GREATER GOLDEN HILL PLANNING COMMITTEE MINUTES
June 9, 2010
Meeting was held at Balboa Park Golf Course Clubhouse – Golf Course Drive. Called to order at 6:32 pm by Chair Pat Shields. Agenda had been posted in accordance with Brown Act. A quorum of members was present.
Members present: Richard Baldwin, Maureen Burke, Carole Caffey, Scott Glazebrook, John Kroll, Jessica Richter (seated later), Pat Shields, David Skillman, Marie Skillman, David Strickland, Angela Vasconcellos Members absent: Ruchell Alvarez, Anita Margolis, Richard Santini
Addition/deletions to Agenda. In relation to the action item on the agenda relating to extending the life of Center City Development Commission, Joyce Summer from CCDC introduced Jason Elrod, a member of the Center City Advisory Committee (CCAC). Elrod explained that the City Council will be voting on 6/22/10 whether a study should be done to determine whether downtown still has blight and whether the current cap on the dollar amount CCDC can spend of increment financing funds should be lifted or raised. CCAC is asking GGHPC to support them in requesting that this study be done. Shields asked the committee members whether GGHPC should discuss this item, and whether it is within the scope of GGHPC. If not, the item would be withdrawn from the agenda. After some discussion, Kroll made a motion that we leave the item on the agenda. Baldwin seconded. 9 votes in favor, Caffey against.
Approval of Minutes: Approved minutes of 4/14/10 meeting, after corrections were made relating to Mayor’s rep and the 1 in 10 Coalition motion. (motion Burke, second Strickland, 7 in favor. Caffey, Strickland, Vasconcellos abstained)
Treasurer’s Report: No change – around $75.
Membership: Vasconcellos reported that Laurie Burgett has given up her seat on GGHPC and CPUAC subcommittee. Vasconcellos introduced Jessica Richter, a community resident who has attended 2 previous meetings. Richter has lived in the community for 5 years and wants to be more involved. Vasconcellos moved, D Skillman seconded, that she be appointed to fill a vacant seat. All in favor.
REPORTS.
Community Police Officer: Not present
City Council District 3 - Anthony Bernal: Councilman Gloria received an award from SOHO on 5/21. Gloria will be available at the Old House Fair on 6/19 from 11 am – 2 pm.
In response to Kroll’s question at the May meeting, Bernal gave these examples of Gloria changing his vote based upon constituent input: (1) OLP school expansion. Gloria went door-to-door to find out how the neighbors felt. (2) Widening Euclid Avenue in City Heights. Gloria again went door-to-door to find out how the neighbors felt. (3) Rapid Bus on Park Boulevard. Gloria is now soliciting community opinion on this project. Kroll asked if these were examples of an open mind or changed mind. Shields said that the committee appreciates having the ear of Councilman Gloria.
City Council District 8 – Diana Jurado-Sainz: In response to Kroll’s question at the May meeting, Jurado-Sainz gave these three examples of Hueso changing his vote based upon constituent input: (1) 32nd Street Canyon. Hueso became involved due to community interest (2) fiscal year 2010 MAD Carryover Budget. Hueso’s office tallied emails and phone calls about the subject and recommended that the assessment be reduced by one half that year. Otherwise, he has had an open mind and did not need to change his vote.
Mayor’s Office – no representative present.
53rd Congressional District – Kathryn Fortner. Left before giving her report.
Follow Up Questions on City’s Role in Operation of GGHMAD.
Shields gave the background and purpose of this item on the agenda. At the previous GGHPC meeting, and prior meetings, there seemed to be many cases of “facts vs. opinions” when discussing the Greater Golden Hill Maintenance Assessment District. As a way to synthesize some questions, and save time at future meetings discussing this MAD, which is not the focus of GGHPC, Shields collected questions about MAD operations and submitted them in advance to Luis Ojeda, from the City Planning and Community Investment Department at the City of San Diego. Copies of the questions had also been provided to GGHPC members in advance, and to audience members.
The questions and responses were as follows:
(1) It appears the operation of the GGHMAD are directed by Council members Hueso and Gloria.
How does that work? Verbal instructions, email, letters?
