Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Minutes-07-28-70-Regular Meeting
MINUTES OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DOWNEY JULY 28, 1970 T A B L E O F M I N U T E A C T 10 4N S SUBJECT: ACTION: PAGE NO. Resolution #2436, Ordering Annexation Downey City Ltg. Dist. (Annex. 70/12 through 70/22 Omitting Areas 14, 15, and 21) Adopted 2 V-102 -- Vacation of Utility & Drainage Easement Within Tract #27904 Taken under submission 2 Weed Abatement Assessments Approved 2 Minutes, City Council Meeting 7/13/70 Approved 2 Downey Theatre Change Orders. Recap. Ref. to C.M. 2 Art Museum Agreement Approved 3 Request R. E. Utermohlen Remove Name from Petition S.M.F. Approved 3 Ordinance re Utility Users Tax Introduced 3 Resolution #WS-696 (Payroll) Approved 3 Resolution #WS-697 (B Warrants) Approved 4 CC #268, Patton Rd. Accept Improvements Approved 4 CC #SS-226, Second St. Award Contract Approved 4 CC #269, Slurry Seal. Accept Improvements Approved 4 CC 0267, Unit 1, Brookshire Park. Request to Reject Bids and Re -advertise Approved 4 Purchase of Water Rights. Authorize Purchase Approved 4 D.I.P. #613, W/s Lindell Ave. Authorize Chapter 27 Proceedings Approved 4 D.I.P. #614, W/s Wiley Burke Ave. Taken under submission 5 Appeal, Z.E. Case #931, Edward DiLoreto, 8607 Imperial Hwy. Ref. to C.M. for conditions 5 Request from Purchasing Agent to Declare Wet Process Copier as Surplus Approved 5 Authorize Mayor to Sign Lease & Concession Agreement for Pro Shop, Golf Course Approved 5 Golf Course Manual Approved & Adopted 6 Appeal, Z.E. Case #922, Cecil W. Sutton, 10065 Newville Ave. Approved 6 Request for Block Party, 13029 Rutgers Ave. Approved 6 Request for Matching Funds for Paveout & Sidewalks, Tracts #30908 & #30909 Denied 6 Recommendation for Meeting with City of Bellflower and School Board re Century Freeway Approved 7 Payment to City Attorney for Services in Ward -Wright Appeal to Personnel Board Approved 7 Page 1 of 2 Table of Minute Actions Council Meeting 7/28/70 SUBJECT: ACTION: Attendance League of Calif. Cities Conf. San Diego 10/25-28 by Councilmen Approved Personnel Advisory Board Reimbursement Approved Re -location Water Main, 8th St. Approved Payment contract services County Registrar of Voters, election services 1970; transfer funds Approved Page 2 of 2 PAGE NO. 7 7 7 7 MINUTES OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DOWNEY JULY 28, 1970 The City Council of the City of Downey held a regular meeting at 8:00 a.m., July 28, 1970, in the Council Chamber of the Downey City Hall, Mayor Ben 'D Corbin presiding. PRESENT: Councilmen: Winton, Ferris, Morton, Jennings, Corbin ABSENT: Councilmen: None ALSO PRESENT: Charles W. Thompson, City Manager Donald B. Robison, City Manager Pro Tem Royal M. Sorensen, City Attorney Ervin Spindel, Director of Public Works William A. Coggin, Director of Planning Jim Ruth, Director of Parks d Recreation Ray Lake, Director of Building d Safety Ivan A. Robinson, Police Chief Robert W. Gain, Fire Chief Russ Reynolds, Purchasing Agent H. J. Henriksen, City Engineer Robert Cotes, Water Superintendent Ellen C. Davis, City Clerk Judy McDonnell, Executive Secretary Reverend Vernon F. Jacobs, Pastor Christ Lutheran Church, delivered the invocation, followed by the Flag Salute Led by Councilman Ferris. Councilman Ferris introduced Boy Scouts who will be attending the 1970 Scout Jamboree in Fujivama, Japan, as well as the photographer and Scout Master, Ervin Spindel, Director of Public Works, with the assistance of Joyce Allgood, Miss Public Works, presented Zero Defects Awards to the following Public Works Employees for their excellent and outstanding work during the last three months: Manuel Hernandez, Water Division Jerry Michelle, Engineering Division Don Stoddard, Engineering Division Mayor Corbin, assisted by Police Chief Ivan Robinson, presented the first POST advanced Certificate to Detective William Lund and extended his congratulations. Mayor Corbin opened the public hearing on Downey City Lighting District, Annexations 70/12 through 70/22, Omitting Areas 14, 15, and 21. He inquired of the City Clerk if she had the required Affidavit of Publication, to which she responded in the affirmative. He inquired if she had received any written protests, and she replied she had not. The Director of Public Works reported that this lighting district involves installa- tion of various lights throughout the City in areas in which street lighting was required as a condition of approval of either subdivisions, lot splits, or zone cases. It was moved by Councilman Winton, seconded by Councilman Ferris, and so ordered to accept the report of the Director of Public Works. Mayor Corbin inquired if there was anyone present who wished to speak in opposition of this improvement, and there was no response. He inquired if there was anyone present who wished to speak in favor, and there was no response. It was moved by Councilman Winton, seconded by Councilman Ferris, and so ordered to close the hearing on Downey City Lighting District Annexations 70/12 through 70/22, Omitting Areas 14, 15, and 21. RESOLUTION NO. 2436 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DOWNEY ORDERING ANNEXATION OF CERTAIN AREAS TO THE DOWNEY CITY LIGHTING DISTRICT AND TO MAINTAIN AND FURNISH ELECTRICAL CURRENT TO THOSE STREET LIGHTING FIXTURES LOCATED ON STREETS AND PUBLIC PLACES WITHIN THOSE AREAS UNTIL JANUARY 31, 1983 (ANNEXATIONS 70/12 THROUGH 70/22, OMITTING AREAS 14, 15, AND 21) Council Minutes 7/28/70 -1- The Resolution was read by title only. It was moved by Councilman Winton, seconded by Councilman Ferris, and so ordered to waive further reading. It was moved by Councilman Winton, seconded by Councilman Ferris, and passed by the following vote to adopt Resolution No, 2436. AYES: 5 Councilmen: Winton, Ferris, Morton, Jennings, Corbin NOES: 0 Councilmen: None ABSENT: 0 Councilmen: None Mayor Corbin opened the public hearing on V-102 - Vacation of Utility and Drainage Easement within Tract #27904 (East side of Paramount Boulevard at Farm Street). He in- quired of the City Clerk if she had the required Affidavit of Publication, to which she responded in the affirmative. He inquired if she had received any written protests, and she replied she had not, Mayor Corbin inquired if there was anyone present who wished to speak in opposition of this matter, and there was no response. He inquired if there was anyone present who wished to speak in favor, and there was no response. It was moved by Councilman Ferris, seconded by Councilman Winton, and so ordered to close the hearing on V-102 - Vacation of Utility and Drainage Easement within Tract #27904 (East side of Paramount Boulevard at Farm Street), It was moved by Councilman Ferris, seconded by Councilman Winton, and passed by the following vote to take the matter of V-102 - Vacation of Utility and Drainage Easement within Tract #27904 (East side of Paramount Boulevard at Farm Street) under submission pending completion of disposal of drainage north of the subject property. AYES: 5 Councilmen: Winton, Ferris, Morton, Jennings, Corbin NOES: 0 Councilmen: None ABSENT: 0 Councilmen: None Mayor Corbin opened the public hearing on Weed Abatement Assessments. He inquired of the City Clerk if