquireSolutions. com
NATIONAL CITY MEETING August 19, 2013
NATIONAL CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 61-64
Page 61
1 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 turned 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 — l 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, I 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
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 lot 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
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)
EsquireSolutions. 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 thc 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 rnostly, 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 eamings 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 eamings would 1 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,
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 66
With regard to the amortization -- well, in
general, I just want to say that I believe in the Westside
Specific Plan and I believe in the amortization structure
and the idea behind it. And that the -- there are quality
of life characteristics and designations in the Westside
Specific Plan which we've set as goals in implementing
this plan. And we all know the history behind it. We
don't have to go through the whole history of the Westside
Specific Plan. But basically, there are -- you know, the
Paradise Creek, Kimball Elementary School with all of the
aliments that the children are facing including aeuuna and
other issues due to the environmental factors of the
businesses in the surrounding areas, with the types of
businesses that were mixed in with residential areas.
i do believe in the plan. And I believe that
amortization needs to happen. I would like 10 address and
identify and work on interpreting what an appropriate
amortization period would be.
Some of -- the code, you know, the 18.11.100
piece of the code, Section D that really specifically
talks about the affirmative termination by amortization
and those eight factors, you know, I — I understand the
talk about the PIE ratio and the value of the business and
if the businesses were to move. I also hear and
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 WE ratio. That's
3 just my opinion.
4 I understand the price to eamings.
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 Olen suddenly tail it years. Where is the implementation?
12 Do we take those numbers of -- that number for the
13 eamings and multiply it by the number of years it would
14 take to get those eamings back? I mean, I don't -- I
15 have irouoie kind of saying the, "PIE ratio is now the
16 number of years." So I have a little bit of an issue.
17 I 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 rorever and make this last years or what -- whatnot.
21 1 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 I 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,
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, 1 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
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 70
prepared very carefully and correctly. I just want to
address whether that was the right piece of information to
apply to the amortization. I think the number of years as
presented is fairly short.
also understand that we will be setting
precedence in what -- how we establish and how we deal
with future businesses that come on board.
One of the -- a couple of questions as I read
this —
MR. RAULSTON: Excuse me real quick. I don't
want to interrupt you. But I just want to remind you that
we are in the middle of a public hearing. There's still
public comment. And you sound like we are moving into
final comments, so I would --
COMMISSIONER DELAPAZ: But the idea that maybe --
perhaps we can guide some of the comments. I hope to kind
of share some of my take on this.
No. 1, I thought we'd see more of the auto body
paint shops. And I -- and those were not at the top of
the list; although, I do see some of them on the list.
And also, if we were to set a longer time frame,
we have to have, you know, a basis for what time frame we
recommend. And I don't know if I completely agree with
what we've said here tonight. But it needs to be
applicable or easily applied to other businesses coming
Page 72
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
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 Thls 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 patterns and
24 future development and redevelopment.
25 The result of the Westslde Specific Plan shows a
Page 75�
1 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Your Honor, we have a
2 picture.
3 MADAM CHAIR: You have a what?
4 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: I just don't know --
5 UNIDEN'TII-IED SPEAKER: We have a picture.
6 MADAM CHAIR: Oh, okay.
7 MARGARITA GARCIA: (In Spanish).
8 INTERPRETER: Hi, I'm going to translate for
9 Margarita.
10 "Good evening, Planning Commissioners.
11 "My name Is Margarita Garcia, 1 live in 1333
12 Coolidge Avenue in Old Town, in the Old Town area. I'm
13 here to support amortization business — the amortization
14 of the business is Steve's West Automotive and Jose's Auto
15 Electric. Both auto repair facilities are really close to
16 Kimball School and represent a threat to the health of
17 children in the community. They use us toxic materials
18 and do not follow storage regulations. This business has
19 blocked the walkways children take to go to school.
20 This is a photo that you see of Jose's Auto
21 Electric. It is a pickup that is blocking the sidewalk.
22 This is one of many times we have watched both businesses
23 block the sidewalk.
24 'On top of all this risk, this business is parked
25 in the public way and operate during night hours when its
Page 74
1 reflecting vision and aspiration of our community.
2 Amortization is one of the tools needed to change
3 towards a cleaner and a healthier neighborhood. We have
4 waited. All of us residents have waited for a long time
5 to the return of a healthier environment.
6 My father died of cancer.
7 My mother's a cancer survivor.
8 One of my neighbors on the Coolidge area by the
9 Civic Center has been suffering through a thyroid
10 condition also.
11 Dukie Valderiarria, who represents us in the port,
12 when he lived here for a while, his son contracted asthma
13 also. He, too, has been waiting. All of us have been
14 waiting, again, fora healthier environment. And with
15 that, we as residents support the use of amortization upon
16 the polluting sites next to Kimball School for the safety
17 and health of our children.
18 Thank you.
19 MADAM CHAIR: Thank you, Mr. Medina.
20 The next speaker?
21 SECRETARY: Margarita Garcia.
22 MADAM CHAIR: Is she going to need a translator?
23 SECRETARY: Yes.
24 MADAM CHAIR: Okay.
25 Your name and address, please?
1
2
3
4
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Page 76
not allowed. This auto repair facilities are — profiting
at the expense of the health and safety of our children
and should be amortized as soon as possible.
