| A Regular Joint Meeting of the El Cajon City Council and Redevelopment Agency of the City of El Cajon, California held Tuesday, September 12, 2000 was called to order by Mayor/Chair Mark Lewis at 3:00 p.m., in the Council Chambers, 200 East Main Street, El Cajon, California.
ROLL CALL
| Councilmembers/Agencymembers present: |
McClellan, Santos, Keegan |
| Councilmembers/Agencymembers absent: |
|
| Mayor Pro Tem/Vice Chair present: |
Ramos |
| Mayor/Chair present: |
Lewis |
| Other officers present: |
Linn, City Clerk/Secretary; Foley, City Attorney/General Counsel; Garrett, City Manager/ Executive Director; Munzenmaier, Director of Public Works; Griffin, Director of Community Development |
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO FLAG led by Mayor Lewis.
INVOCATION by Councilmember McClellan.
POSTINGS
The City Clerk posted Orders of Adjournment of the August 22, 2000 Meetings and the Agenda of the September 12, 2000 Meetings according to State Law and Council/Agency Policy.
PRESENTATIONS: (CMD 100)
"Lawsuit Abuse Awareness" and "I Will Serve on a Jury" Week
Mayor Lewis presents a Proclamation declaring September 18-22, 2000 as "Lawsuit Abuse Awareness" and "I Will Serve on a Jury" week in the City of El Cajon and commends San Diego County Citizens Against Lawsuit Abuse for its work in effecting positive change in the public’s attitude and behavior towards jury service. Andy Kotner, Executive Director of San Diego Citizens Against Lawsuit Abuse, accepts the proclamation and thanks Mayor Lewis for judging high school student essays on lawsuit abuse. She urges citizens to serve on juries.
MINUTES
MOTION BY Lewis, SECOND BY Santos to approve Minutes of the August 8, 2000 and August 22, 2000 Meetings.
MOTION CARRIES BY UNANIMOUS VOTE, with the following vote on the Minutes of the August 22, 2000 Meetings:
AYES: McClellan, Ramos, Santos, Lewis
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: Keegan (due to his absence from the meeting)
MOTION CARRIES.
CHANGES TO THE AGENDA:
City Manager Garrett states a letter from Vickie Butcher requests an item be placed on the agenda.
Councilmember McClellan requests General Information Items A, C, and E be added to the Agenda.
MOTION BY Lewis, SECOND BY Santos to add Item 8A, letter from Vickie Butcher requesting to serve as Ambassador for the City in her trip to Australia for the 2000 Olympics, finding that the need to take action on this item arose after the posted Agenda.
MOTION CARRIES BY UNANIMOUS VOTE.
MOTION BY Lewis, SECOND BY McClellan to add the following General Information Items to the Agenda: General Information Item A, Letter from Grossmont High School District - Increase in Developmental Impact School Fees, as Agenda Item 8B; General Information Item C, Donations to Animal Shelter, as Agenda Item 8C; and General Information Item E, American Public Works Award 2000, as Agenda Item 8D.
MOTION CARRIES BY UNANIMOUS VOTE.
MOTION BY Lewis, SECOND BY Keegan to approve the Agenda as amended.
MOTION CARRIES BY UNANIMOUS VOTE.
CONSENT ITEMS (1.1 – 1.15)
Councilmember McClellan disqualifies himself from participation in Items 1.4, 1.8 and 1.13 due to a possible financial conflict of interest in accordance with California law.
MOTION BY Keegan SECOND BY Lewis, to approve Consent Items 1.1 – 1.15.
MOTION CARRIES BY UNANIMOUS VOTE, with the following vote on Items 1.4, 1.8, and 1.13:
AYES: Ramos, Santos, Keegan, Lewis
NOES: None
DISQUALIFY: McClellan (due to a possible financial conflict of interest according to State Law)
MOTION CARRIES.
1.1 WARRANTS (FIN 100)
Approve payment of Commercial Warrant Nos. 173520-173713 in the amount of $655,858.74 issued on August 24, 2000 through August 30, 2000, Commercial Warrant Nos. 173717-173719 in the amount of $2,942.90 issued on August 31, 2000, Commercial Warrant Nos. 173720-173889 in the amount of $522,603.04 issued on September 1, 2000 through September 8, 2000, and Commercial Warrant Nos. 173896-173901 in the amount of $144,863.15 issued on September 11, 2000; Payroll Warrant Nos. 410735-410892 in the amount of $119,596.41 issued on August 25, 2000, Payroll Direct Deposit Nos. S18633-S19090 in the amount of $524,622.05 issued on August 25, 2000, and Payroll Wires in the amount of $195,073.09 issued on August 25, 2000; Payroll Warrant Nos. 411018-411159 in the amount of $110,066.87 issued on September 8, 2000, Payroll Direct Deposit Nos. S19102-S19559 in the amount of $523,078.17 issued on September 8, 2000, and Payroll Wires in the amount of $192,333.24 issued on September 8, 2000.
1.2 SPECIAL OPERATION LICENSE - THIS N THAT - SWAP MEET SALES (FIN 400)
Approve the application submitted by Kezia Verros Douthit for sales of toys and sunglasses, etc. at the El Cajon Swap Meet, as recommended by the Police and Planning Departments and the City Manager.
1.3 ACCEPTANCE OF PROJECT - INSTALLATION OF TRAFFIC SIGNAL AND SAFETY LIGHTING SYSTEM AT EAST MAIN STREET AND MELODY LANE (Report: Director of Public Works) (CNT 100)
Accept the project, authorize the City Clerk to file a Notice of Completion and release the bonds according to terms of the contract, requiring the Contractor to maintain insurance until all bonds on the project are released.
1.4 ACCEPTANCE OF PROJECT - MODIFICATION OF TRAFFIC SIGNAL AND SAFETY LIGHTING SYSTEM AT BALLANTYNE STREET & PARK AVENUE (Report: Director of Public Works) (SIG 200)
Accept the project, authorize the City Clerk to file a Notice of Completion and release the bonds according to terms of the contract, requiring the Contractor to maintain insurance until all bonds on the project are released.
1.5 MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS (PRS 300)
Authorize the following letters to be included on the City’s Wall of Fame and/or letters of appreciation be sent to the appropriate parties.
Letter from Lemon Grove City Manager expressing appreciation for Ed Krulikowski's assistance at a recent Lemon Grove Traffic Advisory Committee meeting.
Letter from Lynn Robert Townsend, El Cajon Hearing Aid Center at 155 E. Main Street, expressing appreciation for Gary Scott in helping solve parking problems during the Main Street construction.
1.6 SPECIAL OPERATION LICENSE - TIMONEY'S FIREARMS (FIN 400)
Approve the application submitted by John George Timoney for Timoney's Firearms at 1136 Broadway, Ste. 6, for second hand sales of firearms and accessories, as recommended by the Police and Planning Departments and the City Manager.
1.7 ACCEPTANCE OF PROJECT: INSTALLATION OF PUBLIC STREET LIGHTING, REA AVENUE, ALLEY NORTH OF MAIN STREET AND ORANGE AVENUE (Report: Director of Public Works) (CNT 100)
Accept the project, direct the City Clerk to file a Notice of Completion and release the bonds in accordance with the terms of the contract, requiring the Contractor to maintain insurance until all bonds on the project are released.
1.8 GRANT DEED FOR PUBLIC STREET PURPOSES AND HOLD HARMLESS AGREEMENT - 1329 NARANCA AVENUE (Report: Director of Public Works) (DED 100/CNT 200)
Accept the attached Grant Deed and approve the Hold Harmless Agreement, and authorize the City Clerk to have the documents executed and recorded.
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY ITEM:
1.9 RESOLUTION NO. ECRA-335: AWARD BID FOR ASBESTOS ABATEMENT, SOUTHWEST CORNERS PROJECT (Report: Purchasing Agent) (CNT 100)
Adopt RESOLUTION NO. ECRA-335 to award the bid to C. C. Serv, Inc. in the amount of $69,525.00.
1.10 RESOLUTION NO. 139-00: AWARD BID - TRAFFIC SIGNAL STANDARDS (Report: Purchasing Agent) (PUR 300)
Adopt the RESOLUTION NO. 139-00 to award the bid to Lingo Industrial Electronics, in the amount of $26,379.04.
1.11 AMENDMENT OF CITY COUNCIL POLICY A-13: RECORDS MANAGEMENT (Report: Assistant City Manager) (CCL 300)
Approve the amended Records Retention Schedule relating to the Police Department's video and audio taped recordings made by mobile in-car video systems.
1.12 BICYCLE LOCKERS (Report: Director of Public Works) (ORG 202)
Approve the proposed submittal to SANDAG for bicycle lockers at City Hall.
1.13 ACCEPTANCE OF MARSHALL AVENUE EXTENSION PROJECT (Report: Director of Public Works) (STI 200)
Accept the Marshall Avenue Extension Project and authorize the City Clerk to file a Notice of Completion and release the bonds in accordance with the terms of the contract, requiring the Contractor to maintain insurance until all bonds on the project are released.
1.14 ACCEPTANCE OF PROJECT AND NOTICE OF COMPLETION - STAGE RIGGING AT EAST COUNTY PERFORMING ARTS CENTER (Report: Purchasing Agent) (PUR 300)
Accept the project and authorize the City Clerk to record a Notice of Completion and release the bonds according to the agreement for the project, requiring the Contractor to maintain insurance on the project until all bonds are released.
1.15 ACCEPTANCE OF DOUGLAS AVENUE ET AL STREET IMPROVEMENTS (Report: Director of Public Works) (CNT 100)
Accept the project and authorize the City Clerk to file a Notice of Completion and release the bonds in accordance with the terms of the contract, requiring the Contractor to maintain insurance until all bonds on the project are released.
PUBLIC COMMENT:
East County Fleet Week (TRN 400)
Eric Lund, 1120 Washington Heights Place, El Cajon, CA 92019, Executive Director, San Diego East Visitors Bureau, invites the City Council, staff, and the public to the East County Fleet Week Fireworks Show and Celebration to be held October 8, 2000 at Gillespie Field. The event will include static aircraft displays, high school band, a middle school mariachi group, U.S. Navy Band, characters from SeaWorld, Children’s Festival, a native American dance troupe, model aircraft, and Air Group One also participates. It will be a great event in East County to honor the military. He presents a brochure to Council and staff, including a request for interest regarding the lot adjacent to this area for retail development. Working with Downtown El Cajon, Inc., they have talked with hotel developers interested in that area.
Crosswalk at El Cajon Valley High (TRF 100)
Beckee Handrich-Seaman, 460 Graves Ave. #15, El Cajon, CA 92020, states she is concerned with the safety of the El Cajon Valley High students. She requests painting a crosswalk at the intersection of June, which is directly across the street from the high school. She is concerned that someone may be struck by a car.
Mayor Pro Tem Ramos states that is a good idea and inexpensive when compared with installing a traffic light. He suggests referring to staff to come back with a report.
Mayor Lewis suggests contacting the school district as well.
Mayor Pro Tem Ramos states when the school district is contacted, there must be some enforcement. If it is to be painted, it must be used.
City Manager Garrett confirms the matter will be brought back.
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: (2.1 – 2.7)
2.1 LETTER: STEVEN PACQUER - REQUESTING AUTHORIZATION TO SUBMIT GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT APPLICATION (Report: Director of Community Development) (GPA 200)
RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council refer the applicant's request for a General Plan Amendment to the Planning Commission subject to the submittal of a complete application and payment of the filing fee.
DISCUSSION
City Clerk Linn advises there are no speaker cards for this item. She understands the request was to be withdrawn, but written notification has not been received.
MOTION BY Lewis, SECOND BY McClellan to refer to the Planning Commission subject to submittal of an application and fee.
DISCUSSION
Mayor Pro Tem Ramos comments that perhaps a withdrawal letter will be received soon; he has been told that the people who wanted the property have backed out.
VOTES ARE NOW CAST ON MOTION BY Lewis, SECOND BY McClellan to refer to the Planning Commission subject to submittal of an application and fee.
MOTION CARRIES BY UNANIMOUS VOTE.
2.2 LETTER: DOWNTOWN EL CAJON - AMEND SPECIFIC PLAN 182 TO EXCLUDE BUSINESS CATEGORIES (PLN 402)
Letter from Claire Carpenter, Executive Director of Downtown El Cajon, proposes an amendment to Specific Plan 182 to exclude certain business categories within boundaries of Specific Plan 182.
DISCUSSION
Claire Carpenter, Executive Director, Downtown El Cajon, Inc., 168 E. Main Street, El Cajon, CA 92020 requests Council consider referring the request for an amendment to Specific Plan 182 to the Planning Commission so everyone can discuss the allowed uses in the downtown area. There are potential conflicts in terms of the objectives of the Management District.
Councilmember Keegan questions why Sanitariums and Convalescent Hospitals are on the list to be excluded.
Ms. Carpenter informs the size of the facility would tend to be incompatible with the village specialty retail district. It could potentially be excluded, or perhaps allowed with a Conditional Use Permit and criteria so it would fit into the arts and entertainment district the Downtown Management District has been working on.
Councilmember Keegan states Specific Plan 182 is a large area which will not be all arts and entertainment.
Ms. Carpenter states their focus is that it will be the entire area of Specific Plan 182.
Councilmember Keegan comments there is a need for convalescent hospitals and he does not want to preclude them. It would be great if the economy allows the area to be all arts and entertainment. He questions why Board and Care Facilities are on the list to be excluded.
Ms. Carpenter informs it is for the same reason. This is an idea which can be discussed. The Management District wants to keep the area as focused as possible, because that would make the ultimate objective come forward quicker, but if the economy does not support it or there are reasons not to make the adjustment, it could be worked out.
Councilmember Keegan comments he understands the Management District would not want these venues in the center of the District, but he would not have a problem with having them in the outlying areas. He would have a problem with excluding them entirely. Councilmember Keegan states current businesses will not be impacted if there are changes because they will be grandfathered in, but questions if they would lose that right if they opted to expand.
Assistant Director of Planning Guyer informs non-conforming uses cannot be expanded.
Councilmember Keegan remarks that someone who has been in the downtown area for years would be precluded from expanding their business.
Councilmember McClellan questions if Ms. Carpenter is referring to the Assessment District, which would be a more limited area of involvement, and not the Specific Plan 182 area. He would not necessary want these businesses in the Assessment District area.
Ms. Carpenter states they will look at that. Her understanding was that the areas were fairly similar in boundary, but perhaps clarification is needed and the core area separated.
Mayor Lewis remarks it is a step in the right direction to turn the area into an arts and entertainment area to bring people to downtown El Cajon.
MOTION BY Lewis, SECOND BY McClellan to refer to the staff to send to the Planning Commission.
DISCUSSION
Councilmember Keegan questions if the item is being sent to staff to implement or to come back to Council.
City Manager Garrett advises it will go to the Planning Commission first, where there will be a public hearing, and then City Council will hold a public hearing.
In response to Councilmember Keegan, City Manager Garrett confirms that nothing is being implemented tonight. It will be referred to the Planning Commission, along with Council’s comments.
Mayor Lewis questions when this will come back to Council.
Assistant Director Guyer estimates it will take approximately three months to do studies and get a vote from the Planning Commission.
VOTES ARE NOW CAST ON MOTION BY Lewis, SECOND BY McClellan, to refer to the staff to send to the Planning Commission.
MOTION CARRIES BY UNANIMOUS VOTE.
2.3 LETTER: JUDY KINMAN - NEGATIVE DECLARATION PREPARED BY THE COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO ON PROPOSED ADDITION OF NAVIGATION INSTRUMENTS AT GILLESPIE FIELD (Report: Director of Community Development) (TRN 400)
RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council determine if it wants to take any action and direct the staff accordingly.
Councilmember McClellan disqualifies himself from participation in Item 2.3 due to a possible financial conflict of interest in accordance with California law, and leaves Council Chambers at 3:29 p.m.
DISCUSSION
Judy Kinman, 2153 Rodado Place, El Cajon, CA 92020, states she lives in Fletcher Hills Highlands. On August 3, she and twelve other homeowners responded to the County of San Diego Negative Declaration dated May 18, 2000. Council and staff have received a copy of the letter, addressing concerns relating to items discussed in the Negative Declaration, also referred to as Initial Study. It is not a full-scale Environmental Impact Report (EIR). The homeowners’ largest concern is that it was written from the perspective of the effects of placing several black boxes on the northern edge of the airport and not investigating the impact this equipment will have by increasing the numbers of flights for all aircraft, including jets and helicopters. They are concerned about the number of jet flights at night; and there is a need for noise monitoring equipment on the field and in the neighborhood surrounding the airport. The homeowners also suggested that a noise abatement office be created to monitor the older Learjets that make a lot of noise and find those that violate the noise ordinances of the City and the standards set out by the Comprehensive Land Use Plan.
There were noise contours in the Negative Declaration, Figures 4, 5, 6 and 7, which are very difficult to read to determine what neighborhoods are under those contours. Their group has searched the documents and can find no documents that show the contours and the streets underneath. They would like to have clear noise contours so citizens can identify where the problems are legal and where they are out of compliance. Figures 4, 6 and 7 show the aircraft all turning to the right. This is not accurate.
Mayor Lewis questions if Ms. Kinman represents an organization of approximately 450 homes.
Ms. Kinman states there are 454 homes in Fletcher Highlands.
In response to Mayor Lewis, Ms. Kinman’s states the tower does not operate at night.
Mayor Lewis questions if there are landings and takeoffs at night.
Ms. Kinman replies there are noisy landings and takeoffs at night.
Mayor Lewis questions why Ms. Kinman is before the City of El Cajon.
Ms. Kinman requests the City of El Cajon review the document and their letter and ask the Board of Supervisors to do a full-scale EIR.
Mayor Lewis states the airport is the County’s responsibility, although it is in the jurisdiction of El Cajon. The City has an obligation to its residents, so there are concerns. He clarifies that Ms. Kinman is requesting the City write a letter regarding its concerns and the statements that will be made today.
Ms. Kinman comments that none of the people on the east side of the airport know what is happening. Noise studies were done on the east and south sides, but none on the west or the north, with the idea that it is just landings that are involved in this equipment. Every landing also has a takeoff. Her neighborhood is under the takeoffs and that is why they are involved. They do not feel that all the people around the airport, most of whom are residents of El Cajon, know about this.
Mayor Lewis remarks airplanes come down over the Pepper Drive area, where a Santee elementary school is located. There is also a high school at the other end. He questions if Ms. Kinman knows if the school districts have been notified.
Ms. Kinman informs the school districts were not notified. She gave them copies of the report and encouraged them to respond. The school districts said Ms. Kinman had done such a good job, they would not have to bother. Perhaps they were not notified because it is an initial study.
Mayor Pro Tem Ramos notes the heading on Ms. Kinman’s letter is "Fletcher Hills Highlands Homeowners." He questions if this was a vote taken by the homeowners association in support of what Ms. Kinman is doing.
Ms. Kinman advises she was appointed as committee chairperson by the Board of Fletcher Hills Highlands Homeowners. She has spoken to approximately 50 of her neighbors.
Mayor Pro Tem Ramos questions if Ms. Kinman’s letter was approved by the entire Homeowners Association in a regularly scheduled meeting.
Ms. Kinman states her letter was approved by the Board, but not the total homeowners.
In response to Mayor Pro Tem Ramos, Ms. Kinman clarifies the Board of Fletcher Hills Highlands Homeowners Association approved her letter.
Mayor Pro Tem Ramos states he has been told that Ms. Kinman has excluded certain homeowners from attending those Board meetings.
Ms. Kinman states that is not the case.
Mayor Pro Tem Ramos states he has information that contradicts what Ms. Kinman is saying. He wishes to question the Board President, Bob Climer, about this.
Bob Climer, 1882 Hacienda Drive, El Cajon, CA 92020, informs there was a meeting and Judy Kinman was approved for research on this project. The night before she mailed her letters, they withdrew legally and it is in the minutes. He talked with several people regarding this matter and there was a homeowner who was invited to a meeting and then was "un-invited." That came up at their first meeting when they withdrew support and the letter. They voted on her using the letter because it would be protocol to let her send the letter. He did not read it and has asked their secretary to talk with Mrs. Kinman to get a copy of the latest letter because they asked her to take everything out of the letter pertaining to the 454 homes and Fletcher Hills Highlands Association. He does not know if that letter has been received by the secretary, but he does not have a letter.
Mayor Pro Tem Ramos questions if the Fletcher Hills Highlands Association voted for or supported this letter.
Mr. Climer states he would have to read the minutes. They talked about it and voted not to let Ms. Kinman represent the 454 homes.
Councilmember Keegan states he does not want to get in the middle of two groups within a homeowners association. He states that Mr. Climer clearly remembers the board voted not to sanction the letter, but then Mr. Climer answered Mayor Pro Tem Ramos’s question that he did not know, but would have to check the minutes. He questions if Mr. Climer is clear that the board withdrew support, or never supported the letter.
Mr. Climer advises they supported the letter with changes. He does not know if the changes were made to the letter when it was sent.
Councilmember Keegan questions if Mr. Climer knows whether the board supports the letter in its current form or not.
Mr. Climer informs they did support her to send a letter, but to take out the support of the representation of 454 houses and the association.
Councilmember Keegan questions if there were other changes that were requested.
Mr. Climer states those were the only changes they made – that the board and the association would not be mentioned. There was a conflict of interest.
Councilmember Keegan states it is not clear – Mr. Climer just said the board approved the letter with changes.
Mr. Climer advises they approved a letter but not "the" letter. She was approved to write a letter but they wanted to see the letter before it was mailed.
Jeff Emery, 1528 Avenida Oceano, Oceanside, CA 92056, states he works with Mercy Air Services out of Gillespie Field. They received initial response regarding the letter from Ms. Kinman, noise complaints, the proposal to remove helicopters and jets from Gillespie Airport. Mercy Air and several other helicopter operators out of Gillespie provide a valuable service to the community. Noise complaints are always an issue with helicopters, including ASTREA and the San Diego Police Department, but they provide emergency service and he is concerned that with the closure of Scripps East, emergency response availability for El Cajon and East County is limited by limiting helicopter operations and curfews. He will not comment regarding instrument approaches when it is addressed later. They have information to provide and want to see improved instrument approaches at Gillespie. They operate out of Gillespie in inclement weather and instrument approaches would enhance their ability to provide services to East County. Their operation out of Gillespie is 24/7 and they comply with all tower noise restrictions, noise arrival and departure routes. They operate as friendly as possible with the neighborhood, but they are an emergency response team so they probably are the people who are out there at night. They try to avoid areas like the Fletcher Hills Homeowners Association as much as possible.
Mayor Lewis questions if Mr. Emery is familiar with the LDA/DME.
Mr. Emery is familiar with that type of approach and the equipment, but he has not seen a proposal for the one at Gillespie.
Mayor Lewis questions if flights come in 400’ lower on instrument approaches with this system, and leave 400’ lower.
Mr. Emery advises that is the purpose of an LDA/DME approach, compared to the localizer approach that is currently at Gillespie. It allows aircraft to come in at a lower altitude in inclement weather.
Mayor Lewis states if the aircraft are 400’ lower there would be increased noise.
Mr. Emery comments the increased noise factor would not be the case, because of the instrument approach. The instrument approach is still predicated on terrain and obstacle clearance. The LDA/DME approach allows aircraft to get lower, but still at an altitude of the current localizer approach. Due to the fact that there is DME (Distance Measuring Equipment), it allows aircraft to continue closer to the airport in that descent rather than on the localizer approach now. If there is no DME, pilots cannot tell the distance from the airport, so they are limited to an altitude and fly that altitude all the way up to a point, missed approach, to go away.
Mayor Lewis comments Mr. Emery’s service is very valuable to the community.
Richard P. Fordem, 1937 Hacienda Drive, El Cajon, CA 92020, states he resides in the Fletcher Hills Homeowners Association and has been a member of the Gillespie Field Development Council for approximately five years. He learned to fly at Gillespie Airport in 1969 and has been flying out of there every since. He flies commercial airline as captain and has flown 747s worldwide. He heard about the Negative Declaration in July. He has worked for the last 10 years to implement a new instrument approach into Gillespie Field. His primary concern in flying over El Cajon or any airport in the world is safety. This instrument approach is a safer approach.
What has happened in this association is the worst form of government he has seen. He learned that Ms. Kinman went to the Board of Supervisors in June and he called her the first week of July. She stated she was going to have a meeting about the new instrument approach and other issues. He answered many of her questions and thought it was a dead issue but a month and a half later, he received a flyer saying the President is sending a letter of concern about Gillespie Airport. He spoke with the President and Mr. Fordem gave the President a tour of the airport and took him flying.
At the end of their conversation, Ms. Kinman "un-invited" him to the meetings. He asked her to call him if there were subsequent meetings and she said she would. He then learned that Ms. Kinman did not contact Noreen Crane, Airport Manager, for technical expertise and did not call him back. She had five subsequent meetings and wrote a letter, full of distortion and half-truths. Ms. Kinman does not represent 454 homes. He has talked with approximately 60 homeowners and all of them state, "What’s the problem, there is an airport here." There is no problem.
Mayor Lewis states the reason it is before Council is that any person in El Cajon has the right to write a letter of concern and ask Council’s assistance. Regarding with the LDA/DME instrument landing equipment, the Negative Declaration projects that jet traffic will increase by 20 times and helicopter flights by 30-fold in the next decade. He questions if that is a fair statement.
Mr. Fordem states it is not. Over $100,000 has been spent on numerous studies over the last 10 years. The last study which cost $10,000 by an individual who has also done studies for Phoenix Sky Harbor, Los Angeles International and other airports, states that there will be an increase of approximately one every other day. Mr. Fordem does not know where the 200% or 400% or 2000% numbers comes from.
Mayor Lewis comments regarding the instrument landing and takeoff allowing aircraft to come in 400’ lower, under Description of the Project in the Initial Study, 27R and 9L were to be equipped with LDA/DMA equipment, and the levels to the east would not exceed 65 dBA standards when the jets take off.
Mr. Fordem states that is fair. He wishes to read findings from the most current report about the instrument approach.
Mayor Lewis common sense tells him that increased jets and jets 400’ lower might go above the 65 dBA, and that is his concern.
Mr. Fordem advises he has learned over 34 years of flying that if an airplane in good weather is coming in from the east to land, it has to go through 400’, then 300’, and then 200’ and 100’, and land. The LDA or an instrument approach allows that same flight path to happen, only in the clouds. He wishes to submit the report.
Mayor Lewis states Figure 2a, the revised map labels Bradley Avenue as Fletcher Parkway.
Mr. Fordem states there are various committees and technical representatives that have this information who work with the FAA daily. He requests if Noreen Crane, Airport Manager, could answer these questions. She has the report with her.
Mayor Lewis comments the streets are labeled incorrectly and he also had questions about where the LDA/DMA is located, in Santee or in El Cajon.
Mr. Fordem advises it is an antenna on the airport.
Mayor Pro Tem Ramos states Gillespie has always had a non-instrument approach, and this will be a safety factor which allows a separate approach. Every airplane that comes in for landing on approach is throttled back, they do not make that much noise and will not exceed the decibel limits allowed. There is concern about the increase in traffic which is absurd. Up-to-date figures show the highest number of airport operations (landings and takeoffs) occurred in 1969, 1970 and 1971. There were 308,000 landings and takeoffs in 1970. In 1997, 1998 and 1999, the highest was 209,000, and that averages 190,000 for the last 9 years, more than half less. This year to date, there have been 94,000 takeoffs and landings, which extrapolates to 126,000 landings and takeoffs for the year. To go from 308,000 down to 126,000 and then say this extra approach will increase traffic - it may increase but will not increase to anywhere near what it once was. It is two-thirds less this year than it has ever been. It is not an issue of number of takeoffs and landings, it is an issue of safety. It is needed when the person who has an emergency and needs a helicopter to transport him and the helicopter can not get in because the necessary approach is not there. There will be a lawsuit for not allowing the approach there to let people perform the operation necessary to save lives.
Dick McDowell, 1905 North Marshall, El Cajon, CA 92020, owner of Safari Aviation and Chairman of Gillespie Field Master Lessees Association, addresses safety, and the problems that Council seems to have is what everyone who does not fly aircraft on instrument conditions have. He has a chart which shows the area that the localizer now covers, how it comes into El Cajon, does a circling approach, and departs over Fletcher Hills. The new LDA will provide a stabilized approach and pilots want a stabilized approach and steady rate of descent to the ground, especially under instrument conditions in turbulent weather.
Mayor Lewis questions if all pilots understand and use LDA.
Mr. McDowell advises not all pilots use it. More senior pilots use it. Most helicopters and none of the Sheriff’s helicopters are not allowed to do instrument approaches.
Mayor Lewis questions if Gillespie has LDA approach, there would be pilots who want to come to Gillespie to practice on the LDA approach, thereby increasing flights.
Mr. McDowell states he would agree. There was only an ILS approach into Lindbergh until an airliner flew into a civilian airplane. Then an approach was set up at Palomar and practice took place there. Everyone has to practice this approach to stay current.
Mayor Lewis questions which airports have the LDA approach.
In response to Mayor Lewis, Mr. McDowell informs no airports in San Diego County have an LDA. Orange County has the only LDA in the area.
Mayor Lewis comments that if Gillespie is the only one in San Diego County, it would stand to reason that many pilots would want to practice takeoffs and landings with the LDA at Gillespie Field.
Mr. McDowell states there would be an increase on the instrument approaches until it got to be old-hat. He defines the difference between an ILS, LDA, and a localizer: with a localizer, the distance is measured from where the landing will be by a timing device and a radio beacon that shoots up – it is inadequate. A DME is a black box that is on the airport that gives a measurement showing how far the pilot is from a certain place. The ILS adds one more increment – a glide slope which enables pilots to stabilize and hook their electronic equipment and make the approach down to 200’. It will be about a thousand feet if the LDA is installed. Because they will be able to make the LDA, a stabilized approach, if they cannot see the ground at the missed-approach point, they would pick up and depart, not over El Cajon as they do now, but over an unpopulated area. The Navy would not allow entry into their air space, but the Marines have allowed pilots to do that in departure and a missed-approach is over the land right by Miramar.
Mayor Lewis questions if, in Mr. McDowell’s opinion, this would be recreational pilots or commercial pilots who would be coming to practice.
Mr. McDowell advises an instrument rating, in a pilot’s situation, could be equated to a Bachelor’s Degree. If a private pilot gets a commercial rating, the next step is an instrument rating, and it is almost a must in California. It is very desirable to have it.
Mayor Lewis remarks people might relocate to Gillespie to practice.
Mr. McDowell advises there is not much more room. The hangars are full at Gillespie.
