Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutJULY 17,1990 I I " 1/:;-';"" Olli?o 32:0169 111,f! CITY COUNCIL PROCEEDINGS ARE TAPE RECORDED AND ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK ROLL CALL NW CORNER PROJECT (Htg. Dr. & Second Ave.) ()o~O -'1':0 1/ W COI\ f/i,t':J H & H DEVELOPMENT M I NUT E S CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA and the ARCADIA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING (REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY STUDY SESSION) JULY 17, 1990 The City Council and the Arcadia Redevelopment Agency met in an Adjourned Regular session at 5:30 p. m., July 17, 1990, in the Conference Room of the City Hall Council Chambers and immediately convened as the Redevelopment Agency. PRESENT: Members Ciraulo, Fasching, Gilb, Harbicht and Young ABSENT: None In April of 1989 the Agency released a Request for Qualifications for the 162,000 square foot Northwest Corner Project. Qualifications were received from ten developers, eight of whom were selected to submit proposals for the project. Two developers, WLA/Arcon and the Chandler Group submitted proposals which were subsequently rejected; Chandler on procedural grounds, and Arcon for low land price offered and proposed use. In February 1990, the Agency released a revised RFP for the project adding several Agency incentives and special correspondence to those developers who had worked with redevelopment agencies; Kaiser Foundation Health Plan and H & H Development returned proposals. On June 16, 1990, W. M. Hamilton of Kaiser informed staff that they had decided not to proceed with the project. Therefore, H & H Development's proposal, and supplemental documents relating to and clarifying the proposal, was the only proposal submitted by staff to the Agency at the July 3, 1990 meeting, also a detailed analysis of the concerns of staff with regard to this proposal. At that date, July 3, the Agency determined that the request to consider the H & H Development proposal for the Northwest Corner Project be CONTINUED to this date, July 17, 1990, to hear a presentation from Mr. Hanzo of H & H. The July 17 staff report includes additional detail in connection with H & H Development and a Remarketing Plan for the subject site. PRESENTATION Mr. Charles Hanzo, H & H Development, displayed conceptual renderings of the proposed building for the site and explained, in part, that because of time limitations, the renderings had been prepared by an artist since there was not enough time to involve the architect. This produced, according to Mr. Hanzo, some architectural imbalances which can be addressed by the time they get to the planning stage, . or resolved by a design review committee ... there are, he noted, different architectural styles incorporated in the renderings. Mr. Hanzo briefly explained the proposed traffic plan for the project, which is a major concern. The tenants of the building would enter the four-story parking structure from Santa Clara. The main idea of the traffic pattern is to 1 7/17/90 32:0170 keep the flow of traffic more on Second Avenue and Santa Clara and north to Colorado, said Mr. Hanzo. The parking structure would be four levels above ground and one level below ground with 1021 parking spaces. Mr. Hanzo pointed out the proposed uses for different areas on the rendering and explained the color key in response to Council's observations and questions; such as landscaped areas in a certain color; driveways in yellow, etc. The building, he explained, faces the intersection of Second Avenue and Santa Clara to permit a view of the mountains from the office area; the proposed building will be eight stories; the tall windows on the face of the building at ground level were depicted as three stories tall; the parking structure was drawn as a terraced building with each level set back from the level beneath it. Mr. Hanzo went on to present a chart of the team he proposes to bring together for the project; O. K. Earl Corporation as architect/engineer/general contractor; the John Alle Company as leasing agent; Builders Control Services Company, control and disbursement of funds; the McLaren Company for the EIR; Barton-Aschman, traffic study and analysis; Mr. Lee Erwin Shackelford, Sr. and banking associates, funding source/investor. Mr. Hanzo estimates the project will be completed in 1 - 1 1/2 to 2 years after the close of escrow. I In connection with issues in the staff report, Mr. Hanzo distributed his report to the Agency in response to these issues. Further, as background experience, he noted that he was employed at Jet Propulsion Lab and worked as a team member on the Ranger Series and a team member on the Apollo and Mercury programs. His last tenure was with the