she had the required Affidavit of Publication, to which she re- sponded in the affirmative. He inquired if she had received any written protests, and she replied she had not, Mayor Corbin inquired if there was anyone present who wished to speak in opposition of this matter, and there was no response. He inquired if there was anyone present who wished to speak in favor, and there was no response. It was moved by Councilman Morton, seconded by Councilman Ferris, and so ordered to close the hearing on Weed Abatement Assessments, It was moved by Councilman Winton, seconded by Councilman Morton, and passed by the following vote to affirm the assessments upon property which has been cleared during the previous fiscal year. AYES: 5 Councilmen: Winton, Ferris, Morton, Jennings, Corbin NOES: 0 Councilmen: None ABSENT: 0 Councilmen: None It was moved by Councilman Morton, seconded by Councilman Winton, and so ordered to approve the Minutes of the City Council Meeting of July 13, 1970. Communication from Division of Highways, Right -of -Way Agent, regarding Acquisition of Property on Hardship Basis, prior to Freeway Agreement, 9082, 9333 Ratliffe and 12846 Dunrobin. It was moved by Councilman Winton, seconded by Councilman Ferris, and so ordered to file the communication. Communication from R. M. Sorensen, City Attorney, regarding Downey Theatre Change Orders, It was moved by Councilman Morton, seconded by Councilman Ferris, and so ordered that this matter be referred to the City Manager for appropriate action and negotiations and report back to City Council, Communication from R. M. Sorensen, City Attorney, regarding Art Museum Agreement, It was moved by Councilman Ferris, seconded by Councilman Winton, and passed by the following vote to approve the agreement and transmit a copy to the Downey Art Museum for their review and approval, Council Minutes 7/28/70 -2- 3n R AYES: 5 Councilmen: Winton, Ferris, Morton, Jennings, Corbin NOES: 0 Councilmen: None ABSENT: 0 Councilmen: None Copy of communication from Carley V. Porter to Bob Corwin regarding Century Freeway. Ordered filed. Communication from City of Fresno regarding Superior Court Memorandum of Opinion re Utility Users Tax. Ordered filed. Communication from General Telephone Co. regarding Notice re Application for In- creased Rates. Ordered filed. Communication from Downey Unified School District regarding Use of District Buses for In -City Downey Parks & Recreation Programs. Ordered filed. Communication from Mrs. R. E. Utermohlen, 10507 Wiley Burke, regarding Request Remove Name from Petition for Sidewalk Matching Funds (Approved M.F. 5/26/70). It was moved by Councilman Ferris, seconded by Councilman Winton, and so ordered to record this in the proper files. Mr. Kenneth Miller, 7336 Cleargrove, appeared before the City Council and protested the proposed Utility Users Tax. ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DOWNEY AMENDING THE DOWNEY MUNICIPAL CODE BY ADDING CHAPTER 1D TO ARTICLE VI ESTABLISHING A UTILITY USERS TAX AND PRO- VIDING FOR THE COLLECTION THEREOF, PENALTY FOR NONPAYMENT, REMEDIES AND ENFORCEMENT The Ordinance was read by title only. It was moved by Councilman Ferris, seconded by Councilman Jennings, and so ordered to waive further reading. It was moved by Councilman Ferris, seconded by Councilman Jennings, and passed by the following vote to introduce the Ordinance. AYES: 5 Councilmen: Winton, Ferris, Morton, Jennings, Corbin NOES: 0 Councilmen: None ABSENT: 0 Councilmen: None A verbatim transcript of comments of Councilmen Winton, Ferris, and Morton is on file in the office of the City Clerk and is made a part of these Minutes by reference. It was moved by Councilman Winton, seconded by Councilman Morton, and passed by the following vote that the City Council thoroughly review the Utility Users Tax each year prior to adopting a budget to determine if this tax can be reduced or terminated. AYES: 5 Councilmen: Winton, Ferris, Morton, Jennings, Corbin NOES: 0 Councilmen: None ABSENT: 0 Councilmen: None RESOLUTION NO. WS-696 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DOWNEY ALLOWING CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEMANDS AND CERTIFYING THE FUNDS OUT OF WHICH THE SAME ARE TO BE PAID (NO. 26325 -- 26840 -- $203,177.99 -- PAYROLL) -- The Resolution was read by title only. It was moved by Councilman Morton, seconded by Councilman Winton, and so ordered to waive further reading. It was moved by Councilman Morton, seconded by Councilman Winton, and passed by the following vote to adopt Resolution No. WS-696. AYES: 5 Councilmen: Winton, Ferris, Morton, Jennings, Corbin NOES: 0 Councilmen: None ABSENT: 0 Councilmen: None Council Minutes 7/28/70 -3- 31 0 RESOLUTION NO. WS-697 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DOWNEY ALLOWING CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEMANDS AND CERTIFYING THE FUNDS OUT OF WHICH THE SAME ARE TO BE PAID (NO. 10333 -- 10498 -- $129,645.90) The Resolution was read by title only. It was moved by Councilman Winton, seconded by Councilman Morton, and so ordered to waive further reading. It was moved by Councilman Winton, seconded by Councilman Jennings, and passed by the following vote to adopt Resolution No. WS-697. AYES: 5 Councilmen: Winton, Ferris, Morton, Jennings, Corbin NOES: 0 Councilmen: None ABSENT: 0 Councilmen: None The Mayor declared a recess at 9:15 a.m. The Meeting resumed at 9:30 a.m. with the following Councilmen in attendance: Winton, Ferris, Jennings, Corbin. Absent: Councilman Morton. It was moved by Councilman Jennings, seconded by Councilman Winton, and passed by the following vote to accept the improvements under Cash Contract #268 Patton Road, West Side, Stewart and Gray Road to Cole Street, and the responsibility for maintenance thereof. AYES: 4 Councilmen: Winton, Ferris, Jennings, Corbin NOES: 0 Councilmen: None ABSENT: 1 Councilmen: Morton It was moved by Councilman Ferris, seconded by Councilman Jennings, and passed by the following vote to award contract on Cash Contract #SS-226 Second Street, to Universal Asphalt Company, Inc., the lowest and best bidder, in the amount of the bid submitted, and to waive the bid bond informality. AYES: 4 Councilmen: Winton, Ferris, Jennings, Corbin NOES: 0 Councilmen: None ABSENT: 1 Councilmen: Morton It was moved by Councilman Winton, seconded by Councilman Ferris, and passed by the following vote to accept improvements and extra work completed under Cash Contract #269, Slurry Seal. AYES: 4 Councilmen: Winton, Ferris, Jennings, Corbin NOES: 0 Councilmen: None ABSENT: 1 Councilmen: Morton It was moved by Councilman Winton, seconded by Councilman Ferris, and passed by the following vote to reject all bids and grant authority to readvertise with revised plans on Cash Contract #267 Unit 1 Brookshire Park AYES: 4 Councilmen: Winton, Ferris, Jennings, Corbin NOES: 0 Councilmen: None ABSENT: 1 Councilmen: Morton It was moved by Councilman Winton, seconded by Councilman Ferris, and passed by the following vote to authorize the Purchase of Water Rights from Mr. Winslow, 10000 Bloom- field Avenue, Cerritos, Calif., at $300, per acre foot, or a total of $3,600, AYES: 4 Councilmen: Winton, Ferris, Jennings, Corbin NOES: 0 Councilmen: None ABSENT: 1 Councilmen: Morton It was moved by Councilman Jennings, seconded by Councilman Winton, and passed by the following vote to authorize the Director of Public Works to initiate Chapter 27 Proceedings for completion of Downey Improvement Project No. 613, West side of Lindell Ave., and waive requirement for 30-day informal notice. AYES: 4 Councilmen: Winton, Ferris, Jennings, Corbin NOES: 0 Councilmen: None ABSENT: 1 Councilmen: Morton Council Minutes 7/28/70 -4- It was moved by Councilman Ferris, seconded by Councilman Jennings, and passed by the following vote to take the matter of Downey Improvement Project #614, West Side of Wiley Burke Ave., under submission pending a traffic study and submission of a workable plan, AYES: 4 Councilmen: Winton, Ferris, Jennings, Corbin NOES: 0 Councilmen: None ABSENT: 1 Councilmen: Morton On the recommendation of Councilman Ferris, the Mayor so ordered to hold the matter of Appeal, Zone Exception Case #922, Cecil W. Sutton, 10065 Newville Ave., pending re- turn to meeting of Councilman Morton. (See action Page 6.) Appeal, Zone Case #931, Edward DiLoreto, 8607 E. Imperial Hwy. (Referred back to Planning Commission on May 11, 1970 for report and recommendations). Planning Director Coggin stated the Commission did not recommend any conditions to be set for the zone exception if approved by the City Council. He read the conditions which the Planning Department had prepared and recommended if the property is to be developed in accordance with the request of the applicant. He further stated the plot plan on file would require modifications to fit the subject property and meet the requirements for the requested type of development. Following discussion, it was moved by Councilman Ferris to refer the matter to the City Manager to prepare a list of conditions and to meet with the applicant. Motion died for lack of second. After further discussion relative to the case, it was moved by Councilman Ferris, seconded by Councilman Jennings, and passed by the following vote to refer the matter to the City Manager to prepare a set of conditions for the requested development and to meet with the applicant, with a report back to the City Council. AYES: 4 Councilmen: Winton, Ferris, Jennings, Corbin NOES: 0 Councilmen: None ABSENT: 1 Councilmen: Morton Councilman Winton requested that in reviewing Zone Exception Case #931 and preparing the conditions, the City Manager bear in mind that the statements set forth in Paragraph 4 of report on City Planning Commission Meeting of July 21, 1970 would indicate that the subject property is presently zoned R-3, however, he stated the General Plan has not been updated and has not been presented to the City Council for approval. NOTE: A verbatim transcript of the Council proceedings in the above case is on file in the office of the City Clerk and is made a part of these minutes by reference. It was moved by Councilman Winton, seconded by Councilman Ferris, and passed by the following vote to approve Request from Purchasing Agent to declare Wet Process Copier as Surplus. AYES: 4 Councilmen: Winton, Ferris, Jennings, Corbin NOES: 0 Councilmen: None ABSENT: 1 Councilmen: Morton At the request of Councilman Winton, the Purchasing Agent stated he would check with the Unified School District to see if they wished to have this machine for training purposes. It was moved by Councilman Winton, seconded by Councilman Ferris, and passed by the following vote to Authorize the Mayor to Sign Lease and Concession Agreement with Laning S. Andrews for Golf Course Pro Shop, AYES: 4 Councilmen: Winton, Ferris, Jennings, Corbin NOES: 0 Coun,-ilmenr None ABSENT: 1 Councilmen, Morton Councilman Morton returned to the Meeting at 10:15 a.m. Following discussion by tee City Council, it was moved by Councilman Morton, seconded by Councilman Ferris, and passed by the following vote to approve and adopt the Golf Course Manual, subject to the provisions that those matters which are delegable be dele- gated to the Staff and the Parks and Recreation Commission and such day by day operating Council Minutes 7/28/70 -5- 304 procedures may be modified by the Staff and Commission subject to report back and approval by the City Council, AYES: 5 Councilmen: Winton, Ferris, Morton, Jennings, Corbin NOES: 0 Councilmen: None ABSENT: 0 Councilmen: None Appeal, Zone Exception Case #922, Cecil W. Sutton, 10065 Newville Avenue. Councilman Morton stated the Minutes of the City Council Meeting and those of the Planning Commission did not fully reflect his comments relative to this case. He stated that he had made it very clear that he did not receive a response from the original property owner as to how much the garage had been altered by him and how much it had been changed by the present owner; that he did not feel the present owner should be penalized for anything which occurred prior to his purchasing the home. Planning Director Goggin presented a proposed plot plan and set of conditions recommended by the Planning Department if the City Council should approve the zone exception. It was moved by Councilman Jennings to reverse the decision of the Planning Commis- sion and approve Zone Exception Case #922, subject to the conditions recommended by the Planning Department with the exception of the requirement for agreement to construct sidewalks and for installation of street lights in the future. Motion died for lack of a second, It was moved by Councilman Winton, seconded by Councilman Corbin to deny the appeal to Zone Exception Case #922 as recommended by the Planning Commission. AYES: 2 Councilmen: Winton, Corbin NOES: 3 Councilmen: Ferris, Morton, Jennings ABSENT: 0 Councilmen: None It was moved by Councilman Morton, seconded by Councilman Ferris, and passed by the following vote to reverse the decision of the Planning Department and approve Zone Exception Case #922 subject to the conditions as recommended by the Planning Department, including the proposed plot plan, AYES: 3 Councilmen: Ferris, Morton, Jennings NOES: 2 Councilmen: Winton, Corbin ABSENT: 0 Councilmen: None It was moved by Councilman Winton, seconded by Councilman Morton, and passed by the following vote to approve the request of Mr. John W. Shepard, 13029 Rutgers Avenue, for permission to have a Block Party on Rutgers Avenue between Foster and Adoree on August 2, 1970 between the hours of 1:00 p.m. and 7:00 p.m., subject to the conditions that cars of the residents on that block be maintained within their own premises during this period of time and that no alcoholic beverages be permitted on the streets. AYES: 4 Councilmen: Winton, Morton, Jennings, Corbin NOES: 1 Councilmen: Ferris ABSENT: 0 Councilmen: None Chief of Police, Ivan A. Robinson, stated that no traffic will be permitted through the portion of the street that is blocked off, and removal of the barricades will result in police action. Request for Matching Funds for Paveout and Sidewalks, Tracts #30908 & 30909. The Director of Public Works presented a report to the City Council setting forth the reasons for his recommendation for denial of this case. It was moved by Councilman Morton, seconded by Councilman Ferris, and passed by the following vote to deny the request for Matching Funds for Paveout and Sidewalks for Tracts #30908 & 