Mr. McDowell presents a chart showing the localizer approach which is now at Gillespie. It starts approximately 15 miles out and shows all the streets and schools within the area. Inbound, aircraft will start 17 miles out at 6800’. It is a roller coaster approach, and Mr. McDowell presents a chart showing the visual outline of the flight path. At approximately 2 miles from Gillespie Field, aircraft must be at 1640’ and if the pilot cannot see the airport, he does a "missed-approach." If the airport can be seen, the pilot does a circling approach, because at this point he is really too high to go straight in. That puts the flight right over the City of El Cajon and then the aircraft departs over Fletcher Hills.
The LDA approach starts 13.8 miles out and is a steady descent in. If the airport cannot be seen at one mile from the threshold of the runway, the aircraft will depart over a non-populated area, just barely getting into a small area of Santee, over Miramar, Regents Park, past Miramar and out to the coast. Hardly any schools are passed over on the LDA.
In response to Mayor Lewis, Mr. McDowell informs the LDA is operational 24 hours a day and no help is required from the tower or San Diego Center. Once the pilot is given clearance on instrument approaches, the approach can be made safely should something happen to the radio. The charts depict what the pilot is to do and which procedure should be done.
Mayor Lewis questions how the number of aircraft entering and leaving the area is tracked, if the tower is not in operation.
Mr. McDowell informs the Center, previously San Diego Approach, at Miramar with radar covers the whole Southern California area. It is called Socal Approach, they have aircraft on radar. There is a device called a transponder that identifies the aircraft, tells the altitude and pilots are in radio contact with the Center at all times.
Mayor Lewis questions how the County would keep track of the number of aircraft after the tower is dark.
Mr. McDowell states he does not know how the County does that and would refer that question to Noreen Crane, the Airport Manager.
Barry Bardack, 916 Lemon Avenue, El Cajon, CA 92020, states he is a pilot at Gillespie Airport. Several years ago he was involved in a situation that has a parallel to what is happening here. He belonged to a small skydiving club that was bordered by a housing development. A new owner moved in who hated airplanes and was afraid of the skydivers, and through misinformation spread that fear and hatred to the other owners. Twenty years later, the skydivers are still there, and the only thing that was accomplished is that lawyers made money. There is a lot of bitterness in that development now. He cautions Council to not be misled by one or two individuals providing misinformation. Council has heard from knowledgeable people from the pilots community and urges Council to listen to them.
Councilmember Keegan requests Mr. Bardack be more specific on the misinformation.
Mr. Bardack states that when skydivers have an emergency and have to jettison their main parachute, they will drop their ripcord and go for the reserve parachute. Someone found an old ripcord and told the homeowners it came down his chimney.
Councilmember Keegan comments he thought Mr. Bardack was referring to misinformation provided on the Agenda item being discussed.
Mr. Bardack states the only misinformation is what other people have informed Council; he has no knowledge about it.
Michael Gale, 2228 Valley Lake Road, El Cajon, CA 92020, defers his time.
Mayor Lewis informs if Mr. Gale does not speak, his three minutes is given up and cannot be given to someone else.
Mr. Gale states he gives up his time.
Lt. Robert Curry, San Diego Sheriff’s Department, 1745 N. Marshall, El Cajon, CA 92020, states he is the officer in charge of ASTREA, the Sheriff’s Aerial Support Detail. They have been at Gillespie Field since 1971, providing services to El Cajon and other communities in San Diego County and Southern California region. The new system is safer and is better for airplanes. His helicopters will not use it because they are not certified for instrument flight. They want to add their full support to implementation of this project.
Mayor Lewis states if it will contribute to safer operation, the County would find the funds in order to provide the right equipment.
Lt. Curry states their aircraft are single engine helicopters. In the United States, single engine helicopters are not certificated for instrument flight - they must have dual pilots and auto pilots on board.
Mayor Lewis questions if these flights would be for multi-engine helicopters.
Lt. Curry states for multi-engine helicopters or some single engine helicopters that have dual pilots and a full coupled auto pilot. The MD-500 that they fly are not certificated for instrument flight anywhere in the United States.
Mayor Lewis questions if there is any concern about the Sheriff’s Department leaving Gillespie.
Lt. Curry informs they want to stay at Gillespie Field.
Mayor Lewis confirms the City wishes them to stay.
Ted Bares, 2047 Ventana Way, El Cajon, CA 92020, presents a letter along with exhibits. The Comprehensive Land Use Plan for Gillespie Field was approved by Council in 1989. Two main concerns in the study were safety and noise. At the present time, they are not safe and the noise is tremendous. There are flight patterns in the document. The pilots, single-engine and twin engines, are not abiding by the rules and regulations which provided that pilots go straight out from the airport and climb to an elevation of 1,000’ and then make their turn and go up to I215 and turn at the old tanks. The old tanks are gone. They were then to continue straight across to a heading to miss the north and south runways and then come in for landing on the 27L. This is not being done now. There are flights over Mr. Bares’ house day and night. Some pilots are confused and these maps are not accurate. New maps will have to be drawn to show the pattern. The planes are coming over Hacienda and Ventana; they are turning at Buck Knives. They are supposed to fly straight out and if they do so, they will be in Santee, not El Cajon. They have to come up to an elevation of 1,000’ and this is not happening.
Phyllis Trombi, 4470 Aragon Drive, San Diego, CA 92115, Vice President of Gillespie Pilots Association, states the best weapon the homeowners association has against noise is an alliance with the Pilots Association. The Pilots Association are good neighbors, they also own homes. After the meeting that Ms. Kinman spoke about, Ms. Trombi attempted to schedule a meeting with the homeowners and the Gillespie Pilots Association so the Pilots Association could understand their concerns, work with them, and educate the pilots. There can be no rule, there is not jurisdiction over this in the City of El Cajon. It is an FAA matter. The traffic pattern has been the same for about 30 years and it is set by FAA. The 1,000’ rule is a courtesy; there is no written rule that aircraft must set a certain spot and turn left or right. The committee of the Homeowners Association did not want to set a meeting schedule at that time and said they would invite the Pilots Association to a meeting. There has been no invitation to the Pilots Association to a meeting with the Homeowners Association committee. A number of other homeowners have been dis-included from the same meetings.
A public review of the Negative Declaration is 30 days and it has already been 45 days. Ms. Kinman asks for more time but Ms. Trombi is not sure that is appropriate. The best time spent by the homeowners committee would be to work with Gillespie Pilots Association, who wants to hear the needs and work with their group. They want to be good neighbors.
The traffic count of takeoffs and landings is down severely. There were 350,000 operations in 1979 and it is now down 100,000 or more landings per year. That is about 8,000-9,000 landings less per month. The traffic is down and the noise is less.
Mayor Lewis states noise and safety are concerns going back to 1989. It is tragic sometimes for the pilot’s family as well as for the residents, which was experienced a couple of years ago. He questions if it is possible to establish noise monitoring stations in locations in Fletcher Hills so even though the tower is dark, the noise level can be monitored and pilots be notified that they exceed the 65 dBA. He questions if the Pilots Association could support monitoring the noise level.
Ms. Trombi informs that is a possibility. The first step is getting together and hearing what the concern is. The Pilots Association’s power is in educating their pilots and instructing them not to turn until they get to a certain landmark. That cannot be enforced; however, as a courtesy, pilots know if they are not as quiet as they can be and as high as possible, homeowners will be unhappy. That is not the way to operate and feel that there is an airport community. Monitoring is a possibility but it cannot be mandatory. It would be voluntary and the first step would be to meet, discuss what can be done, and the Pilots Association can instruct its pilots and see how that goes. To start with punishment, calling people and telling them they flew too high or their airplane is too loud is not community spirit. What should be done is to clean the slate and start with a cooperative alliance rather than bumping heads.
Mayor Lewis states this matter is in the County’s jurisdiction, but Council is responding to a complaint of El Cajon citizens. In the spirit of cooperation, the County would probably be supportive to homeowners and the Pilots Association if three or four monitors were established. In addition, a hotline for residents to call would be helpful. There may be pilots who do not care because they do not live here. It would be helpful if the County could have the noise level monitored, as well as a hotline, to track the flight. Through persuasion, self-regulation, and peer pressure, perhaps some pilots could be enticed to do what is safe for everyone.
Ms. Trombi advises there is a system in place to report noise complaints. It is on the San Diego County web page. In addition, Ms. Crane’s phone number at the airport is provided.
Mayor Lewis states he is concerned about night time when the tower is not operational and Ms. Crane is not working.
Ms. Trombi states it would not be possible to monitor then.
Mayor Lewis comments that is why a 24-hour hotline number is important, to leave a message as to date and time. Noise monitoring devices could determine who was responsible.
Ms. Trombi states that would be the third or fourth step down the road. She reiterates the first step is to get together and hear what is needed.
Mayor Lewis states City Council has brought both parties together today.
Mayor Pro Tem Ramos informs he is an instrument-rated pilot and lived in Fletcher Hills on Windmill View for 23 years. Some pilots do not understand the pattern on the left. They are supposed to make their left turn on the valley between Fletcher Hills and Grossmont College. Many of them do not make it and his home was below the flight path. When planes were below the limit and buzzed his house, he would call the tower and report it. It does not happen that often but it does happen. It is a matter of educating the pilots and instructors, making certain they understand what the flight pattern is and abide by it. His airplane was very noisy and had to be throttled back as soon as it was airborne to keep the noise down. That is being a responsible pilot. It comes back to education and if anyone has a noise complaint, there are places to call. The tower can be called during the day and if homeowners can get the number of the plane, tell the tower and they will know who it is and talk to the pilot. He emphasizes that it is an education problem.
Ms. Trombi comments the Pilots Association wants to be a part of that and also wants to be courteous. They are interested in safety and courtesy. They do not want anything to happen to their airport or any other airport. She suggests again that the Pilots Association meet with the homeowners. The Pilots Association wants to be a part of the education and that is where they have power to convince their own people to do what is right and courteous.
Edward Torrence, 2220 Valley Mill Road, El Cajon, CA 92020, states he is a homeowner and represents only himself and his family. Mayor Lewis referred to a tragic accident several years ago – that accident occurred at Mr. Torrence’s home. A young pilot died in a mid-air collision and that is why he is particularly concerned with safety issues, as well as noise.
Regarding the safety and noise, frequently pilots return immediately to the field to land, commonly doing touch-and-go landings. There are new flight schools and new pilots being trained at Gillespie Field. The young pilot who was killed came here to get his qualifications to fly during his vacation. Most of the homeowners who live in the area would like to meet with the Pilots Association to discuss the concerns. Regarding the local situation, the most important concern is that more development of Gillespie Field means more student pilots. More student pilots means more individuals taking off and making immediate left and second left turns. Mr. Torrence is not a pilot but what he can say he learned from the FAA report of the accident that he was involved with. Two student pilots were involved, one who had soloed and the other was under instruction. They took off on the same runway and were instructed to make the same left turns. Unfortunately the second aircraft overtook the first aircraft because it was more powerful and only had the pilot aboard. When they made the second turn, the following plane was not visible to the first one and when the first plane straightened out and saw the other aircraft, they immediately tried to avoid a collision. The collision was not avoided.
He is very concerned about the safety issue. What has happened today is to point out from all the facts brought up by Council and the pilots is that there is a lot more to be developed, and why should it not have a full Environmental Impact Study and Report instead of a simple non-impact statement.
Richard M. Palmer, 4774 College Avenue, San Diego, CA 92115, states he has been an active flight instructor for primary and instrument training at Gillespie Field since 1970. He wishes to clear up confusion about the LDA. Four hundred feet lower does not mean 400’ below. It means continuing down the same 3 degree glide path to a 400’ lower altitude. This could have some impact on the noise in the event of missed approaches. A missed approach is when the pilot does not see the runway at the missed-approach point and goes to full power to climb out. An LDA is very similar to a localizer approach except it has different width of angle criteria and has different runway alignment criteria. A localizer is aligned with the runway and an LDA can be aligned at an angle to the runway. In this case, it keeps pilots away from Rattlesnake Mountain. At present, instrument flight instruction occurs immediately after the private pilot’s license. The chart the gentleman referred to shows turning points. It takes a while to explain it, even to a pilot. It does not show the paths between. Aircraft are to fly out past a water tank that is at the western side of the valley where Highway 125 runs, which is out over the valley. With most trainers, it is possible to be at 1200’ before turning back over Fletcher Hills. The under-powered trainers do not make it, but they do not make much noise. If planes continue much farther, there are terrain clearance problems over Grossmont and up the side of Cowles Mountain.
Mayor Pro Tem Ramos states Mr. Palmer is correct with the approaches. If aircraft have to make a missed-approach either on the localizer or the LDA, they would have to put on full power. If they are coming in on the localizer and see the field, then a turning approach is made to come around and land. If there is a missed approach, they are still under full power and they are going over Fletcher Hills. When a pilot comes in under the LDA and makes a missed approach, the pilot would not be going out over Fletcher Hills. That is an important distinction. He questions Mr. Palmer as to the percentage of private pilots who go on to get their instrument rating. For instance, if 100 people qualify and become private pilots, what percentage go on to complete the instrument course. Mayor Pro Tem Ramos does not think it is a large percentage.
Mr. Palmer states the bulk of instruction is in the pipeline for airline pilots. The percentage would depend on the organization.
Mayor Pro Tem Ramos state he was referring to Gillespie. There are many who do it, but percentage-wise, it is probably low.
Mr. Palmer states he sees a lot of people. For instance, pilots from Britain, who come here and go away. They are part of the problem with maintaining the traffic pattern. They are tightly regulated in their country and come to this country to become professional pilots. They have deficiency in understanding that there are still some regulations here, even though there is more freedom. The problem is that maintaining the recommended traffic pattern is not the job of the tower because it is not a Federal regulation.
Mayor Pro Tem Ramos remarks there is no reason why the tower cannot instruct the pilot or remind him what the traffic pattern is and what the altitude is.
Mr. Palmer adds it can be done as a recommendation. He advocates flying this pattern because it is safer because at any point on it, aircraft can glide to the runway if the engine fails.
Hadi Stein, 8355 La Jolla Shores Drive, La Jolla, CA 92037, states that the Airport Manager, Noreen Crane, has a 24-hour telephone recording that anyone can call to complain. He is a professional pilot and has flown for over 30 years. Most of his flying has been in Europe and he is familiar with the problem of airplane noise. San Diego County is getting more and more people, so a way must be found to reduce the noise. He operates a 3-engine airplane from Gillespie Field and goes all over the world. He is very familiar with different rules around the world to try to solve this problem. The LDA system will be good for Gillespie Field. If the tower is closed, and perhaps the weather is bad or it is night, he must go to a missed-approach phase if he cannot see the airport. He must fly over the houses with high power, because in this phase of the flight, it must be full power. He goes around and tries to do other approaches or stays in the air until the weather gets better.
Mayor Lewis states Noreen Crane, Airport Manager, did not fill out a speaker’s card, but he has three concerns about the Negative Declaration.
Mayor Pro Tem Ramos comments he would like Ms. Crane to come forward because he has questions also.
Noreen Crane, Airport Manager, Gillespie Field, 1960 Joe Crosson Drive, El Cajon, CA 92020-1236, states she has been at the airport since 1972 and the Airport Manager since 1990. She came to the meeting today as a spectator because they have the Negative Declaration process through the County. There was a public review process where that document was advertised in the newspaper and available at libraries, the County Building, and the cities of El Cajon and Santee. That process is in the works and some input was received. A consultant is working on answering Ms. Kinman’s letter to the County. Ms. Crane does not know if it is the same letter Ms. Kinman submitted to the City. Ultimately the document will be approved or disapproved by the Board of Supervisors.
