Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1975 08-12 CC MIN112 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NATIONAL CITY, CALIFORNIA August 12, 1975 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: Acting City Manager McCabe, Campbell, Gerschler, Hoffland, McLean, Asst. to the City Manager Trow- bridge. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG AND INVOCATION The meeting was opened with the pledge of allegiance to the flag led by Acting City Manager McCabe followed with invocation by the Rev. Milo Wood, First Baptist Church. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Moved by Reid, seconded by Camacho, the minutes of the regular meeting of August 5, 1975 be approved. Carried, by the following vote, to -wit: Ayes: Camacho, Dalla, Reid, Morgan. Nays: None. Abstaining: Pinson. PRESENTATIONS AND PROCLAMATIONS - None MAYOR'S APPOINTMENTS - None ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Marion Cooper, President, National City Chamber of Commerce, introduced T. Victor DeForest, newly appointed manager of the Chamber of Commerce. ADOPTION OF RESOLUTIONS Moved by Camacho, seconded by Reid, the reading of the resolutions be by title only. Carried by unanimous vote. RESOLUTION NO. 11,829, "RESOLUTION GRANTING ZONE VARIANCE PURSUANT TO ORDINANCE NO. 962. (2-7-75, from setback and landscaping requirements, 3000 National Avenue, Parcel No. 562-220-13 and portion of Parcel No. 562-240-01, CASTLE A.M.C.)" was presented. Moved by Reid, seconded by Camacho, Resolution No. 11,829 be adopted. Carried, by the following vote, to -wit: Ayes: Camacho, Reid, Morgan. Nays: Dalla, Pinson. RESOLUTION NO. 11,830, "RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT AMONG THE COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, CITY OF NATIONAL CITY, CITY OF CHULA VISTA AND THE SAN DIEGO COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT" was pre- sented. Moved by Pinson, seconded by Reid, Resolution No. 11,830 be adopted. Carried by unanimous vote. RESOLUTION NO. 11,831, "RESOLUTION ACCEPTING WORK AND AUTHORIZING FIL- ING OF NOTICE OF COMPLETION" (Traffic Signals at Division and Highland, Spec No. 811)was presented. Moved by Reid, seconded by Camacho, Resolution No. 11,831 be adopted. Carried by unanimous vote. RESOLUTION NO. 11,832, "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL FOR THE CITY OF NATIONAL CITY, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING AND PROVIDING FOR THE EXECUTION OF A PROJECT AGREEMENT FOR STATE BEACH, PARK, RECREATIONAL AND HISTOORI- CAL FACILITIES BOND ACT OF 1974, PROJECT NO. 37-0009, KIMBALL PARK DEVELOPMENT, BY AND BETWEEN THE CITY OF NATIONAL CITY AND THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION" was presented. Moved by Camacho, seconded by Pinson, Resolution No. 11,832 be adopted. Acting City Manager McCabe stated matching funds were not required. Carried by unanimous vote. 8/1 `2/75 113 RESOLUTION NO. 11,833, "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL FOR THE CITY OF NATIONAL CITY AUTHORIZING TRANSFER OF FUNDS FROM THE GENERAL FUND NO. 1 TO FUND NO. 9, GAS TAX 2107 ($19,263.43)," was presented. Moved by Dalla, seconded by Reid, Resolution No. 11,833 be adopted. Carried by unanimous vote. ADOPTION OF ORDINANCES Moved by Camacho, seconded by Reid, the ordinances be presented for second reading and adoption by title only. Carried by unanimous vote. ORDINANCE NO. 1477 (474,45-1), "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF NATIONAL CITY, CALIFORNIA ESTABLISHING REQUIREMENTS FOR AN ANNUAL PERMIT TO OPERATE PUBLIC SWIMMING POOL, PROVIDING A FEE THEREFOR, AND PROVIDING PENALTIES FOR THE VIOLATION THEREOF" was presented. Moved by Pinson, seconded by Camacho, Ordinance No. 1477 (8)4144-1) be adopted. Carried by unanimous vote. ORDINANCE NO. 1478 (874/g-2), "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF NATIONAL CITY, CALIFORNIA ESTABLISHING REQUIREMENTS FOR A PERMIT TO INSTALL, CONSTRUCT, RECONSTRUCT, REPAIR, OR ALTER ANY SUBSURFACE SEWAGE DIS- POSAL SYSTEM, PROVIDING A FEE THEREFOR, PROVIDING PENALTIES FOR THE VIOLATION THEREOF, AND REPEALING ALL OTHER ORDINANCES AND PARTS OF ORDINANCES IN CONFLICT THEREWITH" was presented. Moved by Dalla, seconded by Camacho, Ordinance No. 1478 (84745-2) be adopted. Car- ried by unanimous vote. REPORT OF CITY ATTORNEY City Attorney McLean stated he had distributed a report in regard to the continued hearing (Correa) and had nothing further. REFERRALS NOTICE OF INTENT by County of San Diego to assume the responsibility of the Economic Opportunity Commission by forming a COMMUNITY ACTION AGENCY and the City Manager's recommendation to approve the designa- tion of the County of San Diego as the Community Action Agency to administer the anti -poverty programs previously administered by the Economic Opportunity Commission were presented. Moved by Reid, sec- onded by Dalla, it be filed. Councilman Pinson explained that this would not eliminate his job on the E.O.C.; the