30909 in accordance with existing policies. AYES: 5 Councilmen: Winton, Ferris, Morton, Jennings, Corbin NOES: 0 Councilmen: None ABSENT: 0 Councilmen: None CITY MANAGER'S REPORT City Manager Thompson reported regarding meeting held July 15th in Sacramento with California Highway Commission regarding the Century Freeway, which he attended along with the Director of Public Works, Ervin Spindel. He recommended a meeting be scheduled Council Minutes 7/28/70 -6- 0 with representatives of the City of Bellflower and the Downey School Board for the pur- pose of discussing the matter of bussing of school children, It was moved by Councilman Morton, seconded by Councilman Ferris, and so ordered that a meeting be arranged with the representatives of the City, the City of Bellflower, and the School Board as recommended by the City Manager. Councilman Morton requested that at the next City Council Meeting Councilman Ferris read a brief report into the Council Minutes relative to the discussion had with the State of California Division of Highways°representatives regarding their recommendation for the extreme southern route for the Century Freeway and their reasons for the recommendation. City Manager Thompson reported Course and Memorandum of Understand Clubs. on recommended starting times at Rio H, Men's Cl Golf The City Manager reported on the Gas Tax Budget for 1970-71 submitted to the City Council for review, to be acted on at the next City Council Meeting. It was moved by Councilman Morton, seconded by Councilman Ferris, and passed by the following vote to authorize payment of $2,370. to Burke, Williams and Sorensen for legal services rendered in the case of Ward -Wright, Appeal to Personnel Advisory Board. AYES: 5 Councilmen: Winton, Ferris, Morton, Jennings, Corbin NOES: 0 Councilmen: None ABSENT: 0 Councilmen: None It was moved by Councilman Morton, seconded by Councilman Ferris, and passed by the following vote to authorize the attendance of the City Councilmen at the League of California Cities Conference to be held in San Diego October 25th-28th with reasonable expenses allowed. AYES: 5 Councilmen: Winton, Ferris, Morton, Jennings, Corbin NOES: 0 Councilmen: None ABSENT: 0 Councilmen: None It was moved by Councilman Ferris, seconded by Councilman Morton, and passed by the following vote that the Personnel Advisory Board be reimbursed for attendance at meetings in the amount of $7,50 per meeting. AYES: 5 Councilmen: Winton, Ferris, Morton, Jennings, Corbin NOES: 0 Councilmen: None ABSENT: 0 Councilmen: None Following a report by the City Manager relative to the advisability of re -locating a water main on 8th Street, it was moved by Councilman Ferris, seconded by Councilman Winton, and passed by the following vote to authorize the appropriation of $300. from Miscellaneous Main Extensions to cover cost of re -location of water main on 8th Street as recommended by the City Manager and Director of Public Works, AYES: 5 Councilmen: Winton, Ferris, Morton, Jennings, Corbin NOES: 0 Councilmen: None ABSENT: 0 Councilmen: None It was moved by Councilman Winton, seconded by Councilman Ferris, and passed by the following vote to authorize payment of bill in the amount of $525.86 to Los Angeles County Registrar of Voters for contract services provided for the 1970 Councilmanic Election, and to authorize the following transfer of funds: FROM: Unappropriated Reserves A"YES: 5 Councilmen: NOES: 0 Councilmen: ABSENT: 0 Councilmen: TO: Account 09211--300 Election Winton, Ferris, Morton, Jennings, Corbin None None Council Minutes 7/28/70 -7- ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Councilman Ferris reported that the closing of the Golf Course Acquisition is scheduled for July 31st. Councilman Ferris expressed his regrets on the retirement of Police Chief Ivan Robinson who has been with the City of Downey for the past fourteen years. He compli- mented him for his outstanding service to the community and for the excellent department that has developed under his leadership. He extended his best wishes to Chief and Mrs. Robinson. Councilman Winton also stated that he was sorry to see Chief Robinson leave the City and concurred in the remarks of Councilman Ferris. Councilman Winton spoke with reference to a petition from residents on Luxor Street between Downey Avenue and Brookshire, requesting that parking be prohibited from 10.00 p to 6:00 a.m. He stated a request had been made about a year ago and at that time, following a recommendation by the Traffic Committee, the request was denied. Councilman Winton requested that this matter be referred to the City Manager, the Director of Public Works and to the Traffic Engineer directly for a report back to the City Council. Councilman Winton stated he would be in Central America and would not be in attend- ance at the Council Meetings of August loth and August 25th and he had informed the Council and Staff of telephone numbers through which he may be contacted in an emergency. Director of Planning, William Goggin, reported on invitation to the City Council and Staff to attend the Southeast Area Planning Council Meeting July 30th, at the Saddleback Inn. He also reported that his calls for volunteers in a check of a certain census tract resulted in only two volunteers from service clubs. Mr. Wendell Wiser, 7816 Seventh Street, stated that he would Like to see the position of Chief of Police filled by someone from that department. Mr. Kenneth Miller, 7336 Cleargrove Drive, appeared again before the City Council and expressed his protests to the development of Treasure Island Park, which he stated was against the wishes of many residents in that area. There being no further business to come before the City Council, the meeting was adjourned at 12.10 p.m. ELLEN C. DAVIS, CITY CLrRK Council Minutes 7/28/70 -8- BEN 'D CORBIN, MAYOR p EXCERPT FROM MINUTES, CITY COUNCIL MEETING JULY 28, 1970 FOLLOWING FIRST READING OF UTILITY USERS TAX ORDINANCE FOR INTRODUCTION ORDINANCE READ BY TITLE. MR. FERRIS: Does Section 6195, Paragraph D, provide for the potential exemption requested by Councilman Morton? MR. SORENSEN: This Section would enable the Council by Resolution to set up the standards, sort of an enabling provision. MR. MORTON: At the last meeting I requested consideration be given to the possibility of refund to those senior citizens who are on fixed incomes and have retired or those who are physically handicapped and have no means of support. They have no way to increase their income and can't get additional jobs after they have retired in many instances. This language they have proposed under Paragraph D would accomplish that providing the City Council will implement it either by rules and regulations or by an Ordinance. So I'm satisfied that the enabling language is here to permit the City Council to follow through and give exemption to those who have. MR. FERRIS: Motion to waive further reading. MR. JENNINGS: Second MR. FERRIS: Motion to introduce. MR. JENNINGS: Second Following are comments during the roll call. ROLL CALL: Ayes: 5 COUNCILMEN:/ Winton, Ferris, Morton, Jennings, Corbin MR. WINTON: Untimely as it may seem Mr. Mayor, I anticipate being out of town when this particular Ordinance comes up for approval. One of the