Loading...
01/12/1984CITY OF GRAND TERRACE COUNCIL MINUTES REGULAR MEETING - JANUARY 12, 1984 A regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Grand Terrace was called to order at the Terrace View Elementary School, 22731 Grand Terrace Road, Grand Terrace, California, on January 12, 1984, at 5:55 p.m. PRESENT: Hugh J. Grant, Mayor Jim Rigley, Mayor Pro Tempore Tony Petta, Councilman Roy W. Nix, Councilman (Arrived 6:25 p.m.) Barbara Pfennighausen, Councilwoman Seth Armstead, City Manager Ivan Hopkins, City Attorney Joe Kicak, City Engineer Myrna Erway, City Clerk ABSENT: None The meeting was opened with invocation by Councilman Petta, followed by the Pledge of Allegiance, led by Councilwoman Pfennighausen. MINUTES - (12-14-84) CC-84-07 Motion by Councilwoman Pfennighausen, Second by Mayor Grant, ALL AYES by all present to approve the Minutes of December 14, 1984 as presented. CONSENT CALENDAR Item 3C - Resolution to control utility rates - was removed for discussion. CC-84-08 Motion by Councilman Petta, Second by Councilman Rigley, ALL AYES by all present to approve the following Consent Calendar Items: A. Approval of Special Check Register No. 122983; B. Approval of Check Register No. 011284; and D. Approve Budget Transfer of $28.41 from Line Item No. 10-4120-249 to 18-4908-255 for street sweeping signs. RESOLUTION URGING CONTROL OF UTILITY RATES Sue Noreen, Area Manager, So. California Edison Company, requested deferring action on this resolution to allow time for her to prepare Page 1 - 1/12/84 and present a briefing explaining the complexities of the utility rate process from her company's point of view. Council recommended including the other utility companies in the briefing; Ms. Noreen will invite the other companies to participate. CC-84-09 Motion by Councilwoman Pfennighausen, Second by Mayor Grant, ALL AYES by all present to defer this matter for one month from this date to allow contacts to be made and a presentation to be prepared. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION John Mathews, 11733 Eton Drive, requested and received permission to take photographs during the meeting. PLANNING COMMISSION The December 5, 1983 Minutes were provided to Council. The Planning Director advised the 1984 Planning Commissioners Institute will be held in San Diego February 29 - March 2; the Planning Commission has requested that Staff use funds from their budget to attend; indicated he would be willing to share the cost if funds are insufficient; will present a proposal to Council. CRIME PREVENTION COMMITTEE Police Service Proposal - Administrative Assistant Coyle advised Mr. Haro d Tarkin submitted a proposal for police services in August which he reviewed and submitted to the Crime Prevention Committee for review; Susan Crawford of that Committee did an in-depth stucy and concluded the proposal would not be feasible; recommended rejecting the proposal and notifying Mr. Larkin. Mayor Grant stated the analysis prepared by Susan Crawford was very professional and indicated she is very knowledgeable on this matter; supports improvement of law enforcement services and cost effectiveness and encourages proposals for all services; feels this proposal does not meet the criteria and would be inferior to the services presently received from the San Bernardino County Sheriff's Department; indicated satisfaction with present services. CC-84-10 Motion by Mayor Grant, Second by Councilwoman Pfennighausen, ALL AYES by all present to reject Mr. Larkin's proposal for police services and to direct Staff to write a letter to Mr. Larkin thanking him for his interest in the City. EMERGENCY OPERATIONS COMMITTEE The Administrative Assistant advised the Committee submitted an informational report to Council indicating a desire to attend seminars sponsored by the State Office of Emergency Services, which are Page 2 - 1/12/84 tuition -free; the cost to the City would be travel, meals and lodging, if required; the Committee's budget balance is $139. Councilwoman Pfennighausen indicated this Committee desires to gain information which would benefit the City in emergencies; recommended encouraging the members to attend the seminars. CITY ENGINEER REPORT Street Sweeping Dedication - City Engineer Kicak advised a declaration o e ication and a hold harmless agreement to be signed by the Westmorelands to allow the City to sweep their street was prepared and submitted to the Westmorelands, as directed; has been advised by Mrs. Westmoreland they do not wish to dedicate; the City Manager has stated sweeping of that street has been terminated. Storm Drain Master Plan - Information will be distributed for review prior to presentation of this matter on January 26. Azure Hills Parkin Lot/Fire Station Access - The bids received at the bid opening for project held January -TO were approximately $10,000 over the estimated cost, with the major increase being for items requested by the church; Mr. Bader will present this matter to his board; the City's cost for this project will remain approximately $28,000, with the Church's share increasing to approximately $53,000. PARKS & RECREATION COMMITTEE Chairman Rollins reported the following; (1) the Committee discussed the