County would be the lead agency and would assist if the E.O.C. were short of funds. Car- ried by unanimous vote. NEW BUSINESS The CLAIM FOR DAMAGES (Traffic Collision Report, Estimates Attached) of LEWIS W. SPRIGGS and the City Manager's recommendation the claim be denied and referred to the City Attorney and insurance carrier were presented. Moved by Camacho, seconded by Pinson, the claim be denied and referred to the City Attorney. Carried by unanimous vote. The City Treasurer/Finance Director's request for RATIFICATION OF PAY- MENT OF WARRANT REGISTER NO. 6 (warrants 52022 through 52069) and PAYROLL for the period ending July 31, 1975 were presented. Moved by Pinson, seconded by Camacho, the bills and payroll be paid. Carried, by the following vote, to -wit: Ayes: Camacho, Dalla, Pinson, Reid, Morgan. Nays: None. A PETITION signed by twelve property owners, received 8/7/75, for masonry garden wall on Euclid Avenue, between Division and Fourth Streets, requesting construction (under special assessment proceedings) of a six-foot masonry wall within sidewalk area, adjacent to privately owned property (on Euclid Avenue); City to participate in cost to ex- tent they would have if irrigation and planting were a part of the project; and Council to withdraw action "to continue" with previous petition dated 12/3/74 (Doc. No. 54936) and staff recommendation the 8/12/75 114 Council withdraw action on previous petition, and refer this petition to staff for review and recommendation were presented. Moved by Dalla, seconded by Camacho, this be referred to staff. There was discussion regarding whether or not all the property owners had been aware the petition had been circulated; a number of the property owners were against this; whether or not the owners would be advised of the costs before the matter came back to Council; and the landscaping and irri- gation; the suggested City participation in the previous petition. City Attorney McLean said there would be no notification to the owners unless Council so ordered; there would be no hearingsF.cheduled unless Council decided to proceed with an assessment district. The Mayor stated that when staff brings the recommendation back to Council, Council may direct that all property owners be notified. Carried by unanimous vote. APPROVAL of "work outline" for CPO "Local Agency Task Force for Transit Plan Refinement" and staff recommendation this "work outline" be approved as submitted were presented. There was discussion. Moved by Dalla, seconded by Camacho, the staff recommendation be approved. Carried by unanimous vote. PUBLIC HEARINGS The continued HEARING on APPEAL of Planning Commission's recommendation of DENIAL of approval of site development plan for construction of seventeen apartment units at 315 East 30 Street (EDWARD CORREA) was held at this time. City Attorney McLean stated this involved the con- tention of the property owner that through a series of misunderstandings he acquired property for a specific type of development at a price which is fully justified for that density development and that the City's refusal to allow him to proceed is an unjust injury to him; his attorney is here to explain to Council the circumstances which led to the property owner's present position. The City Attorney continued we have written a report to Council which tells you basically it is for the Council to make the determination as to whether or not under all of the circumstances (the merits (4 are adequate to allow construc- tion under the old permit...the merits of the old permit vs. the General Plan...That is the specific issue that should be considered before you address yourselves to the issue of site plan review. Plan- ning Director Gerschler said he had no further comments; the Planning Commission acted on the site plan and denied it because it did not conform to the General Plan. DONALD WORLEY, McDonald, Riddle, Hecht, and Worle24535 Bank of America Bldg; San Diego, attorney for Mr. and Mrs. Edward Correa, owners of the property at 315 East 30 Street, was present and said they ask that Council remedy a very severe hardship created for Mr. and Mrs. Correa due to a series of events which trans- pired over recent months; they ask specifically that Council make a determination that Mr. and Mrs. Correa have acquired vested rights under the previously issued building permit to proceed with construc- tion of seventeen dwelling units on that particular property. Mr. Worley traced the background of the events: on July 24, 1974, the property was owned by Mr. Lewis Thompson, he applied for and obtained a building permit to build the seventeen units; he got in just under the wire, there was an imminent General Plan change which would desig- nate the property for five dwelling units and he was advised to hurry up and get that permit or he would have the General Plan change applied to him (Mr. and Mrs. Correa knew nothing about this until we investiga- ted after the problem arose), on February 7, 1975, the