Resdel Engineering firm in Arcadia ... responsible for two major projects ... the defense industry was also mentioned as a part of past career experience before becoming an electrical and then a general contractor. All of these past career positions have been team oriented, he noted. In response to Chairman Young's question, Mr. Hanzo stated that none of his other projects as a contractor/developer in Southern California have been full projects or as large as the NW Corner project. He offered to supply the Agency with addresses in the Pasadena and Los Angeles areas of other projects he has completed. Agency Member Harbicht expressed the concern that he has, in considering any project, is "can the developer perform?" Part of that concern is finances... Mr. Shackelford, the financial investor in the proposed project, has expressed his interest in just two letters (copies included in the July 17, 1990 staff report), written in a style of English that he is not too familiar with ... also a letter ostensibly from a bank in Paris, France. Member Harbicht questioned the Notary seal at the bottom of each page of these letters. Mr. Hanzo responded that the Notary seal had nothing to do with the bank letter itself, which was given to H & H by the investor ... the H & H Notary just stamped his I seal by Mr. Shackelford's signature signifying that H & H had received the signed letters. Member Harbicht stated, in part, that it looks like an attempt to give the letters some sort of legitimacy. Mr. Hanzo went on to explain the financial documentation which would include the source of Mr. Shackelford's investment funds. He stated that he was expecting a FAX to arrive "before the hour is out" ... which would provide additional documents to support the bank institutions that Mr. Shackelford is connected with. Further exchange occurred with respect to Mr. Shackelford's position as the financial investor in the project. Member Fasching inquired of Mr. Hanzo whether he had determined if he could lease all the space in the proposed building and if a letter of intent or interest existed from the Panda Inn Restaurant? Mr. Hanzo responded that the Panda 2 7/17/90 32: 0171 Inn was committed to go into the project; he feels reasonably sure that they can lease all the spaces; they will have no debt service on the project because it is going to be a syndicated project and Mr. Shackelford is making those arrangements right now. Mr. Shackelford must to go Paris and sign the documents for the release of funds to come into Builders Control. In response to Member Fasching's inquiry, Mr. Hanzo said that he, Mr. Hanzo, will hold a 30% title in the project after completion. I Carol Walker, Vice-President, John Alle Company, the leasing agents, spoke briefly of the Alle Company's latest successful leasing of a 300,000 square foot building, and other possible leasing opportunities expected. It is Ms. Walker's opinion that the slow-growth initiative in Pasadena will bring large user tenants to Arcadia when the square footage is taken in Pasadena. I Referring to Mr. Shackelford, Member Gilb pointed out that the Agency did not know much about him except the Agency had copies of letters he had signed; the letters had no headings; anyone could have written them. If the project should get started and Mr. Shackelford withdraws, where would this leave the Agency? Member Gilb questioned if the O. K. Earl Company and the other companies involved are satisfied with the proposed financing for the project? Who would pay for the traffic studies needed to get the project started ... who puts the money up-front? These companies have to be sure that there is a Mr. Shackelford and that he has all of this money in Paris. They need to know that they are gong to be paid. Mr. Hanzo responded that he was not sure that they are satisfied with the proposed financing arrangement; in any ease, no one will move on the project until the money is in Builders Control. Further, in answer to Member Gilb's supposition, the City Attorney/Agency Counsel responded that if the Agency gives Mr. Hanzo the right to go ahead and start the project and the money does not come through, by the terms of the agreement, the agreement would be canceled. Mr. Hanzo declared that the monies would be transferred and blocked for the project and Builders Control would be the protector of the funds; a tentative schedule of funding has been set up. Member Gilb stated that in previous projects the Agency always had a document from a lending institution that stated they would finance the project should it proceed; this signed by an officer of the lending institution. Mr. Hanzo noted that he did provide the Agency with the bank's annual report and the names of the bank officers. Member Gilb