Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1976 02-10 CC MIN21 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NATIONAL CITY, CALIFORNIA February 10, 1976 The regular meeting of the City Council of the City of National City was called to order at 7:30 p.m. by Mayor Morgan, ROLL CALL Council members present: Camacho, Dalla, Pinson, Reid, Morgan. Absent: None. Administrative officials present: Bourcier, Campbell, Gerschler, Hoffland, McCabe, McLean. SALUTE TO THE FLAG AND INVOCATION The meeting was opened with salute to the flag led by City Manager Bourcier followed with invocation by Pastor W.V. Prindle, High- land Avenue Baptist Church. APPROVAL OF MINUTES The City Clerk reported the minutes of the regular meeting of February 3, 1976 were not completed. PRESENTATIONS AND PROCLAMATIONS City Clerk Campbell read the Mayor's proposed proclamation "SUSAN 8. ANTHONY DAY," February 15, 1976. Moved by Camacho, seconded by Reid, the proclamation be adopted. Carried by unanimous vote. Nan Guerin, President of the League of Women Voters accepted the proclamation from the Mayor. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS LLOYD LEE, a member of the Board of Directors, South Bay Irrigation District and the San Diego County Water Authority was present and spoke about the Colorado River Board. Mr. Lee explained the make- up of the board saying six agencies make up the board and have for forty years; he feels that they have done a very excellent job in that time; the Governor had said state funding for the Board will cease and has intimated that he might dissolve the Board and assign their functions to the Water Resources Agency. Mr. Lee said they feel that the people using the Colorado facilities should have their representatives on the Board (this is a State board and the members are appointed by the Governor on the recommendation of one of the agencies that make up the Board.) Mr. Lee requested the Council to draft a resolution and send it to the Governor asking him to have the Board remain as it is present.. ly. Moved by Pinson, seconded by Reid, in favor of the request. Carried by unanimous vote. ADOPTION OF RESOLUTIONS Moved by Camacho, seconded by Reid, the Resolutions be presented by title only. Carried by unanimous vote. Resolution No. 11,973, "RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF ELECTRIC EASEMENT TO SAN DIEGO GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY." Moved by Pinson, seconded by Camacho, Resolution No. 11,973 be adopted. Carried by unanimous vote. Resolution No. 11,974, "RESOLUTION GIVING NOTICE OF INTENTION TO VACATE AND CLOSE HARRISON AVENUE FROM THE WESTERLY PROLONGATION OF THE CENTER LINE OF 17TH STREET, SOUTH A DISTANCE OF 570.24 FEET." Moved by Pinson, seconded by Reid, Resolution No. 11,974 be adopted. Carried by unanimous vote. REPORT OF CITY ATTORNEY - No report. 2/10/76 22 NEW BUSINESS The Finance Director/City Treasurer's request for RATIFICATION of payment of WARRANT REGISTER 32, dated February 10, 1976, in the amount of $174,704.47 Warrants Nos. 53641 through 53708 and PAYROLL for the period Jan. 16-31, 1976, in the amount of $159,571.87 was presented. Moved by Pinson, seconded by Camacho, this be a2R.roved. Carried by the following vote, to -wit: Ayes: Camacho, Dalla, Pinson, Reid, Morgan. Nays: None. The City Treasurer/Finance Director's request for ratification of new fund -- LAS PALMAS IMPROVEMENT FUND, NO. 32 was presented. Moved by Pinson, seconded by Camacho, this be approved. There was discussion. Carried by the following vote, to -wit: Ayes: Camacho, Dalla, Pinson, Reid, Morgan. Nays: None. The CLAIM FOR DAMAGES filed for VERONICA SMITH and JEANNETTE MARTINEZ was presented. Moved by Camacho, seconded by Reid, the claims be denied and referred to the City Attorney. Carried by unanimous vote. The SWIM CLUB'S proposal to construct and operate a SNACK BAR at the Municipal Pool was presented. Moved by Pinson, seconded by Camacho, it be approved. Carried by unanimous vote. A recommendation of the Director of Public Works to approve ENCROACHMENT REMOVAL AGREEMENT for BLOCK WALL at 2409 Norfolk Street (Heuy) was presented. Moved by Reid, seconded by Dalla, in favor of the Public Works Director's recommendation. Carried by unanimous vote. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES Legislative Bulletin #7-1976 dated February 6, 1976 was presented. Ordered filed by unanimous vote. The request of the COMMITTEE TO ELECT ERNIE AZHOCAR for permission to serve ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES in the Community Building February 21, 1976, 7:00 p.m. until 12:00 midnight was presented. DICK KNUTSON, Chairman of the Committee to Elect Ernie Azhocar was present and asked for a waiver of the set-up fee ($12.00 per hour) for the Community Building. There was discussion. Moved by Camacho, seconded by Pinson, the request be granted and the set-up fee waived. Carried by the following vote, to -wit: Ayes: Camacho, Pinson, Reid. Nays: Dalla. Abstain: Morgan. REPORTS CITY MANAGER'S REPORT - No report. PUBLIC HEARINGS The HEARING on the application for CONDITIONAL. USE PERMIT on proposed use of property on south side of Beta Street, immediately abutting the easterly right -of way line of 1-805, for development of a single family dwelling (Gregorio/Mason) was held at this time. The City Clerk stated the Planning Commission recommended issuance of Conditional Use Permit No. 1976-1 and written protests were received from: Mr. & Mrs. Joe Carrillo, 1609 Gamma Street; Emmitt Dixon, 1637 Beta Street; Richard J. Harrold, 1609 Beta Street; William and Evelyn Hill, 1613 Beta Street; Adrian E. Lopez, 1608 Beta Street; Louis A. Paruginog, 1620 Gamma Street. City Clerk Campbell reported the Affidavit of Mailing is on file. Planning Director Gerschler stated the Planning Commission recommended approval of the proposed Conditional Use Permit, it has been appealed and the Council is required to have a hearing. JAMES L. MASON, 271/2 Q Street was present and gave copies of a letter to the Council which was read by City Clerk Campbell (Mr. Mason's letter stated in part that if the neighbors on Beta Street wanted the lot 2/10/76 23 why didn't they buy it; the house that will be built on the lot will be just as valuable as any of the homes on the street. Mayor Morgan asked City Manager Bourcier about the possibility of obtaining this piece of property free. He was told the City would have to pay for the lot. RICHARD HARROLD, 1609 Beta Street was present and spoke in opposition to the construction of the single family residence; he feels the Council should recognize the people who have protested are residents of the neijborhood; he feels the plans for the residence are not condusive to this particular neighborhood; if you can visualize a lot that's 9400 square feet, and is 300 feet long; figure out how wide the lot is as an average, it fronts right against the freeway; the people of the neighbor- hood had to accept the freeway, the bridges, off -ramps 805 came in and took part of the street, part of the area, now what little is left they want to put a house on; I think it's unfair to the people who live in the neighborhood. W.R. HILL, 1613 Beta Street was present and said he has lived in the neighborhood since the street has been there; several good homes were torn out for the freeway; he has looked at the lot and can't see any use that anyone would want to built on it; he opposed the Conditional Use Permit. MRS. EMMITT DIXON, 1637 Beta Street was present and stated she was a former resident of that property, the freeway bought it from them; it's unfair; they are still in the neigh- borhood, that our house goes for the freeway, and the other part of the property was for the dead-end street, and I don't think it's a proper place to build another house. City Attorney McLean stated that 2-K of the transmittal says that the building permit review group reviewed the application and found that it met the building code and all the requirements as to set -backs and location on the lot. City Planning Director Gerschler stated that the freeway side of the property would be the side yard, so the south side would be the rear yard. City Attorney McLean stated that this property is considered to front on Beta Street. There was discussion. CARL CHESSER, 5138 Hughes Street, San Diego, the builder and developer of the property in question was present and stated that this lot is large enough to take a house, there is nothing wrong with the development or the design, they have complied with all the set backs, all the zoning laws and he couldn't see what the problem is really; we've built on lots smaller lots than this and we've designed the house to go on there; we have a committment, we have a loan for this, Imperial Savings saw that the lot was fit; so I don't see what the question is, really; we've complied with everything. MRS. GREGORIO, 4210 Euclid Avenue was present and asked why the Government sold this property to the people when it is intended for open space. City Attorney McLean stated that we could ask them (the State) to convey the property to the City for open space; he has a feeling that this is a parcel that was analyzed for open space and came to the conclusion it was not feasible for open space. Planning Director Gerschler stated that comment had been made in the Trans- mittal. There was further discussion. Moved by Pinson, the Public Hearing be closed and the Conditional Use Permit be denied. Motion died for lack of second. Moved by Reid, this be approved, that that man gets his building permit unless someone wants to buy that lot and pay him and pay for his plans to be redrawn. Die Z for lack of second. There was discussion. City Attorney McLean said that the City staff, rightly or wrongly, has concluded that there is no basis for not granting the Permit, and the Planning Commission has come to the same conclusion; unless the Council is in a position from the facts presented to find that there is some factual