Building Inspection Dept. granted Mr. Thompson an additional 180 days to build this particular seventeen dwelling unit apartment building; in April of this year Mr. and Mrs. Correa were negotiating to purchase this property; they asked the Thompsons what the status of the permit was, if the permit was still valid, if the plans were still good; they did not, incidentally, see the copy of the letter that was sent out extend- ing that permit which said they would have to re -submit plans or that they would have to comply with all zoning ordinances and regulations then in effect (as of February 7); but, nevertheless, Mr. and Mrs. Correa acted prudently and cautiously and they decided that they were 8/12/75 115 going to go to the City and find out for themselves whether or not this permit was still valid and whether or not the plans were still appropriate plans they could could pursue then; and they did do that; on April 16 Mrs. Correa and Mrs. Thompson, together, went down to the Planning Department and asked specifically, she said, "I am going to buy this property and want to know if the plan is still good and the permit is still good" and someone there in that department told her "Yes, the plan is still good, the permit is valid and you may proceed:" Mr. and Mrs. Correa then proceeded to purchase that property and they' paid $40,000 for it; we are informed that is about twice what the fair market value of that property would be if, in fact/they could build only five units, which the current General Plan would allow; subsequently, they went to Central Federal Savings and Loan Assn. and got a construc- tion loan for $150,000 on this property and they paid a non-refundable fee of $4,500 to obtain that loan, all in reliance on advice given them by City Staff that they did have a valid permit and that they did have valid plans to construct the seventeen unit apartment; then Mr. Win- chell (their builder) decided that before he started construction he wanted a set of plans on the job site, as required by your ordinances, a set of plans approved, stamped plans to be on the job site; so he took another, duplicate set of the plans down to the Building Depart- ment and asked them again to check those plans and stamp them as approved and they did this on June 30 of this year; and then Mr. Win- chell started construction of that building; they cleared the site, they graded the pads, they did layout for the trenching and they installed drainage; and then on July 8, 1975, the Building Inspection Dept. issued a "stop work" order; they not only once, but twice, relied upon advice by City Staff and during all of these actions, spending this money, changing their position to their detriment, all upon advice of City Staff; these people have proceeded as we could expect any reasonable people to proceed; they investigated; they looked into things; they tried to be careful and I think that they were as careful as they could possibly be; they did everything we could expect reasonable people to do; they did take these actions; they did substantially change their position, incur these expenditures upon advice of City Staff and we feel it has created a great hardship for them. Mr. Worley continued if the technicality of the site plan is applied to them and if they cannot proceed to build this building with seventeen units and it is reduced to five units rendering this project uneconomical and at a substantial loss to them; for all of these rea- sons and perhaps because of the inflexibility of the site plan review procedure and the lack of discretion that you have in that area, we have asked in addition to our appeal from the Planning Commission de- cision on that site plan review, we ask you to consider those facts and make a determination that in fact a hardship has been created because of their reliance upon City advice, justifies your finding that they have acquired a vested right in that permit and they can proceed to build the seventeen units. HAROLD HOLT, 304 East 29 Street, was present and said this property borders the rear of his property; the neighbors feel this will take away what little privacy they have; and asked if it were zoned for that many units. City Attorney McLean said that it was at the time the permit was issued; the law has changed since then. Mr. Holt said if the seventeen units were permitted some- thing more than a 5' board fence should be required. No one else was present in this regard. Moved by Pinson, seconded by Reid, the con- struction be allowed to proceed and the old building permit be allowed to stand. There was discussion in regard to the height of a barrier for privacy at the rear of 315 East 30 Street, whether it should be board fence or masonry wall and how the matter should be handled. The City Attorney recommended that if Council did approve the seventeen units and wanted further consideration of a barrier to protect the privacy of the neighboring properties, Council should amend the motion to reinstate the old