Mayor Lewis refers to Page 23 of the Noise Study, a statement which states the installation of this equipment will attract more pilots who will want to train on the new devices. It also states Gillespie Airport Traffic Control Tower personnel estimated that IFR instrument approaches would increase by 25% on weekends and 5% on weekdays, and 15% was selected as an average daily increase. He questions if that is an accurate statement.
Ms. Crane advises those numbers came from consultants provided by the County who have worked on the new landing system. She does not have the document in front of her, but the consultant looks at the average and what percentage are instrument landings to Gillespie Field and what are visual approach. Since the figures are not known until it is installed, the professionals give their opinion as to the increase.
Mayor Lewis comments there are two items in the analysis that pertain to El Cajon. He questions if this will go back to Washington and the FAA.
Ms. Crane informs it will. The Airport Manager, the County, or the City cannot just say a new landing system will be installed. It must be approved and there must be flight procedures, approach plates put in pilot’s books, training. It is a long process and the evaluation of this process is in FAA. They have given preliminary approval of the procedure working on the approach plates to see if it will work over the existing terrain.
Mayor Lewis states if it goes back to Washington, that a bureaucrat FAA unfamiliar with El Cajon or Santee, will see that in Figure 2 of the Vicinity Map, the revised map labels Bradley Avenue as Fletcher Parkway. It might mean nothing to someone in Washington, but it will mean something to someone in El Cajon and Santee.
Ms. Crane advises Ms. Kinman has made note of the Vicinity Map. There are many maps in this procedure, but the Vicinity Map would never be used by FAA to approve a flight approach. The charts which show the terrain are used. They do not necessarily care where the streets are; they look at the center of the airfield and how to get landing and takeoff, the terrain, and the safety for that. Instead of Washington D.C., the correct entity is Oklahoma City which approves the approach plate before the equipment is installed. The County’s process is to go through FAA to ask for that approval before any equipment is purchased.
Mayor Lewis questions if Oklahoma City would be concerned about where the LDA/DMA equipment is actually located.
Ms. Crane advises it has to go in a certain place to be able to land at the number.
Mayor Lewis states on Page 1, Paragraph 1, Questions 1 states the site of the LDA/DMA equipment is in the City of Santee, and questions if it is actually in the City of El Cajon.
Ms. Crane states not all 800 acres are in the City of El Cajon, there are some parcels that are in Santee. This area where the equipment will go is in the runway protection zone on airport property, but the parcel is zoned City of Santee, so it is a matter of definition. The equipment is on airport property in Santee.
Mayor Lewis questions if all the airport property is in the City of El Cajon.
Ms. Crane states the runway protection zone where this equipment is proposed is on airport property in the City of Santee.
Mayor Pro Tem Ramos states he cited some of the airport operations and it came out to approximately 126,000 for this year. The Staff Report shows 280,000 is projected for the year 2010, and 218,000 is projected for this year, substantially higher than the 126,000. If he projects the 126,000 out to the year 2010, he comes up to 188,000, substantially below where it has been, especially in the early and late 1970s, where it was more than 300,000 operations per year. He questions if Ms. Crane agrees with those numbers.
Ms. Crane comments both the Master Plan and the Comprehensive Land Use Plan use aviation forecasts to project airport capacity in the next two, five, and ten years. The aviation forecasts have been much higher than what has actually happened in the aviation industry, so projections are much higher than what the airports anticipate.
Mayor Pro Tem Ramos remarks there are pilots who make mistakes and fly below the pattern, creating noise. He questions if there is a 24-hour number to call.
Ms. Crane informs there is - the main line number is 619-596-3900 and her direct line is 619-596-3905. Most of the noise complaints are returned by her. An attempt is made to track down the aircraft and talk with the pilot. When she answers those calls, she tells callers that they fly as good neighbors. Many of the organizations on the field, where they get volunteer groups, are from the people who support the airport and they try to get them all to work together.
Mayor Pro Tem Ramos comments the tower is operated by people who work for the FAA, but questions if Ms. Crane, as Airport Manager, can give help to them to ask pilots to observe the proper flight patterns and altitudes.
Ms. Crane states as time permits, and this is an FAA matter, it should probably be an FAA person who answers specifically, but the tower personnel are employed by the Federal Government and their main job is to direct traffic. If there is someone in the office who can answer questions, they can do so. The main job of tower personnel is to get planes in and out of the airport safely, so they may not always be able to give a pilot the exact turns or remind them of the altitudes. It is her job and the pilots’ job on the field to go through the flight schools and make sure that the procedures are followed.
In response to Councilmember Keegan, Ms. Crane informs she personally calls people who make complaints.
Councilmember Keegan questions if the followup is usually within a working day.
Ms. Crane states she tries to return all her calls within one working day, but there are days when there are a lot of noise complaints, or when there is a helicopter flying low over homes. She tries to contact Mercy Air or Sheriff ASTREA and many times there may be eleven calls on one incident where the ASTREA helicopter was out searching for a child in a residential area. It is very noisy but for a very short period of time. They trace it down and she may not be able to call all the people back, but there are three members of staff telling callers what the incident was.
Councilmember Keegan questions with a pilot coming in or going out, if Ms. Crane can follow up to find out who it was.
Ms. Crane states recently a C-130 flew into Gillespie Field, a very large military aircraft used in firefighting. They have landed for fire service and are contracted to CDF or U.S. Forestry. During fire season, Gillespie Field has provided fuel for those aircraft. She received seven calls about it – on approach only, no departures. The callers asked if altitudes were being watched for that type of airplane to come in. She checked with the tower and the aircraft had followed FAA procedures. They were transporting Army National Guard Reserve Units to San Luis Obispo for training. All the callers asked if this was a scheduled flight or if these airplanes would be in all the time. It is a one-time event for the training. This is an example of how they trace things that are unusual.
Councilmember Keegan comments that Ms. Crane stated the telephone numbers a short time ago. He requests if it could be in the budget, approximately $100, or he’ll ask the Pilots Association, to send a postcard to every homeowner in Fletcher Hills Highlands providing the phone number.
Ms. Crane states they will talk with the homeowners group or the Pilots Association because it is their job to educate and train people that these sources are available on the airport. Another source they have is the Plane News, a quarterly news report that addresses issues like this or any unusual activity on the airport. It is free and it is offered not only to the pilots who use the airport but the businesses and the community. She can bring that forward to the County budget people and get back with Council to see if that is feasible.
Councilmember Keegan states a couple hundred dollars would get the phone number out there and make people aware of the newsletter too, all part of being a good neighbor and staying in touch with people who may be impacted by the airport.
Ms. Crane remarks she has not been provided with all their addresses. Some of these numbers are noted in the Plane News, not in every issue, but it keeps the community involved and informed as to what is happening.
Councilmember Keegan requests that the number gets out in some way and information provided to the homeowners so everyone can co-exist in a better manner.
Ms. Crane states she will bring the card idea to her staff.
Councilmember Keegan requests Ms. Crane work with the neighborhood in any way she can to make them aware they have an avenue to take.
Ms. Crane states that is a lot of her job and there is public review process through County Government as well.
Councilmember Keegan comments there is outreach and input in the community but this discussion probably would not be taking place today if everybody was looking for information or providing as much information as possible. He requests that it be improved.
MOTION BY Lewis, SECOND BY Keegan, to send the Kinman letter to the Board of Supervisors along with comments made today.
AYES: Ramos, Santos, Keegan, Lewis
NOES: None
DISQUALIFY: McClellan (due to a possible financial conflict of interest according to State Law)
MOTION CARRIES.
Councilmember McClellan returns to Council Chambers at 5:04 p.m.
RECESS CALLED AT 5:04 P.M.
MEETING CALLED BACK TO ORDER AT 5:10 P.M.
2.4 LETTER: DONALD SHAFFER – PROPOSALS (CCL 500)
Donald Shaffer requests to be heard regarding proposals and staff be instructed to work with him.
City Clerk Linn informs that there are no speaker cards regarding this item.
Mayor Lewis comments Mr. Shaffer requested specifically to be heard and this opportunity was provided for him to speak. If Mr. Shaffer watches this on Wednesday, Mayor Lewis informs he would have liked to have heard Mr. Shaffer’s comments.
No Action Taken.
2.5 LETTER: DOWNTOWN EL CAJON - GRAND RE-OPENING PARTY FOR MAIN STREET - OCTOBER 27, 2000 (CAD 200)
The Downtown El Cajon, Inc. Board of Directors requests City participation with funding in the amount of $4,225.00 for a Grand Re-Opening Party to showcase the new look of Main Street and celebrate the collaboration between the City and the Management District.
DISCUSSION
Claire Carpenter, Executive Director, Downtown El Cajon, Inc., 168 E. Main Street, El Cajon, CA 92020 states the construction on the downtown angled parking project is important and a great time for a party to show off. The Management District envisions an event that would be for the entire community, including parts of the project they can handle with their current staff level and they have asked for expenses from the City as a partner in the event. It could be at any level the City desires. If would be fine to have just a ribbon cutting, but their intention with the budget shown is an event where the entire city would be invited to look at the downtown project and know there is a big change afoot.
Mayor Lewis questions the cost for advertising. In the public spirit the City should be able to get publicity ahead of time. He also suggests adding the San Diego Union Tribune, which would be the major paper. He questions if the Management District will attempt to get free publicity first. The East County Business News and East County California support the City of El Cajon 100% and he questions why they are being paid.
Ms. Carpenter states they can ask for free publicity. As part of the Management District’s contribution, Cole Davis, who works for their office, can get free public service announcement type publicity, but there is no guaranteed article coverage. The advertising would augment the public relations side of the press. They will always ask for donations first. They did not know how Council would feel about co-sponsoring the event.
Councilmember Keegan questions if the event is planned for October 27, 2000, does that give any leeway if the project is delayed.
City Manager Garrett recommends that the event not be date-certain.
Councilmember Keegan and Ms. Carpenter concur.
Mayor Pro Tem Ramos states with all the money the City has spent for angle-parking and all the money the City contributed, it seems that the Management District could come up with $3,000.
Ms. Carpenter informs their budget is extremely tight this year and they do not have extra money in their budget. She hoped there might be a tradeoff between the staff time and the other things the Management District has budgeted and the City’s contribution. Their advertising budget for the year was $10,000 and it has been committed.
In response to Mayor Pro Tem Ramos, Ms. Carpenter states the Commemorative Plaques are for any V.I.P. participants. In addition, they have spoken with the various car clubs and car clubs traditionally collect commemorative plaques from different events they attend. To entice them to come, the Car Club Council has indicated that would be a good gesture towards an ongoing event in the future.
Mayor Pro Tem Ramos mentions that he was in a city in northern California where the main street was closed, and the Good Guys put on a car show. There were vintage cars on both sides of the street for a mile and a half, and there were 20,000-30,000 people. More important, every restaurant had a line waiting to get in. Car clubs should be considered for the future.
Ms. Carpenter informs the car clubs are anxious to see the finished project downtown because they know El Cajon has a set up that would be conducive to a regular event, whether it be weekly, monthly, or even annually.
MOTION BY Lewis, SECOND BY Santos to approve the request.
MOTION CARRIES BY UNANIMOUS VOTE.
2.6 LETTER: SIMMONS - REQUEST TO RECONSIDER ZONE RECLASSIFICATION 2212 - 104 RICHARDSON (PLN 404)
Dave Simmons requests that Council reconsider Zone Reclassification 2212 for property at 104 Richardson.
DISCUSSION
Mayor Pro Tem Ramos remarks the report states there have been many violations and non-compliance. He questions where it stands at present.
Assistant Director of Planning Guyer advises he checked the site today and it does not appear that there has been any change. There is storage in the parking area on the commercial property and the residential property is still being used as a parking lot and has a storage shed on it.
Dave Simmons, 104 Richardson Avenue, El Cajon 92020, states regarding the parking issue, that has been used for parking for the Nissan dealership most recently and by the painting company that was next door for several years. They were dumping paint there, and Mr. Simmons landscaped it and beautified it. He exemplifies, in his business, what the City of El Cajon would want in a business. The property does not look like a construction company, and yet they are. He requests City Council give the approval that the Planning Department recommended.
He addresses the storage issue – it is a canvas structure that covers outside storage, which is what he understood the City wanted. They are temporary structures that have no floors and much of the roofing is canvas. The one on the lot in question covers a sailboat construction project. Mr. Simmons states the grey color is consistent in color with the rest of the property and is better looking than the sailboat for the neighborhood. He put forward a good face for the City. He addressed the issues concerning those additions and said it would be taken care of if this is approved. He requests the Council’s help in going ahead with his project, allow his company to grow, and allow him to continue making El Cajon proud.
Councilmember Keegan comments in the letter from Director of Community Development Griffin to Mr. Simmons dated August 28, 2000, he mentions not only sheds and outdoor storage, but a building that is not legal. The former applicant has explained the sheds and parking, and Councilmember Keegan questions staff about the building.
Assistant Director Guyer states the letter refers to a grey building that Mr. Simmons was referring to that is on the residential property. Assistant Director Guyer does not know the function of the building, but it is not consistent with the residential zoning on the property now. It does not respect a setback and it is not a residence. Director Griffin’s letter informed that this had not been approved and it must be restored to its proper state as a residential property. It also referred to the storage in the parking lot of the commercial property, which is also not allowed. Assistant Director Guyer did not inspect this when it first came through, but based on discussion with staff, very little has changed.
Councilmember Keegan questions if staff has discussed this with Mr. Simmons.
Assistant Director Guyer states he has not and he does not know whether there have been conversations between Mr. Simmons and Director Griffin.
questions if Mr. Simmons has sought clarification so he understood what was out of compliance.
Mr. Simmons states he would invite anyone from the City to come out to his property and see what he has done there.
Councilmember Keegan states someone was out there today.
Mr. Simmons states he was not even out of the car. He would invite anyone to come and see – a screen is there and if he were living in a neighborhood, he would prefer a screen there for the sailboat project. There is a canvas structure with sides and no floor. It is attractively done and the additional storage on the other property is also attractively done to blend in and obscures the view of commercial property storage, as required. The problem is that the necessary parking is not there, and parking is taking place on Mr. Simmons’ other property to the south, which is what is in question.
He is anxious to comply, but his business is growing so quickly that he has not had the time to take care of these issues. He hopes this matter can be continued in the time frame that was originally discussed by the Planning Department and that he be allowed to continue and keep his business running. The two-story structures on the CM property are temporarily housing and keeping the weather off hardwoods. If they can continue long enough to allow them to get through this busy period and into the holidays, and he can get cash flow going to start the improvement project, that would be ideal. He is open to have someone seeing what is there and seeing how temporary it is.
Councilmember McClellan comments this is the way that cities run businesses off and into other cities. He questions if there are any structures there now that could not be utilized if the property were rezoned.
Assistant Director Guyer questions if Councilmember McClellan is referring to the residential property.
Councilmember McClellan confirms on the residential property. If it were rezoned, would what Mr. Simmons has at present be a permissible use.
Assistant Director Guyer informs it could probably be configured in that way.
Councilmember McClellan states the City is saying it does not like the way it is, it must be torn down, then put it back up again after it has been rezoned. That is what people object to about government, the red tape and unfriendly business practices. Councilmember McClellan suggests being more compassionate. If it is allowable after Mr. Simmons improves the property, Councilmember McClellan suggests moving on and getting it done for him, and welcome him to the City of El Cajon rather than trying to push businesses out of the City.