reason why this property cannot be used for R-1 purposes, then I think the City should be prepared to pay for the property and other consequential damages the owner will be suffering and the inability to use his property; the cost of the lot, the cost of financing and the like; if the Council makes a factual determina- tion that the Staff report is wrong and the lot isn't big enough, or there is some other defect in the lot that would make the building in violation of City law, then you will either have to give him a permit or buy it. Under discussion it was stated that if the City is seriously considering buying the property then Council should look into the feasibility of the property owners 2/10/76 24 participating in its purchase; it seems in order to continue the Public Hearing and in that time look into the possibilities of buying the property. Moved by Mogan, seconded by Dalla, we continue the Public Hearing for two weeks and we instruct the Mana er to study purchasin9 this by the City or by the property owners. Carried by the following vote, to -wit: Ayes: Camacho, Dalla, Pinson, Morgan, Nays: Reid. The HEARING on PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE NATIONAL CITY GENERAL PLAN (GP-1-76) was held at this time. The City Clerk reported the Planning Commission recommended approval of General Plan changes as listed in Items 1 through 4 and 4.b.3. through 4.d.; and denial of Items 4.b.1. through 4.b.2. and 5; denial of Item 6, with Planning Commission to initiate a zone variance proceeding on property at 525-527 "M" Avenue. Assistant Planning Director Rolf Gunnarson was present to answer questions. ARNOLD PETERSON, Executive Director, Community Development Commission, was present and appealed the Planning Commission's recommendation of denial of Item 4.b.1 and 4.b.2; saying the Community Development Commission in its capacity of the Redevelopment Agency has a variety of roles within the community as example the Christman Project, South Bay Town & Country, and Bonita Center Project; the appeal is in connection with the Center City Project proposal which has not yet come before Council as a formal matter and would not until early April; they need to come before the Council now regarding the land uses. Mr. Peterson displayed "Land Use Plan; Center City Project" which showed Montgomery Wards land (marked B.1 and B.2) explaining that the land is vacant and has been for ten years; the Community Development Commission's General Plan request before the Planning Commission was for residential, 31-40 units; at the meeting the request was modified to 21-30 units in view of the concerns for residential development and density; the Planning Commission voted 7-10 to deny our modified request from Commercial Zoning to Residential 21-30 units; Mr. Peterson stated he was before the Council this evening to request a different density yet -- that of 11-15 units to the acre; he also is asking the Council to consider condominiums or townhouse..ownership use of the land with adequate parking and landscaping; the site is surplus and Wards is willing to sell it; the City's General Plan speaks of the site as part of future Retail -Commercial facility; he thought was unrealisitic; Wards is there, South Bay Plaza is there, Bonita Center is going to go in; South Bay Town and Country is also there; that implication in the General Plan in unrealistic. Mr. Peterson said when he and George Hess, Project Manager, went before the Commission, they talked about land planning; but they didn't talk about finance or the market and they didn't address the implications of this development or non -development in terms of state law; he has new information that is being brought to the Council tonight; this land is unproductive, unsightly, unused; it is unlikely to be used for commercial purposes; Wards themselves have tried to sell the property for commercial use and have been unsuccessful; under a recent amendment to state law the Community Development Commission (in a residential project) must produce housing units at least equal in number to the housing units that are taken out, with respect to low and moderate income people; we therefore need to produce housing; 11-15 units to the acre on that site, sales, townhouse, ownership -type and at 21/2 acres would produce 12 units to the acre, 30 units; these 30 units if they were built at $40,000 per dwelling unit (a likely price) would produce $1,200.000.00 in assessed evaluation and require far less community services cost than apartment units; so the Community Developement Commission would through freezing the tax base on the incremental tax increase produce about $30,000 annually or $300,000.00 of bonded capability through the development of that site; those economic and financial matters are probably not appropriate for the Planning Commission, but are appropriate for the Council; they are not talking about apartments or low income or publicly -owned housing or subsidized housing, they are talking about market -housing kinds of figures; the population that would live in such units would be stable, probably Navy families, middle-aged people with teen -aged -- 2/10n6 25 children and retired people and probably some elderly; through good grading plan, landscaping and orienting the buildings toward the future development area and backing it towards the Wards and not fronting it directly to the Catholic school, that they could by screening and development has a good development there; he asked George Zobar, their economist, to speak to several developers and have received three direct expressions of interest from developers onto this site, so it is a marketable site providing it's done right and the price is right. There was further discussion. Mr. Peterson said at 12th and D (northeast corner) there is a parcel which would be difficult to develop; at this site, he has been advised that such ownership units are unlikely, unfeasible; the General Plan presently stated that that's Residential 21-30 and they are asking 31-40; this request was denied; the Planning Commission recommended keeping 21-30 which gives 12-13 units; and they want it to be raised 31-40 in order to make 16 (2 levels 8 units each level, above, garages below, 2- bedroom type). There was further discussion in regard to the height of the Senior facility, condominuims, security, etc. Mr. Peterson re -stated his request that Council approve for the site that has been identified as Wards land multiple family residential, 11-15 units to the acre, and that it approve for the northeast corner 12th and D multiple family residential, 31-40 units to the acre; Council would have the opportunity to view the plan. There was further discussion. JAMES MARLAR, 1515 Grove Street was present and spoke on Item 5 (to change the lane use designation of the property located on the west side of Grove Street starting at the westerly prolongation of the center line of 14th Street and going southerly therefrom 455 feet, from "Residential 6-10 Dwelling Units/Acre" to "General Commercial" on the northerly 100 feet and "Park" on the balance); and requested the Council to overturn the denial of the Planning Commission regarding the property on the center line of 14th Street south 455 feet and west of Grove Street and request that it be approved for General Commercial and Park Use; he is speaking as one of the residents of Grove Street, there are others present this evening. Mr. Marlar stated that the feeling at this time is that this piece of property would not be considered a section for spot zoning and that it would be in compliance with the General Plan and speaking for himself, he approved granting the amendment to the General Plan to have this applied for a zone change to General Commercial. V.A. CLOUD, JR., 1431 Grove Street was present and gave the Council background regarding Mr. Maloney's property (the property in question); they want to erect a sign and were rather surprised to find that the residents on Grove Street were opposed to this; as the notice was listed in the paper, to rezone it Commercial, they didn't know just exactly what they had in mind; once they discover- ed it was a sign they were not that opposed; they have had numerous discussions with Mr. Shell who represents Mr. Maloney, the owner of the property; they now withdraw their objections to this sign providing the remainder of the space remain open space; if this condition is not acceptable to the Council then it's a whole new ballgame. Planning Director Gerschler stated that was thoroughly discussed at the Planning Commission meeting it was the applicants proposal he use part of the property for his sign and reserve the rest for a park; whether or not the City will acquire that at little or no cost is something that will have to be negotiated with the City Council, but that was the understanding at the Commission meeting. Mr. Cloud asked the Council what exactly was meant by the term "park"; this is a narrow area, approximately 65 feet wide, 355 feet long and the property is quite hilly; that is the reason the residents are thinking of Open Space. Mayor Morgan stated that they would probably put some greenery on it, there would be very little play area due to the topography of the land but nonetheless make it better than it is today, Mr. Cloud concurred. SCOTT SNELL, a friend of Pat and Ed Maloney was present and said the main point is the Planning Commission denied the request to change the General Plan on the basis that they could see that the homeowners did not understand the proposal; they have since met with the residents; the only reason the Planning Commission felt denial was important was because they had the Center City question W10/76 26 before them and if they did not make a decision then that the whole process would be held up on the change of the General Plan which they only do three times each year; so the Planning Commission said okay, we'll deny your request but subject to meeting with these people, please come back to