revisions that needs to be done each year on this particular Ord- inance is a complete and total review by the Council irrespective of who Council may be. I am prone to agree with you Mr. Mayor, that I may not run next term either. I object to many of the taxes that we now have in this country and the possibility of adding this Ordinance as a lasting tax -,I agree that I think we are over- taxed, and finding many misuses of taxes, federal state, city, county. I think the end result is our multi -billion dollar National debt continues to climb whereas our National economy has a very slight graduated scale and does effect John Q. Public who is the initial blunt of the whole thing. EXCERPT FROM MINUTES, CITY COUNCIL MEETING JULY 28, 1970 RE: UTILITY USERS TAX ORDINANCE INTRODUCTION - Page Two MR. WINTON: I feel that the use of the Utility Users Tax is needed at the present time; I feel we have a definite use for it. I am prone to agree that the improvement programs we have carried out in the last year or two have financially hindered our growth pattern to the p©int that we do have to seek new revenue. I think this is probably about the only source of revenue available to turn to. As Councilman Morton indicated, when the program is under way, irrespective of whether you are in complete agreement with it or not, it should be a program that is supervised as closely as possible at a minimum amount of cost. I feel that unfortunately we did not have this on the program that was just carried out on the theatre, namely, and that it did financially strap the city. I voted against the theatre in the beginning. I have tried to be as observant of all of in the changes and all the attempt to make it as economical as possible; and yet we knew from the very beginning that it was not to be econom- ical, and that if you look at it from a long-term standpoint of the next 40 to 50 years in the city, it may be. But the end result is immediately we have to seek some new revenue; so this is the immediate result. And since,as I indicated,I may not be here during the approval period of this particular Ordinance, I would like to request that this Council take into consideration that this particular tax be very rigidly reviewed each and every year prior to the setting of the budget to see if this tax can either be depleted or diminished. I realize there is nothing binding to this Council to do so unless they so agree, and future Councils as well. I think it is a moral issue,that we really owe the obligation here to do a very thorough analysis each year. I am prone to agree that we have just about taxed the American citizen to the point of where there is no return. With the diminishing of the dollars in the Country in the last six or eight months, with the diminishing values, we feel the same brunt coming up in a strong moral issue, as long as any member of this Council is in the office that each year this tax be very rigidly reviewed. The other taxes I think need to be reviewed which we do in the form of a budget, but I would like to direct particular attention to just this tax. I feel that this is something that a person who is on social security, must have water, lights, gas, and also must have telephones. EXCERPT FROM MINUTES, CITY COUNCIL MEETING JULY 28, 1970 RE: UTILITY USERS TAX ORDINANCE INTRODUCTION - Page Three MR. WINTON: This is not a Luxury tax like cigarettes, liquor, and sales tax such as for automobiles and things of this nature. I think we owe a much stronger moral issue to review this each year. I will vote AYE for the introduction. I do not know how I would vote if I were here frankly. MR. FERRIS: I would like my comments to be made a part of the record. I agree with Councilman Winton and if you propose a motion, I would support it. Past, present and future capital expenditures, whether street repairs or new buildings, facilities, have nothing whatsoever to do with the need of the general fund for additional revenue. I think if one takes examination closely, the operating budget in the City of Downey in relation to revenue, is at its peak now, and looks at operating revenues in relation to the cost of living which has risen almost 7% a year in the past few years, and project that not this year but next year following, then we have an alternative. We can very drastically reduce the services of this city, whether it be police, fire, or building and safety, library, or others, or we can raise additional revenue. I believe that is a decision that the Council is acting on is to support as a current level of services as minimum, and I would so vote AYE on it. MR. MORTON: In voting, I want also to make a comment as a reminder to those who have made some remarks, in regard to capital expenditures, particular reference to library and the theatre. The record very clearly shows, it is a matter of record, it is in the Minutes, that this City Council has never increased the property tax for general funding purposes to date. The City Council did adopt in the past both a cigarette and hotel and motel tax, special use taxes, which under our Charter is perfectly within the authority of this City Council to do. Both the cigarette tax and the hotel - motel tax were specifically designated at the time of adoption and so stated that they were to be used solely for civic development purposes, capital improvements, not operating budget. Therefore, when you make the inuendo or remarks that imply to such things as theatre, such things as the library, such things as the added police wing, and such things as the added finance wing, have come out of general revenue, implying then that we were using operating funds, you are totally incorrect and not in accord with the position EXCERPT FROM MINUTES, CITY COUNCIL MEETING DULY 28, 1970 RE: UTILITY USERS TAX ORDINANCE INTRODUCTION - Page Four MR. MORTON: of the City Council,when it was very clearly stated that the adoption of the hotel -motel and cigarette tax was for civic dev- elopment purposes, and through this year, the end of this current fiscal year, there certainly has come into this City sufficient hotel -motel and cigarette tax to take care of many of the projects that have been civic development purposes. We have acquired additional parking lot from the Bank of America, we have proposed the expansion of the library, the plans have all been set, we have put up a new Police wing; it is modern and up to date; the most modern and up to date of any city around the Los Angeles area; communications systems have been installed in the police department; we have added a new wing over to the west of us in the City Hall complex that has provided additional space for the Accounting Department and headquarters for the Fire Chief; and all of this has been civic development money and not general fund operating money. So the point I want to make, and make it very clear, we can continue to comment about past hospital expenditures, whether you agree or disagree, but the money was specifically to be used from the hotel -motel, cigarette tax for civic development purposes. And had it been used for that purpose, we would still be, if we had never raised those funds of hotel -motel, cigarette tax, we would be probably even in a worse position today on an operating