Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutFEBRUARY 17,1970 CITY COUNCIL PROCEEDINGS ARE TAPE RECORDED AND ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK I INVOCATION PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE RmLC~L MINUTES HEARING (Lot Split) Continued to March l7 f~<< I l8:7577 M I NUT E S CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA REGULAR MEETING FEBRUARY l7, 1970 The City Council of the City of Arcadia, California, met in regular session in the Council Chamber of the Arcadia City Hall on February l7, 1970, at 8:00 P.M. Mr, Eric Beckstrom, First Church of Christ, Scientist Mayor C. Robert Arth PRESENT: ABSENT: Councilmen Butterworth, Considine, Rage, Helms, Arth None MOTION by Councilman Helms, seconded by Councilman Considine and carried unanimously, the minutes of the regular meeting of February 3, 1970, was APPROVED. Appeal from the Planning Commission decision for denial of an applica- tion for a division of property at l20-l50 East Duarte Road. The Planning Director explained that the Commission denied the request when it became obvious that all of the property owners affected by the lot split would not or could not reach an agreement; that the Commission felt it could not in good conscience approve an illegal division of property as it would be tantamount to condoning illegal divisions which could have widespread implications affecting the entire city in its future growth pattern. He further stated in part that the applicant apparently had been an unwilling victim; that she had recourse through the courts if she so desired. Mayor Arth declared the hearing open and Mrs. Ilse E, Friedman, ll867 Sunset Boulevard, Los Angeles, stated in part that she was unaware of the situation at the time she purchased the subject property; that it was not until she applied for a modification to permit one additional sign that she was informed that the seller of the property, Lands and Buildings Company, had never legalized the property division; that unless some type of legalization is made the title to the property would be so clouded in perpetuity that it would be virtually impossible to effect a sale should the need to do so arise. She noted there was one property owner who would not discuss the problem. She asked for practical relief in some way. No, one else desiring to be heard the hearing was CLOSED on MOTION by Councilman Hage, seconded by Councilman Butterworth and carried unanimously. During the deliberations, Councilman Butterworth suggested continuing the hearing and subpoena the one opposing property owner and hear his explanation; Councilman Helms made reference to a communication from the 'Planning Department to Mrs. Friedman dated July 8, 1970, and stated in part that he would not approve an illegal lot split especially one involving commercial property. It was the consensus of Council that neither would it want to legalize such a property division, however, with the thought that perhaps some remedy coutd be found by bringing all the parties together it was MOVED by Councilman Butterworth, seconded by Councilman Ha~ and carried unanimously that the hearing be reopened and that the City Attorney be instructed to apply to a court of competent jurisdiction for the issuance of a subpoena orderi~g the party "in question, together with a request that a representative of tre Lands and Building Company, appear before Council on March l7 in connection with the applica- tion of Mrs. Friedman. The applicant to have her ~ttorney present also. - 1 - 2-l7-70 HEARING (Lot Split 1160 W. Orange Grove Avenue) //071-/1 l8:7578 Appeal filed by William Hovanitz from the decision of the Planning Commission in its denial of his application for a division of property at ll60 W. Orange Grove Avenue. FULL TRANSCRIPT OF THIS MATTER ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK. ALL EXHIBITS FILED DURING THE PROCEEDINGS ARE ALSO IN SAID OFFICE. A detailed explanation of the zoning requirements for the development of the subject property was made by a staff member of the Planning Department. He noted - in part - that the application for a lot split proposed to create four lots from one in an R-O zone which carries a requirement for 30,000 sq. ft. lots; that the width and depth of each parcel exceeds the minimum standards for the zone, I however, the total lot area of each parcel is below the requirement. The four parcels would carry dimensions of between 15,040 sq. ft and 19,774 sq. ft., as compared with the 30,000 sq. ft. regulation. He stated further in part that as an alternate it would be possible to create two lots from the one large parcel thus meeting the requirement. Circumstances surrounding the zoning requirement were chronologically explored and reference was made to Section 9lll.6 of the Arcadia Municipal Code whereby only the City Council can grant a variation from the requirement. It was noted that Tract 30284 (Green Oaks Drive) adjacent to the subject property - was developed by Mr. Hovanitz during a period when l5,000 sq. ft. was required, although deed restrictions called for 26,000 sq. ft., that as a result proceedings were instituted calling for 30,000 sq. ft. lots and that became a reality in November of 1965. The Planning Commission denied the subject application for division of the property and Mr. Hovanitz subsequently appealed that decision. Mayor Arth declared the hearing open and the following persons addressed Council. IN PART. Richard A. Levin, l843 Greenfield, Los Angeles, attorney for the applicant, stated that Mr. Hovanitz would first speak to the matter, then George Ripper and that he would later submit a presentation. He asked for and received permission to summarize his client's position. Prior to this, Mr. Levin remarked that in his opinion Councilman Butterworth might be biased in this matter by reason of the fact that at a time when the applicant was seeking permission to have another tract acted upon, Mr. Butterworth (not on t~ City Council at the time), appeared before the legislative body and opposed that application; that the issues involved although not identical, are similar and evidently Mr. Butterworth has formed an opinion with respect to lot size in the area; that he raised the question at this time as it might be necessary for him to ask Mr. Butterworth to disqualify himself from judgment in this matter. I Councilman Butterworth responded that, as an attorney himself, he recognized the obligation Mr. Levin has to his client and that the matter has been raised quite properly, however, he would analyze it differently; that it was correct that at a time when he was not a member of Council, he represented a property owner's association in connection with an application of Mr. Hovanitz for permission to subdivide property in the same area as that currently before Council; that he also was concerned about the possibility of a conflict in this situation and had addressed a letter to the City Attorney asking if there was legal conflict. He received a reply, indicating that he did not have a conflict; that therefore there is no necessity for him to disqualify himself; that he intends to participate in the proceedings and on that basis he respectfully disagreed with Mr. Levin; he contin- ued that while he resides in the area his home is sufficiently removed from the subject property that no matter how the decision goes it could not make any difference to him one way or another. - 2 - 2-17-70 l8:7579 I William Hovanitz, 1160 W. Orange Grove Avenue, made an extensive pre- sentation in part as follows; he felt he could speak with expertise on real estate values and sale prices of homes; by virtue of his building experience he had kept current on valuations. With regard to the original tract (No. 30284) those homes sold for between $74,000 and $79,000. That tract being adjacent to the property he is now seeking to subdivide into four lots. He filed a letter from a local realtor indicating the lots should bring a total of $l35,000. He exhibited and filed diagrams showing lot sizes and sales price therefor. The plan for the new development calls for three lots to face Michillinda Avenue and one facing Green Oaks Avenue-all of lesser dimension than the required 30,000 sq. ft. He felt that the intersection of Michillinda and Orange Grove Avenues with its traffic was a major factor in not holding to the 30,000 sq. ft" that the value of property on Michillinda Avenue is far less than the value of comparable property in any interior street in the Upper Rancho area; that it is a thoroughfare while directly across the street is the City of Pasadena with its Sears Shopping Center. He plans to construct homes at least equal to the size and value of those on the east side of Michillinda and north of Hampton Road and greater in value than those on the east of Michillinda south of Hampton Road; he felt that Orange Grove Avenue would not be affected as the north side of that street is in the City of Sierra Madre with relatively small lots with homes in the neighborhood of from $20,000 to $40,000. One of his exhibits indicated sale prices of homes sold during the last five years in the Upper Rancho which information was obtained from actual escrow and multiple listing data. Plans and landscaping proposed for the four lots were discussed. Some discussion held on a sewer line. He concluded by stating in part that there is no conceivable way the proposed development could depreciate the area, economically or esthetically. Mr. Levin then submitted a petition signed by l5 property owners in the immediate area of the proposed division of property wherein it was stated that the completion of the project would enhance property values; that if it were not allowed to proceed property values would be seriously affected by further deterioration of the land. It petitioned Council to reverse the decision of the Planning Commission and approve the lot split application. All exhibits and the document of appeal are in the record of the City Clerk. 'Mr. Levin introduced George Ripper, 499 N. Scanlon Drive, Beverly Hills, who stated in part that as an appraiser of residential properties he recognized that Orange Grove and Michillinda Avenues are both busy streets and if the proposed plan were allowed to go through it would be an added area of development; that at the present time the subject corner adds nothing to the neighborhood. I Mr. Levin prefaced his summation with a request which was granted for time for a rebuttal following any presentation by the opposition. He then s.tated in part: that an attempt has been made to show in the light of characteristics of the property that the type of homes which can be con- structed realistically will sell for approximately $70,000; that when ' property directly across the street is selling for far less and with frontage on a street with heavy traffic $l25,000 residences cannot be constructed and sold; that as long as the homes to be bui lt are comparable in ~ize to the homes adjacent to the subdivision, namely the Green Oaks development and Michillinda Avenue, there would be no adverse effect on the market value of surrounding properties; that it would not make economic sense, to insist upon the application of the 30,000 sq. ft. requirement on the subject property because no one would purchase a $l25,000 home at the intersection of Michillinda and Orange Grove Avenues; that it Wl uld place a hardship on the applicant if he were required to construct 30,000 sq. ft. homes; that the only alternative for Mr. Hovanitz would be to combine the lots into two. 2-l7-70 - 3 - l8: 7 580 He continued in part that it seems to him there is a question as to the constitutionality of the city enacting legislation which in effect substantially reduces the value of a person1s property without economic justification or without some type of a showing that it is really necessary to advance the economic interests of the community to protect property values. He said he was not challenging Council but felt Council should consider the reasonableness of the regulation specifically as it applies to the location of Michillinda and Orange Grove Avenues. He concluded by stating in part that what Mr. Hovanitz has done is of real value and an asset to the community; that if he were permitted to continue with his plan the City should be pleased and proud of the type of subdivision proposed with fine expensive residential homes. He urged a reversal of the decision of the Planning Commission. I In anSWer to a request of Council the City Attorney then read Section 9l11.6 of the Arcadia Municipal Code - "VARIATIONS. The Council, upon recommendation of the Planning Commission, or in the exercise of sound, reasonable judgment, after proof of necessity presented therefor and a finding by a majority of the members of the Council entered in the Council minutes that a variance is necessary, may grant such variations from the requirements of this Chapter if it thus determines to be warranted and required by reason of the size, use, shape, topography or other conditions of the property within the subdivision or of property adjacent thereto; provided, however, that no variations may be made of any requirements imposed by the Subdivision Map Act, except as therein provided." Councilman Helms stated in part that he had the benefit of being present during the proceedings before the Planning Commission and although Mr. Levin has made an interesting and thorough case, proof of necessity has not been shown to his satisfaction whereby the variance should be granted; that in light of the aforesaid code section, he felt Council should proceed at this point, It was the consensus of Council that it would like to hear from those in opposition to the appeal and Mayor Arth so called. Robert Quenell, 825 Singing Wood Drive, President of the Upper Rancho Santa Anita Association, expressed opposition to the granting of the appeal and stated in part that if it had not been for one of its members receiving a notice of the hearing, the association would not have known about it. He suggested a review of the requirement concerning notification and that it include a provision for property owner associations to be so notified. In his presentation Mr. Quenell reviewed statements made by Mr. Hovanitz and reference was made to the circumstances surrounding the approval of Tract 30284 (Green Oaks Avenue). He stated in part that at the time Mr. Hovanitz filed the final map of that particular subdivision he was fully aware of the strong community opposition as evidenced by the filing of a petition with 355 signatures of residents in the area; that a law suit had been filed by several residents in opposition to the plan. He then submitted two affidavits, one by the former Planning Director and one by his assistant. He observed that copies could be supplied Mr. Hovanitz and Mr. Levin if they so desired. He said his purpose in submitting these was to show that the planning department staff was not aware of the deed restrictions requiring 26,000 sq. ft. and it relied solely upon the regulation requiring l5,000 sq. ft. That the same staff urged, after consideration of all of the facts, the enactment of the present R-O zone requiring 30,000 sq. ft., that Mr. Hovanitz had opposed the legislation but the Council after reviewing all the facts did enact the requirement and denied Mr. Hovanitz' request that his property be excluded. He stated further in part that Mr. Hovanitz agreed to redesign the plans in I 2-l7-70 - 4 - l8:758l accordance with those worked out with the association to provide for fewer lots of a larger size, however, Mr. Hovanitz later changed his mind and reversed his decision. He then filed with the City Clerk a cOPY' of the association1s letter to Mr. Levin summarizing the agreement. He related circumstances surrounding the development of the original subdivision (Tract No. 30284). I In conclusion Mr. Quenell stated in part that reasons given by Mr. Hovanitz as to why the lot split would not be detrimental to surrounding neighborhood might apply if the property were in Pasadena or Sierra Madre, but is not true of property in Arcadia to the south and east of the subject land; that living in the Upper Rancho Santa Anita area is a way of life, not an economic consideration and is based on the desire of the residents to live in the peace and beauty of one of the most outstanding communities in Southern California; that it was for the preservation of this concept that Council adopted the R-O (30,000 sq. ft), That a further subdivision in the area and a repetition of Tract 30284 would be a tragedy and inconsistent with the action of a former City Council. He urged Council to reject the appeal and uphold the ruling of the Commission. Tad Fessendon, llOO W. Orange Grove Avenue, Vice President of the Upper Rancho Santa Anita Association, presented for the record and read in full a prepared statement made to the flanning Commission on January 27, 1970. A diagram was shown indicating the areas in which the persons signing the petition lived. This statement included comments concerning the present R-O zoning, the attempt made by the association five years ago to assist in working out a solution with Mr. Hovanitz of the overall problem of his entire property which suggestions had subsequently been rejected by Mr. Hovanitz, the current situation concerning the remaining parcel of property which is proposed for division contrary to the existing 30,000 sq. ft. regulation and the extreme concern of the property owners in the Upper Rancho Santa Anita area about the proposed lot split and its affect upon the community should the application be granted. In conclusion, Mr. Fessendon suggested that if there were doubts, one should visit the Green Oaks Avenue tract to see how close together are the houses; that it does not in any way conform to the type of property south of it on the east side of Michillinda or east of it on the south side of Orange Grove Avenue. I 'Mr. Hovanitz then addressed Council stating in part that at the time he asked Council to exclude the subject area, including Tract 30284, from the 30,000 sq. ft. requirement, he was told by the former Planning Director that due to resident emotion and problems involved at the time to let it go; that there would be no problem of getting lots of the size approved for the original tract when he so desired; that deed restrictions were known to staff before he submitted a plan. He concluded by sta~ing in part that it is not a matter of convenience, but' a matter of necessity that the property be divided in the requesied manner, and that as Councilman Butterworth observed the lot split would not affect his property which is, in his opinion, an indication it would not affect the Upper Rancho Santa Anita area. Mr. Levin then addressed Council stating in part that he had clocked a substantial flow of traffic at the subject intersection which would be a deterent to any higher priced homes than those proposed by his client; that he questions the reasonableness of the requirement; that the opposition of virtually all of the property owners in the area is not adequate reason for denial and that it would not adversely affect properties either economically or esthetically. He suggested conditions which could be placed on an approval such as providing for ample space between the houses; that the test must be objective and whether or not it is a reasonable development even if 99% of the area may for reasons of its own, rational or irrational, be opposed; that which should not be a consideration. 2-l7-70 - 5 - l8:7582 No one else desiring to be heard, the hearing was CLOSED on MOTION by ,Councilman Butterworth, seconded by Councilman Helms and carried unanimously. Councilman Considine stated in part that at the time Tract 30284 came into being there was much opposition, there were long hours of debate and discussion and as a result the R-O zone with its 30,000 sq. ft. came into existence; that knowing problems at that time the subdivision could have been completed as one unit with much less effort. That he is torn between something that seems to be a logical conclusion and something which is obviously in opposition to the existing ordinance; that the ~plicant filed for the lot split with the full knowledge of I' the ordinance; that it comes down to whether or not to maintain the requirement or to permit the subdivision to be completed in a manner originally conceived but never applied for. He referred to the deed restrictions protecting the Upper Rancho Santa Anita area; that the smaller lots in Tract 30284 were allowed to go in practically under the line during a period when the restrictions had elapsed and the R-O 30,000 sq. ft. did not apply. Mayor Arth stated in part that with regard to one of the contentions that the land is in a so-called fringe area - on a corner and bordering other cities - there are many other fringe areas and if zoning is not protected other areas then become apprehensive with property value loss. He cited examples with identical circumstances. He agreed with Mr. Considine that it is a matter of either maintaining zoning which has been set up for continuity to protect property values, or whether to permit developers to divide property in any manner any place in the City. Councilman Rage stated in part that prior to hearing the discussions this evening he had thought the logical step would have been to continue with the subdivision as originally planned; that now to hear how the 30,000 sq. ft. requirement was enacted and that the subdivider went ahead with the original tract with the knowledge that 30,000 sq. ft. would be required thereafter, he would not favor approving the subject lot split just because the original subdivision is now a reality. He favored up- holding the Commission's denial. Councilman Helms stated in part that pursuant to the Arcadia Municipal Code Section as read by the City Attorney, he concurred completely with the position taken by his colleagues. MOTION Councilman Butterworth stated in part that he also concurred in this particular matter; that an approval of the application could easily constitute a precedent not only in the Upper Rancho Santa Anita area but in others; while Council is not bound by the action of the Planning Commission it has been the custom of this body to think seriously on its recommendations unless it is demonstrated that it acted in an arbitrary or capricious manner. He agreed that under the code section the burden' of proof lies with the applicant and has not been met in his opinion. Whereupon he MOVED that it be the express finding of this Council that the Appellant has failed to show the necessary burden of proof or necessity to sustain the appeal under said code section and that the appeal be denied. Motion seconded by Councilman Helms and carried on roll call vote as follows: 1 AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Councilmen Butterworth, Considine, Hage, Helms, Arth None None 2-l7-70 - 6 - l8:7583 ~ / /'" PLANNING Council received the completed Initial Housing Element report in_order to (Initial qualify for planning assistance under the provisions of Section 70l Housing of the Housing Act of 1954, as amended. The document was approved Element) by the Planning Commission on February lO, 1970. lIt was MOVED by ff' ~ +: Councilman Hage, seconded by Councilman Considine and carried unanimously . "t~#' , - that the document be approved. 1 RECREATION COMMISSION (Little League Michi lUnda Park) It &7"~./' APPROPRIATION' FOR PATH R '. Jl;xlv, VARIANCE EXTENDED 30 DAYS (Howser) f' /0'1-/ 1 On December 12, 1969, the Arcadia Coast Little League submitted to the Recreation Commission, a request for a new backstop on the baseball field located on the Hugo Reid Primary School grounds (also known as Michillinda Park). The playground on said property has a joint city- school USe. It was noted in the initial request that the Board of Directors of the Coast Little League had pledged a cash payment of $500 and the Rancho Santa Anita Association had pledged $300. The Commission recommended that the $800 offered jointly be accepted and that the City provide the necessary additional funds for the construction of a combination backstop and foultip screen at the park. MOTION by Councilman Considine, seconded by Councilman Hage and carried unanimously that the offers be accepted. It was noted that staff will take advantage of the availability of fill dirt from the reservoir for a complete redevelopment not only to install a new backstop but relocate and improve the entire field at the subject location. The Recreation and Youth Commissions recommended the appropriation of $700 from the Recreation Department budget for use by Path as it deems necessary. Councilman Helms stated in part that the teen center is a highly desirable activity for the youth of the city and MOVED to approve the recommendation and that staff be authorized to APPROPRIATE $700 from Account 450-25-l (Recreation - Youth Contingency Account) for use at the teen center for such purpose as the Path Board of Directors deem necessary. Motion seconded by Councilman Considine and carried on roll call vote as follows: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Councilmen Butterworth, Considine, Hage, Helms, Arth None None A request for an extension of his variance on property at 24l W. Colorado Boulevard to July l, 1970, had been filed by Fred N. Howser. The variance had been granted by Resolution No. 4040 permitting the, construction of a l7 unit complex, extensions had been granted with the last to expire February 19, 1970. The communication from Mr. Howser indicated efforts to proceed had been made, but with the difficulties of the cost of construction and the current money market it, had been impossible to get started. It was noted that Mr. Howser had recently applied to the Planning Commission for permission ,to increase the units to 20; that the request had been denied by the Commission as it felt a new set of plans was indicated. The denying resolution would be on the Commission's agenda for February 23 and there would be a ten day appeal period thereafter. ,It was the consensus of Council that the matter would be better resolved as a unit and Councilman Helms MOVED to grant an extension to March l7, 1970. Motion seconded by Councilman Considine and carried on roll call vote as follows: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Councilmen Butterworth, Considine, Hage, Helms, Arth None None 2-l7-70 - 7 - CONTRACT AWARD ST. JOSEPH RESERVOIR NO. 2 AND NEW ROOF NO. 1 /' /19~ WAB&PA (Art Show) II.' P F( V :/..d ,;Jj., tl. ti l /. KITCHEN EXHIBIT 11- ';0 IV ~J. ti ;!/ fJ AMENDED UTILITIES AGREEMENT -/-;l7/-J:? GASOLINE PURCHASE 1970-71 /:/O~D l8:7584 The City'Manager reported and recommended the contract award on bids received for the construction of St. Joseph Reservoir No.2 (Schedule I) and for a new roof at St. Joseph Reservoir No. 1 (Schedule III). The consulting engineer, Ken ,Mullen, explained that the anticipated life of a new roof would be close to 25 years. Staff will provide information on the actual life of the old roof. It was MOVED by Councilman Considine, seconded by Councilman Helms and carried on roll call vote as follows, that the contract for the con- struction of the St. Joseph Reservoir No.2 (Schedule I) be awarded to J. D. Diffenbaugh, Inc., in the amount of $556,565, and'that the contract for the new roof at the St. Joseph Reservoir No. 1 (Schedule III) in the 1 amount of $26,587 be awarded to J. Putnam Henck; that all other bids be rejected; that any informalities or irregularities in the bids or bidding process be waived, and that the Mayor and City Clerk be and they are hereby AUTHORIZED to execute the documents in form approved by ,the City Attorney. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Councilmen Butterworth, Considine, Hage, Helms, Arth None None Funds for these projects - Water Department Acct 470-70 (Schedule I) Water Department Depreciation Reserve Account (Schedule III) It was MOVED by Councilman Helms, seconded by Councilman Butterworth and carried unanimously that the request of the West Arcadia Business and Professional Association for permission to hold a children's Clothesline Art Show on March 7, 1970, be APPROVED. Locations will be the east and west sides of Baldwin Avenue between Duarte Road and Naomi Avenue, and in the Golden West Village Shopping area. All installations will be subject to the approval of the Director of .Public Works and insurance must be in force. It was MOVED by Councilman Considine, seconded by Councilman Hage and carried unanimously that the request of the West Arcadia Business and Professional Association for permission to conduct a mobile home kitchen decorator exhibit for a three week period during March or April be APPROVED. To be held in the parking area west of the stores on Baldwin Avenue between Duarte Road and Naomi Avenue. The approval made subject to inspection by the Fire and Building Departments. It was MOVED by Councilman Considine, seconded by Councilman Hage and carried unanimously that the Amendment to Utilities Agreement No. 7Ut-34l9 in connection with relocation work necessitated by construction of the Foothill Freeway, Road 07-LA-2l0, 30,1/32.6 between Santa Anita Avenue and Huntington Drive be APPROVED and that the Mayor and City 1 Clerk be and they are hereby AUTHORIZED to execute the agreement. On recommendation of the City Manager and the Finance Director it was MOVED by Councilman Hage, seconded by Councilman Butterworth and carried on roll call vote as follows, that the City indicate its intent to be included in the call for bids by Los Angeles County for the purchase of gasoline under the Cooperative Agreement for the ensuing fiscal year, that the Finance Director be and he is hereby AUTHORIZED to so notify the County Purchasing Agent. (Council expressed interest in knowing how much of a savings was effected by this arrangement). AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Councilmen Butterworth, Considine, Hage, Helms, Arth None None 2-17-70 - 8- HEARING SCHEDULED /f --' .t:.v>telAJ ' ..;;r '- ' of ," , &f 'U/,.JI., I ;1 , DEBRIS BASIN REPORT" I _1' I..AJ r4 ~,,i;~.( I ICE SKATING P1;~:'1 , ,f ,- v fA V'! .~ 18:7585 On MOTION by Councilman Helms, seconded by Councilman Butterworth and carried unanimously, March 3, 1970, was set as the date for the public hearing on the proposed five year Capital Program, Council received the staff report on the 'progress being made at the Santa Anita Debris Disposal site (dated February l3, 1970). It was noted that comments made by the Los Angeles County' Flood Control District are now a matter of record and afford a.basis for future negotiations pertaining to the subject area. The Director of Public Works felt that the hazard no longer exists. It was noted that the fourth grade students at Holly Avenue School had signed a petition expressing appreciation for the action taken by the city in approving sites for ice skating. A letter will go to the class with a copy of the effecting Ordinance (No. l408). AUDIENCE PARTICIPATION J- 1;,-;3 ORDINANCE NO. l408 INTRODUCED RESOLUTION NO. 5014 ADOPTED / 1 RESOLUTION NO. .ooTI 0'/.>'- ADOPTED George Gaffney, 935 W, Duarte Road, addressed council asking that information be made available to him concerning the improvement of Duarte Road, its cost for different portions of the street; what certain property acquisitions cost and when the unfinished street work will be completed. Staff will so provide. The City Attorney presented for the first time, explained the content and read the tit le of Ordinance No. l408, ent it 1 ed: "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA ADDING SECTION 9275.l.50.l TO THE ARCADIA MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS FOR ICE SKATING RINKS." It was MOVED by Councilman Helms, seconded by Councilman Considine, and carried on roll call vote as follows, that the reading of the full body of Ordinance No. l408 be WAIVED and that same be and it is hereby INTRODUCED. '--- AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Councilmen Butterworth, Considine, Hage, Helms, Arth None None The City Attorney presented, explained the content and read the title of Resolution No, 50l4, entitled; "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA IN MEMORY OF THE HONORABLE GLENARD P. LIPSCOMB." It was MOVED by Councilman Helms, seconded by Councilman Considine and carried on roll call vote as follows, that the reading of the full body of Resolution No. 5014 be WAIVED and that same be and it is hereby ADOPTED. , AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Councilmen Butterworth, Considine, Hage, Helms, Arth None None The City Attorney presented, explained the content and read the title of Resolution No, 50l5, entitled: "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA DECLARING ITS INTENTION TO VACATE HAVEN AVENUE BETWEEN SANTA ANITA AVENUE AND FIRST AVENUE." J-; )J ,;13 It was MOVED by Councilman Hage, seconded by Councilman Butterworth and carried on roll call vote as follows, that the reading of the full body of Resolution No. 5015 be WAIVED and that same be and it is hereby adopted. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Butterworth, Considine, Hage, Helms, Arth Councilmen None None - 9 - 2-l7-70 HELMS /' CONSIDINE / MINI BIKES PROCEDURE (Hearings) ADJOURNMENT l8:7585 Because of the concern expressed by Councilman Helms at the plight of residents in certain areas where markets have closed, staff was asked to study the situation to ascertain what, if anything, could be done to alleviate the problem. Reported On forthcoming taxation initiative measures which was discussed at a recent League of California meeting. Staff will endeavor to obtain more concise data. Councilman Butterworth stated in part that some thought should be given to making locations available for the young people to ride mini bikes and MOVED that the Recreation and Youth Commissions investigate forthwith the feasibility of locating an area where mini bikes could be lawfully and safely ridden without noise disturbance to the residents. Motion seconded by Councilman Helms and carried unanimously. 1 With refe~ence to notification to interested persons in matters requiring public hearings involving property, it was noted that the Planning Commission, on its own initiative, has instituted a study in this regard. At ll:30 P.M., it was MOVED by Councilman Helms, seconded by Councilman Butterworth and carried unanimously that the meeting ADJOURN sine die. c/~~~ Mayor ATTEST: ~4~~;Ug~~ City Clerk \ 1 2-l7-70 - lO -