"Thank you for your attention."
MADAM CHAIR: Thank you.
Next speaker?
SECRETARY: Next we have Edith Maldonado,
followed by Dr. Ruth Heifetz.
MADAM CHAIR: Good evening.
Your name and address -- reset the timer. Name
and address for the record, please.
MS. MALDONADO: (In Spanish.)
INTERPRETER: "Good evening, Planning
Commissioners.
"My name is Edith Maldonado. i live in 2015 West
14th Street in Old Town, National City.
"I'm here to support the recommendation to
amortize the businesses, Steve's West Coast Automotive,
because It would be — because It should -- It should not
be near a school.
"I am a mother of two children, ages six, eight
years old, attending Kimball School Elementary. Most of
the times I'm walking with my kids to school, the sidewalk
is blocked with cars from Steve's Automotive. And you saw
it in the picture before this one. Thls forces us to get
800.211.DEPO (3376)
EsquireSolufions. 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 on
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 all 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 --
26 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
ESQ
UII
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 KlmbalJ 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
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
800.211.DEPO (3376)
EsquireSolutions. com
NATIONAL CITY MEETING
NATIONAL CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
August 19, 2013
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 btt 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
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
16
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
time.
MADAM CHAIR: Thank you, Ms. Ruan.
MS. RUAN: My time's Is up?
MADAM CHAIR: Yeah.
Mr. RUAN: Oh, okay.
So basically, thank you for your -- for your
MADAM CHAIR: Thank you.
SECRETARY: Next we have Sheila Serpas followed
by Toussaint Lewis Clark.
DR. SERPAS: Good evening, Planning Commission.
My name is Sheila Serpas. I'm a family
physician, and I've worked in National City since 1994, a
block up the street at the community clinic, as well as
delivering their babies in the hospital locally as well as
Scripps. And I come here to, again, testify. I was here
in 2010. I was very impressed with the forward thinking
and the way that you've designed the environmental land
use plan and how smart and Forward thinking I thought that
was to be approved.
Now comes the challenge of implementation. And I
can see that you face a lot of challenges. I'm here
really to encourage you to oontinue to stay the course, to
not lose sight of why this land use redesign was
originally approved. That is the health of the National
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! just want to ask you, the Planning
15 Commission, to look after our students' best interest by
16 supporting the recommendation to amortize the businesses.
17 It's your voice that will allow protection of the children
18 and the families of Kimball School.
19 Lastly, I want to invite you to visit our school,
20 visit our neighborhood arid ask yourself if you would want
21 your children to be surrounded by these businesses. l'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 ! want to let you know.
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
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
testify, who are living within this zone. They have
asthma. When you look at the data for the Kimball
Elementary and you look at fifth grade fitness, you can
see that 56 percent of the children in fifth grade do not
meet the fitness standards for body -mass index. And that
is very complicated. But a lot of that issue has to do
with the environment in which they're able to work, live
and play, and walk to school as you've heard this evening.
And so I'm — I won't take up more of your time.
And ! thank you for your professional courtesy for taking
the time this evening to listen to so many voices from the
community.
MADAM CHAIR: Thank you.
SECRETARY: Toussaint Clark.
DR. CLARK: Hi, good evening.
My name is Toussaint. I'm a family physician,
resident physician. ! have primarily worked in the
community clinics in National City. And although, I have
only been here for about two months, I will say that it
has been — has become quite clear to me the profound
health effects that the mixed zoning has had on the
ESQUIRE
800.211.DEPO (3376)
EsquireSolufions. com
NATIONAL CITY MEETING August 19,2013
NATIONAL CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 85-88
1 patient popuJation here.
2 Now, the evidence that I 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
Page 87
1 MADAM CHAIR: Name and address for the record?
2 MR. RYAN: Cody Ryan. f 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
8 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, l support
26 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
16 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 concern such as
25 solvents like in the case of these two businesses pose a
ESQUIRE
800.211.DEPO (3370)
Esquire Solutions. corn
NATIONAL CITY MEETING August 19, 2013
NATIONAL CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 89-92
Page 89
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 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. I
9 think its just three minutes per person.
10 MS. BORAK: Okay. Well, 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. Ifs 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 —
1 1 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
16 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'in 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 Westslde Specific Phil was adopted fill.
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 overnight. And in calculating how much
17 time these businesses have had to reiocate, 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 ail 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
Q.ESQUIRE
800.211.DEPO (3376)
Esq ui re S olufio n s. co m
NATIONAL CITY MEETING
NATIONAL CITY PLANNING COMMISSION M
August 19, 2013
EETI N G 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
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
science, earth sciences.
I'm a 27-year resident of National City and
married to a long-term family. My mother-in-law, Maria
Avalos, bless her heart, is 102 years old.
I'm a director at the nonprofit group, Paradise
Creek Educational Park, Incorporated. And we've been a
nonprofit since 1999.
The green stripe through your map and through our
town is near and dear to my heart and many others.
Volunteers have worked there since 1993 advocating for
protection of Paradise Creek, that includes National City
residents, students and people from outside of town.