Mayor Pro Tem Ramos questions when Mr. Simmons was originally notified of the violations and how long the City has been trying to get compliance.
Assistant Director Guyer states there had been a problem for some time, at least months, and Mr. Simmons was told in order to continue, it would require rezoning the parcel, and he went through that process. Community Development is attempting to enforce the ordinance. When Council denied the request for the rezoning, Community Development had to inform Mr. Simmons he could not use the property in that way.
Councilmember Santos comments Mr. Simmons did not show up at the Planning Commission Meeting or the City Council Meeting. The issues that Community Development said have not been rectified are still there today. He questions the time Mr. Simmons would need to correct these problems.
Mr. Simmons states he would prefer to be allowed to the April date that was originally recommended by the Planning Commission as being a time to take care of this. Plan changes are necessary to get it approved. His business is very busy right now.
In response to Councilmember Santos, Mr. Simmons informs his business has been growing and is more than is easily handled. He apologizes for not being at previous meetings. They have been putting in long hours at the business. It was his understanding that nothing needed to be removed until this was taken care of and he was before City Council and a decision was made. He has not removed the items and it would be a hardship on the business at this time. April would be the best date but he will accept whatever Council directs.
Councilmember Santos states that normally he would not support it, but if there is a motion to continue this item, he would favor it.
Mayor Lewis comments that because of past history there are many unanswered questions and this is not the forum to bring all the notification up.
MOTION BY Lewis, SECOND BY Keegan to file the letter.
AYES: Ramos, Santos, Keegan, Lewis
NOES: McClellan
MOTION CARRIES.
2.7 LETTER: CAJON VALLEY EDUCATION FOUNDATION - TASTE OF EAST COUNTY - REQUEST FOR CITY CO-SPONSORSHIP (CCL 500)
Dorothy Maranda on behalf of the Cajon Valley Education Foundation requests the City co-sponsor the Taste of East County at the Community Center in May, 2001.
DISCUSSION
Mayor Lewis questions why the Taste of East County is not being held at Hillsdale.
Dorothy Maranda, 1890 Dehesa Road, El Cajon, CA 92019, informs the Cajon Valley Education Foundation decided they would like to move it back downtown. It is difficult for the seniors to drive to Hillsdale and they were an important part of the group in the beginning. The event started at the Community Center and was held there for three years before moving to Hillsdale. The consensus was to move it downtown, which would spotlight the downtown area, using the Community Center for the food vendors and having tables and chairs at the library area on the grass, using the Prescott Promenade for desserts and for entertainment. It would be spread out over a larger area than previously and people would tend to drift downtown and look at the new ambiance there.
Mayor Lewis questions if the restaurants of El Cajon will be prominently displayed and advertised before La Mesa, Rancho San Diego, or Spring Valley restaurants.
Ms. Maranda states that has been done in the past, but they request a waiver of the Community Center fees as a joint venture.
Mayor Lewis questions if downtown El Cajon restaurants will be featured on advertising and get good locations in the Community Center.
Ms. Maranda informs the restaurants are arranged according to their needs.
Mayor Lewis states the City’s need is to have downtown restaurants featured on advertising and have good locations in the Community Center.
Ms. Maranda states they will feature the El Cajon restaurants on advertising and they have traditionally had many of them come in.
Mayor Lewis comments he is happy to see people wanting to come downtown and he is in full support of it. He does not know the mechanics or the cost factor, but he has no problem with co-sponsoring it if the date is available.
Mayor Pro Tem Ramos remarks that he has concerns. He attended the last Taste of El Cajon and it was spread outside.
Ms. Maranda confirms they have always used the outside area.
Mayor Pro Tem Ramos states it was overcrowded. He attended the next one at Hillsdale and that was even more crowded. He questions if the facility is large enough.
Ms. Maranda informs the first year they had it at Hillsdale, there were approximately 1500 diners.
Mayor Pro Tem Ramos states it is a great evening and he would like to see it at the Community Center. He has a concern with making it a City-sponsored event because there are probably 200 non-profit facilities that will make requests of the City if this request is granted to the Cajon Valley Education Foundation. There are reduced rate fees for non-profit facilities and he suggests it be done that way rather than have the City sponsor it. He will not support sponsoring it, not because he is against the function, but every other non-profit organization would also request the same thing.
City Manager Garrett states in addition to the concern regarding co-sponsoring a community event at the Community Center for a foundation as a fundraiser, it is bad precedent. He is president of a college foundation and they have paid the fees when fundraisers have been held at the Community Center. In addition, Ms. Maranda asks in her letter that the City provide electricity, police security, tables and chairs, as well as the waiver of the Community Center fees. They might also need staffing to set up and take down. Unless Council directs, staff is not ready to take this on as a event for the Parks and Recreation Departments.
Councilmember Keegan questions the cost of the Community Center for the night that this is being requested.
In response to City Manager Garrett, Ms. Maranda states she was not given a figure and they have not had an event there for some time. She recalls it was $200 the last time.
In response to Councilmember Keegan, Ms. Maranda informs the Taste of East County usually nets $5,000-$6,000, which they turn back to their 27 schools in the form of grants that they apply for during the year.
Councilmember Keegan states the cost of the Community Center has changed over the last few years and he questions if the cost can be determined.
City Manager Garrett states no one from Recreation is present. This event is being requested in May so it can be brought back.
Councilmember Keegan comments the fee structure has changed over the last two or three years. The foundation is a good cause, going towards children and students, and he would like to know the fee for that night so he knows whether the City is inhibiting their use of the Community Center. If the fee is $200, and the foundation is raising $5,000 or $6,000, then he does not want to set a precedent, but he would feel more comfortable if he knows what the fee is.
City Manager Garrett informs all the information can be brought back if the item is continued. It would also provide an opportunity for him to talk with Director of Recreation Beliveau concerning the other requests in the letter to see if it is feasible.
Mayor Lewis states they were crowded in Hillsdale and other venues – to have them crowded in downtown El Cajon would be welcome and it might be a good investment.
Councilmember McClellan questions what the foundation would request other than waiving the fees and if there would be volunteers to do the other things.
Ms. Maranda comments they would need assistance with the tables and chairs. The foundation will furnish some of them and have them set up and taken down. The school facilities can be used for that. They will handle all the ticket sales, contacting the restaurants, establishing their spots (with El Cajon restaurants first), and the minor details.
Councilmember McClellan states many restaurants would have tables and chairs that they could bring.
Ms. Maranda states they have always furnished the tables and two chairs for each restaurant, but they may be able to arrange something. They have done the tables, chairs, tablecloths and banners, and a flyer with all the participating restaurants.
Councilmember McClellan states there are different groups that use tables occasionally. He suggests the Chamber of Commerce, which has used different venues and probably has tables and chairs. Perhaps they would co-sponsor the event.
Ms. Maranda states their organization is the only one in El Cajon that has done the Taste to this extent.
Councilmember McClellan states the Chamber might help with the items needed.
Ms. Maranda states if Council approves the concept, she will talk to both the Management District and the Chamber.
City Manager Garrett recommends they start there rather than asking the City to do it.
Mayor Pro Tem Ramos states every time the event has been held at Hillsdale, it has been well attended and the foundation should be able to do the same job at the Community Center. All they are looking for is a discount rate and the City is happy to do that.
Ms. Maranda comments they can, they started in El Cajon. In order to set up in the library area, they require the City’s permission.
Mayor Lewis states that would require the County’s permission.
Ms. Maranda remarks they wanted to bring the event downtown. Downtown is dressed up.
Mayor Pro Tem Ramos states Council likes the idea too, but the problem is that many other non-profit agencies will request the same thing.
Ms. Maranda questions if Council has any other objections, if the foundation pays the fees for the Community Center.
Councilmember Keegan questions if there was a cost to the foundation to use Hillsdale.
Ms. Maranda states there was not, but they paid for cleaning the carpet after they finished.
Mayor Lewis comments the fees are not clear or the involvement of the police, etc. and he requests Ms. Maranda contact the Downtown Management District.
MOTION BY Lewis, SECOND BY Keegan, to refer to staff to come back with information.
MOTION CARRIES BY UNANIMOUS VOTE.
ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS:
3.1 POLICE CHIEF'S REPORT (POL 100)
Support Captain Bill McClurg, El Cajon Police Department, advises this year there is a Youth Access to Alcohol Task Force in San Diego County trying to reduce alcohol access to youth. During the ten days prior to the Labor Day weekend, there was active enforcement to discourage youth access to alcohol and to DUI issues. Efforts included the decoy operation and DUI checkpoint. Seventeen vehicles were impounded due to unlicensed drivers or suspended drivers and one stolen vehicle was recovered.
The San Diego County Sheriff’s homicide which occurred on Bradley just outside the City was a cooperative effort between the two agencies. El Cajon Police Department detectives provided assistance in identifying suspects involved and led to indictments of several people.
Eight residential burglaries occurred in a 3-day period and was a cooperative effort between Patrol Officers and Detectives who followed up and identified the suspect and put him in custody.
There were 53 warrant arrests during August and 19 were felonies.
DISCUSSION
Councilmember McClellan states the DUI Checkpoint was very productive. He questions if more will be done.
Captain McClurg informs they are done on a periodic basis. It is staff intensive and is done on an ongoing basis but at different times.
Councilmember McClellan comments the Police Department could use more staff and be more productive.
Captain McClurg remarks staff is used to the maximum.
Mayor Lewis notes that of the 250 drivers checked for license violation, 17 had no California license at all or had it suspended. That is a high percentage of people on the road who do not have the appropriate license. He comments that Police reports are very detailed and there are a lot of requirements, but he questions the mention of three Asian males on the report.
Captain McClurg advises that should not have appeared on the report.
No Action Taken.
3.2 MURAL FOR CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS (Report: City Clerk) (ELC 703)
RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council select the proposal presented by East County Artist, Randy Brown, for the Council Chambers mural, authorizing half of the commission to be paid to the artist in advance.
DISCUSSION
Mayor Lewis shows a drawing of the proposed mural in Council Chambers. He recommends the artist, Randy Brown, make City Hall bigger in the painting.
Randy Brown, 13118 Beechtree Street, Lakeside, CA 92040, states there is "license" for that.
Mayor Lewis comments it is fantastic and welcomes the opportunity to stand in front of Mr. Brown’s art. He asks if Mr. Brown has any remarks.
Mr. Brown states he would prefer the work speak for itself. He welcomes the opportunity to add his art to the Chamber and make it a more beautiful place.
MOTION BY Lewis, SECOND BY Ramos to approve the proposal and payment of half of the commission in advance.
DISCUSSION
Mayor Pro Tem Ramos states the work is gorgeous and questions how long it will take to complete the mural.
Mr. Brown states he is looking at a month. He contacted a gentleman who is remodeling a vacant commercial building and Mr. Brown can move his equipment and work there with no disturbances. He will be able to work 8-10 hours a day. Many times when the inspiration is going, it is easy to put in 12-15 hours.
In response to Mayor Lewis, Mr. Brown confirms the mural will be on linen and can be removed and reinstalled if the Council Chambers is restructured.
VOTES ARE NOW CAST ON MOTION BY Lewis, SECOND BY Ramos to approve the proposal and payment of half of the commission in advance.
MOTION CARRIES BY UNANIMOUS VOTE.
3.3 SUSPENSION OF COLLECTION OF THE ANNUAL SEWER RATE INCREASE FOR FISCAL YEAR 2001 (Report: Director of Public Works) (SSD 100)
RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council suspend the collection of the adopted annual sewer rate increase during Fiscal Year 2001 that is authorized by Ordinances 4366, 4276 and 4372.
MOTION BY Lewis, SECOND BY McClellan to approve the staff recommendation.
MOTION CARRIES BY UNANIMOUS VOTE.
3.4 OPTIONS FOR ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE SALES (Report: Director of Community Development) (PLN 402)
RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council decide if it wishes to refer the consideration of amendments to the Zoning Ordinance (or Specific Plan 182) to the Planning Commission.
DISCUSSION
Mayor Lewis informs this item was brought back regarding options for alcoholic beverage sales regarding Wild Bill’s Billiards. One of the options is a Type 20 License, finding that public necessity supports an exception.
Assistant Director of Planning Guyer states this is before Council due to the inability of the billiard parlor to serve alcohol, which they thought they would be able to do. The problem is that there are separation requirements to approve liquor-related businesses. In this case, there is a conflict in terms of separation with the church at Douglas and the Prescott Promenade.
Mayor Lewis questions if it could be implemented quickly if the City Council makes a finding of public necessity to support an exception.
City Attorney Foley informs the finding of public necessity to support an exception is for off-site sales and may not be applicable to an on-site license, which would be requested from ABC. The staff report provided that option to inform Council that if there is a determination of over-concentration of alcoholic sales and that would include all alcoholic sales, it would impact an off-sale applicant requesting an ABC license.
Mayor Lewis questions if Specific Plan 182 can be amended to enact special regulations applicable to downtown only.
City Attorney Foley advises one of the suggestions is to amend the Specific Plan to reduce the restrictions on alcoholic sales in that area. It impacts the area that Council seems to concur with to make an arts and entertainment area.
Councilmember McClellan questions if it is possible to change the restrictions on the distance for this area without changing the ordinance for the whole City.
City Attorney Foley states that as an option, Council may consider amending Specific Plan 182 to remove that restriction only in that area. In other words, it would not apply in that area, or would be changed for that area to have a smaller distance requirement.
Mayor Pro Tem Ramos remarks that he was under the impression the distance requirement, especially between schools and churches, is State law.
City Attorney Foley states the license that has to be obtained will be noticed by ABC for all those properties and they will listen to concerns of schools and churches. The City has the locational restrictions in its zoning ordinance, requiring a Conditional Use Permit and prohibiting those sales within 600’ of schools and churches.
Claire Carpenter, Executive Director, Downtown El Cajon, Inc., 168 E. Main Street, El Cajon, CA 92020, states the last time this was on the Agenda, she expressed the concern of the Management District. After hearing the discussion, she supports the idea of looking at all of Specific Plan 182 to see which parts of it seem to be supportive of the arts and entertainment district. It is another area which is somewhat incompatible and should be examined. The Management District wants to be responsible when this is considered and understands the different facets that are involved in changing the liquor policy in any area. That and some of the other uses are an important focus.
Councilmember Santos agrees with Ms. Carpenter. Mr. Smith has greatly improved the building and it is a business not to lose in the downtown area. He wishes to consider all the options and send to staff to see what can be done to be sure Mr. Smith stays in downtown El Cajon.
Mayor Lewis comments the City needs to assist in whatever way it can. He likes the idea of a cultural and entertainment center.
Fernando Arreola, 110 East Main Street, El Cajon, CA 92020, remarks by opening up the district to entertainment, restaurants, and high-end bars, and looking at a commitment over 10 to 15 years, this will come up again and again. Considering not just Wild Bill’s Billiards, but the whole district, it is important to bring people to the downtown area. He does not suggest opening liquor stores, but businesses that would provide entertainment such as dinner theatres. Having it open may encourage people to invest.
Mayor Lewis suggests the City work with Ms. Carpenter concerning amending Specific Plan 182 to anticipate the type of development desired for the downtown area.
Councilmember Keegan states this impacts a business that is trying to make it in the downtown area and suggests fast-tracking it in any way possible.
MOTION BY Ramos, SECOND BY McClellan, to send to the Planning Commission in as quick a manner as possible, including comments.
MOTION CARRIES BY UNANIMOUS VOTE.