budget point of view than what we are. So the point I am making is, and I'll make it very clear again, that when you come before the City Councilor any City Councilman and make remarks, go back and analyze what a City Council in the past has done under the facts that were presented to the City Council at that time. It is very easy to sit today and critize what a previous City Council has done, and we are all prone to do that and perhaps because our judgment today may be different than what their judgment was yesterday. But when this City Council voted a hotel - motel and cigarette tax it did so for the purpose specifically of civic development purposes, not operating budget. And if you take that out, we would be even in a worse position than we are today because we needed that new Police Department, it was drastically needed, I frankly don't think it is big enough yet. I think there needs to be some additional space provided is something that this City Council needs to come to grips with in the future. I think there needs to be some additional conference rooms in our Police Department. EXCERPT FROM MINUTES, CITY COUNCIL MEETING JULY 28, 1970 RE: UTILITY USERS TAX ORDINANCE INTRODUCTION - Page Five MR. MORTON: We needed that additional accounting department since we got into data processing, etc., accounting machine equipment.We modern- ized some of the offices over on the extreme west; we put in air conditioning that was drastically needed. And for anybody to come into City offices the way they were 7, 8, 9 years ago and try to do a decent day's work, it was very obvious that the capital improvements were necessary. The air conditioning was a major cost. So we passed capital improvements around the city, the City Council Chambers is a good example. This City Council used to meet in a room over here which we couldn't get more than 20 citizens in to sit down and listen to a City Council. Now if you are saying that this type of capital improvement never should have been done, you are incorrect. What I am saying is that regardless of what we have done with regard to capital improvement, we have sought the additional revenue from separate sources for that purpose, and had we not done so, we would be in worse condition than we are today from the operating budget point of view. With that comment, I am making it very clear that some of the projects were funded specifically from other funds and so stated at the time. I VOTE YES on this. MR. JENNINGS: Is it alright if I just VOTE AYE? MAYOR CORBIN: AYE. I think from now on we'll have the discussion before the roll call then when we get to the roll call we'll vote. MR. MORTON: Pardon me, can we go back just a moment, not to be -Labor it but I happen to agree with Mr. Winton's remarks. We had discussed that a couple of weeks ago about the City Council taking an annual review of this particular ordinance. I happen to be in accord that in the event we do not need this tax in the future, then this City Council should immediately take the necessary action to review the matter, and I think this ought to be made a matter of motion, Mr. Winton, if you would make the motion, I would Like to second it. MAYOR CORBIN: I feel that any tax we don't need we would be glad to get rid of. MR. WINTON: Well the wheels get rolling. MR. MORTON: At least we set it down as a matter of policy in the record. MR. FERRIS: I think that should be a matter of record. MR. WINTON: Relative to my remarks and discussions prior to voting, I feel that any vote we should qualify, and I feel that any Councilman should be able to qualify his vote prior to voting not in an open discussion session, I would object to. Where we have a tax such as this, which is imposed upon the absolute necessities of Life, I feel that it merits discussion. EXCERPT FROM MINUTES, CITY COUNCIL MEETING JULY 28, 1970 RE: UTILITY USERS TAX ORDINANCE INTRODUCTION - Page Six MR. WINTON: I rather resent our federal taxes, and I rather resent any of the taxes imposed upon my life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. When I pay luxury tax on such items as, I won't mention subjects, I can't even brush my teeth today without paying a luxury tax, and I think this is a luxury tax too. But I would like to make a motion that this City Council and the future City Councils' review meticul- ously this particular tax each year to see if there is any way that it can either be reduced or that it can be deleted completely, this much more so than any of the other taxes. MR. MORTON: Second ROLL CALL: Ayes: 5 COUNCILMEN: Winton, Ferris, Morton, Jennings, Corbin ATTACHED TO AND MADE A PART OF CITY COUNCIL MINUTES OF JULY 28, 1970 VERBATIM TRANSCRIPT ITEM G2-e RE: APPEAL, ZONE EXCEPTION CASE #931, Edward DiLoreto, 8607 E. Imperial Hwy., Downey MR. GOGGIN: Mr. Mayor and Members of Council, again, the Commission has reviewed all facts pertinent to the case, the City Council hearing, the Planning Commission hearing, the maps, the revision that was submitted at the Council. Again, this is the recommendation of the Planning Commission ---- to the City Council. MR. FERRIS: I have a question. I appreciate the periodicalsand the articles, but I think I would like to see a set of conditions which is what we asked for. MR. GOGGIN: The Planning Commission did not make any recommendations on conditions. It would be up to the Department to then make some for you. MR. FERRIS: Do you have them available? MR. GOGGIN: We have some of them available but not all of them, because the plan that was the revised plan submitted by the applicant is in error, and there has to be a revision. We have a proposal. We don't know whether it is acceptable. On their plans, if you have copies of it. Would you like me to put it up on the board? MR. FERRIS: I don't think we ought to act on this without a set of conditions. MAYOR CORBIN: Do you have the conditions now? MR. GOGGIN: Before I submit conditions I have to know some facts, and I think the applicant has to tell us. For instance, right now the plot plan does not fit the property. They are encroaching 5' into an easement to provide parking, which means in order to get out of the easement the building will have to be cut by 5 feet. We have revised the parking according to the professed use of the buildings to the north. There was no consideration in the application of the applicant on signs. There is some modification of set backs requested. Again we would hold to the 15 feet. These are things the Council is going to have to decide on. I can show you what we would propose if the Council wishes to approve of it, but these are determinations the Council is going to have to make. MAYOR CORBIN: Let's present them Mr. Coggin. MR. GOGGIN: In the approval, if the Council is to approve of it, these are the recommendations that the Department would offer you. One is the usage should be restricted to general and professional offices, excluding medical, dental, and clinical offices under Section 9127.1, Subsection 6. VERBATIM TRANSCRIPT ITEM G2-e RE: APPEAL, ZONE EXCEPTION CASE #931 - Page Two MR. GOGGIN: The reason for that is on their provisions of this design they are submitting a plan drawing on the basis of one to 500 parking floor space. In other words for each 500 square feet