building permit to require a new site plan review (under existing regulations) which could be resolved within a short time by the Planning Director. Moved by Dalla, seconded by Camacho, the motion be amended to include a condition that the reinstatement of the building permit bereferred back to staff for site plan review (amended motion.) The City Attorney said that if the conditions im- posed by the site plan review were unacceptable to the owners, they 8/12/75 116 could appeal. Mr. Worley said he felt this was a reasonable approach. Amendment to motion carried, by the following vote, to -wit: Ayes: Camacho, Dalla, Pinson, Morgan. Nays: Reid. There was further dis- cussion. Motion carried by unanimous vote. The HEARING on APPEAL of Planning Commission's recommendation of DENIM, of variance to allow a LOT SPLIT, creating a lot having a minimum street frontage width of 35' on property located at 1241 East 24 Street (2-8-75, CLARENCE A. DEVINE) was held at this time. Planning Director Gerschler said the Planning Commission recommended denial of this variance, it had a number of unique circumstances applied to it, design questions primarily, and he believed the Planning Commission acted on the denial in light of perhaps setting a precedent; generally the Planning Commission and City Council policy has been opposed to flag lots (those little narrow strips giving access to public streets); in this case the first plan submitted showed a 10' or 12' wide strip connecting the rear lot with the public street; they counseled with the property owner and persuaded him to amend his map and show the widest possible strip connecting the rear lot with the street and he did that; he made it 35' wide, which in his opinion (unlike the Plan- ning Commission's opinion) is that this lot, the use of this lot is reasonable with a 35' flag; he would not recommend approval if it were a 10 or 15' flag. CLARENCE A. DEVINE, 1241 East 24 Street, was pre- sent and stated he was the applicant for the zone variance; his reason for requesting this zone variance was simple; he wanted to provide a home for his daughter, son-in-law, and three grandchildren in a decent and respectable neighborhood. his son-in-law cannot afford a $40,000 home; if this variance is grnted he can split his lot and deed him this lot and then he can afford the $18,000 addition to the existing home; one of the Planning Commissioners was concerned about a 10' driveway going to the back lot with no shrubs, or landscaping on the property; if any of them had looked at his property they would have seen that it was an elongated S shape and it has shrubbery on each side; in fact, he has about 38 shade trees, 6 fruit treesand about 45 or 40 shrubs that are almost as big as trees on this property; there's plenty of landscaping and Mr. Brile said in his report to the Commis- sion that if this lot split was granted that another house could be built on this proposed lot; he wasn't taking into consideration that they're going to put a 950 sq. ft. addition onto this house according to the builder, they could then only put a 15 x 15 building on the property beside the house. Mayor Morgan asked if he meant that there was a home back there that they were just going to make an addition to. Mr. Devine replied that there were two houses on the property at present; the house on the back of the lot is vacant. No one else was present in this regard. Moved by Pinson, seconded by Camacho, the public hearing be closed and the lot split be granted. There was discussion. Carried by unanimous vote. The HEARING on proposed AMENDMENT TO NATIONAL CITY GENERAL PLAN (GP-2-75) was held at this time. The City Clerk stated the Certificate of Publication was on file and read the six proposed amendments, follow- ing which each proposed amendment was considered separately: (1) Proposed amendment to show a portion of the TC-PD (Tourist Commer- cial Planned Development) zoned property on the northerly side of Plaza Boulevard west of 1-805 for "General Commercial" use. The Planning Commission recommended approval of the amendment. No one was present in this regard. Moved by Pinson, seconded by Reid, the Planning Commission's recommendation be approved. Carried by unanimous vote. (2) Proposed Amendment to show the properties located south of 4th Street, west of "T" Avenue and east of 1-805 for "Residential 11 to 15 Dwelling Units/Acre. The Planning Commission recommended approval of the amendment. Planning Director Gerschler said re- cent action of the Planning Commission denying a zone change required that Council now make the General Plan conform to the zoning. No one was present in this regard. Moved by Pinson, sec- onded by Camacho, in favor of the amendment to the General Plan. Carried by unanimous vote. 8/12/75 117 (3) Proposed amendment to show the properties between National Avenue and "A" Avenue and between 30th and 31st Streets for "Automotive Commercial." The Planning Commission recommended approval of this amendment. Planning