the Council and if everything is then okay, we hope that we can communicate to the Council that they were not opposed to our concept when they de- clined this whole item, but rather they were interested in having the Community and everybody in agreement. In answer to City Attorney McLean's questions, Mr. Snell is offering now to donate land to the City but they are not willing to donate the cost of developing the land into park use. There was discussion. It was suggested each item of the Planning Commission's recommendations be taken separately to determine which items should be returned to the Commission. Planning Director Gerschler expressed concern over the timing; the Council is limited to three changes per year; if you are to change some of the Planning Commission's recommend- ations it will have to go back and will take probably two weeks to get a report back to Council; if tonight you were to approve part of the cases, you would have used up your turn at bat and the cases to go back to the Planning Commission might be delayed until June; he suggested that all of the cases be continued tonight until a report can come back from the Planning Commission on those cases that you designate you wanted to look at again which would be whatever cases you the Council would pick out and then they can bring the whole package back and act on the whole thing at one time. Item 1.\\To change the land use designation on the porperties located between Palm Avenue and I-805 and between 10th Street and 12th Street, and the properties located between 9th Street and 10th Street, and "R" Avenue and 1-805, from "Residential 11-15 Dwelling Units/Acre" to "Residential 6-10 Dwelling Units/Acre". No motion to change the Planning Commission's recommendation. Item 2. To change the land use designation on the parcel of property on the southerly side of 9th Street, opposite "K" Avenue, from "Residential 11-15 Dwelling Units/Acre" to "General Commercial." No Motion to change the Planning Commission's recommendation. Item 3. 'To change the land use designation on the properties located between National and "A" Avenues and between 24th and 25th Streets, from "Automobile Related Commercial" to "General Commercial." Moved by Dalla, seconded by Morgan, Item 3 be referred back to the Planning Commission due to the fact that it is premature to assume that the property can't be developed as designated at the present time, the impact on the existirT development of the Mile of Cars, and the integrity of the entire redevelopment project. Carried by the following vote, to -wit: Ayes: Camacho, Dalla, Reid, Morgan. Nays: Pinson, Item 4.a. 'To change the land use design- ation on the properties located between 13th and 15th Streets and "D" and "E" Avenues, and between 13th and 14th Streets and "E" and "F" Avenues from "Residential 31-40 Dwelling Units/Acre" and "General Commercial" to "Residential - Senior Citizen Housing & Related Uses - Density Unspecified." No action to be taken on item. Item 4.b.1. "To change the land use designation on the properties located on the easterly side of "E" Avenue between 12th and 13th Streets and on the northerly side of 12th Street to a point about 260 feet north of 12th Street, from "Commercial - Shopping Center" to "Residential 21-30 Dwelling Units/Acre." Moved by Morgan, seconded by Camacho, accept Mr. Arnold Peterson's recommendation and refer it back to the Planning Commission and have them make a report. Councilman Pinson stated that he wants the Planning Commission to know that he is opposed to this and will be when it returns to the Council. Carried by unanimous vote. 4.b.2. "To change the land use designation of the property between "A" Avenue and the alley about 115 feet easterly of "D" Avenue and on the northerly side of 12th Street to a point about 169 feet north of 12th Street from "Residential 21-30 Dwelling Units/Acre" to "Residential 31-40 Dwelling Units/Acre." There was discussion. Moved by Dalla, seconded by Camacho, this item be referred to the Planning Commission for further study. Carried by the following vote, to -wit: Ayes: Camacho, Dalla, Reid. Nays: Pinson, Morgan. 2/10/76 27 4.b.3. "To make a finding that multiple family residential use with a density of 21 to 30 dwelling units per acre on the east side of "A" Avenue between llth and 12th Streets, within an area designed "Historical Area" on the General Plan, is consistent with the General Plan subject to approval of a specific plan for this area by the Planning Commission and City Council." No motion on Item 4.b.3. 