reminded Mr. Manzo that the Agency represents the people of the City of ~rcadia; these are open meetings and the information is open to the public, this in reference to a letter from the bank Mr. Shackelford is connected with, with the name of the bank and the signature covered over. Mr. Hanzo responded that staff had seen the original. In answer to the Agency's further questions of Mr. Shackelford's involvement and the banking institutions, Mr. Hanzo, stated, in part, that Mr. Shackelford was not a money broker working on a commission; he wiil not retain ownership; the Paris bank would be "working a syndication with the bank"; the inter-bank, made up of 17 banks in Europe, will actually do the funding; Shackelford has bank guarantees to support this through syndication; this "gets us out of this debt problem, or debt ratio", and "being able to fill it up and meet the debt commitment every month". ~fter completion, the title to the project will be 60% to Mr. Shackelford's company "Overlord headquartered in Los Angeles and financed by European money". Staff noted that Mr. Shackelford's letter suggested he had an office in Cypress ... a motel on the third floor. Mr. Hanzo replied that Mr. Shackelford is now located in Los Angeles in the general area of New Hampshire and Wilshire. Mr. Hanzo informed the Agency also that Mr. Shackelford originally came from New York. In J 7/11/90 32:0172 reply to staff, Mr. Hanzo stated that 10% of the title to the project upon completion will belong to Sam Masuda of Pacifico International, located at Sixth and Normandy in Los Angeles, who had brought them all together. A discussion ensued between staff and Mr. Hanzo around the issue of debt service payments versus Mr. Hanzo's explanation that, upon completion, the project would be bought out by the syndicate. Mr. Hanzo explained his position by comparing this process with buying stock. Income is derived from the stock, and, of course, the income is really going back to the shareholders. This, he stated, is "probably the best way to look at it for the method that is set up here". In response to other questions from staff, Mr. Hanzo replied that, Great Western Bank will be a conduit for the funds; that he has never before had a contractual relationship with the O. K. Earl Corporation, or with the John Alle Company, or with Barton-Aschman. Further, that as a developer, not an electrical contractor, he has never completed a whole project where he has built an office building. With this, Mr. Hanzo explained his involvement with the City of Duarte in a large redevelopment project for which he did receive an ERN; however, due to other requirements, the matter "somehow died along the way". I Referring again to the FAX transmission expected this evening, Mr. Hanzo explained that he was attempting to receive the confirmation by Coldwell Banker that the funds were there, in addition to a Great Western Bank document stating the funds are available for this project in the Paris bank until after a French holiday period, after which Mr. Shackelford must go to France and sign the final documents. Further, Mr. Hanzo explained that, although Mr. Shackelford is in Los Angeles, he had injured his ankle and could not be at the meeting this evening. . . Member Fasching stated, in part, that he likes the project: some modifications are needed to the architecture; he respects Mr. Hanzo's reputation and his position in Pasadena for the last 30 years. His concern is that, while Mr. Hanzo' s endeavors are honorable and the project makes a lot of sense, the Agency has no clear-cut definition in hand of any financial ability to go ahead with the project, although he has a nice team assembled ... all of whom have to be paid. Further, at this point in time, he could not vote to give' him the right to negotiate on this project as it stands. Member Harbicht offered his assessment of the H & H financing plan for the project. The Agency has received a couple of not very well written letters from Mr. Shackelford with no printed letterhead on the stationery... he typed his letterhead this from someone who is talking about coming up with $47 million. The Agency has a copy of a letter to Mr. Shackelford, supposedly from a bank... the bank's name is I blocked out and the signature of the person who signed the letter is blocked out. The letter does not mention the amount of money that Mr. Hanzo has been talking about. All there is in the letter is, " somebody saying we can advise that 3 or . 4 projects would be agreed for immediate acceptance". The Agency does not know what the projects are, or know that Arcadia's project is one of those projects mentioned; or whether he is talking about $10,000 projects, $10,000,000 projects, or in the case of the project under discussion, a $40,000,000 project. Member Harbicht stated he would never vote to go ahead with this proposal on such flimsy evidence of financing... if Mr. Hanzo can cure that, he may consider it. Mr. Shackelford is a little too ethereal for him to believe until he gets a whole lot more evidence than the Agency has now. Mr. Hanzo asked the Agency what amount of time would he have to try and resolve this financing issue to 4 7/17 /90 32:0173 the Agency's satisfaction? Member Gilb commented that unless he receives a lot more information of who Shackelford is ... his background, experience and what he has done, he would not even consider this proposal. He noted that, yes, Mr. Hanzo does have a good team put together, and he agrees with Member Harbicht's assessment of the'financial investor. Further, in re9ponse to Member Gilb's question, Mr. Hanzo's business address is located on Rim Road, Hastings Ranch, which is his home. I In response to Member Harbicht' s suggestion, a discussion ensued around the question, Hwhat kind of a project would the Agency like to see on the NY Corner site1H Member Fasching stated, in part, that he does not see anything wrong with the proposed project itself. Member Ciraulo was concerned more with the size of the H & H proposed building, which would completely overwhelm the neighborhood. Moreover, would the entrance and exit of traffic from Santa Clara cause an enormous strain on First Avenue and Santa Clara where there is no traffic signal, only a stop sign that causes some problems ... coming out on Second Avenue will cause problems and there is not close direct access to the freeway. Mr. Gibson, of Barton and Aschman, referring to traffic studies in that area, stated, in part, that the NY Corner of Huntington and Second is a very sensitive corner. It controls the whole Huntington corridor. It is the weak link in the whole system. The only way to make the traffic work for that site is to emphasize Santa Clara as a way to get to Santa Anita, then to the freeway. To make this traffic plan a much more attractive alternative route, Second Avenue and Santa Clara and First Avenue and Santa Clara, should be signalized. Further exchange of ideas ensued regarding the traffic flow and density, Mr. Gibson stating that they have not studied a project as large as H & H has proposed on this corner, and could not tell the Agency what is workable right now, but if this area is redeveloped, Santa Clara has to be an important street. I Referring to the entire proposal, the City Manager pointed out that from staff's standpoint and the Agency's concerns, the number one concern is the financing. Beyond that, they are also concerned with the size of the building and density on this piece of property. Moreover, the office vacancy market in Arcadia and the immediate area is severely depressed and will stay depressed for a while, regardless of what Ms. Walker of the John Alle Company said. There is a lot of vacancy in Pasadena. The second greatest concern of staff is the design of the proposed H & H building, this is a major problem... there are at least four architectural styles, maybe more, all of which, in staff's opinion, are inappropriate for Arcadia and, in particular, that corner. Staff would strongly recommend, if the Agency wishes to pursue the proposed project, that it be totally redesigned. Referring to the traffic circulation, the proposed density on that corner is totally unacceptable, it will create horrendous traffic problems for the City. Chairman Young commented that an 8-story building is too big for that corner; the design can be worked out, but, something on a smaller scale. Mr. Hanzo replied that they had considered a smaller building, but with the land costing them $25 a square foot, as they now propose, they must go up. If the building is lowered to 4 or 6 stories, as suggested by staff, they would have to recalculate the offer for the price of the land. Further discussion on the traffic; the use of Santa Clara as the entrance and exit for the project. First Avenue as a major street for traffic flowing to south Arcadia from Santa 5 7/17 /90 32:0174 Clara. Additional discussion ensued of the size of the building as compared to the Towne Center Building. Andy Krappman of the O. K. Earl Corporation, offered his observations, stating, in part, there is much to be done in terms of a market feasibility study; a specific plan and a redesign of the proposed H & H building. He reminded the Agency that they only have one proposal to consider, although the opportunity was offered to others. He understands, from staff, that the base the Agency has to deal with is about $32 a square foot in terms of the land ... cost of acquisition and administration, and the like, so the