Director Gerschler said the rest of the properties on National Avenue from 14th Street on are shown this way. No one was present in this regard. Moved by Camacho, seconded by Pinson, in favor of the amendment. Carried by una- nimous vote. (4) Proposed amendment to show the properties on the west side of "C" Avenue between llth and 12th Streets for "Residential 6 to 10 Dwelling Units/Acre." The Planning Commission recommended appro- val of the amendment. Planning Director Gerschler said of the six lots in this area, 4 have single family residences, one has a duplex, and one is vacant; the applicant has requested a General Plan change for the vacant parcel, west side of "C" Avenue located between the properties at 1113 and 1130 "C" Avenue. A single family residence is proposed for the lot; all the other lots in the area are now developed. No one was present in this regard. Moved by Pinson, seconded by Camacho, in favor of the amendment. Vice Mayor Dalla said he resides on this street and although he is not required to do so, he would abstain. Motion carried, by the following vote, to -wit: Ayes: Camacho, Pinson, Reid, Morgan. Nays: None. Abstaining: Dalla. (5) Proposed amendment to amend Figure 1 - "Redevelopment Survey Areas" opposite page 14 in the text of National City General Plan to revise the boundaries of the proposed Center City Redevelopment Survey Area. The Planning Commission recommended approval of this amendment. Planning Director Gerschler said. the General Plan de- fined Redevelopment Areas, then the Block Grants Application was filed with slight modifications; the City needs to demonstrate the General Plan and the Redevelopment Survey Areas are the same. No one was present in this regard. Moved by Camacho, seconded by Dalla, in favor of the amendment. Carried by unanimous vote. (6) Proposed amendment to change the land use designation on the par- cel of property at the southeast corner of 24th Street and National, from "Automotive Commercial" to "General Commercial." The Planning Commission recommended denial of this amendment. Planning Direc- tor Gerschler said in this case a building permit application was received asking to build a fast food service store; the General Plan shows "General Automotive"; the Planning Commission deter- mined "General Automotive" does not include fast foods service and initiated a General Plan change to "General Commercial" and after considering that and having a hearing, the Planning Commission recommended against the change and that the building permit appli- cation be denied. WILLIAM DUERKSEN, attorney representing the applicant, was present and the fast food service EXPRESS LANES would consist of a convenience store, delicatessen and luncheon facilities; it would be located at an entrance to National City and adjacent to the MILE OF CARS; they planned to put up a very attractive store building which would be an improvement over the present Johnson Motel; it would be a 24-hour operation and would make convenience food available to the people in the area. Mr. Duerksen outline the history of the property where the Johnson Motel is located and said the buyer signed the contract after the buyer checked with the City and questioned if the use would be in accordance with the zoning and were told it was and by the time escrow closed they were notified by the City that the use did not comply with the General Plan. Mr. Duerksen said the problem is should the General Plan take precedence over the zoning; some cities seem to apply it that way; but it is a huge job to change zoning and bring it into conformance with the General Plan and this City like others has not caught up yet; the buyer has spent a lot of money because of the zoning regulations; we asked the Planning Commission to overrule their earlier determination and grant us the permit; they turned that down and decided to initiate 3/12/75 118 a General Plan amendment and then turned that down, although it was a close borderline issue; the General Plan should be amended to allow this installation; part of the problem is that if you did not have zoning regulations, we would not have this problem; if we had checked the General Plan we would have known, but it was not checked; the General Plan is intended to be flexible plan to provide guidelines and I do not need to read it to you. then there is land useage; this is a small lot with a motel; there is not room for an auto agency; they have looked for buyers and have had it on the market for a long time; if they had a buyer for another use they would be for it; but this is the only buyer; the lot is not useable for just anything; they circulated a petition within the area to be signed by owners or managers of the busi- nesses; there were three businesses that did not want to sign; other people in the Mile of Cars agreed with us that it would be satisfactory or appropriate in the Mile of Cars area. SIG SAMUELS, 1791 North Second St., El Cajon, was present and said he was the selling