Two things about the properties you are
considering tonight: Parking cars and working on cars in
the street is a sign that those businesses are successful.
They've outgrown their site. They need to move to a
larger site.
It's also important to remember that we're
looking for investment in our community by the property
owners.
Let me talk a little bit about Paradise Creek,
and in this case, Jose's Auto Electric. It used to
operate at 104, which is between the creek and the blue
rectangle of the creek -- of the school. And at 104,
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. 1 think that it
8 is important that the nonconforming businesses be outside.
9 But 1 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.
ESQUIRE
800.211.DEPO (3376)
EsquireSolutions. cam
NATIONAL CITY MEETING August 19, 2013
NATIONAL CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 97-100
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 97
Commissioners, would you like to — Commissioner
Bush.
COMMISSIONER BUSH: Yeah, I just wondered if the
city could actually respond 10 that. I don't know if that
Idea has been proposed In the past, but it Is an
interesting idea, if that there are other ways to
compensate the property owners if the city chooses to move
forward with the amortization process as Is.
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Madam Chair, I can address
that.
MADAM CHAIR: Okay. Thank you.
MR. E1SER: There's no legal requirement that the
business owners or property owners be compensated in this
type of situation. If the city wants to consider some
part — as part of some negotiation, that's -- that's a
different question that I think would be more appropriate
for the city attomey to respond to. But there is no
legal requirement that that be done.
MADAM CHAIR: Okay. Commissioner DeLaPaz.
COMMISSIONER DELAPAZ: Under that same topic,
have a little bit of a problem with that. The city is
pretty strapped as it Is. And It was very clear that
since it is not an eminent domain issue, that it is not a
taking, that we are considering the amount of time that
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 ! 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 es 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
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 !t was amended in the wade. 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 arc 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. Bui 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 98
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 siaie 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 doiiars, 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.] 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)
EsquireSolufions. com
NATIONAL CITY MEETING August 19, 2013
NATIONAL CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 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 dean that up. If we proceed tonight and it goes to City
10
11
12
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
Council with a certain time frame, say a recommended three 1
years or something to that effect, and the City Council 1
approves and that three-year clock starts ticking, those 1
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-
0 COMMISSIONER DELAPAZ: We can continue the
1 discussion. And at any point, we can close the hearing if
2 we choose. And then at that — the motion could be to
13 close and make a recommendation, or we can chose to dose
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 dose 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 CI -LAIR: 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
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, we'd 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 sony. Yes, you're
22 right.
23 MS. SILVA: It's is one public hearing for both
24 items.
25 COMMISSIONER BUSH: Okay.
Page 104
ESQUIRE
800.2I9.DEPO (3376)
EsqulreSolutlons. com
NATIONAL CITY MEETING August 19, 2013
NATIONAL CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 105-108
Page 105
1 COMMISSIONER GARCIA_ I make a motion to close
2 the public hearing on item — help. On Item No. 3.
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, were talking about the health risks that these
24 businesses are posing to the individuals that live in this
25 community.
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 klds 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 wane 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
B my personal point of view. And I'll be open to
9 discussion.
10 MADAM CHAIR: Okay. Any other commissioners?
i l 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 1 just feel
15 like the city staff, they did definiteiy more than their
15 due diligence. They've worked on this for, you know,
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. Thatwouid aiso 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 COMMISSIONER BACA: I would agree with
2 Commissioner Garcia. I think, you know, we've been
3 discussing this and going with it. And I think we do need
4 to act on this ASAP. And that is my personal opinion.
5 COMMISSIONER BUSH: So am I understanding that
6 you guys would want to make a motion to recommend to the
7 city the faster option, right? I don't — I kind of would
8 like the city's comment on that, just what they think
9 about that. I don't know legally if there is an opinion
10 on it.
COMMISSiONER GARCIA: Our recommendation is to
12 the City Council and of course -- City Council.
13 COMMISSIONER BUSH: Okay.
14 COMMISSIONER GARCIA: Staff — staff already made
15 their recommendation so it is up to us now to make a
15 recommendation to City Council.
17 MADAM CHAIR: Any other commissioners? Attorney
18 Silva?
19 MS. SILVA. Yes.
20 in regard to the recommendation, staff — staff
21 has advocated, the department has advocated a
22 recommendation for you all to consider. It is now the
23 Planning Commission's prerogative to determine, based on
24 those eight factors, what they believe is the appropriate
25 recommendation based on all the facts before you to make
Page 108
pESQUIRE
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.
6 MADAM CHAIR: Thank you.
7 Any other commissioners? Commissioner Alvarado.
8 COMMISSIONER ALVARADO: 1 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 --
16 agree -- I -- I've voiced my concems and my opinions
17 throughout the presentation. I certainly appreciate all
18 of the — both -- what both sides have discussed. And I
19 would -- !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 we're 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 109
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 concems that they need to take into consideration.
5 But, again, very glad to really 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 l 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. Attorney 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?
ESQUIRE
800.211. DEPO (3376)
EsquireSolutlons. 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 fora 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 Ctty 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 —
COMMISS]ONER DELAPAZ: So under discussion
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: Sot 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.