Agency has a write-down. There is a delicate balance in all of this area; he suggests that the Agency might want to attach some conditions and time schedules to an approval of the concept of the project that would require financing ... incremental financing first, a I step- by-step process, so that the Agency could get to a project that somebody could write a real commitment letter for. No one will write a commitment letter for a project that is not even designed and is not even conceptually approved as to size by the Agency. Further, Mr. Krappman stated, in part, the Agency may want to consider getting escrow funds ... if Mr. Hanzo could provide some escrow funds to cover the market feasibility study, the traffic study and the preliminary architectural studies that would be brought to the Agency. Further, he noted, the Disposition and Development Agreements have all sorts of time tables and design approvals ... similar items could be built into the exclusive agreement to negotiate that might allow this proposal to go a step further. Right now, Mr. Schacke1ford would be committing to an undesigned project. The Agency then opened up a brief discussion in connection with the anticipated FAX that would verify Mr. Shackelford's commitment of the funds to finance the project. Member Harbicht commented that the Agency would need more assurance than this FAX that the money is available ... Mr. Kinnahan then explained the process beginning with the ERN which will have a six month declaration which leads to a DDA and so forth. This to remind the Agency that if Mr. Shackelford has the funds, he should not be asked to FAX or wire the $42 million ... Mr. Kinnahan went on to state, in part, that notwithstanding the fact that the Agency may have, in fact, financing from Mr. Shackelford, he still has some very serious concerns of the overall capacity of H & H Development to manage a project of this size; even if the money is available, and even with this management team. Mr. Hanzo has never built an office building ... he has never done one. Moreover, if Mr. Hanzo is going to experiment with the Agency's land, and Agency revenues in land sale proceeds, he would rather this happen on a much smaller project than this one. Further, that is a very big ,project on a prime corner and the chances of success, given'Mr. Hanzo's experience, are somewhat mixed. In closing the discussion of the H & H Development proposal, I Agency Member Fasching commented to Mr. Hanzo that, with the team he has brought together, and no debt, he would not be worried about Mr. Hanzo' s ability to manage the building, because Mr. Hanzo will not have to pay mortgage payments. However, the Agency should proceed ... go ahead with other considerations regarding this property. Further, the door is still open for H & H to come back whenever he has everything put together with Mr. Shackelford and so forth. Member Gilb questioned this. Mr. Hanzo responded that the agreements are in place in connection with Mr. Hanzo's managing the project and returning Mr. Shackelford's investmwent to him with a profit. Further, Member Fasching noted that Mr. Shackelford will own 60% of the project. After a brief discussion on this same point, Chairman Young thanked Mr. Hanzo for his 6 7/17/90 I I < .<l;:....:.~~, 32:0175 presentation, and staff submitted a recommendation to the Agency for a motion. MOTION It was the MOVED by Member Gilb, seconded by Chairman Young and CARRIED on roll call vote as follows that the Agency REMARKET the site with an open listing, with a 3% maximum commission. Member Harbicht opened the discussion asking the Agency to consider, in general, what would the Agency want on this site? What does the Agency want in Arcadia? Do they want to start building 8-story office buildings in Arcadia. Members Harbicht, Young and Ciraulo all agreed that they do not want an 8-story building on the site or want to change the character of Arcadia forever by building any buildings that large. Member Harbicht continued on, that he was talking about not just the height of the building, but what does the Agency want Arcadia to be? A town of high-rise central core . .. or to stay as it is now? Does the Agency want density in town? Growth? Traffic and everything that comes with that with whatever benefits providing jobs and all of that? Or does the Agency want Arcadia to stay, basically, a community of homes with the central business and the commercial aspects of town being a relatively minor part? He would opt for the latter. Chairman Young said she did not want Arcadia to become another Pasadena, on a smaller scale. Member Harbicht agreed, and asked the Agency what was their vision for Arcadia? Referring to the 8-story Towne Center building on Santa Anita, he stated, in part, that he was not involved in that decision. If he had been on the Council at that time, he does not know what he would have done .., but he is aware of what the reaction of the residents has been to that building. The people of Arcadia are not looking for growth ... he is not either, nor does he wish to bring more people to Arcadia to live or work here. He is happy with the City the way it is, and does not want to see an 8-story building on this site ... if it takes longer to payoff the property, then it just takes longer, but the character of the community will be retained which is far different than if an 8-story building is built on this site or anywhere else. If this Agency is going to put an 8-story building on this site, then, philosophically, the Agency is saying that they are accepting 8 -story buildings. Member Ciraulo agreed, and noted that the character of the City would be changed forever and he is not sure that he would want to do that. Member Harbicht commented that if the Agency is going to go out for additional proposals or try to market the property through brokers, then the Agency should provide some guidance. Member Fasching basically agreed, but added that he is looking at the geographical area that the Agency is dealing with... that particular corner, perhaps a 4 or 6-story building, based on the economics of the property. should be there. A 7-story hotel is already on the northeast corner, this is not the same as putting this building in the heart of town at Baldwin and Huntington. Huntington and Second is in a very heavily commercial populated area extending all the way east. Member Ciraulo said he believed an 8-story building would completely overwhelm that area. . . maybe a scaled down version would .be more acceptable. Member Fasching mentioned the Gribble 4-story building. . . which is a fairly large building. Member Ciraulo thought a 4-story building on this site would fit in well because the railroad trestle is there, which would hide almost two of the stories. Member Harbicht and Chairman Young agreed with the 4-story concept. Member Fasching said he would like to see renderings of 4 and 6-story buildings and consider the geographical location also ... he agreed that he did not want to see something there that would change the character of the City. Member Ciraulo suggested that the 7 7/17 /90 ,> > 32:0176 "fI't,,'-liA Agency should give better defined direction for tna1 stte to :-t',~,f~-;:. j potential bidders .... just exactly what the Agency',wourd want or not want. Give them some parameters and say, "within these guidelines, this is what we would like to see", so bidders do not waste their time and spend money needlessly making presentations to the Agency -- this is only fair. The concept of marketing the property through a broker was discussed. Staff mentioned that it is unusual for redevelopment agencies to do this -- not very many cities do so. Staff is making this recommendation because of the difficulty in marketing this site. It is a difficult site and a difficult time, noted Member Harbicht. Member Fasching asked the Agency if the price given to the brokers would be based on the square foot value of the land? Staff answered that no price is contemplated now because it is a function of what would be built on the land .., an 8-story building could pay more than a 4-story building. Much discussion ensued in explaining why a redevelopment project could not be marketed the same as a home or other commercial properties. Staff explained this would be an open listing; that the marketing effort is of an unusual nature. The Agency cannot commit to a deal until there is a joint public hearing with the City Council and environmental documents filed. This is very unlike a normal broker listing where the broker brings an offer in and it is accepted and the first one in the door may be accepted. In this arrangement the Agency could receive 4 or 5 proposals and negotiate with all of them and whoever the Agency strikes the deal with is the broker that gets the commission into that equation goes the size of the building; what type of use. Member Harbicht noted that the Agency has always done this ... the Agency accepts proposals and the proposal includes the price. Staff commented that certain proposals generate more income than others, and so they can pay more for the property. Retail projects or restaurants, offices or mixed combinations could each pay a different price. In the discussion Member Harbicht explained that basically this listing is far different than a normal listing with a realtor. The broker in this redevelopment project would come in with the offer, which, if the Agency is interested, then triggers an Exclusive Right to Negotiate for