Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMAY 21,1985_2 25 :1234 I CITY COUNCIL PROCEEDINGS ARE TAPE RECORDED AND ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK I INVOCATION PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL MINUTE APPROVAL (May 7,1985) (APPROVED AS CORRECTED) ORD. & RES. READ BY TITLE ONLY CLOSED SESSION I CITIZENS OF THE YEAR l. HEARING GROUP W. CABLE FRANCH I SE vi q /' S t MINUTES CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA and the ARCADIA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY REGULAR MEETING May 21,1985 The City Council of the City of Arcadia and the Arcadia Redevelopment Agency met in a regular session, May 21, 1985 at 7:30 p. m. in the Arcadia City Hall Council Chamber. Resident Chaplain, Brenda Peterson, Arcadia Methodist Hospital Councilmember Gilb PRESENT: Councilmembers Gilb, Hannah, Lojeski, Young and Pellegrino ABSENT: None It was MOVED by Councilmember Gilb, seconded by Councilmember Hannah and CARRIED on roll call vote as follows that the Minutes of the Adjourned and Regular Meetings of May 7, 1985 be APPROVED as corrected. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Councilmembers Gilb. Hannah, Lojeski, Young and Pellegrino None None It was MOVED by Councilmember Young, seconded by Councilmember Lojeski and CARRIED that all ordinances and resolutions be read by title only and that the reading in full be waived. '~ As required by the Government codes, specifically the Brown Act and pursuant to Government Code, Section 54957.6, the City Council met earlier this evening in CLOSED SESSION with the City's designated labor negotiators for the purpose of review and instruction with regard to the current negotiations. Later on this evening, the City Council will adjourn to a CLOSED SESSION for the purpose of meeting with the negotiators regarding potential price and terms relating to possible acquisition of various properties in the City. specifically the Kiewit property and also property in the First and Huntington area. PRESENTATIONS On behalf of the City Council, Mayor Pellegrino presented a plaque to Mrs. June Fee and Mrs. Dottie Burnett 1985 Citizens of the Year. Pursuant to the City Charter, this hearing has been scheduled to receive public input relative to the granting of a non-exclusive Cable Television Franchise to Group W. Cable, Inc., to construct, maintain, and operate a cable television in all areas of the City. 5/21/85 -1- ORDINANCE NO. 1814 INTRODUCED 2. HEARING Tract 44077 TentativE! (APPROVED) ~\-t C-v.P r~ 25 :1235 Mayor Pellegrino declared the hearing open and Joseph Sargis, 31 E1dorado, introduced Robert Miller, Assistant Dean of Instructional Education at City College. Mr. Sargis said, in part, that as Trustee representing this arE!a on the Pasadena City College Board, he was addressing Section 20, Sub-section 83 (Page 39) of the report indicat- ing that one channel will be devoted to university level of college broadcasting as approved by the Counci~. Mr. Sargis noted that PCC has beE!n delivering instructional television to Sierra Madre and north Arcadia through Group W. They have taken the leadership in this I community having pioneered the instructional television ... they have dedicated a substantial amount of money and resources along with staff time to deliver the best quality education TV-wise. If the City Council grants the franchise for the entire City, he requested that the channel dedicated to university level of college broadcasting be designated as Pasadena City College ... they would like to be granted the first three years of operation of the program, after which Council could review the performance and determine whether renewal was in order or not. Counci1member Hannah said, in part, that having spent some time on the Board of Trustees of Pasadena City College, he could see no harm in granting the request for the first three years. He felt strongly about the quality of education being given at the college ... and pointed out that there are no other takers for this particular channel. / No one else desiring to be heard, the hearing was CLOSED on MOTION by Counci1member Lojeski, seconded by Counci1member Young and CARRIED. The City Attorney then presented, explained the content and read the title of Ordinance No. 1814, entitled: "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA, GRANTING A NON-EXCLUSIVE CABLE TELEVISION SYSTEM FRANCHISE AND REPEALING ORDINANCES NO. 1646 AND 1647". It was MOVED by Counci1member Hannah, seconded by Counci1member Gi1b and CARRIED on roll call vote as follows that Ordinance No. 1814 be INTRODUCED. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Counci1members Gi1b, Hannah, Lojeski, Young and Pellegrino None None It was further MOVED by Counci1member Hannah, seconded by Counci1- member Gi1b and CARRIED on roll call vote as follows that Channel 20 be used by Pasadena City College, as exclusive right, for the first three year period and be reviewed by the City Council at the end of that time. I AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Counci1members Gi1b, Hannah, Lojeski, Young and Pellegrino None None Tentative Map No. 44077 for a proposed seven unit residential condominium at 819 W. Duarte Road. The site is presently developed with two single family dwellings and is zoned R-3. The Planning Commission recommended approval subject to conditions set forth in the staff report. Mayor Pellegrino declared the hearing open and, no one desiring to be heard, the hearing was CLOSED on MOTION by Counci1member Gi1b, seconded by Counci1member Lojeski and CARRIED unanimously. 5/21/85 -2- I 3. HEARING ?'. Roofing , (Hart) (DENIED) T R A N S C R I P T I A V A I L A B L E 25:1236 It was MOVED by Councilmember Lojeski, seconded by Councilmember Gilb and CARRIED on roll call vote as follows that: the evaluations of the environmental impact as set forth in the initial study are appropriate; the project will not have a signif- icant effect on the environment; that the Negative Declaration be approved and filed; that the proposed subdivision, together with the provisions for its design and improvement, is consistent with the General Plan and the discharge of sewage from the subdivision into the sewer system will not violate requirements prescribed by the California Regional Water Quality Control Board for this region, that the Director of Public Works be and execute the subdivision agreement be APPROVED subject to the conditions set authorized to approve that the proposed project forth in the staff report. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Councilmembers Gilb, Hannah, Lojeski, Young and Pellegrino None None The Plannng Commission, on April 23, 1985, voted 5 to 0 with two members absent to refer to the City Council Mrs. Marie Hart's appeal of the Santa Anita Village Community Association's Architectural Review Board denial of the proposed roofing material (GAF Western Cut Class A Fiberglass roof) at 805 Coronado Drive. The staff report included the Planning Commission 's comments and a chronological history of this matter. Mayor Pellegrino declared the hearing open and Mrs. Marie Hart, 805 Coronado Drive, distributed copies of a letter she had received from a Mr. Butler, Registered Engineer and former Building, and Planning official of Sonoma County. Mrs. Hart read the letter in full, giving Mr. Butler's opinions as to an adequate material which would be both durable and acceptable. Mrs. Hart continued, in part, that since June of 1984 she has been trying to find a roofing material which would be --' acceptable to the Architectural Review Board, but has been unsuccessful. She has talked with several contractors and they have all recommended fibreglass or similar material because of the leakage problem created by the low pitch of her roof. The material she is hopeful will be approved is very new and has more thickness and is more dimensional in appearance. Mrs. Hart stated further, in part, that she had contacted 340 residents in the area and they did not object to fibreglass. Reference was made to the postcard survey made by the Architectural Review Board in which it was stated that Spanish tile is an acceptable material. She did not know of any homes in the Village with such roofing and felt that allowing fibreglass roofing would not lower the property values. She mentioned meetings with the Architectural Review Board which did not resolve her problem and noted there are new composition roofs in the Village which the Board says are bootleg jobs. She wa, hopeful of aPProval for the roofing material she has in mind. Mildred Blum, 815 Coronado Drive, said she has seen the damage to Mrs. Hart's home caused by leaks where her house and the addition in the back are joined ... at one time Mrs. Hart had a shake roof. Mrs. Blum continued, in part, that the roofing Mrs. Hart would like to use has more of a three dimensional appearance than wood shingle which the Architectural Review Board says is acceptable. She felt this is a special situation which needs special consider.ation. 