Jurado-Sainz said that Councilman Hueso’s office does not direct MAD operations, especially not day-to-day operations. At the time of year for budget submission, Hueso’s office does speak directly with Ojeda. Hueso’s office relays service requests they receive (graffiti, mattresses, etc.) to Greater Golden Hill Community Development Corporation, the non-profit that operates the MAD, on a daily basis. They used email or telephone, and now submit requests through the MAD website. Bernal said that Councilman Gloria’s office sends service requests they receive (graffiti, mattresses, etc.) to GGHCDC with a routing slip. Tree-trimming requests get a phone call to MAD program manager. At budget times, Gloria’s office offers oversight. Ojeda said that his office uses similar means. Caffey noted that these methods of requesting service are available to the public.
(2) If the GGHCDC is not subject to the Brown Act, and it selects only those people it wants for the Advisory Committee, in what way is it “a model of accountability and transparency,” as claimed by Ben Hueso?
Ojeda replied that the question implies that the “model” of selecting the advisory committee is questionable. The Engineer’s Report lists who is to be on the advisory committee (which property classes are to be represented) and mentions that the selection process is by NOMINATION, not ELECTION. He noted that no other MAD in San Diego has the level of posting of financial and operational data for the public that the GGHMAD does, so there is remarkable transparency. Jurado-Sainz said that the GGHMAD is the only one that solicits public input on the annual budget, making it quite a bit more transparent.
(3) As a policy of fiscal accountability, GGHCDC said monthly reimbursement claims would be posted on their website. The last posting was December 2009. What happened?
Ojeda replied that GGHCDC says that this posting is not required, but it has been posting it. On 5/11/10, the GGHMAD website went down, and some of the later postings were lost. These should be restored soon.
(4) Are the GGHCDC Board members and GGHMAD employees required to have Conflict of Interest Statements on file? Who maintains these records?
Ojeda replied that the City Attorney says that these individuals are not required to have Conflict of Interest Statements on file.
(5) The GGHMAD contract has specific requirements for competitive bidding. There is no evidence that this process is being followed. Do you have any documentation that projects in excess of $5,000 (in a 12 month period) have been awarded via a 3-bid process? And those in excess of $25,000 awarded via RFP?
Ojeda replied that there is a conflict between the “boilerplate” non-profit contract language regarding procurement (Exhibit E) and the City Code. The dollar thresholds vary. The City Code should supercede all others.
The conflicting thresholds were described:
Exhibit E
For contracts under $5000 - no bids required
For contracts $5000 - $25000 - 5 bids required, must be kept on file
For contracts over $25000 - RFP and sealed bids required
City Code
For contracts under $5000 – no bids required
For contracts $5000 - $50000 - 3 bids required, must be kept on file
For contracts over $50000 – RFP and sealed bids required
Ojeda said that the City Attorney is going to see that the boilerplate “Exhibit E” thresholds are changed to be the same as the City Code. Ojeda acknowledged that some contracts over $25000 had been done without RFP’s. One contract over $50000 had been done without an RFP; that was the Urban Corp contract and they had the lowest bid.
An RFP for the GGHMAD service contract for the coming year contract has been released.
(6) Are properties being reassessed when their use chances, such as 830 25th Street?
Ojeda replied yes. Changes in property characteristics as registered with the County are taken into account on the annual roll for assessment.
(7) Are the quarterly audits of the GGHMAD by the City continuing? How are they documented and who receives the reports. When were the last two?
Ojeda explained that the City does site inspections quarterly. An audit is triggered if these inspections reveal that the contract is not being met. Ojeda said that he had received complaints from property owners who do not want the GGHMAD work done, but none that the work is not being done. He said that reimbursement requests are audited by him or his staff, and by the City Controller’s Office. Some requests have been denied. Now, some expenses are being approved in advance.
Shields asked what people can do if GGHMAD services are not being provided. Ojeda said that they could call the city. He noted that there is a “failure to perform” section in the contract, which can hold up payments until the work is being done properly. He noted that contracts are reviewed annually by the City Council. Jurado-Sainz said the GGHMAD has not been shown to be out of compliance with the contract.
Shields asked the GGHPC members if they had any questions or comments.
Caffey noted that the GGHCDC is performing the administrative services of the GGHMAD, and the Urban Corp has a contract to do the maintenance work. The proper person to contact about maintenance work is Program Manager Alex Ibarra.
D. Skillman asked Ojeda to clarify the dollar thresholds on bidding. Burke asked if the GGHMAD had been held to the procurement thresholds in Exhibit E. Ojeda said the City Code is more stringent and it has been being followed.
Shields asked if there were questions or comments from members of the audience.