six months; and then triggers a DDA for another four months; and then a sale. This could be viewed as experimental in that brokers are not used to working that way in having to go through a nine month period of negotiations, and get into specifics as to what will be b~ilt; what is the architectural design; or what color it is going to be. As far as giving a broker some guidance as to what the Agency is looking or, it would be fair to say... something in the neighborhood of $25 or $30 a foot higher for some kinds of projects or potentially lower for others ... depending on the desirability of the project. Also, give them some guidance as to what kind of a project the Agency is looking for. I Member Cilb restated the MOTION to remarket the property with an open listing with a 3% maximum commission and a roll call vote was then taken: I AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Members Ciraulo, Fasching, Gilb, Harbicht and Young None None Staff will bring a draft of the listing statement back to the Agency for any additional parameters the Agency would like to put on, besides the 4-story limit, to be discussed again before staff finalizes the listing. ", At 6:57 p. m. the Arcadia Redevelopment Agency ADJOURNED. CITY COUNCIL CONVENED AT 7:00 p. m. 8 7/17/90 r- I I 1 RODEFFER QVARRY (July 3 Pub.Hrg. Transcript) IJ~-(~- -is;/ tl<.ul) ,:'-1 I r.:... /liSP LA CO ANIMAL CONTROL o Lf/o -30 /I (JIII1I)l c.oN1;.:.o I- 210 FREEWAY SOUNDWALLS C ,; S (; - (, 0 SO" M D,ljA I.LS EMINENT DOMAIN COUNSEL SGVSW JOINT POWERS AUTH. CLOSED SESSION ADJOURNED ATTEST: 32:0177 PRESENT: Councilmembers Ciraulo, Fasching, Gilb, Harbicht and Young ABSENT: None Attorneys Ross & Scott, representing the City of El Monte, have requessted a transcript of the July 3 Public Hearing proceedings before the City Council of the Rodeffer Reclamation Plan, and also request that the charges of approximately $464 for same be waived. The City Attorney stated that the law clearly provides that they are to pay for the transcript, provided for in the Government Code and in the Code of Civil Procedures. The City Clerk, in response to staff's question, said, that the attorneys had requested the transcript and the charge is very minimal for the time involved to transcribe and proof the transcript. The City Attorney added that the transcript is part of the record that Ross & Scott will use on appeal when they file a law suit involving, perhaps, the City and Rodeffer, so the charges are legally upon them. It was the consensus of Council that before Ross & Scott receive the transcript, the City will bill them for the service. The City Manager provided Council with additional material concerning the County Animal Care and Control policy of selling animals for research purposes. Robyne Harrington phoned that she will be at the meeting tonight to address the Council. Also, Rita Burney phoned, she will not be'present tonight but she requests that Council pass a pet protection resolution to protect all the pound animals who were all pets once and should be protected from that use also. Caltrans will hold a public hearing to receive input from residents on the proposed changes to the 210 Freeway through Arcadia. A newspaper article was brought to staff's attention which reports that someone from Caltrans has stated that there may not be enough money available to put sound walls up immediately if Caltrans does widen the 210 Freeway for the diamond lane. The City's position is that the sound walls go in simultaneously with any improvements along the freeway. With Council's approval, Public Works Director, Joe Lopez, will attend the public hearing and make this presentation to Caltrans. The City Attorney introduced Mr. Stoever of the law firm of Oliver, Stoever, Barr and Vose, Los Angeles. Staff is recommending that OSVB be retained as the Agency redevelopment eminent domain counsel, ABA Agenda Item 3c. The Council greeted Mr. Stoever. Referring to the request for Arcadia to join the San Gabriel Valley Solid Waste Joint Powers Authority, Agenda Item 5g, Councilmember Gilb questioned the possible method the Sanitation District could have used to decide which cities were in each group. Staff reponded that the groupings may have something to do with the various Sanitation Districts each city is in. The City Manager added that it does not make too much of a difference as long as Arcadia is in a fairly large group, so that the cost can be spread as much as possible for the City's part of the plan. The City Manager requested a Closed Session before the Regular Meeting this date. At 7:12 p. m. Council entered the CLOSED SESSION, RECONVENED AND ADJOURNED sine die at 7:30 p. ~, ~'fI;i/~-:r- Mary B oun, yor ...... ----- - 9 7/17/90 ~.-.)J~ J . Alford, y Cle~