5/21/85 -3- r i ," \ 25:1237 A neighbor of Mrs. Hart, residing across the street from her home, said Mrs. Hart's home is well maintained ana felt consideration should be afforded in this instance. Steve Walsh, Arroyo Roofing Company, circulated brochures on fireproof Cal-Shake Roofing ... he felt about 40% of the Cal-Shake roofs are defective '" they are so heavy. Mr. Walsh is the contractor for Mrs. Hart and responded to questions concerning his not obtaining a permit ... saying, in part, that there was a mix-up. Mrs. Hart thought a I permit could be obtained without permission from the Review Board. Mr. Walsh submitted that he has worked on other houses in the area, but not as the primary contractor and was not familiar with the procedure. Mrs. Hart's son, James, 657 24th Street, San Pedro, felt that at the meeting held-rast September, Council thoUQht some kind of work should be done by the Architectural Review Board to ascertain whether or not it was reflecting the views of the homeowners. Mr. Hart submitted a photograph of a home on Cabrillo Road with the same type of roof. Jim Novis, 844 Coronado, asked Council to grant the appeal and felt the issue is whether or not Council is going to substitute its judge- ment for what is aesthetic for the judgement of the people in the Village and referred to the petition ... that most of the residents in the area do not care what material Mrs. Hart uses. He also felt the survey which the Architectural Review Board took was biased and did not fulfill the purpose for which it was intended. OPPOSED Greg Board, Chairman of the Architectural Review Board, residing at 803 Balboa Drive, spoke at length concerning steps the Board has taken in this matter. The Board has been prompt and attempted to be open- minded. The Board held a meeting of the Village with Fire Chief Gardner in attendance ... Councilmember Young' al,so. Many persons spoke at the meeting. Mr. Board gave a chronological history of this matter ... from the first time the Board had met with Mrs. Hart and her subsequent letters and the visual appraisals of her property. The Board had made alternative recommendations to Mrs. Hart and spoke to one in particular that is used for low pitched roofs. As to the card survey, Mr. Board said, in part, that 284 residents agreed with the Board in its position. As to the use of Spanish tile ... there was one property and there are some other properties which might be considered of a Spanish nature ... and Spanish tile might be harmonious. Mr. Board submitted that the Board looks at good archi- tectural character based on the principle of harmony and they would like to see that maintained. I In response to a question by Councilmember Hannah as to why it took from September to January to get a survey done, Mr. Board, said, in part, that at the time there were misconceptions concerning the recently approved materials ... they wanted to offer the residents some real honest information regarding the various 'types of roofing materials which were available. They interviewed roofing contractors and had trouble locating the right speaker for the meeting. As to what he would do if it were his house without a roof, Mr. Board said only, in part, that Mrs. Hart had come to the Board with material that abrogated some forty years of tradition and was unwilling to look at other materials. 5/21/85 -4- 25:1238 I Councilmember Hannah said, in part, that he is very much in favor of Architectural Review Boards ... they serve a valid purpose ... he was only questioning the time in this instance and made reference to an experience he had had some years ago when he had to wait almost six weeks for approval of a simple addition. He felt that in this partic- ular case. the Board was a little remiss in getting to the problem and solving it. Jack Sae1id, 821 Balboa Drive said, in part, that he understands that any application which was presented properly would take no more than 10 days to two weeks. The four months in this instance apparently was the time it took to make the survey of the