City Council - February 08, 2022
1. CALL TO ORDER
Public Comments:
1.1 INVOCATION - COUNCILMEMBER LOTHIAN
Public Comments:
1.2 PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Public Comments:
2. REPORT FROM CLOSED SESSION
Public Comments:
3. CITY MANAGER COMMENTS
Public Comments:
4. COMMUNITY BULLETIN REPORTS
Public Comments:
5. PRESENTATIONS
Public Comments:
5.1 2022 BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS WORK PLANS
Attachments
|
Public Comments
1. 2022.02.08 P_BC Work Plans.pdf
ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY COMMISSION
COMMUNITY PARKING COMMISSION
PLANNING COMMISSION
5.2 BUDGET MONITORING REPORT
Attachments
|
Public Comments
1. 2022.02.08 P_Budget Monitoring Report.pdf
5.3 CITY TREASURER'S QUARTERLY REPORT
Attachments
|
Public Comments
1. 2022.02.08 P_City Treasurer's Quarterly Report.pdf
6. ADDITIONS AND/OR DELETIONS TO THE AGENDA
Public Comments:
7. PUBLIC COMMENTS – (TOTAL TIME – 15 MINUTES)
Public Comments
Susan Wayne
To: Mayor and City Council
I understand you will not be considering the Mac Arthur Park Master Plan at this meeting, but will do so in the near future. When this plan is presented, I want you to give it your full attention and not just push it forward. The survey was completed on January 30th, and I hope the comments and results will be included in the presentation. In the meantime, I hope you have had time to review the draft and walk the park since my last comment to the council in December. https://www.cityoflamesa.us/DocumentCenter/View/18121/MacArthur-Park-Master-Plan_Draft-20211202?bidId= While I support the passive and active park amenities and the Aquatic Center on the plan, I am disappointed it includes a massive new Community Center (60,415 sq. ft.) and construction of a road through the middle of the park. The expense for the new Community Center ($46,055,082), the building maintenance, and the road, may not be fiscally wise. Building a large Community Center was a dream idea suggested to the public during the workshop, but according to the surveys, was not as important. I would like another option - expand current Community Center to include a gymnasium. This would keep the open space that many have stated was an important feature of the park, and may be a more realistic choice that La Mesa could afford.
In La Mesa, the library and Civic Center plans are being studied. La Mesa needs sidewalks and road improvements. Adding officers and firefighters to serve our growing population is another consideration. Thinking of La Mesa as a whole, what projects and types of funding would the residents approve? Please consider all of these issues when reviewing the MacArthur Park Master Plan and all the needs of our community.
Respectfully,
Susan Wayne
NOTE: In accordance with state law, an item not scheduled on the agenda may be brought forward by the general public for comment; however, the City Council will not be able to discuss or take any action on the item at this meeting. If appropriate, the item will be referred to Staff or placed on a future agenda.
8. CONFLICT DISCLOSURES
Public Comments:
9. BOARD AND COMMISSION INTERVIEWS
Public Comments:
9.1 INTERVIEW OF APPLICANTS FOR UNSCHEDULED VACANCIES ON THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION Attachments
|
Public Comments
1. 2022.02.08 BC_Historic Preservation Commission Interviews .pdf Staff Reference: Ms. Wiegelman
9.2 ANNUAL INTERVIEW OF APPLICANTS FOR OPENINGS ON THE CITY'S COMMUNITY POLICE OVERSIGHT BOARD Attachments
|
Public Comments
1. 2022.02.08 BC_CPOB Interviews.pdf
Staff Reference: Ms. Wiegelman
10. CONSENT CALENDAR
Public Comments:
(Items 10.1 through 10.4)
The Consent Calendar includes items considered to be routine. Unless discussion is requested by members of the Council or audience, all Consent Calendar items may be approved by one motion.
Recommended Motion:
Approve Consent Calendar Items 10.1 through 10.4.
10.1 APPROVAL OF MOTION TO WAIVE THE READING OF THE TEXT OF ALL ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS AT THIS MEETING Public Comments:
Recommended Motion:
Approve.
10.2 APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES FOR THE CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING HELD TUESDAY, JANUARY 11, 2022 Attachments
|
Public Comments
1. 2022.02.08 CC_Council Special Meeting Minutes 2022-01-11.pdf Recommended Motion:
Approve.
10.3 APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES FOR THE CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING AND THE LA MESA PUBLIC FINANCING AUTHORITY SPECIAL MEETING HELD TUESDAY, JANUARY 11, 2022 Attachments
|
Public Comments
1. 2022.02.08 CC_Council Meeting Minutes 2022-01-11.pdf Recommended Motion:
Approve.
10.4 REQUESTED PURCHASE AND INSTALLATION OF A PRE-FABRICATED RESTROOM BUILDING FOR THE KUHLKEN FIELD RESTROOM PROJECT IN MACARTHUR PARK FROM THE PUBLIC RESTROOM COMPANY Attachments
|
Public Comments
1. 2022.02.08 CC_Kuhlken Field Restroom Project.pdf
RESOLUTION APPROVING A CONTRACT FOR THE PURCHASE AND INSTALLATION OF A PRE-FABRICATED RESTROOM BUILDING FOR THE KUHLKEN FIELD RESTROOM PROJECT IN MACARTHUR PARK TO THE PUBLIC RESTROOM COMPANY USING PRICING FROM THE SOURCEWELL COOPERATIVE PURCHASING AGREEMENT FOR $178,496 Staff Reference: Ms. Richardson
Recommended Motion:
Adopt Resolution.