General Plan Update at the last meeting; (2) the fence separating the park from Mr. Zampese's orange grove has been torn down again; there previously was a pass -through to allow the young people to go through to the park and to school, then the City agreed to close that opening; recommended re-establishing a pass -through rather than continuously having the fence torn down. CITY COUNCIL REPORTS Councilwoman Pfenni hausen questioned if any stipulation has been made to place blue dots in the new housing developments. Mr. Kicak advised the new tracts presently being constructed were filed prior to the inception of the blue dot program. Councilman Petta recommended, with Council concurring, that the City Engineer Fe - erected to investigate utilizing City right-of-way to widen the intersection at the Barton Road/Palm Triangle for safety purposes and submit a recommendation to Council. Mayor Grant advised he attended the SANBAG and Omnitrans Meetings January 4.7 Councilman Nix arrived at 6:25 p.m. Page 3 - 1/12/84 CITY/CHAMBER OF COMMERCE COMMUNICATION SUBCOMMITTEE CC-84-11 Motion by Mayor Grant, Second by Councilman Nix, ALL AYES, to appoint Councilwoman Pfennighausen and Councilman Rigley to serve on a committee with the Chamber of Commerce to discuss a joint venture. CITY FLAG The Community Services Director advised a Staff Report was presented summarizing previous Council action, listing the price breakdown for alternatives on one-sided vs two-sided flags, the quantities to be ordered to realize a price reduction, and the Council decisions requested. Mr. Konkler, the manufacturer, stated when the light shines through on a two-sided flag, the imprint on one side shows through on the other side; a silk-screen process is used; indicated the material to be used is the same as that used for the San Bernardino City Flags, and has been informed they last much longer than the State flags. CC-84-12 Motion by Councilman Nix, Second by Councilman Rigley, to: (1) Approve a two-sided City Flag with wrong -wady reading; (2) Approve the purchase of a total of 25 flags, the minimum number in order to receive a price reduction from $375 to $319 per flag, with two flags to be indoor flags with blue fringe on three sides, for an additional $46.54 each; and (3) Approve the transfer of $8,552.16 from the 6/30/84 Balance Forward to Line Item 10-4190-220, leaving a Balance Forward of $559,882.84. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GRAND TERRACE, CA, RESCINDING ORDINANCE NO. 73 & AMENDING THE REGULATIONS FOR COMPREHENSIVE LITTER CONTROL & MAINTENANCE OF PUBLIC & PRIVATE PROPERTY. (First Reading) City Attorney Hopkins read the title of the Ordinance. The City Manager stated the vehicle code provides that vehicles must be covered, and the City's Ordinance No. 73 does not require that vehicles be covered; as a result, a local citizen received a citation for hauling rubbish that was not covered. The City Attorney stated Staff has recommended that Council waive the citation; since the individual was cited under State statute, the City cannot waive a State statute. Councilman Nix questioned who issued the citation and why the City's ordinance is not being enforced; the decision was purposely made not to have maximum coverage; does not favor changing the ordinance; feels direction should be given to enforce the City's ordinance. Mayor Grant stated he assumes this was done because the officer recognizes the Vehicle Code takes precedence over the City's Ordinance and State law prevails. The City Attorned advised Council cannot waive what the Legislature has passed; this is the law on the State Page 4 - 1/12/84 highways; you can make it more restrictive within the City, but you cannot make it less restrictive than State law. Mayor Grant opened the meeting to public participation. Supporting Testimony Ernie Zampese, 11963 Honey Hill Drive, stated he received a citation because his load was tied down but was not covered; requested that a decision be made on the requirements so that everyone will know exactly what to do when hauling loads. Bob Yeates, 12888 Fremontia, stated signs have been posted at all entrances to the City for 6-8 months that all vehicles hauling refuse must be covered; indicated litter has been reduced by 80% in Georgia by requiring covered loads; favors changing the ordinance to require covered loads. The meeting was closed to public participation, there being no further testimony on this matter. Councilman Petta stated Mr. Zampese was present at the meeting when Council developed Ordinance No. 73 and made the determination not to required covered loads; since he obeyed the City's Ordinance, requested the City Attorney find a method to intercede; Council requested that the City Attorney write a letter in behalf of Mr. Zampese similar to one previously written in behalf of Mr. Rollins. Motion by Councilwoman Pfennighausen, Second by Councilman Petta, to approve first reading of the ordinance, by title only, and to set public hearing and second reading of the ordinance rescinding Ordinance No. 73 and amending the rules and regulations for comprehensive litter control and maintenance of public and private property relative to the requirement to