residents. He had attended the meeting referred to by Mr. Board and felt it was done in an extremely objective manner, giving the residents an opportunity to become familiar with what was being presented. He noted that architectural compatibility requirements have been in effect in the area since it was developed some 40 years ago. There have been ex- ceptions ... there are about 16 non-conforming out of 632 homes in the Village and when 97% of the homeowners adhered to the rules, he felt it would be unfair to them to now change the rules to favor the applicant who attempted to reroof in violation of the Code. Referring to the change which now prohibits untreated wood shakes or shingles, he felt the Council has a responsibility to support the Architectural Review Boards of the various homeowners groups as they, as the Santa Anita Village Association has done, continue to evaluate alternative materials for architectural compatibility. In conclusion, Mr. Sae1id asked Council to uphold the qualities of the City and to enforce the high standards by denying the appeal. ~raig Lucas, 853 Balboa Drive, President of the Santa Anita Village ssociation, compared the petition taken by Mrs. Hart and the card survey taken by the Architectural Review Board. The Hart petition was a hand-held, face-to-face signature campaign which did not permit choice or comment ... whereas the postcard survey was received by persons who knew the choices and there was room on the card to respond. The survey was preceded by a public meeting, by newsletters from the Association in an attempt to put as much objective information into the hands of the respondent as possible. Mr. Lucas continued, in part, that Mrs. Hart has placed herself in the situation by not complying with the Village requirements and placed herself in a state of peril by removing the roof without a permit. The fact that she waited for a change in the law which never came about is not the responsibility of the homeowners group or the City Council and is only the responsibility of the homeowner. I Mr. Lucas submitted that he had researched the records in'City Hall and noted several locations in the Village area on which no permit was indicated for replacement of roofs ... some locations with stop- work orders. There are some 14 non-conforming roofs in the area today. In response to a question by Mayor Pellegrino. Mr. Lucas replied, in part. that any recourse would be quite expensive ... an injunction to remove the non-conforming material. Reliance on the rules is an important factor ... the standard which has been developed during the last 45 years in the Village is not out of touch with reality or economics and asked the Council to uphold the standards. He encouraged Council to acknowledge and recognize the response of 284 homeowners asking that the present stanqargs be maintained. He asked that the appeal be denied. 5/21/85 ~~ 25:1239 Jessie Young, 531 Drake Road, saidcshe lives in an adobe house with a rock roof and they would have to reroof soon. She would like to use fibreglass material and said the fibreglass shingles are used throughout the City and in areas considered much more expensive than in the Village. She doesn't know what it would look like -- if they are permitted to use that material. Mrs. Young said Council should take into consideration there may be disasters such as nuclear war- fare, an earthquake and fires ... with the wind draft in her area ... there wouldn't be an Association or a Village for that matter. Dennis Marolt, 936 Hugh Reid Drive, spoke to the petition circulated on behalf of Mrs. Hart and the way it was presented to him. He almost signed it out of compassion for Mrs. Hart, but he didn't because he knew the roofing policy for the area. In rebuttal, Mrs. Hart said, in part, that she did not know of the procedure for obtaining a permit to have the roof stripped. She did ask her roofer to go to City Hall and that is where they learned they had to first go to the Architectural Review Board ... this was before she signed a contract. Years ago there were no alternatives in roof- ing material... shingle and shake roofs. She noted the comments made at the meeting held by the Association where one person said he was going to reroof with fibreg1ass and Mr. Board advised him that was not approved and the discussion was not continued. She did not receive an answer when Mr. Board was told there were several homeowners in the area who had problem roofs and asked what provision was being made for them. In conclusion, Mrs. Hart said she felt the City has a responsibility to the residents. Councilmember Young said, in part, that she was in attendance at the meeting held by the Architectural Review Board and referred to the gentleman who was putting a fibreglass roof on his home in LaCanada. He also said his home is two and a half stories high ... 