11. ORDINANCES: SECOND READING
Public Comments:
11.1 ORDINANCE UPDATING THE MEMBERSHIP OF THE YOUTH ADVISORY COMMISSION AND ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY COMMISSION Attachments
|
Public Comments
1. 2022.02.08 ORD_YAC and ESC Membership Update .pdf
CONSIDERATION OF AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LA MESA AMENDING SECTIONS 2.71.010 AND 2.85.010 OF THE LA MESA MUNICIPAL CODE TO AUTHORIZE NONRESIDENTS TO SERVE ON THE YOUTH ADVISORY COMMISSION AND AS THE YOUTH REPRESENTATIVE ON THE ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY COMMISSION PROVIDED THEY ATTEND SCHOOL IN THE CITY OF LA MESA (SUBJECT TO APPLICABLE RULES) Staff Reference: Mr. Sabine
Recommended Motion:
Approve the second reading and adoption of the Ordinance.
11.2 SENATE BILL NO. 9 ORDINANCE
Attachments
|
Public Comments
1. 2022.02.08 ORD_Senate Bill 9 Ordinance.pdf
Lee Sandvick
PUBLIC COMMENTS - SB-9 – CITY COUNCIL – FEB 8, 2022
SB-9 should not be approved yet. Need more time to research its ramifications. SB-9 is targeting 100 cities (including La Mesa) for maximum housing density. SB-9 allows up to 8 units per lot including ADU & Jr ADU. Although it is mentioned in the agenda and power point, that it is a 2 unit max, could that # change at a later date? Would not greenhouse gas emission increase if more grass/bushes/trees be removed for new construction? Instead of a quick approval by City Council, La Mesa residents really need to see the reality of what '..stack em, pack em and rack em' (a line from movie ‘Die Hard’)would really look like. Why the rush? I have talked to my neighbors and the vast majority do not understand or want this increased density to be approved in La Mesa.
They must have 180 days to review and research the current proposed law and the ramifications and reality of such an approval. Also need to view a sample neighborhood that complied with recommended housing density. The link will have the photo displayed of a neighborhood in Redondo Beach as well as more information about SB-9.
The residents of La Mesa need those 180 days to further research and put in their public comments. City Council should not approve this bill but if they do, they will need to justify to the residents of La Mesa why it was rushed to approval rather than giving the residents that additional time. The 180 day review period would end on August 9 or 20. Link of article. https://www.livablecalifornia.org/sb-9-allows-8-units-on-all-single-family-lots-california-would-kill-single-family-zoning/ CONSIDERATION OF AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LA MESA ADOPTING AMENDMENTS TO LA MESA MUNICIPAL CODE TITLE 22 (SUBDIVISIONS) AND TITLE 24 (ZONING) TO ESTABLISH STANDARDS FOR THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE TWO-UNIT RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT AND URBAN LOT SPLIT PROVISIONS OF SENATE BILL NO. 9 Staff Reference: Mr. Kusiak
Recommended Motion:
Approve the second reading and adoption of the Ordinance.
12. HEARING
Public Comments:
12.1 CONSIDERATION OF AN APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S APPROVAL OF PROJECT NO. 2017-31 (CUP 17-88) (HILLSIDE) - A REQUEST FOR A PROPOSED COMMERCIAL BUILDING AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A STOREFRONT RETAIL MEDICINAL CANNABIS USE AT 7901 HILLSIDE DRIVE Attachments
|
Public Comments
1. 2022.02.08 H_Appeal of the PC Project No. 2017 (CUP 17-88) 7901 Hillside Drive.pdf Bonnie Baranoff
Dear Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers --
Please refrain from upholding the Planning Commission's approval of Project No. 2017-31 (CUP 17-88) and confirm the appeal. Adding another cannabis business in a residential area close to an existing cannabis business sets a dangerous precedence for future applications. It ignores promises made to residents to keep our communities safe and ensure effective and efficient traffic circulation in the area.
Craig Reed
Dear Mayor and City Council,
On behalf of Envision La Mesa, a community group focused on improving the neighborhoods and business corridors of the west side of the city, we wish to express our concerns over a proposed Cannabis business at 7901 Hillside Drive. We wish to note that this proposed location is too close to an existing Cannabis business (Cookies) and so the permit should be rejected for this very reason.
When Envision La Mesa started, one commitment we made was to support a diverse and thriving business corridor along El Cajon Blvd and University Avenue. That meant making space for a limited number of Cannabis dispensaries that are not causing problems for residents and other local businesses. Most city council members will recall that Envision La Mesa only petitioned against one proposed dispensary during the first round of permits and only because that one was located too close to a youth-oriented business.