cover and secure loose materials being transported. Councilman Petta voiced concurrence with Councilman Nix's reference to the position Council previously took on this matter, but supports amending the ordinance, based on the City Attorney's advice. Councilman Nix stated the portion of the vehicle code provided applies to rubbish vehicles only ; does not see where any data has been provided showing any ambiguities. Councilwoman Pfennighausen stated the City's ordinance should not be in violation of State law; also does not want to place the law enforcement officers in a guesswork position relative to what to enforce and according to whom; withdrew the Motion, with Councilman Petta concurring, since the data is not available which Councilman Nix feels is necessary; requested that the Vehicle Code data be provided prior to taking further action on this matter. Recess was called at 7:20 p.m. and reconvened at 7:42 p.m. with all memos present. Page 5 - 1/12/84 APPEAL - PLANNING COMMISSION DETERMINATION OF USE IN C-2/CPD ZONE Planning Director Kicak stated Council was provided with a Staff Report for this meeting and was also provided a letter from the appellant, Mr. Zampese, a Planning Commission Staff Report dated December 5, 1983, a letter dated November 4, 1983 from John Blick, Sto-A-Way, Inc., and the December 5, 1983 Planning Commission Minutes. Stated a request was received to allow construction of mini -warehouses in an area zoned C-2/CPD; since the zoning code doesn't specifically address this issue, conducted a survey of a number of cities, and based on that survey, recommended that mini -warehouses not be permitted in this zone. The Planning Commission determined that such a use would be permitted. Mr. Zampese has filed an appeal on this matter, requesting that the determination made by the Planning Commission be overturned. Recommended that Council render a determination following the public hearing. Mayor Grant stated Council received material from Sto-A-Way. Opened Public Hearing on the matter. Supporting Testimony to Grant Appeal Ernie Zampese, 11963 Honey Hill Drive, stated his letter dated December 9, 1983 states his reasons for opposing, feeling it would be detrimental to allow mini -warehouses in that area, would lower the other property values in that area, and is not an allowable use for that area as zoned. Opposing Testimony to Grant Appeal Jerry Mathews, 21971 DeBerry, one of the owners of U-Stor, voiced support of mini -warehouses in that area, stating they will not substantially increase traffic flow, and will bring bring more commercial business into the area; feels the growth potential is good for that type of business. Dennis Cardoza, representing the property owners, felt this would be an asset to the City since the subject property is a key visibility site, would improve the looks of the property, would improve the tax base, and would draw more commercial development; the property owners have insufficient capital to develop the property as they would like to have it developed, so Sto-A-Way has been brought in as a partner; this firm is willing to construct mini -warehouses, which will provide revenue to complete development, and is willing to remove them at the end of a five-year period or sooner. Councilwoman Pfennighausen questioned if the developers would be extending Commercial Drive to DeBerry and installing the improvements on their property frontage. Mr. Cardoza stated if the Planning Commission Determination remains, he will still have to submit a conditional use permit and a site plan before the property can be developed; feels the Planning Commission Page 6 - 1/12/84 will require the street to be constructed on the frontage of the mini -warehouses and to be continued when the remainder of the site is developed. Councilman Rigley questioned if the subject property consists of three separate parcels; Mr. Cardoza stated a lot line adjustment will be required; the warehouses will use two of the three lots; the street would cut the third lot into two sections. Rebuttal Testimony Ernie Zampese questioned why the developers don't start the commercial development now rather than constructing the mini -warehouses, then tearing them down in five years and starting all over again; felt there are many questions, including the zoning; felt allowing this will not be beneficial. Dennis Cardoza stated the mini -warehouses would create the cash flow needed to construct the required improvements, and would then be removed to continue the commercial development; stated all nine acres cannot be developed at this time. Mayor Grant closed Public Hearing. Councilman Petta declared a potential conflict of interest on this matter, since he is considering a similar development on his property, and withdrew from discussion and voting on this matter. City Manager Armstead also declared a potential conflict of interest and withdrew from discussion on this matter. Councilman Nix voiced concurrence with the intent of the appeal in terms of protecting the City's best future interests and promoting the most desirable type of development; however, supports the Planning Commission determination, based on the data and rationale presented by the developer and due to the amount of land dedicated in that area. Councilwoman Pfennighausen voiced support of the Planning Commission determination, feeling it will monetarily benefit the City in an interim period; felt the proposed development is attractive and could attract other commercial developers. City Attorney Hopkins advised the Planning Commission has made the determination that the zoning code allows mini -warehouses with a conditional use permit in a C-2/CPD Zone; Council at this time is to hear testimony relative to the appeal and determine whether or not it concurs with the Planning Commission Determination; advised Council should not discuss the merits of the proposed development. Councilman Rigley stated Council's intent is to attract commercial development into that area; feels the mini -warehouses will not generate much revenue; although the City Attorney has clarified the issue, all discussion held thus far is whether or not to allow Page 7 - 1/12/84 mini -warehouses; wants to ask questions to determine whether or not the Planning Commission made a good decision. The City Attorney stated whether or not a conditional use permit will be granted must still be considered by the Planning Commission; cautioned that discussion at this time could affect judgment and impartiality in the event this matter were to be appealed to Council at a later date. Councilman Rigley questioned the acreage to be used for the mini -warehouses - was advised 2.75 acres will be used; questioned if a conditional use permit can be granted legally with a specific condition that the warehouses are to be removed in five years or sooner, and if it can be enforced legally. Attorney Hopkins advised a conditional use permit can be for a time certain and can expire in a specified period of time. Councilman Rigley indicated support of the appeal, concurring with economic development but concerned this proposed development could conflict with what he visualizes for planned development. Motion by Councilman Nix, Second by Councilwoman Pfennighausen, to deny the appeal of the Planning Commission Determination of Use in C-2/CPD Zone. Councilman Nix stated he feels the Planning Commission Determination is appropriate, due to the amount of property in the C-2/CPD designation, the need for economic development in the City, and since approval of granting a conditional use permit is required in each case. The Motion failed, with AYES by Councilman Nix and Councilwoman Pfennighausen, NOES by Mayor Grant and Councilman Rigley, and Councilman Petta abstaining. Motion by Councilman Nix, Second by Mayor Grant to approve the appeal failed 1-3, with Mayor Grant voting AYE and Councilman Petta abstaining. Attorney Hopkins advised the Appeal fails, since the appellant did not receive a favorable vote; therefore, the interpretation of the Planning Commission Determination stands within the C-2/CPD Zone; mini -warehouses are allowed, subject to a conditional use permit. APPEAL - PLANNING COMMISSION DETERMINATION ON SA 83-7 - WILDEN PUMP Planning Director Kicak advised the Planning Commission conducted a site and architectural review of Wilden Pump's proposed addition to a warehouse on the south side of Van Buren, Westerly of Michigan on December 5, 1983; Staff recommended certain conditions of approval in a Staff Report; this report and the minutes of that meeting have been provided to Council; as a result of public testimony, the Planning Commission added additional conditions, as shown in Motion No. PCM 83-69, to construct a block wall and to plant Italian Cypress Trees. Wilden Pump & Engineering Company has appealed the Planning Commission Determination; understands the appeal is based on the additional conditions as specified by the Planning Commission. Page 8 - 1/12/84 Mayor Grant opened Public Hearing on the Appeal. Testimony Supporting the Appeal Allen Tuck, Vice -President, Wilden Pump & Engineering Company, 22069 Van Buren, stated he is appealing portions of the additional conditions imposed by the Planning Commission December 5, 1983 relating to constructing a six-foot wall along the 1,100 foot perimeter of the company's property and supplying certain landscaping and trees to the adjacent residents. Concurred with the requirement to construct a six-foot wall in the new construction area, but opposed additional walls where there is no new construction and the requirement to provide Italian Cypress Trees in those areas where the property is adjacent to existing construction. Mr. Tuck felt there are other solutions to the problems cited which would be more fair and equitable to the company which would also resolve the residents' concerns. Indicated the problem of visual pollution will be resolved when the new warehouse is constructed, since it will provide internal storage. Distributed copies of a policy letter which was prepared in response to the problems cited. Feels the complaint regarding paint fumes was based on activities prior to November, 1982 and the problem resolved when the new painting system was installed. Stated discussions with the residents revealed the complaint about noise related to loud talking and radios in the assembly areas; action has been taken to resolve that matter. Mr. Tuck stated the conditions imposed would cost approximately $30,000 - $40,000, which is 5-6% of the project cost; noted the importance of his company's ability to remain competitive and the local revenue the company produces. Mr. Tuck presented alternative proposals to the conditions imposed; concurred with constructing a six-foot wall in the new construction area; felt the Planning Commission conditions did not adequately identify the six-foot wall; felt it would be reasonable to construct a six-foot wall from the level of the Martinez property. In the area of old construction, the wall is going from a recessed driveway; if a six-foot wall is required from the level of the adjoining property, it would require a 13-foot masonry wall, costing in excess of $100,000 for the entire perimeter. In the area of new construction, wants the wall defined from a certain point. Feels the Planning Commission condition to construct a wall along the entire south side is inappropriate; recommended stopping at the end of the new construction, feeling this will block the view from the Wagner property, with the adjacent property being vacant. Indicated a willingness to meet the requirements for trees or landscaping with respect to the Wagner property only; felt it was questionable whether the Burgets, Martinez' and Stewarts would desire cypress trees, in view of their present landscaping. Relative to the area on the north, feels inappropriate that this area be considered, since it doesn't involve any new construction. Stated Page 9 - 1/12/84 there is a 12-foot driveway and a solid decorative masonry wall which is well -maintained. Stated the new construction will provide, in effect, a solid wall enclosed by a roof, providing an aesthetic appearance similar to the existing east area. Requested that Council consider what he feels are reasonable and equitable alternatives. Testimony Opposing the Appeal Linda Burget, 12570 Michigan, felt the six-foot wall should be built on her side of the property rather than the company's side, since that property is lower; wants drainage. Phil Wagner, 12610 Sanburg Way, stated the zoning has been changed to light industrial which requires a six-foot wall; complained of noise from trucks and traffic at night, tractors dozing the field at 10:00 p.m., and spotlights; felt the requirement for trees is appropriate. Jess Martinez, 12580 Michigan, showed photographs and stated his property has been flooded every year since 1978; backyard has a chain link fence; concerned a solid wall will increase problems if there is no allowance for proper drainage. Councilman Rigley questioned if the flooding was due to the water not draining from his property onto Wilden's property. Mr. Martinez stated water from higher levels drains down their driveways; sufficient drainage has not been provided for the water run-off due to construction above his property. Rebuttal Testimony Allen Tuck, relative to Mrs. Burget's concerns, stated the company's driveway will be substantially recessed; twelve feet away will be a solid six-foot wall attractively painted with no openings which will contain noise more effectively than a six-foot wall. Recommended a retaining wall for the easterly area, since the Burget, Martinez and Stewart properties already have six-foot fences and mature landscaping. Relative to Mr. Wagner's concerns, concurred with constructing a six-foot wall on the south side; recommended providing Mr. Wagner with the cypress trees to plant on his own property; indicated he was unaware of the noise problems cited, and had he been notified would have resolved the problems. Relative to Mr. Martinez' concerns for flooding, noted since they are also victims, with their property being even lower, this is not Wilden's problem and does not relate to this issue; would join Mr. Martinez in imploring Council to correct the problem by installing an adequate drainage system on the north side of Michigan that will join with the adequate 36-inch pipe which his firm installed in anticipation of this problem. Mr. Martinez questioned what provisions will be made for drainage if the wall is built. Mrs. Burget requested clarification - stated contradicting statements have been made relative to whether the six-foot fence would be on her side or Wilden's. Indicated she wants the fence built on her side and Page 10 - 1/12/84 wants to remove her wood fence if they build a six-foot wall on her side. Council indicated Mr. Tuck had indicated this matter was not clearly defined by the Planning Commission. Planning Director Kicak stated it is his understanding the purpose of the wall as required by the Planning Commission is for screening purposes to the adjacent properties; would interpret that to mean a six-foot high wall measured from the point on the properties on Michigan. Mayor Grant closed Public Hearing. Attorney Hopkins reviewed the appeal which concerns three issues, and recommended upholding or denying the three issues separately: (1) not requiring the wall to be six feet above the high property line; (2) requiring the wall in the new construction area only, rather then around the entire property; (3) relative to requiring cypress trees be planted, allow