200 feet back from the street and under a lot of trees. She felt this makes quite a bit of difference from a house that is about 40 feet from the street. The hearing was then CLOSED on MOTION by Councilmember Hannah, seconded by Councilmember Young and CARRIED unanimously. Councilmember Young stated, in part, that she had lived in the subject area for many years ... when there were deed restrictions ... was very pleased when a Homeowners Association was formed with an Archi- tectural Review Board to uphold those restrictions. Her opinion has not changed. She did not want to place a hardship on homeowners, but also did not want to place a hardship on future homeowners the uniqueness of the City is relied upon by these standards. She would have to vote for denial of the appeal. Councilmember Hannah stated, in part, that he is very much in favor of the time and effort the people of Arcadia give to the City for purposes of Architectural Review Boards, City Commissions, building of floats, etc. The Architectural Review Boards serve a valid purpose in maintaining the integrity of an area, however, he had doubts about the two surveys that were presented ... he did not really feel they convinced him of the desire of the people in that particular area. Councilmember Gilb expressed sympathy for Mrs. Hart and the situation but was not convinced that the 340 signatures on her petition re- present 340 homes, like he believed the 287 do -- represent the homes -- that would mean that the majority of the people in the area want the restrictions taken off ... he did not believe that ... and would vote for denial of the appeal. 5/21/85 " I I 25:1240 Counci1member Lojeski said he had nothing to add ... and would stand on the same basis he stood when it was heard previously. It was MOVED by Counci1member Gi1b, seconded by Counci1member Lojeski and CARRIED on roll call vote as follows that the appeal be DENIED. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Counci1members Gi1b. Lojeski and Young Counci1members Hannah and Pellegrino None I THREE TO TWO FOR DENIAL '" I ~ ',,- "- "-" "',,- '", '~ . 5/21/85 .'1: / 4. 5. 5a. ROLL CALL 5b. MINUTE APPROVAL (May 7,1985) (APPROVED) 5c. RESOLUTION NO. 85 (Henderson Property) (ADOPTED) ~~ '>; V ,\' \'ro.. ~ 5d. DEVELOPMENT (F i rs t & Huntington) HALFERTY- ALKEN Selected ERN & Appraisal Authorized + ~' ++ }o.. 1\ ~ \ 11 ADJOURNMENT 6. 25 :1241 COUNCIL RECESSED IN ORDER TO ACT AS THE ARCADIA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY PRESENT: Members Gi1b, Hannah, Lojeski, Young and Pe11egrino ABSENT: None It was MOVED by Member Lojeski, seconded by Member Young and CARRIED that the Minutes of the Adjourned and Regular Meetings of May 7, 1985 be APPROVED. I Request to adopt Resolution of Necessity for the condemnation of certain property in the Centra1 Redeve10pment Project Area (Henderson) (continued from 4/16/85). Hearing was not held since neither Mr. Henderson nor his representative' was present. Member Gi1b then presented and read the title of ARA Res01ution No. 85 entitled: "RESOLUTION OF NECESSITY OF THE ARCADIA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY INSTITUTING THE COMMENCEMENT OF EMINENT DOMAIN PROCEEDINGS IN CONNEC- TION WITH THE ACQUISITION OF CERTAIN PROPERTY IN CARRYING OUT THE MANDATES OF THE REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE ARCADIA CENTRAL REDEVELOP- MENT PROJECT AREA (HENDERSON PROPERTY)". He MOVED for adoption. Motion was seconded by Member Lojeski and CARRIED on roll call vote as fo110ws: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Members Gi1b, Hannah, Lojeski, Young and Pe11egrino None None Mayor Pe11egrino, having a conflict 'of interest in connection with the f0110wing matter, retired from the Council Chamber and Mayor Pro Tempore Young presided. Staff submitted deve10pment proposals for the First Avenue and Huntington Drive