3.5 LIGHT EMITTING DIODES (LED) FOR GREEN LAMPS ON TRAFFIC SIGNALS (Report: Director of Public Works) (SIG 100)
RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council take the following actions:
1. Approve a loan application for $182,300 from the California Energy Commission at a current rate of 5.4% to replace all green bulbs on the City's traffic signals with energy saving green LED lamps.
2. Approve submittal of the demonstration projects at Main and Prescott, and Douglas and Prescott along with the rebate application through San Diego Gas & Electric.
3. Approve the purchase of green LED lamps using another agency's public contract if possible and advantageous to the City.
DISCUSSION
In response to Mayor Lewis, Director of Public Works Munzenmaier informs the red lights have already been converted. The yellows have not been approved yet, except for the flashing yellows. The rebate program has been increased so it is a good time to replace the green bulbs.
Councilmember McClellan questions what the 115 watt bulbs cost compared to the others and how long they last.
Director Munzenmaier advises it is a higher cost to replace than incandescent bulbs, but they will provide half again the life of the lamp. With the present program, the City will get the lamps for cost. Installation will be the only cost. The City will get an estimated 8 years out of the lamps.
Councilmember McClellan questions if the replacement cost down the road would be about the same, considering the length of the life of the bulbs.
Director Munzenmaier states the replacement cost will be more than the incandescent but the savings on energy costs will probably pay it back in less than half the life of the bulb, even on the next replacement.
MOTION BY Lewis, SECOND BY Ramos to approve according to staff recommendation.
MOTION CARRIES BY UNANIMOUS VOTE.
PUBLIC HEARING:
3.6 RESOLUTION NO. 140-00: VACATION OF ALLEY NORTH OF BROADWAY BETWEEN NORTH ANZA STREET AND FIRST STREET (Report: City Clerk) (VAC 200)
RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council open the Public Hearing, consider testimony, close the Public Hearing and
Adopt RESOLUTION NO. 140-00 to approve the Vacation of the Alley North of Broadway between North Anza Street and First Street, with the reservation as requested by Sempra Energy on behalf of San Diego Gas & Electric for overhead electric facilities in the proposed area.
DISCUSSION
City Clerk Linn informs Kenneth Discenza, 1016 Broadway, Suite A, El Cajon, CA 92021, signed a speaker card but had to leave the meeting. He wanted Council to know he is in favor of this vacation.
Mayor Lewis announces the Public Hearing is now open.
Richard Stacey, 1712 Broadway, El Cajon, CA 92021, states he owns property next to the Ruis Building on Anza Street. There is an existing alley that they want to turn over to the Ruis Building. Mr. Stacey needs access to his property on that alley. He has a driveway to the back of the property but he needs access to the side of the property to get in, which Mr. Ruis wants to use for parking. Mr. Stacey has a water problem there, his property is a foot and a half below grade of Mr. Ruis’ property, and the prior owner has used that property for the water to go to that alley to the street drain. He wishes to retain the use of the alley, which is a public roadway at present, and the rest of the proposed alley that runs from Anza to First Street going east, the property owners there have taken that proposed alley over.
It is just this one piece he is looking at. He could use that piece of land and the Ruis Building needs it for his property to sell. Mr. Stacey needs the property – he reiterates that his property is a foot and a half below grade of that alley; the water has gone to his house and he has had to add soil to control the water. The water has flowed to that alley over the years.
There is a drain ditch that comes from an alley from Second Street and Vons and ends right there and should have run all the way down to the property on Anza. There is a drain ditch next to where that alley probably should be that runs from that point all the way into his property and then takes a jog to the northwest and comes back again and goes under Anza and off to Santee. That portion of land that he has, the drain ditches come towards it. Water from his neighbor to the north runs on Mr. Stacey’s property.
Mayor Lewis comments the items Mr. Stacey addresses are not in his Agenda. He questions if staff is aware of these problems. If the property goes back to Mr. Ruis, does he control the property and would Mr. Stacey not have access to his property.
City Attorney Foley informs the vacation would take away the public right-of-way along the whole alleyway. Everyone who owns property who dedicated that alley the first time would receive the alleyway back as part of their title without the alley restriction. There would no longer be a public right-of-way dedication. The map on the exhibits shows the applicant’s property on the corner would likely gain that strip of land to their exclusive use. So would the properties to the east all the way down Broadway toward First Street – they would gain their little strip and could develop the property as they see fit. There may be issues if they change storm drain runoff and if the runoff is imposed on someone else’s property where there has been historic storm drain easement on that property for sheet flow of water. He does not know the answer without more detail from the property owners. The practical effect is that there will no longer be an alley; every property owner who dedicated that alley, or their predecessor who dedicated that alley to the City, would retain back the control of that property all the way to the property line.
Mayor Lewis questions if the flow of the water has been addressed.
Director of Public Works Munzenmaier states an improved storm drain runs through that parcel, so if there is a drainage problem it would seem that work could be done to drain the property into the storm drain channel or the pipe. Regarding access, everyone has access to improved public right-of-way around that block. Perhaps it is not suitable for whatever use they have on their property, but it seems from the plan that there is access available to each of the parcels. Mr. Ruis improved that portion of the alley as a requirement of the development of his property and improved it full-width. If it was going to be joint use access, the City would have required the adjacent property owner to the north to improve the north half. Mr. Ruis would have had to improve only the south half which was adjacent to his parcel, but he improved the whole alley.
If any alleyway is to be retained, Director Munzenmaier recommends not vacating any of the right-of-way and the City continue to strive to get full alley improvements on the whole block. It does not make sense to have a dead-end alley. It is Director Munzenmaier’s recommendation to vacate it and the individual will have to solve the drainage problem that is coming from the County property to the north of him with those neighbors and find some other way to get access.
Mayor Pro Tem Ramos comments the map provided shows the alley does not go all the way through to First Avenue. It appears property 7 and 22 are either not dedicated or had it dedicated back.
Director Munzenmaier states that is correct. They have not dedicated, so there is not full dedication through there. There are two pieces that are improved: Mr. Ruis’s parcel 36 and parcel 16. Parcel 16 was the Social Security Building. Those two pieces have been improved and it will be a long time before the rest would be improved.
Dick Ruis, 365 Broadway, El Cajon, CA 92021, states he does not know what the drainage problem is. He poured the alley exactly as the City engineers instructed. There is a swale and a storm drain. That piece of property has always been low and the people kept scratching along so it would go towards Anza. The water comes down into the storm drain and he ran a line about 300’ from there to the main storm drain. The reason the alley is closed is also because of street people, skateboarders, and late night intrusion. Shortly after the County moved in, he got a permit, it was inspected, and he built the building. He sees no problem with the drainage. That property has been very low and has always had a problem with the drainage and it comes under the house. Mr. Ruis needs every inch of parking because the County leased it for approximately 15 years and they use it to back out and go around the other side. He has owned the property for over 20 years and knows there has been a problem there. There may be a way of running a drain out of there. The alley is about 142’ x 24’ with a swale and it does not shed over into the other property.
MOTION BY Lewis, SECOND BY Ramos to close the Public Hearing.
MOTION CARRIES BY UNANIMOUS VOTE.
MOTION BY Lewis, SECOND BY Ramos to adopt RESOLUTION NO. 140-00 to approve the vacation according to the recommendation.
MOTION CARRIES BY UNANIMOUS VOTE.
Mayor Lewis states he has a question regarding the time factor for the remaining items – the next item is 4.1.
Mayor Pro Tem Ramos comments if there is an attorney who wants to speak regarding Item 4.1, Mayor Pro Tem Ramos suggests hearing him. Mayor Pro Tem Ramos suggests adjourning and carrying the remaining items forward to the Evening Meeting.
Councilmember Keegan remarks he wants to be sure Council wants to proceed with this because it may be 30 minutes to an hour. If Council goes into Closed Session, that will run into the next meeting. He suggests carrying Item 4.1 to the 7:00 p.m. meeting.
Mayor Lewis questions if the attorney could come back.
Bradley Fields, 8388 Vickers Street, San Diego, CA 92111, states if it is Council’s desire, he will return this evening.
Mayor Lewis states the remaining Agenda items will be taken in order, beginning with Item 4.1.
MOTION BY Lewis, SECOND BY McClellan to continue the remainder of the meeting to the 7:00 p.m. Meeting.
MOTION CARRIES BY UNANIMOUS VOTE.
ADJOURNMENT: Mayor Lewis adjourned the Regular Joint Meeting of the El Cajon City Council and El Cajon Redevelopment Agency held this 12th day of September, 2000 at 6:12 p.m. to Tuesday, September 12, 2000 at 7:00 p.m., in the City Council Chambers, 200 East Main Street, El Cajon, California.
_______________________________
City Clerk/Secretary
JOINT MEETING OF THE
EL CAJON CITY COUNCIL
AND REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
MINUTES
CITY OF EL CAJON
EL CAJON, CALIFORNIA
September 12, 2000
An Adjourned Regular Joint Meeting of the City Council and Redevelopment Agency of the City of El Cajon, California, held Tuesday, September 12, 2000, was called to order by Mayor/Chair Mark Lewis at 7:00 p.m., in the Council Chambers, 200 East Main Street, El Cajon, California. This meeting was adjourned from the Regular Joint Meeting held at 3:00 p.m., Tuesday, September 12, 2000, by order of the City Council and Redevelopment Agency.
R O L L C A L L
Council/Agencymembers present: McClellan, Santos
Council/Agencymembers absent: Keegan
Mayor Pro Tem/Vice Chair present: Ramos
Mayor/Chair present: Lewis
Other Officers present: Linn, City Clerk/Secretary; Foley, City Attorney/General Counsel; Hubert, Assistant City Manager; Munzenmaier, Director of Public Works; Griffin, Director of Community Development
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO FLAG led by Mayor Lewis and MOMENT OF SILENCE
Mayor Lewis states this is a continuation of the 3:00 p.m. meeting, starting at Item 4.1. After the Agenda items from the afternoon meeting are completed, Council will go on to the evening meeting Agenda. Mayor Lewis apologizes for the inconvenience.
CHANGES TO THE AGENDA: None
4. COMMISSION REPORTS
4.1 PERSONNEL COMMISSION FINDINGS AND DECISION (Report: City Attorney) (BNC 201)
RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council consider the findings and decision of the Personnel Commission. Council may move to affirm, modify or revoke the Personnel Commission's recommendation. If Council feels the necessity to deliberate this matter, it may do so in Closed Session. A motion may be made to Adjourn to Closed Session.
DISCUSSION
Bradley Fields, 8388 Vickers Street, San Diego, CA 92111, asks for an additional three minutes in order to adequately address the points he wishes to make.
Mayor Lewis informs six minutes are granted.
Mr. Fields states this item concerns the 40-hour suspension of a Police Officer from the City of El Cajon, specifically on the decision of Personnel Commission Resolution No. 2000-02. The first issue is the sufficiency of the Personnel Commission’s findings. Under Topanga Association v. County of Los Angeles, current state law, the commission must set forth findings to bridge the gap between the evidence and the ultimate decision. This is to protect against what is here, a leap of evidence to conclusions. There is no factual basis for the Councilmembers to make a determination whether the Personnel Commission made a correct assessment or not. The remedy for that is to send it back to the Personnel Commission, tell them to do it right, and then come back to Council and adequately address these points. Mr. Fields requests that Council do that. On the chance that is not done, he will address the issues in the Resolution and the issues that came up at the hearing. Again, he requests Council send it back to the Commission for further and lawful finding on the findings of the Commission.
Mr. Fields states there are only two issues before Council and the reason is that although the Commission made references to other findings, it is unlawful to uphold discipline on any grounds not upheld in the charging documents. There are only two issues that were upheld in the charging documents from the Chief and from the City Manager. That is neglect of duty and recognition of command, and those are the two issues he will address first.
Neglect of duty, as it was phrased in the charging documents, had two portions to it. One was missing a radio call and the other was the officer’s response upon hearing a call from the dispatcher. Those were really only the two portions that appeared in the documents. Regarding missing the radio call, the Officer absolutely missed the radio call, but it was proven at the hearing and admitted by all that officers do miss radio calls. It is unfortunate, but it happens. The call that came out was a general call, any Officer in the City of El Cajon could have responded, yet it took a great deal of time before an Officer did respond. Again, unfortunate, but not something his client could be held responsible for. There were two other Officers with his client who could have responded, but also did not hear the call. It is improper and inappropriate to call that neglect of duty. Otherwise, almost the whole Department would be held neglectful. The other portion of the neglect of duty is the Officer’s response, essentially, that he was clear but not near Main and Madison. That is not neglectful because it was truthful. He was clear and available to take the radio call, when he finally heard the dispatcher call out for him specifically, but he was not near Main and Madison. He was 1.3 miles, about 9 blocks, away and it was admitted at the hearing by two of the investigating sergeants, on Page 48 and Page 72 of the transcript, that the term "near" is a relative term. Mr. Fields’ client explained what he thought was meant by the term "near" during the hearing. When the dispatcher said, "Are you near?" Mr. Fields’ client thought the dispatcher was asking if he was on the scene or arriving on the scene, and he was not, he was 1.3 miles away. He was not neglectful of duty; he did miss the radio call, but that is not neglectful. His response, on hearing the call from the dispatcher, is not something that is neglectful.
Mr. Fields states those are the only two elements of neglect of duty that can be considered. The City cannot, despite their attempts, try to throw other things in to attempt to show his client was neglectful. The case of Brown v. State Personnel Board forbids that. Essentially, is it unlawful to base findings on different facts than those in the charging documents. Again, there are only two elements in the neglect of duty and neither of them can withstand scrutiny.
The other allegation was Recognition of Command. It was briefed at the Commission that it essentially must be intentional. Recognition of Command is insubordination; one cannot be negligently insubordinate. It is being ordered to do something, and the subordinate says he will not do it. That is clearly not what happened. The issue was whether or not Mr. Fields’ client intentionally violated an order that said he was not supposed to speak with certain people until the investigation was complete, after they were initially interviewed. It is clear he violated that order. There is no question that the order was given and it was violated. But it is not that simple. There is much ambiguity. The order that was given by the Chief is something that, by its very nature under the law, will at some time expire. At some point, Mr. Fields’ client would be able to speak with whomever he wanted to speak with. The question is when that would take place. Importantly, the sergeant who gave the order testified on Page 48 of the transcript that he did not know when the order he gave would expire. So if the person did not know what he was ordering, how can Mr. Fields’ client be held responsible for that. Even that was not enough to cause Mr. Fields’ client to technically violate this order. It was only upon speaking with a more senior officer, someone he respected, who testified on Page 118 of the transcript that he encouraged Mr. Fields’ client, based on the circumstances and based on what he was told, to talk about it and to talk with other people about it. That is why Mr. Fields’ client did it. He did not intentionally violate anything.
Moreover, there was no evidence that he tampered or encouraged anyone to lie or cover up in any way. Intent is required to show violation of Recognition of Command; it is not present here. One could argue that it would be appropriate to discipline for negligence for negligently failing to recognize command, it just is not a reason to do that.
Mr. Fields states he will touch on the reference in the Personnel Commission findings to the untruthfulness and, had it been before them, they would have considered it appropriate to terminate his client. That issue was briefed and two cases were referenced, Brown and Negreti, that say that is unlawful. It is inappropriate to consider findings outside of what is before the Commission. His client is there to defend himself but he cannot defend himself against allegations that he has already been exonerated of. In this case, both the Chief and the City Manager agreed that he was not untruthful and took that out of the original disciplinary package. It showed the malice that the people putting on this case had for Mr. Fields’ client. They were trying to show any way to smear his client’s name. They apparently did that successfully, because the Commission bought off on the idea that it was appropriate to make reference to the untruthfulness, which clearly is not the case.