they are providing one parking space. We are recommending that you exclude medical, dental, and clinical offices in the future because the 500 square foot requirement is reduced to 250 square feet and they do not supply enough parking to do that. We recommend that the setback in the front yard be held to 15 feet as all other buildings on both sides have been held to. We recommend that there be a 15 foot rear yard setback on the basis that if this was zoned for commercial or CH uses, that this would be a code requirement, 15 foot setback between a commercial building and a residential walk, which is residential to the north. They submitted no signs, and so we assume they want no signs on the building, but we would recommend that there be a requirement that there be no Left-hand turn sign,for the cars entering the street on this driveway cannot make a left turn. There is a Left-hand turn bay on Imperial that goes down south on Verdure and this has caused a conflict in the recommend- ations of the Traffic Department. We would recommend that there be a 15 foot setback for at least 25 feet so that these homes would not have a wall coming out and blocking them. By code, it should be for the first 50 feet. There would be a 20 foot easement, so we are recommending a little more Liberal interpertation. We recommend a Sz to 7 foot wall along here ...... (Pointing to diagram) We recommend that there be trees and greenery along here to screen the commercial use from the single family homes to the north since we do not know what will happen to the north. We recommend that the area be land- scaped with 'trees at these 'locations and this area be landscaped and that trash bins be located here. We recommend that they pay to improve the 25 foot easement to alley standards and that the design of the curbs be current to Department of Public Works recommendations. There are no signs on the building. It is hard to believe that they don't want a sign. We don't know what it is. It is up to the appli- cant to present this We also have a first condition, that there not be more than 5 suites in this building based upon parking.. We think if there is more than 5 they will have a parking.problem,'we see no way of solving the parking problem in the future. VERBATIM TRANSCRIPT ITEM G2-e RE: APPEAL, ZONE EXCEPTION CASE #931 - Page Three MR. GOGGIN: We are concerned with 5 suites and how many people will be working in those 5 suites and if you have much more than an office lessee and secretary you are not going to have any parking provisions at all, because you can reasonably expect that each suite to have a lessee and one secretary- 2 parking spaces - thats 10 right off the bat. It takes these 10 for the leasees this only leaves 8 spaces for visitors..customers and we think it's inadequate. MR. FERRIS: Mr. Mayor and City Council, I don't think I can sit here and digest all these verbal conditions at this point in time, I would like to take the matter under submission and refer this back to the City Manager for him to bring back a set of recommendations from which the Councilmen can subsequently review with the applicant. MAYOR CORBIN: Subject to review with the applicant? before it comes back? MR. FERRIS: It should be reviewed prior to the meeting. MR. WINTON: Before we act on that motion Mr. Mayor, I would like to make a few recommendations here since it is in my District,relative to this. I think possibly another meeting with the Planning Commission may be in order between the Council and Planning Commission. I note that one of their strong points on denial on this Paragraph 4 that the present R-1 building has been updated in the general plan to permit R-3 development. I would, like to point out to them that it may be a tentatively proposed updating to R-3, but as yet it has not been presented to the Council and has not been reviewed, nor has it been approved by the Council. So the premise that it has been updated is simply a figment of imagination right at the present time because it has not, and it is still at the present time R-1. So this premise that they have expected that it should go Apartment simply because someone along the line has said that this is going to be R-3 is not true until such time as it is reviewed and approved by this City Council. So I would like the Planning Commission to be informed of this. The fact that they took an exception to the Council's remarks, mine in particular, relative to planning for this particular area. I feel that the plan for a commercial building, if there is adequate room and if it is constructed properly, is a far better use of the land than for continued apartment growth simply because we have got an apartment house row it has endangered all of the residential property around there from traffic and from over population frankly. VERBATIM TRANSCRIPT ITEM G2-e RE: APPEAL, ZONE EXCEPTION CASE #931 - Page Four MR. WINTON: So in referring this back for a review between the applicant and the City Manager, Mr. Ferris, in your motion to refer this back to a meeting between the applicant and the City Manager, I would like to point out prior to action on your motion that there is not adequate room relative to this particular plot and to this particular lot, a combination of the two, that it will isolate residential neighborhoods or residential homes on the north side, complete isolation by a narrow driveway, and that the development of that property will be entirely contingent upon a hit-or-miss proposition in the future as to what you can fit in behind this commercial building. In other words, what can you actually add to it. I foresee that there is a possibility that eventually there may be a request for an extension of this build- ing without going on over and abutting up to residential property behind it. I think its use, if properly constructed as a commercial,would be far better than continued apartment house, however, I'do take exception with one thing relative to the whole plan and this is the fact that this is putting a Large building on a lot that is just barely capable of containing it and, as Mr. Goggin has pointed out, minimal for parking spaces. I really don't see where we are going to gain any square footage there on the lot. In other words, its only contained on a certain size. I would ask you to consider the fact also that the Planning Commission has indicated that the applicant requested approval of this simply because of the fact that the lot was in a state of disrepair, and pointed out that this was a promotional award to a certain degree for poor housekeeing on the Lot. This was a little bit terse and crude but possibly true, they pointed out also, the Commission did, that mixed land uses had in some instances had poor effects, and I think that in all possibility if'`.wecontain to the north of this building which contained R-1 pinned in between two walls with a commercial building on the frontage of it plus apartment houses to either side of it eventually, I think that we are pinning off a little R-1 island back there that will probably become a poorly maintained R-1 to say the least. I think also they pointed out that there has been three requests for commercial use of this in the past since 1961 and all,of them have been