broker on this property; when they ran into the problem, he was one of the people who circulated the petition Mr. Duerksen just mentioned and he asked each of these people if they were interested in an automotive business on that corner and all but two said "NO." BOB ALEXANDER, an associate of Mr. Samuels, 5455 La Jolla Blvd., was present and commented on the property, the property has been on the market a long time; he quoted from a letter he wrote to the members of the Planning Commission; his office listed the property on September 6 and called the Planning Department to ask what the zoning was and they were not informed that the present use of the property did not conform and that we would have to sell the property for automobile related business; however, they did try to sell it with that in mind; he obtained an offer in January and there was quite a strong expression from many people that although it was nice to have a Mile of Cars, there should be other uses in that area that would complement those uses that already exist; he used the word complement as defined in Webster's Dictionary. No one else was present in this regard. There was discussion. Moved by Dalia, seconded by Cama- cho, the hearing be closed and the Planning Commission's recommendation of denial be approved. Carried, by the following vote, to -wit: Ayes: Camacho, Dalla, Pinson, Reid. Nays: None. Abstaining: Morgan. The HEARING on proposed ZONE CHANGE from C-3-A to R-4-PD on the vacant parcel of property within the 1000 Block of East 9 Street, south side, opposite "K" Avenue (ZC-5-75, JAMES PATTEN) was held at this time. The City Clerk stated the Certificate of Publication and Affidavit of Mailing were on file. Planning Director Gerschler said in the last round of General Plan changes, Mr. Patten persuaded you to amend this property's use in the General Plan; now you have to make the zoning conform. HOWARD SMITH, 830 "K" Avenue, was present and protested the proposed zone change stating 16 of the 31 property owners within 300' did not think this change was needed there; there were parking prob- lems now; the zoning should remain commercial; Plaza Boulevard will become a showplace and low-cost housing up above there will be an eye- sore. JAMES PATTEN, 580 Third Avenue, Chula Vista, was present and stated they did not propose low-cost or subsidized housing; they had 83/100 acre which would (under the 11-15 density) permit them to con- struct 12 units; he appreciated the parking problems but he would provide ample off-street parking; any parking problem that exists now is due to past building regulations which did not require as much off street parking per unit; their units would not accentuate the problem but would alleviate it; their only access to the property was from 9th Street. Mr. Patten answered Council's questions about how much of the total lot was in slope, why the land could not be developed commer- cially, whether or not South Bay Plaza would buy the land. ABEL PARA, 1038 East 8 Street, was present and opposed the zone change, saying the General Plan gives guidelines to zoning and does not preclude minor deviations, however, this change is not minor. Mr. Para read from the General Plan, cited the Land Use Map, and ended by saying the area between 8th St., Highland Ave. and Plaza Boulevard was not the 8/12/75 119 best environment for apartments. Howard Smith inquired where the sewer lines would run. There was further discussion. Mr. Patten stated he had no plans at the present time; there was a driveway cut and you could get in to the property; they had a sewer easement across South Bay Plaza parking lot. Mr. Patten displayed a photograph of the gen- eral area and Council directed questions to him. (Councilman Camacho left Council Chambers at 9:17 and returned at 9:19) Mr. Patten said they were thinking of one bedroom, adult apartments, possibly renting to people who worked at South Bay Plaza. Moved by Morgan, seconded by Pinson, the hearing be continued to 7:45 p.m. Tuesday August 19, to give Council an opportunity to view the site. There was further dis- cussion. Howard Smith spoke once again in opposition. Motion carried by unanimous vote. CONSENT CALENDAR APPLICATION before the Public Utilities Commission in the matter of San Diego Economy Line, Inc., for authority to operate on an alternate route and NOTICE OF HEARING before the Public Utilities Commission in the matter of the application of San Diego Gas & Electric Co. for authority to modify its purchased gas adjustment clause to permit immediate changes in its natural gas rates and charges to offset changes in Southern California Gas Company's rates and charges under its proposed Northern Alaska Funding Agreement were presented. Ordered filed by unanimous vote. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS The LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES LEGISLATIVE BULLETIN #21-1975, dated August 8, 1975, was presented. Moved by Pinson, seconded by Camacho, in favor of the Building and Housing Director's recommendation on item 8. Carried by unanimous vote. The request of NATIONAL CITY COMMUNITY RC7DEO ASSOCIATION, INC. for the City to purchase space in its souvenir program book (Ad with changes C $400) was presented. It was requested that instead of the usual pic- tures of Council, the space be used constructively to provide, perhaps, the telephone numbers of the Police and Fire Departments. The Mayor asked Acting City Manager McCabe to check on this and bring it back to Council to see if a majority approved. The request of the COUNCIL OF PILIPINO-AMERICAN ORGANIZATIONS OF SAN DIEGO COUNTY, INC., for permission to conduct a census and fund raising campaign 8/1 - 10/15/75 was presented. Moved by Pinson, seconded by Camacho, it be granted. Carried by unanimous vote. The Mayor's recommendation that drainage fund money for this fiscal year be used to eliminate the problem of the Division Street drain was presented. Moved by Pinson, seconded by Camacho, in favor of the Mayor's recommendation. The question of diverting funds from the pro- gram adopted a few months ago was raised; the need for eliminating the problem on Division Street was discussed. Carried, by the following vote, to -wit: Ayes: Camacho, Pinson, Reid, Morgan. Nays: Dalla. REPORTS CITY MANAGER - None. PLANNING - A transmittal from the Planning Department stating the Planning Commis- sion recommended the TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP for 1212 and 1220 National Avenue (which is consistent with the General Plan) be approved subject to two conditions (Parcel 1, site of San Diego Auto Wholesalers, used car sales and auto repair; Parcel 2, site of Abbot Laboratories) was presented. Planning Director Gerschler stated the Environmental Review Committee today made a finding of negative declaration; the matter was now up to the Council. Moved by Pinson, seconded by Reid, in favor of the Tentative Parcel Map as recommended by the Planning Commission. Carried by unanimous vote. 8/12/75 120 A transmittal from the Planning Department stating the Planning Com- mission recommended approval of the APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT for an ENTERTAINMENT ESTABLISHMENT offering restaurant facili- ties, including beer and wine, billiards and amusement machines, at 1539 Plaza Boulevard (BOLL WEEVIL - LOVETT & CERISE) subject to five conditions was presented. Planning Director Gerschler stated that in his transmittal of this case to Council he suggested that they consi- der a sixth condition, that would provide that whenever the Chief of Police or City Manager find that the uses are being conducted in a manner causing significant problems to public health, safety or nui- sance the City Council may, after holding a public hearing thereon, revoke or modify the conditional use permit. Moved by Pinton, secon- ded by Reid, in favor of the Planning Commission's recommendation and the six conditions be complied with. There was discussion. ALFRED HLAWATSCH, attorney, 711 East 16 St. National City, was present and answered questions, saying they will probably remove one or possibly two of the pool tables; they had planned to put extra restaurant tables (if they will still fit within the number of permissable seat- ing positions); they appeared to be limited to 115 occupants, that limitation is imposed by the parking restrictions, if they go above 115 then they would be in violation and they would be hauled up before the appropriate agency so to extend it beyond 115 is neither legal or moral at this point, perhaps somebody would give them more latitude later, he doesn't know but they don't plan to. Planning Director Gerschler answered that the pool room requires parking too and that is where the difference comes up; it is computed in some of these cases per square foot; 115 is an exact computation of what is required for the building as you see it; the code calls for a parking space for each three seats, so if he increased the number of tables,le would have to recompute his parking for the total including the pool room or he'd be in trouble; he has enough parking for 31 cars. Mr. Hlawatsch said that what they want is as much flexibility as possible, what they asked for originally was four to five pool tables, they've drawn in five here; apparently it is easier to increase the number of restaurant tables and reduce the number of pool tables than to go the other way, so their idea is that if they would reduce pool tables that wouldn't make any waves, but if they tried to increase pool tables they would probably have to come before the Commission, etc. and he thought that was a pretty sensible way to go about it; they are trying to keep the greatest possible flexibility by asking for this number; it's his opin- ion that they won't use five. There was discussion in regard to a maximum of 3 or 4 pool tables, installation of a "left turn" or "no turn" sign on the entrances and exits of Plaza Boulevard and Palm and