It would be unlawful for Council to raise the level of discipline from a suspension to a termination, as the Personnel Commission would apparently have Council do. The citation for that is Paoli v. Civil Service Commission.
Mr. Fields requests Council consider everything he has said, everything that was brought up in the transcript. He knows Council has read it and considered it. He asks that Council make the determination to send it back to the Personnel Commission for appropriate findings, and in the absence of that, if Council feels that it has enough to make a determination that in fact his client did not violate any policy and is not deserving of this discipline, he requests Council overrule it.
MOTION BY Lewis, SECOND BY Ramos to adjourn to Closed Session under Government Code § 54957 – CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL regarding PUBLIC EMPLOYEE DISCIPLINE/DISMISSAL/RELEASE. (Motion later amended)
DISCUSSION
Councilmember Keegan states Mr. Fields talked about sending it back to the Personnel Commission to do it right. He questions specifically what the Personnel Commission did wrong.
Mr. Fields states they are required to make more specific factual findings in order for Council to know what they found his client did and what they did not find his client had done. The charging documents from the Chief and the City Manager are very clear that there are facts that are set out. This is the policy that it is alleged was violated and these are the facts supporting that, and this is the conclusion. This document is all conclusion. It says this is the policy and we find you violated it. It is not clear what was determined or how it was determined his client violated the policies. It is appropriate to send it back, have them make those determinations, and for it to come back to Council and then, with a more complete set of findings, debate whether or not the discipline is appropriate.
City Attorney Foley advises the proper description is not Conference with Legal Counsel. It should state "Government Code § 54957 – PUBLIC EMPLOYEE DISCIPLINE/DISMISSAL/RELEASE."
VOTES ARE NOW CAST ON AMENDED MOTION BY Lewis, SECOND BY Ramos to adjourn to Closed Session under Government Code § 54957 –PUBLIC EMPLOYEE DISCIPLINE/ DISMISSAL/RELEASE at 7:10 p.m.
MOTION CARRIES BY UNANIMOUS VOTE.
MAYOR LEWIS RECONVENED THE MEETING TO OPEN SESSION AT 7:21 P.M.
MOTION BY Lewis, SECOND BY Ramos to affirm the Personnel Commission’s recommendation, Resolution 2000-02.
DISCUSSION
Councilmember Keegan states that he has questions about this item and no one from the City is present to answer his questions. He would prefer to continue this item until he gets the answers, and then he may support the Motion on the floor. But when he has questions in his mind and it affects someone’s livelihood, he is not comfortable moving forward. He asks Council to reconsider and continue the item for two weeks.
Mayor Lewis states he also has questions that were not answered to the extent he would wish. He made the Motion as Mayor, but he will not support the Motion.
VOTES ARE NOW CAST ON MOTION BY Lewis, SECOND BY Ramos to affirm the Personnel Commission’s recommendation, Resolution 2000-02.
AYES: McClellan, Ramos, Santos
NOES: Keegan, Lewis
MOTION CARRIES.
5. REPORTS OF MAYOR MARK LEWIS: None
6. REPORTS OF MAYOR PRO TEM and COUNCILMEMBERS:
Mayor Pro Tem Ramos: No Reports
Councilmember Keegan: No Reports
Councilmember McClellan:
Councilmember McClellan states he went to the Zoo on August 23 at 7:30 a.m. for the "Making Strides Against Breast Cancer" kickoff breakfast for a walk that will be held on October 22, 2000. He presents brochures for the walk to the City Clerk to be put on the front counter at City Hall. He also has flyers and badges for everyone. Councilmember McClellan suggests putting the posters up on windows around City Hall. It is a wonderful cause and he supports trying to eliminate this disease as well as all cancers. He is for anything that will help eradicate cancer.
Councilmember Santos: No Reports
7. LEGISLATIVE REPORT
7.1 League of California Cities Legislative Bulletin (LGS 100)
Councilmember Keegan reports the legislature is out of session.
No Action Taken.
8. ITEM ADDED TO THE AGENDA AND GENERAL INFORMATION ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION:
8A. LETTER: VICKIE K. BUTCHER – REQUEST TO BE AMBASSADOR OF THE CITY TO SYDNEY, AUSTRALIA ON SEPTEMBER 21 TO ATTEND THE 2000 OLYMPIC GAMES (This item was added to the Agenda under earlier action taken by the City Council.) (CCL 508)
DISCUSSION
Mayor Lewis states Vickie Butcher has requested to serve as an Ambassador of the City on her trip to Sydney, Australia on September 21, 2000 to attend the 2000 Olympic Games. A Motion was approved by the Council unanimously to add the item to the Agenda because it is time-sensitive. He has no problem honoring her request to serve as Ambassador.
MOTION BY Lewis, SECOND BY Keegan to honor the request.
MOTION CARRIES BY UNANIMOUS VOTE.
8B. LETTER: GROSSMONT UNION HIGH SCHOOL DIST. – INCREASE IN DEVELOPMENTAL IMPACT SCHOOL FEES FOR RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT (brought forward by Councilmember McClellan) (SCH 100)
DISCUSSION
Councilmember McClellan states the Grossmont Union High School District is raising the development fee to $.99 for residential and $.13 per square foot for commercial industrial buildings. He questions what the rates were before and what percentage the increase is.
City Manager Garrett informs staff will get that information. The legislation Grossmont Union High School District references took the cities out of the game and the City has no control.
Councilmember McClellan states the citizens should know what is happening and what the percentage is, how much it was and what it is going to be.
City Manager Garrett comments it will come back as an item on the next Agenda.
8C. ERAF MITIGATIONS – CITIES AND COUNTIES (brought forward by Councilmember McClellan) (FIN 100)
DISCUSSION
Councilmember McClellan comments this is an item he requested of staff regarding what monies the Cities and Counties have benefited from Proposition 172 and how much money the City has lost. According to the report, it appears California counties have recovered almost all of their money and the cities are lagging behind. He suggests sending a copy of the report to County Supervisor Dianne Jacob so when he asks her in the future why she keeps asking the City for money when they have more of the City’s 172 funds than the City has been able to keep, which is about $6,000,000 a year that would come back to the City. The County has done better on this tax relief issue than the cities have. He again suggests sending the report to Dianne Jacob and asking her if it is true or if she has other numbers that would change it. Last time he confronted her, she said the County lost a lot more than the City. Dollar-wise, they probably did, but their income is a lot more than the City of El Cajon.
City Manager Garrett states Councilmember McClellan read the report correctly; the County has lost more but recovered more as well. Staff will send the report to Dianne Jacob if Council directs.
Councilmember McClellan suggests sending the report to all the County Supervisors and ask them not to ask the City for money in the future and to help the City to fund projects. If the County is going to have a homeless shelter in El Cajon, they should fund it this year instead of the citizens of El Cajon because it is a regional issue. The parks are also regional and the County should fund all the parks.
In response to City Manager Garrett, Councilmember McClellan comments the letter should come from the Mayor.
Mayor Pro Tem Ramos the ERAF obligation does not include 172. He suggests adding the 172, because the City is putting $4,000,000-$5,000,000 in and getting only about $200,000 back.
City Manager Garrett comments Mayor Pro Tem Ramos has made a good point. This came as a State analysis but counties such as San Diego took 95% of the sales tax, whereas other counties, such as Riverside County, get their fair share. But not this county, it was taken out.
Mayor Pro Tem Ramos recalls how it was taken out, but that is beside the point. It ought to be included in the report because money is money is money.
City Manager Garrett states the County will be reminded because it is the 172 monies that Councilmember McClellan usually references.
MOTION BY McClellan, SECOND BY Ramos to send a letter from the Mayor with the information to the individual members of the Board of Supervisors.
MOTION CARRIES BY UNANIMOUS VOTE.
8D. AMERICAN PUBLIC WORKS AWARD 2000 FOR MARSHALL AVENUE EXTENSION PROJECT (As requested by Councilmember McClellan) (PWK 100)
DISCUSSION
Councilmember McClellan congratulates Director of Public Works Munzenmaier and his staff on the recognition they received for the Public Works Department. He thanks the Department and states they do a good job.
9. ORDINANCE: FIRST READING
RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council introduce the Ordinance and request the City Clerk to recite the title and waive full reading of the text.
9.1 AMENDMENT OF EL CAJON MUNICIPAL CODE - DIRECTOR OF HUMAN RESOURCES AND OTHER PROVISIONS (MUN 100)
First Reading of Ordinance repealing Chapter 2.64 of the El Cajon Municipal Code and adopting a new Chapter 2.64 and repealing Section 2.72.060 of Chapter 2.72 and adopting a new Section 2.72.060 changing the title Director of Personnel to Director of Human Resources and adding and deleting officers and employees excepted from the provisions of the personnel system.
City Clerk Linn recites the title of the ordinance under Item 9.1.
MOTION BY Lewis, SECOND BY Ramos to waive first Reading of the Ordinance.
MOTION CARRIES BY UNANIMOUS VOTE.
7:00 P.M. MEETING AGENDA
CHANGES TO THE AGENDA: None
PUBLIC COMMENT: None
PUBLIC HEARINGS:
Councilmember McClellan disqualifies himself from participation in Items 100 through 103 due to a possible financial conflict of interest in accordance with California law, and leaves Council Chambers and the Meeting at 7:40 p.m.
100 RESOLUTION NO. 141-00: APPEAL OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 1823 - RUHLMAN - 1523 Via Elisa (Report: City Clerk) (PLN 400)
RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council
• Open the Public Hearing, consider testimony, close the Public Hearing and
• Adopt RESOLUTION NO. 141-00, to grant or deny the appeal of Planning Commission Resolution No. 9395 granting in part Conditional Use Permit 1823 for a detached accessory structure greater than 800 square feet only, without bathroom facilities, in the R-1-6 Zone at 1523 Via Elisa.
DISCUSSION
Assistant Director of Planning Guyer informs this item started, as far as the City was concerned, with the consideration of Specific Plan 479 to allow access from other than a dedicated street to this parcel. It was granted and indicated what the buildings on the property would be, even though that is not what the Specific Plan dealt with primarily. Subsequent to that approval, the appellant secured a building permit and began construction. When the final inspection was called for and Planning staff looked at the structure, it was nothing like the structure that was approved on the building permit plans. It included a full second floor, but this is a detached accessory structure and is not allowed to have a second floor. It included bathroom facilities and there was the appearance of kitchen facilities being installed. That process was brought to a halt and the applicant (now the appellant) was advised the second unit was not a possibility under any circumstances. The only way he could proceed with what he had was to seek a Conditional Use Permit for an accessory structure greater than 800’ sq. ft. with bathroom facilities. He applied for a Conditional Use Permit and the Planning Commission, following staff’s recommendation, denied it.
Mayor Lewis announces the Public Hearing is now open.
Timothy Crabbe, 1698 Souvenir Drive, El Cajon, CA 92021, informs his house is located just below the structure that was built. He has attended all the Planning meetings and the structure was supposed to be a garage and storage area. It appears to be a granny flat, income property, or rental property. It has french doors, a balcony, many windows, and it looks directly to his house below. He received no correspondence informing that this was going to happen. In the hearings, it was supposed to be a garage and storage area, not an apartment up above. The neighborhood was not informed of any adjustments that were made. He is impacted very much because he has to look at it every day and it is an eyesore. He cannot believe it was built without the input of the neighborhood or himself.
Councilmember Keegan comments the Planning Commission minutes state the balcony looks down on Mr. Crabbe’s yard.
Mr. Crabbe states his yard is directly below and there are double french doors and windows to the left and the right, which look out on his property.
Richard Kent Smith, 1570 Villa Crest Drive, El Cajon, CA 92021, states his property is Lot 201 on the Public Hearing map. He requests Council support the Planning Commission decision of June 26, 2000, to approve this Conditional Use Permit in part, without a bathroom facility, subject to Conditions 1-8 as set forth in their action. It is apparent the applicant changed the original plan by changing the roofline, gaining more head space and enabling him to have a full story on top of the garage, all of which was contrary to what was told to the neighbors. It was not presented to the neighbors that it would be anything other than a garage with a storage facility above it. At that time the detached structure was to be only a garage.
Under the Specific Plan, special circumstances were permitted regarding setbacks so the structure ended up very close to the top of the existing slope and it heavily impacts Mr. Crabbe, Mr. Burkhart and Mr. Carver. It was approved at that time with the lower pitched roof and that is the key. The roof design was to give the appearance of a second story but it was to prevent that area above the garage from being considered a full story or habitable space under the current Uniform Building Code. No bathroom facilities, gaslines or plumbing were to be permitted in the garage except for a wash basin. The attic area was to be a dead space, suitable for storage only. There was no mention of windows, sliding glass doors, balcony, or outside stairs at the Specific Plan hearing. All these items were added by the applicant and done without the approval of the City or knowledge of the adjacent property owners. It is clearly an unauthorized conversion of the accessory structure that was not presented to the adjacent owners and Mr. Smith requests Council support the Planning Commission’s recommendation.
Mayor Pro Tem Ramos comments Mr. Smith mentioned a higher pitched roof than was originally approved. He questions if the higher pitched roof was approved.
Assistant Director Guyer informs it was approved with a higher pitch, meaning a steeper roof, because Planning staff had noted that it looked like a two-story structure which it is not allowed under the ordinance. Staff said the applicant could have that, but only if he put a specific kind of roof on it so it could not be used. It is very clear it cannot be used as an inhabited space. The ordinance specifies a maximum height and the building was within that, but it only allows it to be one floor. Assistant Director Guyer refers to a section taken through the building. When Planning staff looked at the section when it came in for the building permit, the roof was shown to be different than when staff went out to inspect the structure after it had been built. By popping up and with dormers on the other side, it allowed habitable space to be developed.
Mr. Smith confirms that is correct.
Councilmember Keegan questions the term "inhabited space" – is it living quarters only, or an office – what is inhabitable space.
Assistant Director Guyer informs it could be storage, but it could not be inhabited, that is, used regularly as living space or working space.
In response to Councilmember Keegan, Assistant Director Guyer informs it cannot be used for working space. Items could be stored up there and they go up into that space to get things down or put them back.
Mark Knutson, 1654 Via Elisa, El Cajon, CA 92021, states his home is down from where Mr. Ruhlman and his wife built the house. He has lived there since 1996 and has done extensive remodeling to his own house and added a swimming pool, all fully permitted with nice landscaping.
When Mr. Ruhlman showed him what he was planning to do, Mr. Knutson did not have a problem with it. It was a bit cramped and he was going to put a house in where it really should have been one house, but the way the original house was situated on the lot, it could fit in and Mr. Ruhlman was related to the owner of the other house so they did not have a problem with it. Mr. Knutson informs he cannot see the garage from his house, although he noticed when it was being built that it was much larger than he recalled it being related to him. His concern is that the intended use of the structure is a home office for clientele and that Mr. Ruhlman will have parishioners come over during the day and use the space for that purpose. Mr. Knutson’s concern is traffic volume on the road. Via Elisa is a rather sedate street and is connected to Key Lane. There was litigation over prior residents on Key, trying to blockade the road, so people from Via Elisa could not travel over Key to get to Pepper to get their children to W.D. Hall – his daughters attend W.D. Hall. That was resolved but the road is torn up now. If there is additional traffic over the road, he is concerned as a parent. His daughters are told never to go to that section of Via Elisa. There will be increased traffic and the wear and tear on that section of the road that hooks Via Elisa to Key, which is potholed now. If Councilmembers are inclined to grant the Conditional Use Permit, he does not know whether there would be any condition that that road be put in a safe condition.