rejected by the Commission. In certain instances they have rejected them simply because of the fact that they felt like it should continue as R-3 development. VERBATIM TRANSCRIPT ITEM G2-e RE: APPEAL, ZONE EXCEPTION CASE #931 - Page Five MR. WINTON: In this particular instance I would like to point out that they have drawn out some very strong points relative to the plot as against the lot. So if it is to be taken under submission on your motion and the applicant, and as your motion indicated, the City Manager are to meet relative to conditions, I think that these conditions that have been set forth or as they have been recommended by the Planning Commission should be the pertinent things discussed. MR. FERRIS: I agree with what you are saying 100%, and let me state that to the City Manager that the motion does not place any constraints at all upon the configuaration or the Layout and the fact that one configuar- ation has been submitted it is no criteria for recommendations, and I would expect that consistent with certainly the first hearing we had on this that whatever is recommended would be consistent with good planning practices. MR. WINTON: In closing, relative to ,this since it is my district, and I feel that there is only a certain amount of land mass there and that is all there is available and there is a certain side of the building desired, the members of the Council in taking into consideration on Mr. Ferris' motion the fact that the Commission has three times now denied a comm- ercial enterprise on this •lot since"1961, I would like to have you keep this in mind as you vote on this motion. MAYOR CORBIN: Is there a second to Mr. Ferris' motion to take this under submission? So far we haven't "'got 'a second. MR. FERRIS: Take this under submission and refer to the City Manager's Office for a set of conditions. MAYOR CORBIN: Alright - no second. CITY ATTORNEY: I think the record should reflect the statement, "The motion dies for lack of a second." MR. JENNINGS: I don't think any citizen in the City of Downey should be required to wait as Long as these people have waited for a decision from the City Officials, whether the decision is for or against I have no .axe to grind, but I think they should have a decision long before now. It seems like an inordinate amount of time has been consumed just going back and forth. There must be a better method somewhere. MR. FERRIS: I agree with you. I don't know what conditions you base it on though. Certainly the Planning Commission brought up some valid points and I th}g�k these should be a matter of consideration in working out the conditions, and I don't know how your plan would..... whatsoever. VERBATIM TRANSCRIPT ITEM G2-e RE: APPEAL, ZONE EXCEPTION CASE #931 - Page Six MR. WINTON: Well,was the vote of the Council last time to grant this, and refer it back to the Planning Commission? MAYOR CORBIN: That's right. MR. WINTON: And the Commission sent back the same statement that they had sent through before and that they could not recommend conditions. MAYOR CORBIN: This is usually the answer they give nearly every one of their decisions. MR. WINTON: Right. MR. FERRIS: You see where we may agree.... MR. WINTON: So we start all over again, this is the inordinate time that you are referring to - you start from scratch all over again. MAYOR CORBIN: No, you've got to uphold your findings in the first place. Every Planning you overrule, you go back and they send back the same thing they had in the beginning. MR. WINTON: I agree with you Mr. Mayor, but the simple point of it is then we come in and we ask for recommendations of the Planning Department that needs to be approved, then the applicant must meet with the Planning Department to see if this meets his plans, then it comes back before Council again. MAYOR CORBIN: They must meet the conditions outlined by Council then as recommended by the Planning Commission or Council does not have to ....... MR. WINTON: I think the answer here Mr. Jennings, is if we could establish a master plan, get it reviewed, get it up to date, get it into force, and uphold it period, and if there is to be a zone exception that it will be a zone change, that there will be no zone exceptions. Let's get out of the zone exception business. Let's get the general plan updated and reviewed as it was approved in 1963 and the five year revision should have started so that we would have a revision completed in 1968 and started on the second revision of it. Now, we are tenta- tively just about to hit the approval of the first revision if every- thing goes well. So we are a couple of years behind on getting that through, but other than that, if this ever happens then we can eventually get our zone set up and we can hold and adhere to these, and if a person comes before Council and asks for a zone exception then a quick simple answer is no. MR. JENNINGS: Mr. Ferris, what was your motion again? VERBATIM TRANSCRIPT ITEM G2-e RE: APPEAL, ZONE EXCEPTION CASE #931 - Page Seven MR. FERRIS: Well, of course it died for lack of second, but in view of the fact that the original appeal was upheld by the City Council and returned for conditions, and no conditions are forthcoming, what I merely said, I'm not willing to grant an unconditional zone exception in any case. In view of the comments here, all I did is simply say, since we are not able to get conditions from the Commission we will refer it to the City Manager's Office for a set of conditions. It is just the plain fact I don't know of any other way to do it, if your thinking is still consistent with the way it was a month or two ago when this happened and my fee Ling is still the same at this point, nor do I see any different. MR. JENNINGS: Let me ask Mr. Sorensen, can we back up and have you make that motion again due to my Lack of understanding? CITY ATTORNEY: I think so. MR. JENNINGS: Would you remake the motion? MR. FERRIS: Consider it made. MR. JENNINGS: I'll second that. MAYOR CORBIN: Roll call. MR. WINTON: Once again I will reiterate. Mr. City Manager, when you meet with the applicant, I want to suggest very strongly that it be taken into consideration that the Commission refused to pass out recommendations on this particular case on Paragraph 4. Based upon Paragraph 4 princip- ally which stated, and they did it quite tersely, facts that the present R-1 zoning has been updated in the General Plan to permit R-3 develop- ment. The R-3 uses that have been constructed have stablized and redeveloped this section of Imperial Highway. The key part here is it has not been updated; it has not been approved; it has not been submitted to this Council for approval; it has not been up for public review; it is still R-1, and the Commission is going on the premise that this is zoned R-3 and should therefore, be used for that purpose. So I would like for you to keep this in mind that this is the principal reason they refused to pass back recommendations for commercial usage. I don't want to be redundant on the matter. MR.'WINTON: Aye MR. JENNINGS: Aye MAYOR CORBIN: I think I should explain, this is not a denial of a zone exception; this is a referral back to the City Manager and the applicant for the conditions to be put on the property for exception. MAYOR CORBIN: Aye