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 wiil 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 eisewhere, those parameters have been discussed, too.
21 Further cn, No. 5, whether the use is
22 significantly nonconforming, we have, obviously, seen that
23 through the reports provided by staff.
24 Compensabiiity and the existing land use planners
25 in the cities of the surrounding neighborhood, that's
Page 116
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 1
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
ESQUIRE
800. 211. DEPO (3376)
Esquire Solutions. com
NATIONAL CITY MEETING August 19, 2013
NATIONAL CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 117-120
Page 117
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 I 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.
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 119
necessary in order to construct a fast food restaurant in
this location. So the language that staff came up with
and it was agreed upon by the applicant accommodates the
needs of the developer, as well as protects the city's
interests and it would require a conditional use permit if
approved so that we'd be able to look at things on a
case -by -case basis. There is a conditional use permit
moving along concurrently with this, it will be the next
item, and basically the code amendment is proposed to take
effect in the MXC-2 and MXD-2 zones. MXD-2 being the
major mixed -use district.
So here is a proposed site plan. You can see the
existing Auto Zone on the left side of the picture and on
the right, the proposed drivethrough restaurant. There
was a reconfiguration of the parking, unless you go more
into that in the conditional use permit.
So here is the amended language. Si) basically it
would allow — or actually it would -- the caveat would be
MXC-2 and MXD-2 properties will be exempted from the
300-foot requirement based on the fact that they would
need to get a conditional use permit.
And also add additional noticing requirements so
all occupants as well as property owners within 300 feet
of a particular project would be notified in order to make
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 comer 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
Page 120
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 intemal 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
ESQUIRE
800.211.DEPO (3376)
Esquire Sol u dons. co m
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 checldist, 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 andlor
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,
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 122
establishments s in areas with a high concentration of
fast food establishments. Also convenience stores and
liquor stores.
In this rasp, in the area from along Highland
Avenue, from Plaza Boulevard down to 30th, there are eight
existing fast food restaurants or restaurants with
drivethroughs, so there is not a huge concentration
necessarily; that is less than one par block. There are a
couple of blocks where there are more than one when you
count both sides of the street. So there is not a huge
concentration.
As far as the second policy refers to the
discouragement of unhealthy fast food outlets. As I
mentioned, there is no -- we don't actually know at this
point who the ultimate tenant may be. The nearest two
schools, those being Otis Elementary and Olive Wood
Elementary to the north and south respectively, are about
a quarter mile away. So although they are a fair distance
away, of course, the kids do come up and down Highland
Avenue on their way to and from school. But these
policies will also be addressed under the conditional use
permit as a more site specific.
With regard to CEQA, the California Environmental
Quality Act, rather than an exemption when dealing with
over 400 properties, we would look at that as e
Page 124
1 the minor mixed -use corridor zones, so the eastern 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, soon 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. tt would only be
12 within the particular zones and based on geographical
13 restrictions and based on a conditional use permit.
14 So thls 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.
800.211.DEPO (3376)
EsqurreSolutions. com
NATIONAL CITY MEETING
NATIONAL CITY PLANNING COMMISSION ME
August 19, 2013
ETING 125-128
Page 125
1 MADAM CHAIR: Yes, name and address, please.
2 THE WITNESS: Thomas Scott Fritzen, 5203 Green
3 Willow Lane, San Diego, California.
4 MADAM CHAIR: Thank you.
5 MR. FRITZEN: Here on behalf of the focus group
6 who is the applicant for the proposal and back again after
7 being here in June. And Martin Reader has been a great
8 assistant in putting the package together.
9 This project as he said is at the 2100 block of
10 Highland Avenue. It is a vacant lot next to the Auto
11 Zone. Martin was interested in trying to do something
12 different here and that was to give not just the owners of
13 nearby properties notice but the actual occupants, the
14 people who reside in the apartments and who are more
15 affected. The number of owners was, I think, in the 20s.
16 The number of people actually living in the neighborhood
17 in the three -- in the radius circle was in the hundreds,
18 and they all received notice. We thought that was a good
19 idea. We had some outreach to the tenants previously,
20 some meetings, and they were generally supportive of the
21 concept so we were pleased to do that.
22 The -- the amendment would allow for the
23 drivethrough restaurants within the 300-foot radius but
24 subject to stringent CUP guidelines. There were a lot of
25 potential sites that were affected because you're making a
Page 127
1 didn't do much frying, they did more grilling and things
2 like that, pretty basic stuff, and they said they tasted
3 pretty good.
4 So we're here with both the zone amendment to
5 allow for the restaurants within the 300-foot radius with
6 notice, which is the new requirement, and then at the same
7 time, to get a conditional use permit approved with the
8 stringent conditional use provisions that apply with
9 respect to fast food restaurants.
10 And I should have said, I'm the attorney
11 representing the focus group. Todd Dwyer who was here
12 last time came down with the flu, and he is not here to
13 join me tonight.
14 MADAM CHAIR: Thank you.
15 Do any commissioners have questions of the
16 applicant? Okay, Commissioner Bush.
17 COMMISSIONER BUSH: I do.
18 I just wanted to know if the applicant was made
19 aware -- oops — was made aware of the — of the
20 possible -- that the proposal is against the general plan
21 in particular, the health policies and if so, what would
22 be their ways of kind of mitigating those possible
23 negative effects.
24 MR. FRITZEN: Right, I am aware of that. First
25 of all, the two items that you hit against in the general
Page 125
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 tour
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, I think all these fast food
6 restaurants are challenged, I 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)
EsqulreSolutlons. corn
NATIONAL CITY MEETING August 19, 2013
NATIONAL CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 129-132
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
123
24
25
Page 129
Commissioner Bush mentioned. I feel like sometimes, too,
when it comes to environmental issues or just health in
general, you know, we can't really control what people are
consuming because that is what they want. But one of the
things I mentioned to Sonic, which came — ! can't
remember when, but they're going to be opening up next to
one of the main entrances to the city, but one of the
things I suggested was maybe including some sort of fruit
trees outside of the property, you know, consider more
aesthetic things that would, you know, portray that image.
I also mentioned to them maybe installing some
sort of solar panels to reduce the carbon footprint of the
business, so little things like that. You know, if they
were to take that into consideration I think it would be
great for — not only for the city, but for the image of
the business in the city.
MR. FRITZEN: I agree. There is a buffering
requirement, and it is not just a hedge to kind of get
some privacy, but there's some trees. The principals at
the focus group really go in for design. So I think that
when you look at something like this where you might
be — where you will be setting a precedent, you are
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
having to decide who you are partnering with. And I think 23
in this case, you've — you've got a good partner. 24
Someone that gets it who isn't going to try to get by with 25
Page 131
if you will. If it goes too small, then obviously they
run the risk of larger vehicles not making the turn, and I
think that given in this case -- ! believe we'll look at
it in the conditional use permit there's over 100 feet of
queuing, so once a vehicle makes it to that point I'm sure
it would be very difficult for them to tum back around.
So hopefully that's been addressed in the design.
COMMISSIONER DELAPAZ: Thank you.
And I wanted to confirm that the City Engineer
would approve of 20-foot, on a case -by -case basis but in
this case, was open to a 20-foot --
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: That's correct. Yeah, in
this case, the City Engineer took a look at the proposed
site plan that you have Just seen and agreed that that
would work in this case.
COMMISSIONER DELAPAZ: Okay. Now after
clarifying that I just wanted to share my thoughts on this
issue. We've got two pieces to amend in the code. One is
to allow a fast food with less than 300-foot distance from
residents within the MXC-2 and MXD-2 zones, those are both
mixed -use zones. That is one issue. Since it's mixed
use, I'm kind of on the fence a little bit on that issue
because obviously, if you are in a residence and a
mixed -use zoning. you are close to — you are going to be
close to residents -- excuse me, restaurants and other
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
6
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Page 130
the minimum requirements but actually wants to make it -a 1
successful project, and someone who would actually like to
do more business in National City and is mindful of the
reputation that they would have once they undertake a
project like this.
So, thank you.
MADAM CHAIR: Any other commissioners? Okay.
Thank you.
MR. FRITZEN: Thank you, Madam Commissioner.
MADAM CHAIR: This is a public hearing. Is there
anybody here in the audience who would iike to speak
either for or against this?
Okay. Commissioner DeLaPaz.
COMMISSIONER DELAPAZ: Yeah, ! had a question of
staff. The 20-foot turning radius, does staff recaii any
sites within the city that has a 20-foot turning radius in
a drivethrough that we can kind of visualize?
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Not specifically,
Commissioner. There are obviously a lot of very old
drivethroughs and there are a lot of newer drivethroughs
and they all vary.
The one — for example, Sonic that was just
approved was 1 think somewhere in the neighborhood of
33 feet turning radius, interior turning radius which is
quite wide. You know, 25 is sort of the industry standard
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 132
retail uses. But again, there is a reason why you put
that in there and I wouldn't mind upholding it. A little
bit on the fenoe on that one, to be honest.
No. 2 that we have to consider is whether we
would allow a — where the code now calls for a 25-foot
turning radius, the code will be amended io allow a
smaller radius if approved by the City Engineer through
the conditional use permit process. I do appreciate that
it would be subject to the process. I personally drive a
very large vehicle, but to be honest, if my vehicle didn't
fit in your drivethrough, i wouldn't be your customer and
therefore, the business takes care of that. I mean, that
issue is taken care of from the business standpoint
anyway. That business will have to decide if their — if
they can't make the site work and they have a smaller
turning radius than most, then the larger vehicle
customers which are pretty common in the City of National
City, we residents like our big cars and trucks and et
cetera, et cetera, that is Just kind of the nature of the
business so i almost kind of leave that in the hands of
the City Engineer, the CUP process and the business
owners. If they're willing to make that choice, then, you
know, people like me just wouldn't be a customer as much
as I love chicken. We've got another Popeye's on Plaza
Boulevard anyways, so—
CESQUIRE
800.211.DEPO (3376)
Esquire Solutions. corn
NATIONAL CITY MEETING
NATIONAL CITY PLANNING COMMISSION M
August 19, 2013
EETING 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 -- we're 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
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 135
SECRETARY: Item No. 5, Resolution 19-2013,
taking action on a recommendation to adopt a negative
declaration for a proposed code amendment of Sections
18.30, .360 and 18.41.010 Subsection C-2 of the land use
code related to fast food restaurant locational
requirements and drivethrough restaurant design
guidelines, Case File No. 2013-12AIS.
COMMISSIONER DELAPAZ: Move for approval.
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER Second.
MADAM CHAIR: Okay. We have a first and second.
Please vote.
SECRETARY: Motion carried by the following vote:
DeLaPaz, Bush, Alvarado, Flores, Baca and Garcia,
aye.
Pruitt, absent.
MADAM CHAIR: Okay. Now it is Item No. 6.
SECRETARY: Item No. 6 is a public hearing
conditional use permit for a fast food drivethrough
restaurant to be located at 2100 Highland Avenue. This
item will be presented by principal client and Martin
Reeder.
MADAM CHAIR: Mr. Reeder, thank you.
MR. REEDER: Thank you, again, Madam Chair,
members of the commission. I know by now you're very
familiar with this property.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
1D
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 1 B-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 Sorry, 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 comer 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'II 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, 23D0
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
0 ESQUIRE
800. 2 9 7-REPO (3376)
Esquire Solutions. com
NATIONAL CITY MEETING
NATIONAL CITY PLANNING COMMISSION M
EETING
August 19, 2013
137-140
Pagge137
1 are, again, eight fast foot outlets between Plaza and 3001
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 Ilttle 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 he 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 slze
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 i requiring that a full iandscape and underground irrigation
12 plan be provided as part of any construction documents
13 submitted for — for building a restaurant.
14 As far as issues to look at with a conditional
15 use permit, generaliy speaking, we're looking at parking
16 and circulation of vehicles, air quality, Tight and glare
17 from signage or restaurants, and, of course, noise.
18 And I already mentioned that unless the code
19 amendment is approved, the conditional use permit would
20 not take affect.
21 So regarding parking, again there are 38 parking
22 spaces existing. The proposal shows 37. Obviously,
23 putting a drivethrough aisle through the property would
24 reduce quite a bit of parking and it took quite a few
25 away, but the developer has shown a site plan that
18
119
20
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 concemed, 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 concerned, 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 ail iight 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
given that there are apartments next door. The staff has
added a condition that requires that any signage that is
facing that direction or is eievated, 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
SOLUT IONS
800.211.DEPO (3376)
EsguireSolufions. com
NATIONAL CITY MEETING
NATIONAL CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
August 19, 2013
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 comer 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
Page 143
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 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? 1 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
ESQUIRE
800.211.DEPO (3376)
EsquireSol utions. 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 concerns was making sure that
10 vehicles were out of the parking area and riot 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 perking 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. tf it was further back on the
22 same side, we'd probably have — I 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
Page 147
1 comment, but I wanted to know if Mr. Reeder can out up
2 that image of the side —the one with the -- shows the
3 apartments and the building. Oh, yeah, that one.
4 So — so I'm thinking about this buffer zone
5 right between the residence and the businesses, because
6 obviously, it was brought up by Commissioner DeLaPaz that,
7 you know, these residents live fairly close to this
8 business and, of course, as it was discussed there is
9 issues of noise pollution and so forth.
10 So I guess this is a comment for the developer,
11 maybe in the future, I don't know If It is possible or
12 feasible, if there were to be a possibility of maybe
13 building a structure -- maybe not a structure. Maybe
14 'structure' isn't the right word. But basically what I'm
15 envisioning is a wall of green, just like flowers or some
16 sort of green that would make a Gear separation between,
17 you know, the businesses and, of course, the residents.
18 And I think it will create, you know, hwo purposes. One,
19 aesthetically and then the ether one to, again, mitigate
20 some sort of, you know, carbon footprint from the
21 businesses as well as the businesses that are -- or the
22 cars that are going in there. So it was just an idea to
23 consider. So, yeah, I just want to throw that out there
24 and hopefully it will be heard.
25 MR. FRITZEN: There's not too much green in that
Page 146
1 two, maybe even three that might help, but still give them
2 time to fill the orders and get them out of there before
3 they start really queuing and backing up. I don't know,
4 leave that up to the experts, but I just thought I'd — I
5 was curious. I'm not concerned at all about refusing to
6 support this item because of that.
7 MR. FRITZEN: That's the kitchen side. Where the
8 window and the pickup is, that will be the kitchen side
9 and then the other --
10 COMMISSIONER DELAPAZ: Is the dining area?
1 i MR. FRiTZEN: is the dining area, yeah. So that
12 might have been why they were brought together. I think
13 if you go to In and Out Burger, which gets a lot more
14 volume, they've obviously gone to having the people in the
15 parking lot taking the orders. So i think that is to your
16 point, if you can get that order sooner you can move them
17 through faster.
18 COMMISSIONER DELAPAZ: Okay. I leave that up to
19 the experts.
20 1 did have a question for staff but i can wait,
21 wait for my turn.
22 MADAM CHAIR: Thank you.
23 Mr, Garcia, did you have a question of the
24 applicant?