site. Two had been received and each was summarized in the staff report. One from Ha1ferty-A1ken and one from WLA Arcon. The experience and financing along with the construction schedu1e were set forth. It was MOVED by Member Lojeski, seconded by Member Hannah and CARRIED on roll call vote as follows that Council select the firm of Ha1ferty- A1ken with whom to negotiate an Exclusive Right to Negotiate for development of the subject site and that a Reuse Appraisal (estimated cost of $3,500) be AUTHORIZED. I AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Members Gilb, Hannah, Lojeski and Young None Mayor Pellegrino (due to a conflict of interest) It was MOVED by Member Gi1b, seconded by Member Hannah and CARRIED that the meeting ADJOURN to 7:00 p. m., June 4,1985. COUNCIL RECONVENED. 5/21/85 -8- 7. I, 8a. HEARING SCHEDULED June 4,1985 p'. i 8b. APPRAISAL & TITLE REPORT 8c. I ADVERTISE FOR BIDS (Waterline) 8d. ADVERTISE FOR BIDS (Slurry Seal) ~/:,' .' 25:1242 AUDIENCE PARTICIPATION Mrs. Angela ~, 1320 Oakwood Drive, spoke at length concerning the use of foreign languages in the City instead of English. She explored her background stating, in part, that her parents came to America from Western Europe and, upon coming to this country, learned the English language, became citizens and entered into the way of life of their chosen country. She referred to signs which are appearing in the City which are not in English and objected to any taxpayers' money being spent to prepare instructions for building, corrmercia 1 advertiSing or the 1 i ke, bei ng in theori ental or any other foreign language. Mrs. Supp felt strongly that the City officials should "reach out", sit down and have "eyeball to eyeball" discussions with the new residents and try to live in harmony. CONSENT ITEMS Consideration of zone change to add a design (D) overlay to the R-O (15,000) and R-O (30,000) zoned properties and establishing design regulations and creating a Homeowners Association and Architectural Review Board for the area bounded on the west by Baldwin Avenue, the south by Foothill Boulevard, the north by Orange Grove and the east by Santa Anita Avenue. Hearing set for June 4, 1985. AUTHORIZED an expenditure of up to $2,000 to obtain appraisals and title report of a City-owned surplus parcel of land in Chicago Park. The concerned departments indicate no existing or potential uses for the property. Interest has been evinced'in the property by adjacent property owners . APPROVED the plans and specifications and the Negative Declaration and AUTHORIZED the City Clerk to advertise for bids for the installation of a 24" waterline in Live Oak and Second Avenues (W. O. 592). Esti- mated cost is $750,000 to be funded from the Water Division Facilities Replacement Fund. I APPROVED the plans and specifications and AUTHORIZED the City Clerk to advertise for bids for the annual street maintenance (Slurry Seal) Job. No. 575. The project to be financed from State Gas Tax Funds and is categorically exempt from the requirements of CEQA pursuant to Section 15101, Class l(C) of the Guidelines for Implementation of said Act. 8e. . ADVERTISE I APPROVED the plans and specifications and AUTHORIZED the City Clerk FOR BIDS to advertise for bids for the street resurfacing program (reconstruc- (Street re- tion of various streets) Job No. 566. This project to be financed surfacing) with State Gas Tax funds, and is categorically exempt from the require- ments of CEQA pursuant to Section 15101, Class l(C) of the Guidelines for Implementation of said Act. I 8f. CONTRACT AWARDED (STREET LI GHTI NG Job 574) ~<DD f \ AWARDED the contract for street lighting improvement on Huntington Drive from Baldwin Avenue to Michillinda Avenue, Job No. 574 to the low bidder, Intersection Management Systems, Inc., in the amount of $97,900; any irregularities or informalities in the bid or bidding process were waived and the Mayor and City Clerk were AUTHORIZED to execute the contract in form approved by the City Attorney. 