Recently, however, we’ve interviewed a local business owner who is moving his business out of our neighborhood because of the problems with an existing dispensary located next door. The owner we interviewed noted problems with patrons of the dispensary hiding behind the back of his store in order to consume dispensary products, coming in every morning to find the trashcans of the neighboring dispensary dumped on his property creating a mess that he would have to clean up each morning and interactions with dispensary patrons trespassing on his property that were disrupting his ability to do business.
Thanks to this information, Envision La Mesa plans to conduct a community survey, in addition to our annual environmental scan, along our business corridors, to understand whether this is an isolated example or something that is more common. We hope to have these interviews completed this summer and expect to have our results available to you before the end of summer. In the meantime, we ask that the city council reject the plans for a proposed Cannabis business at 7901 Hillside Drive.
Thank you for your commitment to helping the West Side thrive.
Sincerely,
The Steering Committee of Envision La Mesa
Janet Castanos
The ordinance 2019-2873 identifies its intent is to regulate “adult-use cannabis in a responsible manner to protect the health, safety, and welfare of the residents of the City of La Mesa.” Ch 6.11 Does allowing a cannabis dispensary to exist in a residential neighborhood protect the safety of the residents? Will the welfare of residents be protected by endangering children with additional traffic and congestion through narrow residential streets where children play? Wouldn’t your health and quality of life become negatively impacted by the increase of traffic on your once-quiet street? Approving a cannabis dispensary in a residential neighborhood is in violation of the above stated ordinance. • This City Council must not set a precedent of allowing cannabis dispensaries in residential neighborhoods. • This City Council must not set a precedent of allowing businesses to play deceitful games with our city ordinances by devising an elaborate maze to circumvent the 1000-foot rule. Let’s face it, this proposed cannabis shop is only 200 feet from the Cookies dispensary located the next lot over. • This City Council must not set a precedent of allowing dispensaries to create a bogus route that pretends it is not located within 500 feet of elementary schools such as St. Martin’s and Christ Lutheran.
It might be time to place a moratorium on future cannabis dispensaries until these safety issues can be adequately addressed. Perhaps the 17 existing cannabis dispensaries are more than adequate for a city the size of La Mesa.
Thank you,
Janet Castaños, Ph.D.
Aaron Amerling
Dear Mayor and Council,
I am not opposed to dispensaries and am a patron of several local ones, however I am asking you to oppose the construction of the proposed dispensary at 7901 Hillside Dr. because it is a flawed project with alot of ramifications if approved.
This is a discretionary vote by the council, so it is not a matter of having to do what the Planning Commissioners voted for otherwise this project would be “by-right”.
There are several reasons why this project should not be built - here are two…
1. The “path of travel” measurements are not made according to the actual path of pedestrian travel and ignores an established footpath connecting the proposed entrance of the new dispensary and the existing dispensary which brign the “path of travel distance” to ~260ft. Well short of the required 1000ft. distance required by law.
2. By building commercial on the residential side of the lot it is clearly going against the general plan’s intent of incentivising mixed-use along transit corridors and activating pedestrian thoroughfares. This would set a bad precedent of ignoring the aims of mixed-use transit oriented development in favor of commercial, auto-centric development. Not to mention the impacts on the residential neighborhood that does not have the infrastructure in place for commercial use.
Please look at the intent of Measure U and the safeguards for the community it is trying to guarantee and vote to oppose the construction of this dispensary.
Anne-Marie Roach
Why does La Mesa need another marijuana dispensary? It seems that there are plenty of choices already within close proximity. We have lived here many years and do not wish to see the integrity of our city diminish.
Anne Pacheco
I live and work in La Mesa and wish to express my concern about having the 18th cannabis store approved by our city. The increased traffic and parking problems that will negatively impact this area are not something that should be approved near two elementary schools and within a residential neighborhood. With Cookies only about 200 feet away from the proposed site, there is no need for another cannabis shop in this area. The surrounding residential neighborhoods and schools should not be asked to bear the burden of additional traffic, parking, and safety concerns.
Please vote NO on agenda item 12.1
Thank you for your consideration.
Staff Reference: Mr. Kusiak
Recommended Motion:
(1) Uphold the Planning Commission's approval of Project No. 2017-31 (CUP 17-88) based on the findings and subject to conditions set forth in Planning Commission Resolution PC-2021-17, thus denying the appeal; and (2) Ratify the Design Review Board's approval of the project.
13. COUNCIL INITIATED
Public Comments:
13.1 CONSIDERATION OF DIRECTING THE ARTS AND CULTURE COMMISSION TO STUDY AND MAKE RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING PUBLIC ART SUCH AS MURALS ON PUBLIC AND/OR PRIVATE BUILDINGS AND STRUCTURES - MAYOR ARAPOSTATHIS AND COUNCILMEMBER LOTHIAN Attachments
|
Public Comments
1. 2022.02.08 CI_Arts and Culture Commission Study and Recommendations.pdf
14. COUNCIL COMMITTEE REPORTS (3 MINUTE LIMIT)
Public Comments:
15. AB 1234 REPORTS (GC 53232.3 (d))
Public Comments:
16. CITY ATTORNEY REMARKS
Public Comments:
17. ADJOURNMENT
Public Comments: