Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutNOVEMBER 1,1988_3 '30: 0259 CITY COUNCIL PROCEEDINGS ARE TAPE RECORDED AND ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK I INVOCATION PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL MINUTE V APPROVAL (Oct. 20. 1988) (APPROVED) ORD. & RES. ./ READ BY TITLE ONLY CLOSED SESSION I 1. PUBLIC HEARING (Appeal - Plan.Coms'n Approval of Dwelling - 1035 Hampton (DENIED) Rd.) j.)~ -(\1) \cf' ,'-< 0'0 \'''~ M I NUT E S CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA and the ARCADIA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY REGULAR MEEtING NOVEMBER 1. 1988 The City Council and the Arcadia Redevelopment Agency met in a regular session at 7:30 p. m.. November 1. 1988 in the Arcadia City Hall Council Chamber. First Counselor Reid Gunnell. Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints Councilmember Charles E. Gilb PRESENT: ABSENT: Councilmembers Chandler. Gilb. Lojeski. Young and Harbicht None On MOTION by Councilmember Lojeski. seconded by Councilmember Young and CARRIED. the Minutes.of the Adjourned and Regular meetings of October 20. 1988 were APPROVED. It was MOVED by Councilmember Gilb, seconded by Councilmember Young and CARRIED that Ordinances and Resolutions be read by title only and that the reading in full be waived. The City Manager announced that "the City and the Arcadia Redevelop"; ,ment Agency met in a CLOSED SESSION pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.8 to give instructions to the Agency's negotiator regarding the potential acquisition of property at 112 North First Avenue and the Agency's negotiation with Grand Avis of Arcadia and to discuss negotia- tions with S & W Corporation regarding 162 - 164 East Huntington Drive". The Planning Commission at its meeting of September 17. 1988 voted 5 to o to adopt Resolution 1390 approving a two-story 7,137 sq. ft. home with an attached 4-car garage at 1035 Hampton Road (MP'88-023) and over-ruling the Rancho Santa Anita Property Owners' appeal. On'October 1. 1988. the Rancho Santa Anita Property Owners' Association appealed the Planning Commission's decision. The owners proposed a plan which called for a dwelling with a maximum height of 34'9" with the main ridge a height of 29'6". The Planning Commission hearing was continued from August 23 to September 13 in order to permit the owners' and Association time to resolve the differences. At the Commission's September 13 meeting, the owners submitted a revised elevation in which the maximum dwell- ing height had been reduced to 32'7" and the main ridge reduced to 28'. This is a 1'6" reduction. The Planning Commission was con- cerned with the visual impact of the proposed dwelling::and with ",the concerns expressed by those in opposition to the project. The Com- mission subsequently approved the project but required an additional l"reduction in the dwelling's height. The maximum height approved by the Commission was limited to 31' 7" with the main ridge being reduced to 27' and the turrets also reduced an additional foot from the owner's revised plan. The net result is that the maximum building height was reduced 3'2" and the main ridge height was reduced 2'6" from -1- 11/1/88 IN:'FAVOR OF APPEAL 30:0260 the applicant's original proposal. Following ,the Commission's September 13 meeting, while drafting the:Commission's resolution, it Was noted that the Commission did not state at which point on the curb the 35'. above curb measurement was to be taken. Because the owner and opponents of the project might subsequently disagree as to the point on the curb from which any building height measurement should be taken, the resolution was drafted to achieve the intent of the Commission without reference to the curb. From notes and recollec- tion of the meeting, the Commission's intent waS to require the lowering of the dwelling an additional foot below that shown on the applicant's revised plan. The Commissioner who made the motion was called to be sure that Was his intent. He confirmed. The resolution Was drafted accordingly and adopted 5-0 by the Commission at its September 27 meeting. The transcript of the Commision's motion clearly sets forth their intent which is reflected in the resolution and adopted by the Commission. Mayor Harbicht noted that the Council had been supplied with the testimony given before the Planning Commission, various letters pertinent to this matter as well as the Resolution adopted by the Planning Commission. I Mayor Harbicht declared the hearing open. Chris Brown, 980 Singing Wood Drive, President of the Rancho Santa Anita HOmeOwners' Association, presented a short history of the situation and explained why the HOA was unable to act in time. Petitions for and against the project have been circulated around the neighborhood... he feels roughly 80% of the residents are against the project as presented. The special committee formed at the suggestion of the Planning Com- mission was also against it. He referred to Resolution 5288 which forms rules and regulations for development in that area. It was ;felt the proposed house is too massive in design with a high roof line and additional turrets and ridges towering even higher. It is designed to look even more massive than actual dimensions suggest. Also it is on top of a knoll for' an additional 8 - 10 feet. There are also objections to the proposed materials. He presented pictures of similar structures built by this developer and outlined differences between those houses and the proposed structure. The special committee suggested a compromise allowing the developer to choose his design, colors, building materials, etc. and set the building height at 835' (sea level) .,. between 5' and 6' difference of opinion. The last offer from the developer was about 10" higher. The Planning Commission lowered the major part of the house an additional l' so it is now 2' lower than in June. He does not feel that 'is a compromise. He felt the building pad could be lowered be- tween 3 and 4 feet perhaps by being "scrapped" off. Perhaps another foot or two could be taken out of the structure itself. This:'compromise would not be disruptive nor would it stop the development. Asked Council to give everyone involved a compromise. Councilmember Gilb noted that the original height of the building was 292' and is now down to 27' so the developer ,has dropped it 22' from the roof line down. Mr. Brown replied that in the June 10 meeting they were offered 3' off but the neighborhood did not want that ... and it's now at 22'. The lot elevation is roughly 8 - 10' above curb. He reiterated that perhaps the building pad could be scrapped to be level with the curb. The present house is to be torn down; bulldozer could cut building pad 4' deeper. Further discussion ensued regarding the various proposed heights. Councilmember Young noted that the property is on the uphill side of the mountain; if the lot is dug down 4' it will be lower than the houses on either side. How will it look and what will the drainage be? Mr. Brown replied the Association will bypass the issue of the materials, etc., but they want the house to be no higher than other houses on the street ... whether they lower the house or scrape the pad. This is a compromise. I H. R. Stoke, 1040 Hampton Road, stated, in part, that the Mayor had inquired about fue height of the proposed building. He said it would be 42' high ... now the range is somewehat up to 42'. They want it to be compatible with other houses on Hampton Road and other houses in 11/1/88 -2- I I IN OPPOSITION 30:0261 the Upper Rancho. He feela the neighborhood is faced with an excessive, massive, oversized house which is not in harmony nor compatible with ," the neighborhood. Made further reference to Resolution 5288 regarding development and intended to protect neighborhood ... they are seeking that protection. He also gave a brief history of the pertinent meet- ings. The Committee recommended to the Commission that it select a height of 35' above the curb line. The Director of Planning suggested that there should be a maximum elevation so there is no problem with the slope of the street. Mr. Stoke felt that the Commission had not adequately considered Resolution No. 5288 in its deliberations; the Commission merely dropped the building height by 1', wherever it was located on the site. Rules of development in this part of the City include Resolution No. 5288. Motion by Commission was no more than what WaS offered by the developer. He does not feel this is really a compromise. This project does not meet the standards of accept- ability to the neighborhood. Councilmember Gilb noted that Mr. Brown has said the house was not harmonious, but that had to do with the height of the house; therefore he did not understand why a similar house on Singing Wood was harmonious; but this one was not. Mr. Stoke replied there were several circumstances differentiating the two houses. Councilmember Gilb said it seemd to him that the only remaining issue was the height. Mr. Stoke said there were several other issues offered as compromise. Bob Henkel, 1065 Singing Wood Drive, stated, in part, he has been on the review board for approximately 1i year and he has some background in building. He spoke again about the problem of the height of the proposed house... the need to get the roof line down to a point where it is not objectionable. He feels it is possible to lower the roof 'line in this case. Other property Gnlers in the area have done this. Councilmember Gi1b again'inquired if the problem here was to lower the roof not to place the house in a lower position since the drive- ways, landscaping and entryway are already in place. Mr. Henkel agreed. Jack Saelid, 821 Balboa stated, in part, that he is urging the City Council to uphold Resolution 5288 in terms of the criteria established for review of these kinds of projects. He feels the biggest factor to be considered is the massiveness and harmony and compatibility with adjacent structures. He does not feel it will be harmonious and compatible if there is a significant change in the elevation and roof line with adjacent structures. He hopes that Council will uphold the requirements of Resolution 5288. Mack Turner, 1130 Fallen Leaf Road, stated, in part, he is on the Board of Directors of the Association and he feels the major difference be- tween this proposed building and the Singing Wood building is that the Singing Wood house is down mountain on the south side of Singing Wood; the one on Hampton is on the up mountain side to the north. The new houae will block the view of some of the adjacent houses. He hopes Council will vote to uphold the appeal. Fred Jose, 1004 Singing Wood Drive, stated, in part, the Homeowners' Association and the Architectural Review Board are in place to review new development in the neighborhood and unless, them are abuses, should be upheld by the Planning Commission and the City Council. He wants Council to support the Homeowners' Association. He does not feel there are any abuses in this situation. Councilmember Gilb noted that this project had gone to the ARB and it was not heard in the time allotted, therefore, according to the rules, it was considered to be approved. Richard Ashworth, Attorney representing Mr. & Mrs. Owen, applicants and home owners, 1112 Fair Oaks Avenue, South Pasadena, stated, in part, that the question of compromise has come up. The two sides could not agree on a compromise. The matter was brought back to the Planning Commission who made a determination and compromised on both positions. They are willing to accept that compromise. Firstly, he referred to engineering section drawings (Exhibits F & G) ,which show the angle and show that if 'one stands on the curb, the height of this house is 11/1/88 -3- 30:0262 in relationship to other homes on the block. The Planning Commission took that into consideration. Second, is the question of the trees. Mr. Brown alludes to a tree on this property. The Planning Commission in finding No.2, states that other trees on the street do block the view of the mountains. Third, is the question of compatibility. They asked the Planning Commission to consider two other homes: 754 Singing Wood approved by the HOA December 21, 1983 and 905 W. Footbill approved by the HOA on July 22, 1984. They feel those homes are compatible homes. Mr. Owen did not state that he intended to replicate the house at 10 Las Flores. That residence was 'mentioned only in reply to a question about possible types of materials. Some of the materials may be similar to those used in that house. Another question that Was brought up had to do with the use of the property. The term I "developer" has been used. Mr. Owen is a real estate developer by profession; this is his own home; he does not intend to build this home for resale; this home is designed for use by his family. Mr. Owen is not acting as a developer; he is a home owner asking that this particular house be built. Mr. Stoke had stated at one point that his committee had been threatened with civil action. This is not correct. Mr. Owen has a 5-0 vote in favor by the Planning Commission with compromise from both positions. They are happy to accept the Planning Commission decision. Rick Owen, 1035 Hampton Road, stated, in part, that although he is a developer by trade, he does not plan to build this house for specula- tion; he and his family plan to live in it. Councilmember Gilb in- quired if the present compromise was as far as he was willing to go. Answer affirmative. The Director of Planning inquired about the difference in elevation of the front doors of the existing house vs. the proposed house. Mr. .Owen replied the front door level of the proposed house would be the Same level as it is now; the rest of the house will actually be lower. Present house has a conventional floor; proposed house will have a slab floor. The main floor will be 18" lower. John Macardican, 1320 Glencoe, stated that he would be proud to have this home in his neighborhood. Martin Wright, 1434 Sanna Margarita, atated, in,part, that he has followed this process from the first meeting and from that point to this meeting this evening; a lot of turmoil has been building involving the whole neighborhood. Mr. Stoke lives across., the street and is concerned about his view of the mountains; Mr. Wright wondered how much time Mr. Stoke spends in his front yard trying to see the mountains over Mr. Owen's house. There had been trees on that property which towered far above the top of the house. Mr. Stoke could not have seen the mountains at that time or at this time. He feels Mr. Owen should be allowed to build his home. Perhaps Mr. Stoke feels the proposed house would be intimidating. Mr. Stoke said earlier that if the proposed house sat on two acres, he would feel differently about it. Mr. Owen should not be penalized for being on the north I side of the street; the house will be compatible with the neighborhood. Council should look at whether it fits within the criteria of what the City requires. James ~. Lee, 965 Fallen Leaf Road, stated, in part, that he urged Council to support the Owen family's right to build the home of their choice. (1) Property owners are asked to sign a petition against the proposed house because some called it "grotesque". In reality, the style is a time-honored and revered architectural style. (2) Property owners were also asked to sign the petition because the house was too massive. This ~ironic and unfair when at least one officer and board member of the Association which is challenging the Owens lives in a house which is bigger and is on a smaller lot. This is unfair. (3) Property owners were asked to sign also because at least one resident was going to have his view impaired. This is not unusual -- the majority of the 17 houses on the north side of Hampton Road and a majority of the 16 hcv.ses on the north side of Fallen Lcaf block the view of their neighbors on the south side of the street. Neighbors 11/1/88 -4- I IN REBUTTAL I 30:0263 " who have lived in a friendly manner for decades are now being beseiged by complaints and petitions. He requests that Council be fair and allow the Owen fam~ly to build their house. Milton Miller, 1060 Hampton Road, stated, in part, that, apart from Mr. Stoke, he is the closest neighbor. He has come to support the, Owen family in their request to build their house. He stated that the neighborhood presently contains houses of many different styles. He walks Hampton almost every morning and the only time he can see the mountains from almost any house is when he walks up his own driveway no other house allows a view of the mountains. The height of this ,:; proposed structure is irrelevant. Perhaps many of the neighbors will have to see to the appearan~of their homes and yards to continue to make the neighborhood harmonious after this beautiful house is built. He urged Council to grant the freedom that American gives to the Owen family to build their house. Mike Magana, 1025 Hampton Road, stated, in part, that although he is a new neighbor, he has lived in Arcadia all his life and that he is in favor of the Owen home. Council has the responsibility of weighing special interest objectives against other considerations -- the imperatives of the law, for one; fairness and equity for two. He feels the petitioners who have appeared here have been mean spirited and contemptious of respect for the rule of law. The City should not satisfy a special interest group. g. ~. Stoke, 1040 Hampton Road, stated, in rebuttal, that he had not made comments about fue view and if Mr. Miller could not see the mountains, then he had not walked down the street in front of the Owen's house. In reply to the comments about special interests, his only interest is in not having pushy developers. They ask,for fairness. Chris Brown, 980 Singing Wood Drive, stated, in part, that the delay in originally hearing the proposal had been occasioned by the illness of Ed Daniell. They had explained this to the Planning Commission. He understood that 10 W. Las Flores was offered by Mr. Owen as an example of the materials of choice; but if that is not what the house is going to be he will be glad to look at another set of materials. Resolution 5a88 addresses materials; he tried to avoid addressing materials with the compromise. He had heard indirectly that Mr. Owen did intend to build and sell. He asked Council to note the neighbor- hood petition count. No one else desiring to be heard, the hearing was CLOSED on MOTION by Councilmember Chandler, seconded by Councilmember Lojeski and CARRIED. Councilmember Chandler stated, in part, that recently the City Council passed a rule that says that the highest a home Can be built, according to the size of the lot, is 35 feet throughout the City... so that is the maximum height. That height is measured at the grade level of the pad that the home is being built on, not from the curb nor from sea level. So, as the general City law goes, this house is less than the maximum height required. He feels that a home that does clearly fall within the prescribed laws is a difficult one to deny by just trying to stretch the interpretation of the rules. We are not living in a socialistic type of society... the main objective of our type of government is to give individuals as much freedom as possible. There is no decided evidence that this home which falls:,within the purviews of the laws of the City, is going to hurt anybody else's rights. He will vote .to deny.' Councilmember Young stated, in part, that she agreed with Council. member Chandler, She feels when one talks about harmony in a home, it is in the eye of the beholder. A house of stone is new to this part of the country; it is a change. Sometimes people who have lived in an area for a long time don't like change. This house conforms, has no problem with relation of size to the piece of property and meets every City Code; it is hard to turn it down. She will also vote against the appeal. 11/1/88 -5- 30:0264 Councilmember Lojeski stated, in part, that he agreed with' Council- member Young that many times we are getting confused with harmony and architectural styling; this type of styling is a change; time will tell if it is good or bad. In thiscsituation, the developer and architect have worked within the parameters of the City's Codes; there are no modification requests; no modification for height of the structure; second story setback, rear or front yard setbacks -- all conform to City Code. It was Council's job to hear the presentations tonight and to read the literature concerning it. He has no basis with which to deny this project. He, 'too, will 'vote to deny the appeal. Councilmember Gilb stated, in part, that he probably knows more about ,this area than anybody because he has lived there a long time. He has some problem with the Tudor style -- but that is only his personal I opinion; this has nothing to do with his decision as a Councilmember. We have all types of houses now. The Association itself, as a police network for the area, has done an excellent job. John Schiavone asked him to note ~at he was in favor of the project. A number of people in the area had, told him they were not against the house per se; they wanted a number of concessions on the house. He had recently voted against a house on Columbia Drive because he had felt it was too large for the lot. He noted that he has never seen such a turmoil over a house in the years he has lived in the area. There are no modifications being requested for the house; some concessions have been asked for from the owner; the roof line has been lowered by 2! feet. It is unreasonable to ask this owner to dig down 3 - 4 feet into the gorund when their driveways and front yard are already laid out. He is going to vote in favor of, the house. He is more concerned about the harmony of the build- ing materials than the height. He is going to find in favor of what the Planning Commission decided and against the appellants. He must in conscience do this. Mayor Harbicht stated, in part, that he has listened carefully to all the testimony given tonight and has reviewed the Planning Commission testimony given on two occasions,plus all the written testimony. He noted that the Architectural Review Board wanted support from Council because they had power to make such decisions. But neither the ARB nor the Council has absolute power -- they must work within the laws. This_is the land of 'the free -- we don't restrict people's freedoms unless there is a very compelling reason to do so; Council certainly won't do it because a majority of the people don't like what is being proposed.'. He is a conservative. He does not think government' on any level should inject itself into people's lives unless there is a very good reason to do'so. Perhaps if someone's actions will bring economic harm to someone else or what they are going to do is so outrageous that it will do' irreparable hanm to the quality of someone's life. He does not see that here. Addressing a few specific points, he went on to mention the matter of this house blocking someone's view of the mountains. The property owner has the right to build a two story house and the fact that he is going to exercise that right should not cause someone to become angry because they are losing their view of the mountains ... they should be happy that they have been able to ,1oak..at ,thee mountains I sll the previous years.' The comment had been made that this house 'is out crcharacter with the neighborhood. Virtually every home in the Upper Rancho is architect designed and is unique ... there are many different styles. He believes the character of this neighborhood is that each house is special. This is the finest residential area in the City snd he does not believe that building this house will detract from that status at all; Whether or not he likes the style is immaterial. The question is, is it outlandish or outrageous or will it destroy neighborhood values. He does not see that it is -- certainly not to the point where they should take away someone's property rights. He is going to vote to deny the appeal. 11/1/88 -6- I 2. PUBLIC HEARING FJ~ T.A. 88-003 \: (Fireplace Encroach. in Side Yard Setback (APPROVED) (Escabl. 40% Bldg.: Floor Area to Lot Area Ratio) (NO ACTION) I IN FAVOR 30:0265 It was MOVED by Councilmember Lojeski, seconded by Councilmember Young and CARRIED on roll call vote as follows to DENY the appeal and APPROVE the proposed two-story 7,137 sq. ft. home with attached four car garage at 1035 Hampton and direct staff to prepare an appropriate resolution in support of that decision, particularly in support of the decision that had been made previously by the Planning Connnission. Councilmember Gilb inquired about the height. Councilmember Lojeski answered it was to be in accordance with the Planning Connnission decision. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Councilmembers Chandler, Gilb, Lojeski, Young and Harbicht None None Mayor Harbicht connnented that "Arcadia is known as a Connnunity of Homes and, as a connnunity of homes, it is almost implicit thatcit is a connnunity of neighborhoods. I hope that we all recognize that this was an argument of issues and they were issues upon which reasonable people might disagree. I am hoping that the neighborhood will now come back together and welcome the new neighbors; the neighbors won't hold resentment against those who opposed what they wanted to do. This- has run its course. Everyone has had ample opportunity to express his feelings and it has now been decided. I think it is time to mend fences and I hope that the Association will continue ,and that the neighborhood will continue as a neighborhood". CITY COUNCIL RECESSED AND THEN RECONVENED Consideration of Text Ame'ndment 88-003 to amend "Exception 3" of Section 9252.2.4, 9252.2.5, 9252.2.11.1 and 9252.2.11.2 of the R-I zone relating to encroachment of fireplaces in the side yard setback and adding Sections 9250.3.13, 9251.1.2.11 and 9252.2.14 to R-M, R-O and R-l zones establishing a maximum floor area to lot area ratio for all buildings and structures on a lot. The Planning Com- mission at its September 27, 1988 meeting reconnnended approval of this text amendment establishing a maximum allowable floor area for all buildings and structures in the R-M, R-l and R-O zones not to exceed 40% of the lot area and to reduce the maximum allowable encroachment of fireplaces in the required R-l side yard setback from 2 feet to 1 foot. All the staff reports and minutes from the Planning Com- mission meeting, the finlings and motions are set forth in the staff report of November 1, 1988 and a Negative Declaration has been prepared. Mayor Rarbicht pointed out that three issues were to be considered: 1) To decide whether or not there should be a limitation on floor area. 2) If the answer is yes, what percentage should that be? And, 3) The quesiton of chimney projections into side/yard setbacks. Whereupon the Mayor then opened the public hearing. Steve Philipi, 804 Balboa Drive, President of the Santa Anita Village Homeowners' Association, spoke in support of the proposed restriction, in particular the 40% building area to lot size which he feels is particularly significant to the Village area where there are smaller lot sizes than the Upper Rancho and the Oaks. Referring to the issue of new home construction and the homeowners' association resolution setting forth standards of approval such as "compatibility", "harmonious" and "in proportion", while these standards can easily be applied to room additions and roof replacements, they: are -difficult to ,apply to new construction. He believes it is important to pass the new 40% restriction since the homeowners' associations will have to rely more and more on the Building Code to accomplish their goals. Harry Rill, 1540 Ryland Avenue, stated, in part, that he Came to petition Council to set the maximum 40% building size to lot ratio. The lots on his street are 90 by 120 feet, developed in the late 40's by a Mr. Turner. A-property was purchased in the neiKhborhood; the 11/1/88 -7- ,~ !' ~ft' 30:0266 house wss demolished snd replaced with a new house of 5,000 square feet and 35 feet in height. He bel~ves that this is overbuilding .. on a 9,000 square foot lot and hates.to see the deterioration of whole neighborhoods. Herb Fletcher, 175 West Lemon, stated, in part, that Council might want to give a break to a person who would be willing to build a single story house and then require a person who had a two-story house to leave more space around it ... then two-story houses might not seem so oppressive. Mayor Harbicht~responded that Council had in fact done that when the R-l zoning was revised earlier this year requiring additional setbacks on second stories. I Wallace Qua, 1605 Hyland Avenue, with reference to the new 5,000 square foot home on Hyland, stated, in part, this house is twice the size of the other homes on the street and ab~ut 2i times the height. The sheer bulk of the house he feels is out of' context with the entire area. His only question with respect to the 40% building area to lot size ratio is ... should it be 30%? . . Mayor Harbicht noted that this larger house on Hyland was probably I or at least in plan check prior to the recent change in the ordinance reducing height anq~~equiring a. step in the second , OJ' built, zoning story. Byron Dickson, 225 West Lemon, stated, in psrt, that he is one of the people in South Arcadia involved with forming a homeowners' association in that area ... he is not all that in favor of doing so now. In talk- ing with the residents about a possi9+e homeowners' association, he finds they are mostly concerned about"h:f,e!"size fX homes, and not so much the' architectural style or color.' 'Others he talked to commented that they are opposed to the formation of an associatiOln:1 because they believe there will be too much government intervention, that we have a City Council to make the laws and regulations and he agrees with this also. He is in favor of the 40% building area to lot size ratio re- commended by the Planning Commissio~,. . . '...~. OPPOSED Gordon Maddock, 900 South First Avenue, stated, in part, that he .has been involved in the planning process in bringing new home developments before Council for 25-26 years. He has always tried to participate in the decision making process of the Council by his input to help make a better decision or at least have more facts before a decision is made. He has three reasons for objeeting to this proposed change at this point in time. One -- The ordinance was changed earlier this year ... that change in the ordinance has not had enough time to really work in the City. In reference to the process in preparation of the new ordinance, builders and architects were brought together to work with the Planning staff, they met with the Village Homeowners' Association to determine what elements of change should be made. A lot of things were brought together, there were a few differences, Council I then made the final decision on those few differences. This process resulted in a good change in the ordinance that addressed some of the . problems. Architecturally, he believes, it broke up the mass problem which is spoken of more than any other concern. It did reduce the building area and as he understands it, building plans are just start- ing to come in under the new ordinance. This 'new ordinance has not yet had a chance to really prove itself. ' Two -- This proposed new change in the ordinance would drastically reduce the square footage of homes and, therefore, the value of the property. In appraising property, the most valuable part of the property that is properly improved is the structure itself. The building is around 75% to 80% of the total value of the property, therefore, when the size or square footage is reduced, the value of a piece of property is drastically reduced. The ordinance (text amendment) now before Council not only affects new con~truction, it -8- . ~\1t'.~~", 1;). ,. ,~~' .1, , -: - 'io,.,~'~.-. . .:,.('. 11/1/88 30:0267 also drastically affects any remodeling or add-ons and so forth. Mr. Maddock also brought up the question of what would happen if a house were destroyed and the owner wanted to rebuild the same house can. the same house be built on that property with this proposed change in the ordinance? The ordinance primarily affects, as far as the numbers he has gone through, those properties under 15,000 square feet, this is where the most drastic changes take place. To give some general idea of what happens, some calculations were made by Mr. Maddock going down to the >,500 to 9,000 square foot range as follows: I At the 40% square footage ratio the average property tuns around a 37% . reduction in the size of the house. At the 50% level it's a 22% reduction in size, on the average. As an example of an extreme, Mr. Maddock cited a typical. 60 x 125 foot lot ... such as on Pamela Road or the Naomi's, with a 25 foot front yard setback using the ordinance previously adopted and comparing it to the proposed new ordinance under consideration ... it could be a 52% reduction in the size of the house that could be built on the property. With a 35 foot front yard setback, it could be a 44% reduction ... to cite an extreme. In the Village, while a survey was run, it was felt that homes should not exceed 4,000 square feet ... or something similar. On a 9,000 square foot lot at the 40% figure it would be about a 50% reduction in tremaximum size house that could be built. In his consideration that would be building a box right out to the limit, although that is normally not done. He feels that that is what is being taken away from them when you consider something like this, and if you use the 50%, you have about a 38% reduction in the size of the house to be built. He has felt that in working with new construction they have negotiated things to keep everything compatible and proportionate and no homes have ever. gone up to the maximum that could be allowed on a property. Another possible extreme 'mentioned as an example ... an average sized property in South Arcadia under the proposed new ordinance of what could be built -- it would take away from the value of the raw land from $50,000 to $100,000 -- this is about the range that could be taken away from some of the properties. This is about a 25-30% reduction in the value of the lot .,. so a house could not be built, according to Mr. Maddock. I The third orbjective Mr. Maddock stated in connection with the proposed ordinance is that he does not think that generally anyone really knows that Council is doing this ... no one really knows the real impact and effect of it. It affects primarily properties under 15,000 square feet .which represents about 50% of the residential properties in Arcadia. He commented that people are being told that this will stop the construc- tion of the big homes and some of the other changes in the City, but he does not think people are really aware of what the ramifications are, and they have a right to know. He feels the proposed ordinance really limits square footage; it limits value; it affects remodeling and re- construction. What it does not change is undesirable architecture; the harmony and compatibility; it does not stop the privacy intrusion of the two-story homes ... it really does not address these things. It will slow down new construction for a while -- it will not stop it. It does not alter all the changes that are going on in the City. Mr. Maddock re- quested that Council consider not approving any change in the ordinance for the City as a whole ... not make a blanket statement that 40% or 50% is a number that is good for the entire City. The people should be made aware of what is happening -- maybe graphically, or at home- owners' association meetings; let people know what percentage it will reduce the buildability of their property. Let people know who have brought homes in Arcadia, and plan to add on to .their homes. He feels that although legal notice is in the newspaper this is not enough to let people know what is happening .. a really big effort should be made to notify people so they can put some input into the matter. 11/1/88 -9- ,'~ ;. k .~ -""'1 ~!r 30:0268 .,....... Mr. Maddock commented also that the proposed ordinance is a very drastic change and he thought a good job had been done on the previous ordinance. ~h,' ,I' '.. ' _,"J(r;->e--':",- " Chris Brown, 980 Singing Wood Drive, s't'ated/ln part, that he feels a City wide rule is tough. In the City there are lots from 6,000 square feet up'to as much as 60,000 square feet"'in certain areas. He feels property value is established by the bigness of the house rather than bigness of the lot -- 40% is really too big for a big lot. Mr. Brown favors setting the building area percentage by the neighborhood or by the flavor of tha~,nri&hbprhood as opposed to City- wide one rule. Also he would be in favor 'of,t~e idea of an adjustable fireplace rule per neighborhood. :~~ I Francisca ZummO, 432 East Lemon, has lived in Arcadia since 1964. Mrs. Zummo-stated, in part, that this change the Council is consider- ing is a rather drastic measure. Her area, east of Santa Anita and south of Duarte, will be mostly affU~1ed by ~his rule. Mrs. Zummo wondered how many of her neighbors are' aware'of the consequences of the new rule. The Zummo's are considering remodeling and perhaps adding a 960 square foot addition to their home, which would be greatly reduced under the new building size restriction .., moving out of the City would be a financial hardship ... they would like to stay in the City. ~\;, ' .. \. t ....11. ~, :.. ';t, , Al Corrigan, 517 Santa Rosa Road, chairman~,'Political Affairs Committee of ,the Board of Realtors, stated, in part, that his committee had advised the Board that, in their opinion, the vast majority of the citizens of Arcadia are not aware of the change that has been re- commended. As s Board they do not take a position as to what the requirements should be. .Their prima~y concern is that property owners are not fully informed. They'are also concerned about property rights and the reduction in property values with the 40% figure. The Board would propose that the owners of 15,000 square foot lots or less be advised of ,this proposed change by letter from the Council. , , Michael Bsrthelemy, 613 South Third Avenue, stated, in part, that he felt the restrictions on the square footage sllowable on a minimum size lot of 7,500 to 9,000 square feet would affect the property value' in excess of $100,000. There is a market in the. City for the larger homes. He believes that many long-time residents of Arcadia have their life savings tied up in the equity of their homes. Council, he feels, would be affecting that:"by: reducing or by restricting what would other- wise be a broader, highest, and best, use" eff their property. He did not see why the construction of a 5,000 sqpare foot home, that he believed would be worth in excess of a million!do11ars, represents a deteriora- tion of a neighborhood or deterioration of property values. The imposi- ion of the 40% restriction he felt would be s etep backward for South Arcadia and have a severe impact on property values; new development; and would slow a much needed face lift for the ,south part of Arcadia. Robert Bauer, 619 Rosemarie Drive, stated, in part, he would not have I known a~this proposed change except through,a set of circumstances. he sold his property... two days after the escrow opened the buyer in- formed him that he was no longer interested in the property because it had lost about 50% of its value due to a proposed City ordinance. He agrees with the previous speakers that this is an unknown ordinance and property owners should know what is going on~ Mr. Bauer also stated that he was concerned about the new r~strictionsince it waS not in effect when he purchased the property' and will change some property , values by 50%. He believes 50% or more'of those affected by this ordinance are owners of small lots. He would oppose any restrictions and commented that Council should ta~e careful consideration of the people. '.. " '. 1l/l/AIl -10- . ~., 30:0269 Dorothy Qua, 1605 Hyland Avenue, stated, in part, no one has spoken about the quality of life which is why some people had moved into Arcadia ... this has been affected by the construction of the larger homes. She believes a few people are determined .to sacrifice the quality of a neighborhood for the "almighty dollar". This is why many are here tonight ... to ask Council to support the 40% reduction. I AI Little, business address, 77 Las Tunas Drive, commented that although change is inevitable, rapid change can be bad. He would like to see the change reflected in Ordinance 1881 truly tried out so the public could help make decisions on whether it is adequate rather than making another change on top of it. The other factor involved, he believes, is economic ... it will affect everyone. This change will affect 50% of the lots in the City. He inquired of staff, if a house burned down would the 40% rule apply to rebuild? Staff replied if a house burns to 75% or greater they would have to start over. Mr. Little felt that this would impact the immediate price of all houses .that are over that ratio. He believes few people in Arcadia know about the proposed change ... there should be adequate time and proper warning to inform people so that they may be in on these decisions. He urged Council to put the decision for the proposed ordinance aside and give Ordinance 1881 time to work. Gary Lorenzini, 174 West Longley Way, stated, in part,that his home exceeds the 40% building size that has been proposed. If his home were to burn down he would not be able to replace it. This would impair his ability to sell his home in that a lender would not be willing to make an 80% loan with that in mind. Knowing that he could not replace the existing structure a lender might only loan 60% to 75% of the value of the property. This proposed change will affect a lot of people in the community. It WaS then MOVED by Councilmember Chandler, seconded by Councilmember Gilb and CARRIED to close the public hearing. I In the ensuing Council discussion it was noted that if this restriction were put in force, it would affect property values. The 40% restriction could in effect devalue the City of Arcadia anywhere between $100,000,000 to $200,000,000. These monies will be borne by those who own the properties. It was noted that the restriction would really only affect smaller lots... mostly those under 10,000 square feet. There have been some abuses in the City... these have been addressed in Ordinance 1881, although some abuses still occur on some of the smallest lots in the City. Mayor Harbicht commented that he felt the great majority of newer homes are assets to the community and he believes the City is going through an automatic voluntary redevelopment .., we do not have any deteriorat- ing neighborhoods. In reference to the chart, "New Homes As A % of Lot Area", prepared by the Planning Department, it was noted that if the City were to go to the 40% limit, 60% of the homes that have been proposed since the change in the ordinance would be outlawed. That percentage would have been even higher before Ordinance 1881 was adopted... it had a modifying effect on the size of the new homes. Other percentage ratios to lot area were noted on the chart ... two or three were in the 56-57% ratio to lot size on the smallest lots under 7,500 square feet. Council also noted that telephone calls have been received from citizens commenting on the loss of open space in the City... the over-crowding. Other Councilmembers felt also that the restrictions of Ordinance 1881 have not yet had enough time to be effective. The subject of buildnng replacement under the 40% ratio if a fire occurs WaS considered. . Also the ramifications of loans to rebuild if the 40% size restriction applies. Would this be fair? In reference to the chart it was felt that the percentages quoted do not convey the full meaning ... for example, how many people are involved? Thoughts were expressed in connection with notification to the public ... how to communicate with the citizens of matters that are coming before the Council. Opinions were put foth re- flecting the serious impact of the proposed 40% building restrictions ... the property owners getting ready to: retire and sell their property... how will these people be affected? It was the general consensus of Council 11/1/88 -11- 3. 3a. FINANCIAL ASSIST. TO YOUTH BASEBALL LEAGUES (~PMVW) ~. ~ GO~ ~ ~~ 30:0270 that the text amendment to the code relating to building floor area to lot size restriction not this time. Further public input WaS suggested. see what the effect will be of Ordinance 1881. the 40% maximum be considered at A waiting period to It was decided that the fireplace encroachment into side yard setbacks would be the only part of the text amendment to consider at this time; to exclude consideration of an amendment to the code relating to maximum building floor area for the present., Therefore, the following motion was put forth: It was MOVED by Councilmember Lojeski, seconded by Councilmember Young and CARRIED on roll call vote as follows to APPROVE Text Amendment I 88-003 which would establish maximum allowable encroachment of fire- places into the R-l side yard setbacks from two (2) feet to one (1) foot as set forth by the Planning Commission and file the Negative Declaration and find that the Text Amendment will not have a significant effect on the environment and direct staff to prepare the appropriate ordinance. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: :'Councilmembers Chandler, Gilb, Lojeski, Young and Harbicht None None A brief discussion commenced after roll call in connection with the appropriate vehicle with which to inform property owners of this matter ... and how to encourage public input. Several suggestions were explored ... a ballot measure was mentioned as one possibility. BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS Consideration of' recommendation from Recreation and Parks Commission to provide financial assistance to local youth baseball leagues. Funds have, been budgeted in the 1988/89 Capital Budget to be used for the maintenance and improvement of facilities used by local baseball leagues. The leagues have agreed to purchase all needed materials and provide all necessary labor and equipment to complete the various projects. All proof of purchase will be made available to the City. The requests for funds from the various leagues are set forth in staff report dated November I, 1988. Staff has reviewed the requests and recommends that $8,900 be allocated to the various leagues as requested. Expenditures will be charged to the Parks and Recreation Facilities Fund. Staff will monitor the progress of the improvements. The requests and reeommenda- ations were reviewed by the Recreation and Parka Commission at..their meeting October 12, 1988 and the proposal forwarded to Council for approval. It was MOVED by Councilmember Gilb, seconded bu Counci1member LOjeski and CARRIED on roll call vote as follows that staff be directed to prepare and distribute funds in the amount of $8,900 to provide financia assistanc~ to local youth baseball leagues as outlined in staff report dated November 1, 1988. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Counci1members Chandler, Gi1b, Lojeski, Young and Harbicht None None 3b. FINANCIAL Consideration of recommendation from Recreation and Parks Commission ASSIST. FOR ,J to provide financial assistance for the renovation of Arcadia School RENOV. OF District playfields. Funds have been budgeted in the 1988/89 Capital ARCADIA SCH~ Budget to be used in cooperation with the Arcadia School District to DIST. renovate and maintain various playfields owned by the District. The PLAYGROUNDS h~' improvements under discussion are outlined in staff report dated (~PROVED) O~" November I, 1988. The estimated total cost is $22,192. Staff has tI reviewed the request and recommends that $11,096 (one half of the total t-v cost) be allocated to the Arcadia Unified School District for these p"'~ illiprovements. Expenditures will be charged to the Parks and Recreation 11/1/88 -12- 30: 0271 Facilities Fund. Staff will monitor the progress of the improvements. The:requests and'recommendations were reviewed by the Parks and Recreation Commission at their meeting October 12, 1988 and the proposal forwarded to Council for approval. It was MOVED by Councilmember Gilb, seconded by Councilmember Lojeski and CARRIED on roll call vote as follows that staff be directed to prepare and distribute funds in the amount of $11,096 as indicated in staff report dated November I, 1988. . I', AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Councilmembers Chandler, Gilb, Lojeski, Young and Harbicht None None AUDIENCE PARTICIPATION None 5. CITY COUNCIL RECESSED IN ORDER TO ACT AS THE 6. ARCADIA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY 6a. ROLL CALL' PRESENT: ABSENT: Members Chandler, Gilb, Lojeski; Young and Harbicht None 6b. MINUTE / APPROVAL (Oct. 20, 1988)' ":l (APPROVED) " J On MOTION by Member Gilb, seconded by Member Chandler and CARRIED on roll call vote as follows, the Minutes of the Meeting of October. 20, 1988 were APPROVED. 6c. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned to 7:00 p. m., November 15, 1988. 7. 8. CITY COUNCIL RECONVENED CONSENT ITEMS 8a. HEARING SCHEDULED (Nov. 15, 1988) (St.Lights Magellan Rd.) / PUBLIC HEARING SCHEDULED. FOR NOVEMBER 15, 1988 on petition from property owners along Magellan Road for installation of street lights. 8b. ADVERTISE ~~APPROVED plans and specifications for the reroofing of Orange Grove IFOR BIDS ,5 Reservoir No. 2 - Job No. 683 and AUTHORIZE the City Clerk to advertise (Reroofing~ for bids. Funding for the project in the amount of $60,000 is provided Orange Gr. in the Water Fund for fiscal year 1988/89. Reservoir #2 - Job . No. 683) 8e. CONTRACT AWARD (Live Oak Well - W.O. 677) ~j.3AWARDED the contract for construction of Live Oak well - Work Order y\ 677. Contract in the amount of $148,938.00 to be awarded to the low bidder, Beylik Drilling, Inc. The work consists of the drilling, casing, development, and testing of the well. The project will be funded from Water Facilities Development Fund; $175,000 to be appropriated from the Fund to cover the cost of engineering, construc- tion, inspection and contingencies. All informalities in the bid or bidding process to be waived and the Mayor and City Clerk AUTHORIZED to execute a contract in form approved by the City Attorney. 11/1/88 -13- 8d. RFP-ENG'G FIRMS (Camino Well 1/3 - W. O. '1..2> 682) \~/ Y (!> :}8e. .~ TIME EXT'N ~ I TEMP. TRAILER ~l"~ (112 N.First (jl:,l-Avis) tlJ ~..J :'CADIA 'b DIAL-A- 17 RIDE GRANT \0 FUNDS ~ 8g. J: . "d~\ AWARD OF V PURCHASE ~.. V~ (Nixon-Egl1 3 Asphalt Roller) 8h. AWARD OF PURCHASE I" (GMC-LA - ~e 0'r 3/4 Tonf << Truck) 81. AWARD OF PURCHASE - (Will Nix Ford - 1 ton Truck) 30:0272 AUTHORIZED staff to solicit proposals from qualified consulting engineering firms to prepare plans and specifications and provide construction inspection services for Camino Well No. 3 - W. O. 682. The estimated total cost for this project is $305,000. This amount was approved in the 1988/89 Capital Improvement Budget and funds will be appropriated from the Water Facilities Replacement Fund. APPROVED time extension to April 30, 1989 of utilization of temporary trailer office for Avis Rent-A-Car at 112 North First Avenue. Plans for the new building are currently in the plan check process. I APPROVED Memorandum of Understanding for receipt of Fiscal Year 1989 Proposition A Discretionary GrantrcFunds between the Los Angeles County Transportation Commission and the Arcadia Dial-A-Ride and AUTHORIZED the Mayor and City Manager to execute the agreement in a form approved by the City Attorney. AWARDED puchase of asphalt double drum vibratory roller to Nixon-Egli in the amount of $28,775.24. Funds for this purchase are budgeted in the Capital Outlay Fund FY 1988/89 in the amount of $44,000.00. AWARDED purchase of a 3/4 ton truck with utility body to the low bidder, GMC of Los Angeles in the total amount of: $13.755.58. Funds for the purchase of the truck are budgeted in the Capital .Outlay Fund 1988/89 in the amount of $16,000. ~" AWARDED pruchase of a I-ton truck with special body and tailgate to \ ~ ~ Will Nix Ford of Pomona in the total amount of $16,914.99. Funds for ~ . ~v the purchase of the truck are budgeted in the Capital Outlay Fund FY 1988/89 in the amount of $19,000. 8j. 8k. TITLE INSUR. ~ & REPORT ? \ (Rose & \ Garden) \ Considered separately. AUTHORIZED payment of $6.000 to acquire title insurance and for payment of the title report applicable to the Rose Garden property recently deeded by the County of Los Angeles to the City. ALL OF THE ABOVE CONSENT ITEMS WITH THE EXCEPTION OF 8j WERE APPROVED I ON MOTION BY COUNCILMEMBER YOUNG. SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER CHANDLER AND CARRIED ON ROLL CALL VOTE AS FOLLOWS: . AYES: NOES: ABSENT: _fl'oV 8j. (j" AGREEMENT ~ Mayor-Harbicht noted that it had been suggested to Council that this W/SANWA . '\,~'( agreement be_made with an American bank. The Finance Director noted BANK ,X that proposals had been received from six banks. Sanwa Bank's price (Banking X" structure was 28% under the current provider and 19.2% below the next 'Services) lowest bidder. In reply to the question of foreign ownership, it was noted that Bank of America is 41% foreign owned; 25-50% of the banking system is foreign owned. Councilmembers None None Chandler, Gilb, Lojeski, Young and Harbicht 11/1/88 -14- 9. la. ESOLUTION O. 5451 (ADOPTED) . ~'\ p&V . e \J f .~~ 1\~i:) l ~('l \"If' 9b. RESOLUTION NO. 5452 (ADOPTED) 10. , 1. ~\~ f LOJESKI (Turiace Roof Clock) 30:0273 It was then MOVED by Mayor Harbicht. seconded by Councilmember Chandler and CARRIED on roll call vote as follows that Council APPROVE .and AUTHORIZE the City Manager to execute the agreement with Sanwa Bank for banking services covering the three year period . January 1. 1989 through December 31. 1991. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Councilmembers Chandler. Lojeski. Young and Harbicht Councilmember Gilb None CITY ATTORNEY The City Manager presented. explained the content and rsad the title of Reaolution No. 5451. entitLed: "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA ESTABLISHING AN APPROPRIATIONS LIMIT FOR THE FISCAL YEAR 1988-89 PURSUANT TO ARTICLE XIIIB OF THE CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION" . It was MOVED by Councilmember Gilb. seconded by Councilmember Young And CARRIED on roll call vote as follows that Rssolution No. 5451 be and it is hereby ADOPTED. Mayor Harbicht inquired of the Finance Director if he was comfortable with. these calculations. Reply in the affirmative. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Councilmembera Chandler. Gilb. Lojeski. Young and Harbicht None None The City Manager preeented. explained the content and read ths title of Resolution No. 5452. entitled: "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF, THE CITY OF ARCADIA. CALIFORNIA. DECLARING IT TO BE OF URGENT NECESSITY FOR THE PRESERVATION OF PROPERTY THAT A LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE CONTRACTOR BE SELECTED THROUGH REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS AND AUTHORIZING SUCH A PROCEDURE"~ (Four votes required). It was MOVED by Councilmember Lojeski. seconded by Councilmember Young and CARRIED on roll call vote as follows that Resolution No. 5452 be and it is hereby ADOPTED. Mayor Harbicht inquired if the City would have to advertise or can we negotiate with current provider? The City Manager replied it would be in the best interests for the City to take proposals. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Councilmembers Chandler. Gilb. Lojeski. Young and Harbicht None' None MATTERS FROM STAFF None MATTERS FROM ELECTED OFFICIALS v Noted that they had been given a copy of a letter addressed to Mr. Turiace. He wondered if anything had been approved with regard to the position of the clock. The City Manager replied that it had not ,\ besn approved. Mr. Turiace has been informed that the clock on the roof is considered to be a roof sign and roof signs are illegal in the City of Arcadia. The Council has no authority to modify that; the only thing that could be done would be if the City Council decided to change the City Code to allow roof signs. He has been asked to take the clock down and to reapply to have it approved for placement on the wall of the building. Councilmember Gilb noted that he had been over to see Mr. Turiace and he has decided where to replace the clock. 11/1/88 -15- LOJESKI (Tribune Bldg.) J GILB ( Sslter plaque) -/ HARBICHT GILB (Reibold) ADJOURNMENT (Nov. 15, 1988) ATTEST: 30:0274 , , ..,'t' Noted that he had occasion last week to meet the"gentleman who has been the owner of the Tribune Building who made a comment that the structural work on that building was completed, but he was waiting for an inspection from City Hall. Seemed to be taking a long time. The'Planning Director will look into it. The Recreation and Parks Commission would like to ask Council if it would agree to cooperate with the Commission to provide an appropriate plaque to Richard Salter, Head Football Coach, Arcadia High School. / It was MOVED by Councilmember Gilb, seconded by Councilmember Lojeski and CARRIED that an appropriate plaque be provided to Richard Salter, Head Football Coach, Arcadia High School in recognition of 100 victories at Arcadia High. The Recreation Director will work with the City Manager to arrange to I provide a suitable plaque and a suitable time to make the presentation. Wished Councilmember Young a Happy'Birthday. Commended City Clerk's Office for performance on Minutes of the last meeting ... it was a lengthy meeting and they did a good job turning out the Minutes and transcript. .j Adjourned the meeting "in memory 'of Helen A "Bonnie" Reibold who passed away October 24, 1988 in Arcadia. She is survived by her husband, Conrad. Connie was on the City Council and Mayor of the City a couple of times. Also survived by her daughter, Phyllis Andreae of Troy, MI; two sisters, Marion Jeaplong and Dorthea Kopke, both of California, and,three grand- children. The Rosary Mass was at 10:00 a. m., Wednesday at Holy Angels Catholic Church, Arcadia; internment at Live Oak Memorial Park. Bonnie Reibold was very active ~n this community for many, many years when Connie was inolved with the Council and I would like now to close the meeting in her memory." The City Council adjourned at 11:05 p. m. to 7:00 p. m., November 15, 1988 in the Chamber Conference Room to conduct the business of the Council and Agency and CLOSED SESSION, if any, necessary to discuss personnel, litigation and evaluation of properties. //dd~ R. C. Harbicht, Mayor I erk 11/1/88 -1.6-