James Beat, 1734 Key Lane, El Cajon, CA 92021, states he does not see the garage structure from his property. Regarding neighbors concerned about their view, the house being higher than their house, and losing their privacy, everybody in that area is on a hill. Any street above another street is going to be looking down into their back yard. That is the condition in that neighborhood. He has no objections to the homeowner using the facility if he complies to the articles on Page 13 of his submittal, restricting renting the property, or selling the property to another homeowner who would make the garage a living unit. Regarding Key Lane, it is a private street and the only people who have a right to travel that street are the people who have ingress-egress rights by their deed.
Robert Williams, 1717 Key Lane, El Cajon, CA 92021 states he lives on a hill and can look directly down to his neighbor’s yard. If you live on a hill, there will always be a privacy issue. Regarding the garage, he does not see it from his house, but if they plant queen palms around it, it would not be visible in another 8 years. If it is used for a meeting place or occasionally as an office as indicated on Page 13 of the report, Mr. Williams sees no fault in that.
John Ruhlman, 1533 Via Elisa, El Cajon, CA 92021, distributes information to Council and staff. His request is to amend the Conditional Use Permit to include a habitable space with bathroom facilities, to use as an office.
His reason for the appeal is the financial burden of an unusable structure that was built per the specifications and inspections of the City of El Cajon Building Inspector and Plan Checker. This employee, Don Meadows, has since been dismissed on administrative leave because, according to Mr. Meadows, Mr. Meadows did not run this through Planning. Mr. Meadows came to Mr. Ruhlman’s office after the final Planning check, and said he was getting fired because he led Mr. Ruhlman through this. When Mr. Ruhlman questions City Building and Planning employees, he does not receive a reason for Mr. Meadows’ dismissal.
The second reason for the appeal is the inaccuracy of the Staff Report as presented to the Planning Commission. The inaccuracies swayed the Planning Commission. He met with Director of Community Development Griffin after the meeting and Director Griffin said that clarifications were required. He requests permission to ask Assistant Director of Planning Guyer questions.
Mayor Lewis advises Mr. Ruhlman to direct his questions to Mayor Lewis.
Mr. Ruhlman states he will not go through the inaccuracies for the sake of time. If he were on the Planning Commission and heard the information as stated on the original report, he would not have approved the requested permits, the information was that inaccurate. As he reacted in surprise to the Staff Report which he received the day before the Planning Commission Meeting, he sought the counsel of an attorney who said he would come and represent Mr. Ruhlman. Mr. Ruhlman regrets that decision and apologizes to City Attorney Foley and Assistant Director Guyer for the attorney’s behavior.
Before Director Griffin signed off the final inspection of Mr. Ruhlman’s house, he demanded that Mr. Ruhlman write a letter (Item No. 6) agreeing to submit for a Conditional Use Permit for the garage if the garage were ever to be used. Mr. Ruhlman did as Director Griffin requested, trying to meet in the middle and make whatever had gone awry with the City right. Now he has been advised that Director Griffin did not have the right to make him do this, since a City employee had already advised him, inspected his plans, and inspected the garage, rough plumbing, electrical, and drywall. The inaccurate Staff Report was a personal affront on his perceived integrity.
Mayor Lewis questions if anyone else wishes to speak regarding Item 100. No one comes forward.
MOTION BY Lewis, SECOND BY Santos to Close the Public Hearing.
AYES: Ramos, Santos, Keegan, Lewis
NOES: None
DISQUALIFY: McClellan (due to a possible financial conflict of interest according to State Law)
MOTION CARRIES.
DISCUSSION
Mayor Lewis announces the Public Hearing on Item 100 is now closed and discussion will remain with the Council and staff.
MOTION BY Lewis, SECOND BY Keegan to adopt RESOLUTION NO. 141-00 to deny the appeal of Planning Commission Resolution No. 9395. (Motion later amended.)
DISCUSSION
Councilmember Keegan questions if, by denying the appeal, the applicant cannot put in bathroom facilities and that he cannot use it as a meeting place or office.
Assistant Director Guyer states the meeting place and office are not the subject of this. It would probably be the subject of an application to staff for a home occupation permit or if it is used less than that, perhaps not. The neighborhood is concerned that this is going to be used on a regular basis. That probably would not be approved by staff because the idea of a home occupation is that it behave like a residence rather than like a business. It is a judgment call. But that is not what is before Council. What is before Council is an appeal of the Conditional Use Permit to have approved a detached accessory structure greater than 800 sq. ft. with bathroom facilities. The difficulty with that, that Mr. Ruhlman was advised of all along, is that the detached accessory structure cannot be two stories. It cannot have anything on the second floor except storage. That is the primary reason staff opposed the application in the first place.
Councilmember Keegan states it is two stories and question how it is monitored to determine whether it is used for storage or anything else.
Assistant Director Guyer states, depending on the action Council takes, things would have to be removed, such as the stairs going to the second floor which would effectively limit its use.
Councilmember Keegan questions if the stairs are removed, how would it be used for storage.
Assistant Director Guyer states it could be used for storage from inside the garage, using a ladder or whatever to get up into the storage area and items are stored on slats or something. In this case, there is a floor between the garage and what would be the storage space.
Councilmember Keegan questions if the stairway would have to be removed if the appeal is denied.
Assistant Director Guyer states that is a judgment call, but because it would open the opportunity for the space to be misused, some other way of introducing storage items should be developed.
Councilmember Keegan questions the windows that look out on the neighbor.
Assistant Director Guyer informs the windows were never approved and would not have been approved if Mr. Ruhlman had come to Planning because it implies an activity on the second floor.
Councilmember Keegan states the windows would then have to removed, as well as the stairway.
Assistant Director Guyer states it would depend on how the Council decides on this, but the windows would have to be removed. By saying things have to be removed, there will be significant cost factors and the applicant will feel he spent extra money to build it and then he will have to spend more money to take it off. However, it is staff’s recommendation to take it all off and put it back the way it was originally shown, without windows and without stairs.
Councilmember Keegan states he is concerned about a neighbor who has lost his privacy because an illegal structure was built.
Mayor Pro Tem Ramos states any reasonable person reading through the Planning Commission Meeting minutes and what is before Council would come to the conclusion that this was built with a clear intent of using it as a living or meeting space. He recalls the report mentioning a request to pour cement into the plumbing to make certain it could not be used and questions if that is correct.
Assistant Director Guyer states that is correct.
Mayor Pro Tem Ramos questions if that is a Condition as part of the Planning Commission decision.
Assistant Director Guyer states the specific method of pouring cement into pipes mainly applies to drain pipes as opposed to water supply pipes. Water supply pipes can be capped off another way. The intent is to make sure that even though the facilities are there they cannot be used.
Mayor Pro Tem Ramos states he wants to be assured that whatever action Council takes, that this is returned to the way it was originally approved, whatever that takes. He questions if Conditions can be added to make sure that is done.
City Attorney Foley informs Conditions can be added and modify the Resolution of the Planning Commission as part of the appeal. The Planning Commission Resolution does not go that far, it states it shall not be used for habitable space and should be open to inspection, and things of that nature. The Planning Commission added the Conditions of filling the pipes with cement as well as cutting the water and gas lines to assure it would not be used for anything other than storage. They did not require the removal of the exterior stairway or the doors and windows.
Mayor Pro Tem Ramos states it is imperative that the outside stairway and french doors be removed. Who would install french doors in a garage if it was not to be used for something other than what was legally allowed. He questions if they are part of the Planning Commission Conditions and if cementing in the drains is sufficient.
Assistant Director Guyer states that approach is generally used.
Mayor Pro Tem Ramos adds removing or capping off water lines should also be included. There is some question whether there was a kitchen in there – he questions what method would insure that there will be no kitchen facilities. There may be no water or drains, but this applicant has not been as forthcoming as Mayor Pro Tem Ramos would like.
Assistant Director Guyer cautions that there is a sink downstairs in the garage which is allowed. All the pipes and fixtures on the second floor would need to be removed.
Mayor Pro Tem Ramos questions if any of the items just discussed were addressed by the Planning Commission.
Assistant Director Guyer states they did not address exactly how to return this to its original state.
Mayor Pro Tem Ramos states he wishes to add those because it is imperative to uphold the single family residence in that area and maintain the single family resident quality in the City. Once this is allowed to start, there will be granny flats all over the City. The integrity of that zone must be maintained.
Mayor Lewis states there is a Motion on the floor to deny. He questions if the appeal is to be denied and then the Planning Commission Resolution modified.
City Attorney Foley recommends taking action, if that is the intent of the Council, to deny the appeal and to adopt the next Resolution in order that would contain the findings for the denial as well as contain the direction as outlined by Council to put the property back in the original condition as was approved by the original Conditional Use Permit.
Mayor Pro Tem Ramos questions if this has been signed off.
Assistant Director Guyer informs it received a final Building Inspection but has not received a final Planning Inspection.
Mayor Pro Tem Ramos questions, if Council adopts these Conditions, what authority the City has to insure they are done.
City Attorney Foley advises it would be considered an illegal structure if it is not approved according to the original drawings. Council may not want to change the difference in the pitch of the roof, but Council may want to order the removal or blocking of the windows and removal of the french doors and appropriate siding, to remove that access.
Mayor Pro Tem Ramos states perhaps another Condition would be to remove the windows. He wants to be specific on everything, because if it is not specific, the applicant has stated in some of his reasoning that the City was not specific before, and that is the reason he did certain things. In this case, Council has to be specific about everything Mr. Ruhlman is to do, or he will not do them.
Assistant Director Guyer states regarding the roof slope, his interpretation of Mayor Pro Tem Ramos’ statement to return it to the way it was originally approved, would actually remove that roof slope and put it back to the angle it is supposed to be.
Mayor Pro Tem Ramos states he is not so concerned about the roof, but he is concerned about any future use of that other than as a storage area.
Assistant Director Guyer comments the other issue that has not been discussed is the deck that the stairs landed on.
Mayor Pro Tem Ramos states the outside stairs and the deck are to be removed.
Councilmember Santos remarks that he has looked at many of these when he was on the Planning Commission and it is clear for him. It is bad planning to allow it, and for it to be allowed would be precedent-setting. It violates the ordinance and he supports the Planning Commission decision rendered previously and he also supports the additions Mayor Pro Tem Ramos made.
AMENDED MOTION BY Lewis, SECOND BY Ramos to adopt RESOLUTION NO. 141-00 to deny the appeal of Planning Commission Resolution No. 9395 granting in part CUP 1823 for a detached accessory structure greater than 800 square feet only, without bathroom facilities, including conditions to remove the outside staircase and deck, french doors, cementing in the drains, capping off the water lines and returning the building to the original condition, in the R-1-6 Zone at 1523 Via Elisa.
DISCUSSION
Mayor Pro Tem Ramos reiterates the conditions: remove the outside stairs and the deck, the french windows and the other windows that are on the second story, cement the drains and cap off the water pipes, and remove any fixtures that are now on the second floor.
VOTES ARE NOW CAST ON MOTION BY Lewis, SECOND BY Ramos to adopt RESOLUTION NO. 141-00 to deny the appeal of Planning Commission Resolution No. 9395 granting in part CUP 1823 for a detached accessory structure greater than 800 square feet only, without bathroom facilities, including conditions to remove the outside staircase and deck, french doors, cementing in the drains, capping off the water lines and returning the building to the original condition, in the R-1-6 Zone at 1523 Via Elisa.
AYES: Ramos, Santos, Keegan, Lewis
NOES: None
DISQUALIFY: McClellan (due to a possible financial conflict of interest according to State Law)
MOTION CARRIES.
PUBLIC HEARINGS 101, 102 AN 103 ARE PARTS OF ONE PROJECT.
THE THREE HEARINGS MAY BE OPENED AT THIS TIME FOR TESTIMONY.
101 ZONE RECLASSIFICATION 2211 - Priest Development Corporation (Report: City Clerk) (PLN 404)
RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council open the Public Hearing, consider any testimony, close the Public Hearing, and
• Approve, Modify or Disapprove Planning Commission Resolution No. 9409 recommending approval of Zone Reclassification 2211 to rezone vacant property on the east side of North Mollison Avenue between Valley Village Drive and Broadway, from the R-1-6 (Residential One Family 6,000 Sq. Ft.) Zone to the PRD-Low (Planned Residential Development Low Density) Zone.
102 RESOLUTION NO. 142-00: PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT 53 - Priest Development Corporation (Report: City Clerk) (SUB 202)
RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council open the Public Hearing, consider any testimony, close the Public Hearing and
• Adopt RESOLUTION NO. 142-00 to approve, modify or disapprove Planning Commission Resolution No. 9410 recommending approval of a 15-unit Residential Development in the pending PRD-Low Zone on vacant property located on the east side of North Mollison Avenue between Valley Village Drive and Broadway.
103 RESOLUTION NO. 143-00: TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP 493 - Priest Development Corporation (Report: City Clerk) (SUB 200)
RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council open the Public Hearing, consider any testimony, close the Public Hearing, and
• Adopt RESOLUTION NO. 143-00 to approve, modify or disapprove Planning Commission Resolution No. 9411 recommending approval of a 16 lot subdivision (including one common lot) in the pending PRD-Low Zone on vacant property on the east side of North Mollison Avenue between Valley Village Drive and Broadway.
Councilmember McClellan disqualified himself earlier from participation in Items 101, 102, and 103 due to a possible financial conflict of interest in accordance with California law.
DISCUSSION
Mayor Lewis announces the Public Hearing on Items 101, 102, and 103 is now open.
Daryl R. Priest, 2054 Sunnyside Avenue, El Cajon, CA 92019, states he is present to answer any questions Council may have.
Mayor Lewis asks if there are any questions of the speaker. There are none.
MOTION BY Lewis, SECOND BY Santos to Close the Public Hearing on Item 101, 102 and 103.
AYES: Ramos, Santos, Keegan, Lewis
NOES: None
DISQUALIFY: McClellan (due to a possible financial conflict of interest according to State Law)
MOTION CARRIES.
MOTION BY Lewis, SECOND BY Keegan to approve Planning Commission Resolution No. 9409 granting Zone Reclassification 2211.
AYES: Ramos, Santos, Keegan, Lewis
NOES: None
DISQUALIFY: McClellan (due to a possible financial conflict of interest according to State Law)
MOTION CARRIES.
MOTION BY Lewis, SECOND BY Ramos to adopt RESOLUTION NO. 142-00 to approve Planned Residential Development 53 according to Planning Commission Resolution No. 9410.
AYES: Ramos, Santos, Keegan, Lewis
NOES: None
DISQUALIFY: McClellan (due to a possible financial conflict of interest according to State Law)
MOTION CARRIES.
MOTION BY Lewis, SECOND BY Keegan to adopt RESOLUTION NO. 143-00 to approve Tentative Subdivision Map 493 according to Planning Commission Resolution No. 9411.
AYES: Ramos, Santos, Keegan, Lewis
NOES: None
DISQUALIFY: McClellan (due to a possible financial conflict of interest according to State Law)
MOTION CARRIES.
104 ITEMS CONTINUED FROM THE 3:00 P.M. MEETING: None
ADJOURNMENT: Mayor Lewis adjourned the Adjourned Regular Joint Meeting of the El Cajon City Council and the El Cajon Redevelopment Agency held this 12th day of September, 2000 at 8:18 p.m. to Tuesday, September 26, 2000 at 3:00 p.m.
______________________
City Clerk/Secretary
|