4.c. .."To make a finding that public parking and office building on "A" Avenue between llth and 12th Streets, with- in an area designated "Historical Area" on the General Plan, is consistent with the General Plan subject to approval of a specific plan for this area by the Planning Commission and City Council." No motion on Item 4.c. Item 4.d. "To make a finding that the proposed "Home Improvement Loan Program" within the Center City Project Area and outside of the project west of National Avenue, between 8th and 22nd Streets, is consistent with the General Plan." No motion on Item 4.d. Item 5. "To change the land use designation on the property located on the west side of Grove Street starting at the westerly prolongation of the center line of 14th Street and going southerly therefrom 455 feet, from "Residential 6-10 Dwelling Units/Acre". Moved by Camacho, seconded by Pinson, this be sent back to the Planning Commission. Carried by unanimous vote. Item 6. "To change the land use designation on the property located at 525-527 "M" Avenue, from "Residential 6-10 Dwelling Units/Acre" to "Residential 11-15 Dwelling Units/Acre." No motion on item 6. Moved by Pinson, seconded by Camacho, the hearing be continued to the 24th of this month at 7:45 in the evening. Carried by unanimous vote. The HEARING on adoption of proposed NATIONAL CITY LAND USE CODE (A-10-75) was held at this time. The City Clerk stated the Planning Commission recommends adoption of the Land Use Code; the Certificate of Publication is on file. Planning Director Gerschler stated the staff has presented a full document on the history of this case and all of the data set up by the Planning Commission which unanimously supports the adoption of the Land Use Code; unless there are questions he has nothing else to present. Mr. Gerschler said that the one unresolved issue is what to do with the PD Zoning that's now on the map; he would ask that when Council acts on the Land Use Code the motion include whether PD Zoning be retained or dropped. GEORGE WEBSTER, 305 "F" Avenue, Planning Commission, was present and spoke in support of the Land Use Code, saying in 1926 the Board of Trustees appointed the first Planning Commission, this is their 50th Anniversary, and for this 50 years they have been putting together Zoning Ordinances and they have never been straightened out until this time; the Council has a document now that has brought up to date all of the Code, all the Ordinances that pertain to every lot and every piece of property in this town; the Planning Department was directed in 1971 to go back and bring the Codes and Ordinances up to date, to take out overlaps, all amendments and find a document that would be workable; that book is now prepared and can be used by anyone to understand easily; thousands of man-hours have been committed to the Land Use Code, 22 Public Hearings have been held on this; this is a document that the Council can be very proud of; among other things Mr. Webster wanted to compliment the Planning Department on this very fine document. Moved by Camacho, seconded by Pinson, the Hearing be closed and the Council adopt the City Land Use Code and the recommendations of the Planning Commission and that we maintain PD. There was discussion. Carried by unanimous vote. COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS COUNCILMAN PINSON stated he understands the Community Building at El Toyon Park cannot be used by the public, or rented, and asked the City Manager to bring in a report on that. COUNCILMAN CAMACHO asked the City Engineer to go to 3420 Plaza Blvd., to the area that has had all the accidents; couldn't there be a 2/10/76 28 speed sign posted because the people who live there back out into the street and cars come around that corner at a high rate of speed. City Engineer Hoffland said that he would be glad to make a speed study and refer the results to the Traffic Safety Committee. COUNCILMAN REID stated in regard to Ordinance 1489, Sewer Hook-up and Fees, he wanted to change his "yes" vote on that to a "no" vote. Moved by Ried, seconded by Camacho, the Ordinance be brought back and I want to vote no on it. There was discussion. City Attorney McLean stated that he informed Councilman Reid that the way to try to get his point across was to make a -motion to instruct the City Attorney to prepare an Ordinance rescinding the Ordinance if that motion carries he will come in with a similar Crdinance, if the motion doesn't carry then that's the end of the matter. There was discussion. Motion failed by the following vote, to -wit: Ayes: Camacho, Reid. Nays: Dalia, Pinson, Morgan. MAYOR MORGAN stated that he keeps hearing Roger Hedgcock is taking the suit regarding the Bonita Shopping Center to the Supreme Court without the support of the Taxpayers Association; and he's doing it for publicity; the Ordinance of the County of San Diego says that you can only put in $250.00 to a campaign -- how is he handling this; somebody ought to check into it. It was suggested by City Attorney McLean that they contact County Counsel. Mayor Morgan said he would. Moved by Pinson, seconded by Camacho, the meeting be closed. The meeting closed at 9:35 p.m. (72/v-e— City lerk ity of Nation City, California The foregoing minutes were approved by the City Council of the City of National City, California at the regular meeting of February 17, 1975. (No corrections Correcti ns as oted below My City of National City, California 2/10/7 6