Janice Davis, a single-family homeowner, said that the size of her lot is incorrect on her assessment. It is a 25 ft lot but being assessed as 69 ft. She has asked for this to be corrected but it has not been. Ojeda said that some corrections similar to this have been made in the past, based upon parcel audits. In response to a question regarding the methodology used in assessing single-family homes, Ojeda said that is part of the lawsuit filed against the City relating to the GGHMAD formation, and he therefore cannot discuss it.
Hal Tyvoll stated that the Rules of Procurement for the GGHCDC, #11, state that Conflict of Interest rules do apply (City Code section #88100). Shields suggested that he send a copy of this document to the City Attorney for review. Tyvoll said that he had reviewed the listing of assessed properties, a 67-page document, and noted that many 25-50 ft lots for single-family homes are being assessed at 69 ft.
Barbara Houlton noted that the contract between the City and the GGHCDC requires competitive bidding on contracts above $25000, and also requires that the GGHCDC’s meeting minutes record the results of this bidding. She asked if those minutes were open to the public. She also noted that the City Attorney had signed this contract with the conflicting thresholds.
Houlton said that the current contract was not signed until 8 months into the fiscal year. Ojeda replied that there had been a 2-month gap in the GGHCDC’s workers compensation coverage, which held up the contract signing. The GGHCDC eventually waived liability and then the contract was signed. Houlton asked about payments being made when the contract was unsigned. Ojeda said those payments were approved by City staff.
Kroll stated that the Engineer’s Report requires that Zone 2 properties get street sweeping and weeding 2 times per month. He asked if the City believes that this is being followed. Ojeda said yes. Kroll said no, it isn’t. Kroll thinks the GGHCDC needs more oversight. Ojeda said that those with concerns should call the GGHCDC, and if not satisfied, call the City. Kroll wondered if the property owners are expected to enforce the contract, or if the City is.
Jerry Ray said that she had called the GGHCDC several weeks ago to report sweeping not being done, and has had no response.
Clean Green and Safe.
Shields asked the committee if this update report should continue to be on the agenda. Baldwin said yes. M. Skillman asked to have a report given but have the length of comments controlled. After some discussion, it was decided to leave it on the monthly agenda.
Caffey reported that the GGHMAD Oversight Committee voted to change its meetings to bi-monthly instead of monthly. An RFP has been released for the maintenance contract (Urban Corp holds current contract). She said that the GGHMAD website – www.ghcgs.org - now has a system in place for tracking complaints and will respond to reported issues. There is a 5-7 day turnaround time. She noted that GGHMAD financial data, etc. is also on that website.
PUBLIC COMMENT. None
INFORMATION ITEMS.
Chair’s Report.
Shields, Glazebrook and Turgeon are working on how to best handle Land Use on the agenda.
Shields did the E-COW (Electronic Community Orientation Workshop) required of all new PC members.
D Skillman asked if the GGHPC agendas should be posted in the community kiosks at Grape Street and Beech Street. Turgeon said that the Brown Act rule is that they be posted 72 hours in advance at the meeting location, but we can post in the kiosks if we announce that as the official posting. He said the online posting is not adequate. Shields said she would investigate having the posting at the Golf Course Clubhouse, but would like to have them posted in the kiosks.
M Skillman moved, seconded by Burke, that the official posting of the GGHPC agenda be in the community kiosks. All in favor.
Land Use Subcommittee. Glazebrook had circulated subcommittee minutes in advance of this meeting. (Attachment A) A synopsis of the minutes is to be part of the agenda. Caffey said she thought that Land Use items were supposed to come to the full GGHPC as a consent agenda, not items for discussion. Shields said there is an issue of public notice of Land Use Subcommittee meetings. Glazebrook said they hoped to put more information about future LU meetings on the agenda. D. Skillman said he could post the LU agendas in the community kiosks.
Caffey noted that there are currently not many projects before LU, but if that changes, we don’t have time to discuss all of them in detail at GGHPC meeting. M. Skillman noted that projects mentioned on the agenda should include project number, and that the vote on them must be made part of the minutes. Shields, Glazebrook and Turgeon will continue to refine the process.
Property owners Berte Bethevon and Elizabeth Terris were present, regarding the project at 850 22nd Street (no project number assigned yet). Shields asked them if the neighbors had been contacted about the project. The applicants said they had been, and were in favor. Shields asked the applicants to appear at the July GGHPC meeting, and to come 15 minutes early with plans for the committee to review.
Shields asked about the Big Blue Lofts project. Glazebrook said this is a 4-unit project at 33rd & C Streets, to be heard at LU’s meeting on June 30.