25 COMMISSIONER GARCIA: Actually, maybe it's like a
Page 148
1 photo right there, is there? I will definitely pass that
2 on. Thank you.
3 MADAM CHAIR: Thank you.
4 This is a public hearing. Is there anybody here
5 In the audience wishing to speak for or against this?
6 Okay. Seeing none, do the commissioners have any
7 other questions of the staff or any questions to bring up?
f Commissioner DeLaPaz.
9 COMMISSIONER DELAPAZ: I just had a question on
10 the Condition No. 18, that the plan shall conform to the
11 minimum turning radius requirements for drivethrough
12 businesses unless the code is amended to approve a lesser
13 radius. It doesn't really say In there that the City
14 Engineer needs to sign off and we're already approving
15 this so i guess we are signing off on the 20 foot based on
16 the CUP in front of us; Is that correct?
17 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Correct. This is — the
18 request is for the 20 feet which is, obviously, subject
19 to 18.41 which allows the City Engineer to reduce that.
20 think it was written — I think i rewrote it a couple of
21 times, I just tried to make it fairly broad.
22 COMMISSIONER DELAPAZ: So In this application as
23 presented, we're giving the City Engineer the authority to
24 establish the lesser?
25 THE WITNESS: Correct.
ESQUIRE
800. 211. REPO (3376)
Esquire Solutions. com
NATIONAL CITY MEETING
NATIONAL CITY PLANNING COMMISSION ME
August 19, 2013
ETING 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 167 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 -- ] just want to
25 bring that up. I don't know if the commissioners want to
Page 151
1 MADAM CHAIR: Okay. Is there a second?
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 for a 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. I'll 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
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 Government 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 California 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
Page 152
ESQUIRE
800. 211. DEPO (3376)
Esquire Solutions. com
NATIONAL CITY MEETING August 19, 2013
NATIONAL CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 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.
B 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 Superintendent 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 -- we'll 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 dlstrictto 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. l 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 an 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
2
3 members of the public allowed to speak or is this just for
4 the commissioners to discuss?
5 ATTORNEY SILVA: No. mernbers of the public, if
6 they have speaker slips, can always comment on the
7 specific agenda item.
B 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 MADAM CHAIR: Okay. We have eight speakers.
14 Once again, it will be a three -minute time limit that
15 we'll have to enforce.
16 Okay. First speaker.
17 SECRETARY: Speaker No. 1 is Cheryl Howey
18 Cuimonaro (phonetic) followed by Fran Brinkman.
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Page 154
to those requests. 1
MADAM CHAIR: Okay. And also to clarify, are 2
3
14
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
MADAM CHAIR: Okay. Name and address, please? 19
MS. CULMONARO: Hi. My name is Cheryl Howey 20
Culmonaro. 21
I'm a 51-year resident of the City of National 22
City. I live at 305 J Avenue. 23
I have been asked by numerous people within the 24
city community members, people within the school district, 25
Page 156
me and talked to me, but they're very influential. They
feel that there could be repercussions from the
superintendent'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 carded forward,
there should be more of a community forum io
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
Ailiantfrom 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.
800. 211. DEPO (3376)
EsquireSolutlons. 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 retum 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 Governor'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 superintendent 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
1 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 1 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
Page 159
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 classes 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 Solu ti on s. 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 lst, 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 Minos 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
1 SECRETARY: Aurora Maria Clark.
2 MADAM CHAIR: Hi, name and address?
3 MS. CLARK: Good evening.
4 My name is Aurora Maria Clark. I live at
5 808 Plaza Sierra in Chula Vista. And I'm here because I
6 got very concerned when ] heard about the urgency in wiileli
7 they're trying to open up a university that doesn't sound
8 at all like a university. I have already two
9 students that — two students -- the children that go to
10 the university. And six classes only offered does not
11 sound like a university at ail, it doesn't sound like
12 choices that will benefit or increase in any way the
13 potential of that child becoming a really prepared
14 substantial career person.
15 My other concern was, when i was iistening to my
16 messages finding out that I was being invited by the
17 Sweetwater district to go attend and to have my child
18 recruited to Alliant, a private institute. My number is
19 on the do -not -call list, meaning that nobody should be
20 calling my house to be soliciting. And yet someone has
21 taken it up on them the freedom to give my number sway,
22 which should be respected as a privacy Issue,
23 The other thing was that my son, he is still
24 underage even though he graduated already. And still his
25 Information, violating the Green Act, was given out.
Page 162
Page 164
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 rationaie 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 sioppiness 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
ESQUIRE
800.211.DEPO (3:376)
Esquire Solutions. corn
NATIONAL CITY MEETING
NATIONAL CITY PLANNING COMMISSION M
August 19, 2013
EET1NG 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 ifs 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 California College San Diego right here
13 in National City thatyou 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
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, ] 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 its another situation. Families can make up their own
25 mind.
ESQUIRE
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 ourteam from Ailiant 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 its a pruhlbitive 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 choice.
21 The Sweetwater District board of trustees
22 deliberated on at the things that the previous speakers
23 met. Their role is to determine the curriculum and
24 instruction. We believe the city's role is to determine
25 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 All iant
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 intemships 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, Southwestem College, California
21 College and why not Ailiant 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
6
7
8
9
10
1 '!