the appellant to provide the trees to the property owners to plant on their property. CC-84-13 Motion by Councilman Nix, Second by Councilwoman Pfennighausen, ALL AYES, to support the appeal relative to not requiring the block wall six feet high on the entire dimension of the south side of the appellant's property; however, to require construction of a six-foot garden wall from the westerly side of the Wagner property easterly along the southerly property line. Council discussed whether the block wall on the southerly border should be six feet above the level of the property owners' property or from the level of the Wilden property. Councilwoman Pfennighausen felt if a six-foot wall was constructed across the four properties, it would act as a dam, even if drainage holes were provided; is aware it would be more attractive, but feels a 4-5 foot retaining wall, with the property owners retaining their present fences, would be better for the property owners. Wilden Pump is proposing lowering the driveway five feet and building a retaining wall, thereby allowing the water to flow over that wall. City Engineer Kicak stated that until a proper drainage system is installed to intercept the water from Michigan and Pico, the drainage problems will continue, whether or not there is a wall; felt the wall will compound the problem. Indicated most of the storm drain system is designed, with $700,000 presently available for construction. Mayor Grant left the meeting at 9:48 and returned at 9:51 p.m. Mr. Tuck stated his firm would be willing to build a properly -designed retaining wall to allow drainage from the backyards, and could build a six-foot block wall from the Burget's side of the property if they desired, but felt it would be a mistake. Attorney Hopkins advised Council cannot set new conditions as is being requested by Mr. Tuck; according to the Planning Director, the present condition is a retaining wall and six feet above that a fence; if Page 11 - 1/12/84 Council wants the condition changed, the appeal should be granted, thereby sending it back to the Planning Commission to be revised. Councilwoman Pfennighausen questioned the equity and legality of imposing conditions in areas previously developed versus new construction; Attorney Hopkins stated he feels it could legally be enforced; didn't address the equity. Recess was called at 10:07 and reconvened at 10:22, with all members present. Councilman Rigley felt a block wall six feet above the property owners' level would be detrimental to those properties, causing flooding; Wilden Pump has proposed building a retaining wall there, indicating the new building will provide a sound barrier; questioned if the property owners, in view of the adverse situation, would want the six-foot block wall; questioned and received confirmation they would be satisfied with a five-foot retaining wall on the back of their property. Councilman Nix indicated the appeal deals with the Planning Commission setting a condition requiring a six-foot wall along the entire easterly side; stated the Planning Commission Minutes dealt to a greater extent with the fencing which is already between Wilden Pump, a firm which has been there many years, and the property owners on Michigan, than it does with the new construction; feels it would be punitive to require Wilden Pump to go back and build a six-foot wall up to Van Buren, and it doesn't make sense to have a six foot fence requirement that starts halfway back that goes six feet up on some properties and on some it doesn't; felt this is adverse to Council's desire to encourage commercial development. The Planning Director was questioned and confirmed that a six-foot block wall is required by the zoning code to separate light industrial property from residential; Councilwoman Pfennighausen felt that when circumstances occur where a zoning code requirement is found to be both punitive, as well as detrimental to those whose benefits it was designed to serve, it should be set aside. CC-84-14 Motion by Councilman Rigley, Second by Councilwoman Pfennighausen, ALL AYES, that the appeal of Wilden Pump & Engineering Company to eliminate the requirement of a six-foot garden wall along the easterly border be approved; that in the area of new construction on the easterly side, the developer is to construct a retaining wall as necessary; no garden wall shall be required. CC-84-15 Motion by Councilman Nix, Second by Councilwoman Pfennighausen, that the appeal regarding the cypress trees be denied; however, if the construction of the six-foot wall, as proposed by the developer, meets with the approval of the adjacent property owners, then the cypress trees would not have to be furnished to the individual property owners. Page 12 - 1/12/84 Attorney Hopkins clarified that the intent of the Motion is that the requirement for the trees remains, except if the property owner is willing to put the trees on his property, that is acceptable. Following discussion and clarification, Motion No. CC-84-15 carried, ALL AYES. ADJOURN - The regular meeting adjourned at 10:45 p.m. The next regular meeting will be held January 26, 1984 at 5:30 p.m. Respectfully submitted, City c APPROVED: ayo Page 13 - 1/12/84