ACTION ITEMS:
Request for Support to Extend Life of Center City Development Committee.
Jason Elrod from CCAC explained that the City Council would be voting on 6/22/10 whether a study should be done to determine whether downtown still has blight and whether the current cap on the dollar amount CCDC can spend of increment financing funds should be lifted or raised.
He said that downtown is a neighborhood of residences and businesses, and that it belongs to the residents as well and those who visit or work there. Downtown has the unique ability to absorb housing density which can have a positive effect on the surrounding communities. He said that many people think this process is all about a stadium for the Chargers, but that there is $2 billion in other infrastructure is needed above that one project. Raising the cap does not guarantee a Charger stadium. CCAC wants the tax increment funds to be subject to a higher dollar cap and time frame. Without extending the cap, those tax increment funds will go to Sacramento for disbursement, instead of staying here in San Diego.
Baldwin asked what Elrod wants GGHPC to support. Elrod said CCAC wants support for beginning the process to raise the cap, by doing a study. Turgeon noted that there is some question about this matter being within the purview of the GGHPC, but that it is a neighboring community. Caffey asked if the study would include measuring adjoining neighborhood impacts. Elrod said that as part of the study, the Independent Budget Analyst looks at the entire region. D. Skillman asked, if the process were begun, when would there be further options for public input. Summer said it would be when the study was ready for Council review. Kroll asked if CCAC and CCDC boundaries are the same. Elrod said they were. Summer said all 8 neighborhoods of “downtown” are represented on CCAC. Shields said that she has heard that people downtown want the cap to go away. Elrod feels that all CCAC members, regardless of whether they are residents or business representatives, are in favor of starting the study process.
Shields wondered if GGHPC has any say in this. Summer said that what happens downtown does affect us. Shields asked for committee comments.
Glazebrook believes we should endorse the study, but that CCDC in its current configurations might need to be revised. Baldwin said doing a study makes sense. Caffey noted that keeping the money in San Diego is better than it going to the state. D. Skillman said the study is a good idea. He wondered why we needed to write a letter; couldn’t our vote be enough. Caffey thinks this is not within the scope of GGHPC. Turgeon noted that we could comment once the study is completed.
Baldwin moved, seconded by Caffey, “The GGHPC minutes record that we support having the study done.” 9 in favor, Kroll against, Shields abstained.
GGHPC. Proposal to City for Community Mailing to Enhance Community Participation.
Kroll, Turgeon and Shields met about doing some outreach about our work. They are asking the City to mail a 1-page news announcement about GGHPC, CPUAC, LU, etc. Turgeon thought it was a good idea.
Shields moved, D. Skillman seconded, “Requests that the City do a mailing to inform the GGH community members of important changes going n regarding the planning process, with the object being to increase community knowledge and participation.” All in favor.
CPUAC/ City Planner’s Report - Bernie Turgeon: Brought copies of City General Plan for those who needed one. He will bring copies of the Community Plan to the next meeting to those who request a copy. He also distributed copies of the GGHPC Bylaws. The latest version of the CPUAC schedule was distributed, and a summary of the last meeting. He noted that the Historic workshop scheduled for June 22 is a state requirement. Upcoming dates: 6/22 Historic Workshop; 7/19 Open MIC #3; 8/2 Open MIC #4; Cluster Meeting #2 in mid-late July.
Turgeon said that the City had heard concerns, especially from North Park group, that the meetings have been too much lecture and not much hands-on. They acknowledge that this is the case, but the City has found benefit from comments made at the meetings so far. The emphasis is going to shift to more what CPUAC members want and more hands-on. Turgeon will be doing fieldwork in the community this summer and solicited members input and assistance. He wants to keep the momentum going and do more outreach.
D. Skillman asked if the Charette, a 1-day meeting scheduled for September, is asking too much for one day. Turgeon said it might be a several day event. They want it to not be repetitive of past meetings, and might use a 2-speed process, with some sessions for those already informed and some for getting newly involved people up to speed. They may ask for feedback by email. M. Skillman suggested the individual CPUAC’s have a short meeting at the Cluster meeting. Burke shares D. Skillman’s concerns about the Charette.
Burgett’s resignation left an open seat on the CPUAC. Strickland had been on the waiting list. Shields moved, D. Skillman seconded, that Strickland fill the vacancy. All in favor.