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 ctaar 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
6 fulfilling their obligations.
F And that's pretty much it, so I'rn here to answer
7 any questions you may have.
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
E QUA .E
800. 211. DEPO (3376)
Esq u rre So lufio ns. co m
NATIONAL CITY MEETING
NATIONAL CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MEE
TING
August 19, 2013
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 1 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.
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
Page 174
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 36 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 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 klds 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 J 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)
EsquireSofutrons. com
NATIONAL CITY MEETING
NATIONAL CITY PLANNING COMMISSION ME
August 19, 2013
ETING 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 Chamber's fetter 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 wore 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, 1 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 I'II — 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
Page 178
1 Okay. Commissioner Baca?
2 COMMISSIONER BACA: Yeah. I agree that we should
3 stick to the original date that we have proposed on that
4 letterhead. I think there's a lot of clarifications that
5 need to be made here, questions that ! would have as far
6 as whether residents that live in this city that are low
7 income — I mean, they meant to say that there's also
8 San Diego State, which has the OPS program that students
9 can get into there as well. If it is a for -profit agency,
10 why not relocate along with ITT and the rest of those
11 euileges In there? I'itr sure they have ample pa k ng aim
12 ample building there as well. But I think when the adult
13 school was set up, it was for the purpose of what's
14 specifically designed and a lot of us have to do for that
15 school wren we were in education to make sure that that's
16 what the intent of that adult school was. So that is my
17 personal opinion that I would not vote In favor of
18 changing the date. I would stick with what we
19 have (inaudible).
2 MADAM CHAIR: Thank you.
21 COMM!SS!ONER BACA: And submitted to City Council
22 as well.
MADAM CHAIR: Attorney Silva?
MS. SILVA: Sorry for, once again, pushing my
2r button, but I just want to remind the Commission, while
ESQU IRE
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 -- ! guese
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
2=. 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
E a special meeting then it would — that would -- I would
800. 211. REPO (3376)
Esquire Solutions. 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 tom 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 setup. 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' 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 1 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 it's 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)
Esquire Solutions. coma
NATIONAL CITY MEETING
NATIONAL CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MEE
August 19, 2013
TING 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 Southwestern 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 tact 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.
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,
Any further discussion among
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
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 to — if it affects your discussion of the particular
12 question, it's narrowly tailored to that and it is not
13 getting into the underlying merits, then it's an
14 appropriate line of inquiry as to how it bears on this
15 discussion item.
16 MADAM CHAIR: So he can proceed with his
17 question?
18 MS. SILVA: Sorry. Yes.
19 MADAM CHAIR: Okay. Thank you.
20 COMMISSIONER BUSH: So if Dr. Brand can address
21 why — why the rush, essentially.
22 DR. BRAND: Members of the Commission, ladies end
23 gentlemen, about three months ago, we approached, I
24 believe, City Manager Dietz about the process. Our
25 person, Tom Calhoon, Is the executor director of
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 188
aye.
Pruitt absent, to not call a special meeting.
MADAM CHAIR: Okay. Thank you. I know it's
late. And I thank you everybody for coming and sharing
your opinion.
Now we go to the deputy city attorney. Do you
have a report?
DEPUTY CITY ATTORNEY: it's a pleasure being with
you this evening and working through all the items with
you all, and thank you for indulging my information as it
i aiil6 aloe .
MADAM CHAIR: Okay. Thank you.
Executive Director Olson.
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OLSON: No report.
MADAM CHAIR: Mr. Reeder?
MR. REEDER: No report, other than to say I won't
be here at the next meeting. So I will see you In
October. But other staff will be covering for me, and
you'll probably all see my handiwork --
MADAM CHAIR: Okay.
MR. REEDER: — as far as your reports.
MADAM CHAIR: Thank you.
MR. REEDER: Thanks.
MADAM CHAIR: Commissioner Garcia.
COMMISSIONER GARCIA: I would like to commend
ESQUIRE
800.211.DEPO (3376)
Esq dire Solu ti ons. co m
NATIONAL CITY MEETING
NATIONAL CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MEE
TING
August 19, 2013
189-192
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 189
Mr. Reeder for all the awesome work that he's doing. He
obviously, was -- you know, there was a lot of great
comments that were made by him. So, yeah, all power to
you (inaudible).
MR. REEDER: Much obliged, Commissioner. Thank
you.
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.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
1D
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Page 191
comment, just one quick comment to Commissioner Garcia. I
know you like -- you talk about green a lot. I just want
you to know that I've had solar -- solar power at my home
for seven years. And were adding more panels next month,
so just so you know.
And with that, we're adjourned until
September 16th.
(Reporter's transcript of proceedings concluded.)
Sr
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, it's already been required — I told him
6 would report it to -- in the Planning Commission and maybe
7 have the city follow up on that. Okay?
B MR. REEDER: We will follow up. Thank you.
3 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 ail 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 CERTIFICATIM
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.
Denise T. Johnson, {SR No. 11902
ESQUIRE
800.211.DEPO (3376)
EsquireSolutions. com