whether or not the police could enforce the "no left turn." Mr. Gerschler stated that this was condition No. 4 recommended by the Planning Commission; they are required to install a "right turn only" sign on the property side of the driveway opening onto Plaza Boulevard. City Attorney McLean said if it is a regular City traffic control de- vice, the police will enforce it if it isn't they won't. There was further discussion. Mr. Hlawatsch said he did bring along a picture frame with the fronts of all the other restaurants which some of them might be interested in seeing, he wouldn't make any comments about it, but it might give them an idea of what has been done in the past with buildings that have been modified; this building that is proposed is the first one to be custom built and it will be the show case of them all, it will be better than the one in La Jolla, better than the one in Shelter Island, and so on. Mr. Hlawatsch said that according to the Planning Commission, the pool tables, the music machine, and what they call electronic amusement -machine, this Pong game, which some people enjoy is really irritating to him because he can't operate it well enough, those would have to stop at midnight; but the restaurant will stay open to 2:00 a.m. for those midnight snack people, and so on; they expect a large trade in that; they had a brief discussion about that, and they thought that if they closed down the food service por- tion of the business at midnight it would really put a burden on this business because the competitors are staying open and they would lose business they would ordinarily get, people may just drive to Chula Vista or some other area. Motion carried, by the following vote, to - wit: Ayes: Camacho, Dalla, Pinson. Nays: Reid. Abstaining: Morgan. 8/12/75 121 A transmittal from the Planning Department stating the Planning Com- mission recommended approval of the APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, authorizing the enclosure of the existing patio for living purposes at 2335 Plaza Boulevard, subject to two conditions recommen- ded by staff (ROMULO CALUYA) was presented. Moved by Camacho, seconded by Reid, in favor of the Planning Commission's recommendation. Car- ried by unanimous vote. A transmittal from the Planning Department stating the Planning Com- mission recommended approval of the APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, to allow enclosure of an existing patio for living purposes at 3609 Stockman Street, subject to the enclosure's compliance with all applicable provisions of the Uniform Building Code (CLARITO B. CAJULIS) was presented. Moved by Dalla, seconded by Camacho, in favor of the Planning Commission's recommendation. Carried by unani- mous vote. A transmittal franthe Planning Department stating the Planning Com- mission recommended approval of the VARIANCE from the required 10° front yard setback to 3' to allow construction of a 4-car garage with- in the area of existing parking at 1443, 1445, and 1447 Paraiso Court (F. L. SWATY "FIKE") was presented. Moved by Reid, seconded by Camacho, the Planning Commission's recommendation be approved. Carried by una- nimous vote. A transmittal from the Planning Department stating the Planning Com- mission recommended approval of the APPLICATION FOR ZONE VARIANCE to reduce the required 25' rear yard setback to 12', subject to.3 condi- tions (as amended) and the application to reduce the required 4' interior side yard setback to 1Y at 225 Mann Avenue be denied (DIAZ) was presented. Moved by Pinson, seconded by Dalla, in favor of the Planning Commission's recommendation. Carried by unanimous vote. A transmittal from the Planning Department stating the Planning Com- mission recommended approval of the APPLICATION FOR VARIANCE for a period not to exceed one year, to allow an "off -premise" temporary sign advertising "SOUTHPORT BUSINESS CENTER" and the availability of property for sale or lease within the E. J. Christman Business and Industrial Park at the southeast corner of 24th and Hoover Avenue was presented. Moved by Reid, seconded by Pinson, in favor of the Plan- ning Commission's recommendation. Carried by unanimous vote. COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS MAYOR MORGAN requested the Engineer investigate and study the inter- section of 30th Street and Edgemere Avenue for the purpose of installing left turn lanes for access to the shopping center. MAYOR MORGAN announced Tuesday, September 9, 1975, is a holiday and asked if Council wished to meet on that day. Moved by Reid, seconded by Pinson, we have no meeting. Carried by unanimous vote. Moved by Pinson, seconded by Reid, the meeting be closed. Carried by unanimous vote. The meeting closed at 10:01 p.m. City Cl k Ciity of National lty, California The foregoing minutes were approved by the City Council of the City of National City at the regular meeting of August 19, 1975. Elf/ No Corrections Corre o,7as 9oted below M yor City of National City, California