Subcommittee Reports
Parks. Burke announced an open house at the Community Garden on 6/26, 10 am – 3 pm.
Burke mentioned her appreciation of Burgett’s service on the committee. M. Skillman will solicit comments before the next meeting for a letter of appreciation.
Membership. Vasconcellos noted that there are still 2 vacant seats on GGHPC.
The next meeting will be July 14, 2010.
Meeting adjourned by Chair Shields at 8:27 pm.
Marie Skillman.
Secretary
Attachment A:
Greater Golden Hill Planning Committee
Land-use Subcommittee Minutes
May 26 2010
Subcommittee Members present: Richard Baldwin, Scott Glazebrook
City Staff present: None
Community Members present: None
Project Applicants present: Item #1 –Elizabeth Terris (Owner) and Ruediger Thierhoff (Designer)
Meeting called to order at 6:40 PM by Scott Glazebrook
| Item #1 | ||||||
| Project Name: | Terris Residence Addition | |||||
| Project Address: | 850 22nd Street | |||||
| Project Number: | None – presubmittal | |||||
| Project Description: | Addition of master bedroom, office, and utility room to existing residence | |||||
| Permit Application: | Process 1: Ministerial Building Permit | |||||
| Presentation Status: | Action Item | |||||
| Motion: | Support project as proposed with Letter of Support to City Staff* * Draft Letter of Support to be provided prior to GGHPC meeting | |||||
| Vote: | For: | 2 | Against: | 0 | Abstain: | 0 |
| Result: | Motion Passes | |||||
| Presentation: | A contemporary addition to a relocated 1868 early-Victorian-esque cottage with existing 1987 rear addition. While the 1987 addition mimics features of the original cottage (complying with the Golden Hill Design Guidelines but likely not in compliance with current City Historical policy or with US Department of the Interior Standards), this proposed addition takes a distinctly contemporary design approach with minimal connection to the existing structure, and then only with the 1987 addition (likely in compliance with City Historical policies and with the US Department of the Interior Standards). The proposed addition would be located to the rear of the existing structure to preserve existing off-street parking and to minimize its visual effect on the existing structure at the Right-Of-Way while meeting the Owner’s desire for a design that reflects when it is built. Zone: GH-2500 (adjacent to the Golden Hill Historic District) Density Permitted: 2 DUs Density Proposed: 1 DUs Floor Area Permitted: 2,250 SF Floor Area Proposed: 2,016* SF Coverage Permitted: 1,750 SF Coverage Proposed: 1,356* SF Parking Required: 2 Spaces Parking Proposed: 2 Spaces Proposed project (“addition”) complies with all setback and height requirements and limits, yard areas, and Golden Hill PDO design criteria for “Contemporary” design. The addition is set-back 42’ from the sidewalk and will not be appreciably visible from the Right-Of-Way; plus an existing olive tree is proposed to be preserved between the addition and the parking and sidewalk. * Based on scaling of provided plans | |||||
| Discussion: | 1. Creating the addition as almost a separate structure, connected by an enclosed “bridge”, preserves the integrity of the existing structure. 2. Employing contemporary architecture further preserves the integrity of the existing historically-styled structure. 3. Connecting the bridge to the newer 1987 addition causes no additional disruption to the original 1868 structure. 4. The design of the addition is very contemporary, and is placed at the rear of the property and to the side of the existing structure to both preserve the street view of the 1868 structure and to create a private garden space behind the existing residence, which relates well to the existing neighboring residential structures. 5. Subcommittee recommended preserving existing gravel permeable parking surface, if possible, as it seems more appropriate for both the existing (temporally) and proposed (aesthetically) structures. 6. Overall this proposed project makes a good effort to preserve the integrity of the existing 1868 structure while permitting a needed space addition while employing contemporary design aesthetics that allows both the old and the new to reflect the times in which they were built. | |||||
| Item #2 | ||||||
| Project Name: | City of San Diego Fiscal Year 2011 Capital Improvement Program Budget | |||||
| Project Address: | N/A | |||||
| Project Number: | N/A | |||||
| Project Description: | Capital Improvement Program Budget | |||||
| Permit Application: | N/A | |||||
| Presentation Status: | Information Item | |||||
| Motion: | None | |||||
| Vote: | For: | N/A | Against: | N/A | Abstain: | N/A |
| Result: | N/A | |||||
| Presentation: | None | |||||
| Discussion: | Review | |||||
Meeting Adjourned at 7:24 PM by Scott Glazebrook
END OF MINUTES