5/21/85 -9- /,1 ',( ) " g. ga. PUBLIC WORKS YARD 0)/ '1Q f 10. lDa. / ORDINANCE NO. 1812 (ADOPTED ) 25:1243 ALL OF THE ABOVE CONSENT ITEMS WERE APPROVED ON MOTION BY COUNCIL- MEMBER LOJESKI, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER YOUNG AND CARRIED ON ROLL CALL VOTE AS FOLLOWS: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Councilmembers Gilb, Hannah, Lojeski, Young and Pellegrino None None CITY MANAGER Staff submitted three plot plans indicating potential locations for relocating various City Yard functions ... the City Garage could be relocated to the south side of LaPorte Street between First and Second Avenues. The Water Department function could be relocated to the Water Department's Orange Grove Plant located on Orange Grove Avenue between Hyland and Santa Anita Avenues. The Public Works Yard (including the General Services Warehouse and storage uses) could be relocated on City owned property south of Live Oak adjacent to the Santa Anita Wash and north of the Three Par Golf Course. I It was noted in the staff report that contacts have been made with consulting firm of Michael Brandman Associates in connection with the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report for the project and would focus on traffic, noise and the use and storage of potentially hazard- ous materials (i. e., gasoline, paints, thinners, etc.) for each of the suggested locations. The cost for this EIR would be approximately $10,800. Discussion held on holding a scoping meeting in order to receive public input on issues which should be addressed in the EIR. Such a meeting is not required by law, however, such meetings may be used to obtain early public input reducing the potential for later project delays due to issues being raised which were not originally addressed in the draft EIR. It was MOVED by Councilmember Gilb, seconded by Councilmember Lojeski and CARRIED on roll call vote as follows that staff be directed to prepare a contract with Michael Brandman Associates for preparation of the required Environmental Impact Report at a fee of $10,800. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Councilmembers Gilb, Hannah, Lojeski, Young and Pellegrino None None It was MOVED by Councilmember Hannah, seconded by Councilmember Young and CARRIED on roll call vote as follows that a Scoping Meeting be held. AYES: Councilmembers Gilb, Hannah, Young and Pellegrino NOES: Council member Lojeski (because, in his opinion, it is not consistent with the staff report) I ABSENT: None CITY ATTORNEY The City Attorney presented for adoption, explained the content and read the title of Ordi'nance No. 1812 entitled: "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING CHAPTER 4 OF ARTICLE VI OF THE ARCADIA MUNICIPAL CODE REGARDING PROMOTIONAL ENTERTAINMENT EVENTS - PARKING LOTS". 5/21/85 -10- lOb. RESOLUTION / NO. 5224 IIADOPTE'I 11. 12. ADJOURNMENT June 4,1985 I ATTEST: \ 25:1244 It was MOVED by Counci1member Lojeski, seconded by Counci1member Gi1b and CARRIED on roll call vote as follows that Ordinance No. 1812 be and it is hereby ADOPTED. AYES: NOES: A8SENT: Counci1members Gi1b, Hannah, Lojeski, Young and Pellegrino None None The City Attorney presented, explained the content and read the title of Resolution No. 5224 entitled: "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA, HONORING DR. RICHARD W. CORDANO FOR 20 YEARS OF SERVICE TO HIS COMMUN ITY". It was MOVED by Counci1member Gi1b, seconded by Counci1member Young and CARRIED on roll call vote as follows that Resolution No. 5224 be and it is hereby ADOPTED. AYES: NOES: A8SENT: Counci1members Gi1b, Hannah, Lojeski, Young and Pellegrino None None MATTERS FROM STAFF None MATTERS FROM ELECTED OFFICIALS Council concurred in Counci1member Gi1b's suggestion that staff obtain ordinances from other cities, including Temple City, regard- ing signs to ascertain what they are doing about signs in foreign languages ... all toward the review of Arcadia's sign ordinance. Council was in accord with Counci1member Lojeski's suggestion that staff contact the developers who were interested in developing the South side of Huntington Drive and including the City Yard area. This in an endeavor to ascertain whether or not they are still interested and, if so, to resubmit proposals within a maximum of 60 days. This has come about inasmuch as Council is considering the relocation of the City Yard facility. At 11 :00 p. m. Council adjourned to 7:00 p. m., June 4, 1985 in the Conference Room to conduct the business of the Council and Agency and any Closed Session necessary to discuss personnel, litigation matters and evaluation of properties. Q/q'V Donald D. Pe , C:/fcqICrF0c 1egrino, Mayor ~~~ Christine Van Maanen, City Clerk 5/21/85 -11- .',