HomeMy WebLinkAbout1981/03/04 - Minutes March 4, 1981
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
Resular Meetin8
1. CALL TO ORDER.
The regular meeting of the City Council was held in the Lion's Park Community
Center, 9161 Base Line Road, Rancho Cucamonga, on Wednesday, March 4, 1981.
The meeting was called to order by Mayor Phillip D. Schlosser. Girl Scouts from
Troop 1180 led the flag salute.
Present: Councilmen James C. Frost, Jori D. Mikels, Michael A. Palombo, Arthur
H. Bridge, and Mayor Phillip D. Schlosser.
Also present: City Manager Lauren M. Wasserman, Assistant City Manager James
Robinson, Deputy City Attorney Robert Dougherty, Community Development Director
Jack Lam, City Engineer Lloyd Hubbs, Community Services Director William Holley,
and Finance Director Harry Empey.
Approval of Minutes: Motion: Moved by Mikels, seconded by Palombo to approve
the minutes of February 4 and February 18, 1981. Motion carried unanimously.
2. ANNOUNCEMENTS.
a. It was announced that Mr. Leonard Gorczyca, Chairman of the Historical
Commission, recently passed away and the meeting would be adjourned in his memory.
Motion: Moved by Frost, seconded by Bridge to direct the Historical Commission
to prepare a Resolution in honor of Mr. Gorczyca to be forwarded to the City
Council for adoption at the next meeting. Motion carried unanimously.
b. Councflman Mikels reported that at the SanBag meeting which met that morning
the County Transportation Commission took action on the Transportation Improve-
ment Program (TIP) which will be forwarded to SCAG and then on to the State for
inclusion in the State Transportation Improvement Program. Because of the
formulas that have been adopted for the TIP this year, due to lack of funding,
they do not allow the inclusion for funding for any projects that were not in
the five year Transportation Improvement Program previously.
He said when this was considered last year, our County Transportation Commission
recommended the full five year funding in the TIP, but when it reached the State
level, it was not approved. Instead the State inserted funding for right-of-way
for the Foothill Freeway for the first year only. Under the guidelines in effect
for this year if it was not inthe TIP for more than the current year, you could
not place it in again; it becomes a new project. In effect, the guidelines pre-
clude any inclusion of right-of-way protection funding in any year after this.
When the California Transportation Cormnission met in Claremont, they indicated
in Resolution form they would provide right-of-way protection funding through
December 1982. SanBag took action to attach a Resolution indicating support for
the prior action taken by the State Transportation Commission which will be
attached to their TIP submittal.
Councilman Frost indicated he thought it was appropriate to send a letter to our
legislators over the Mayor's signature indicating support of the action taken
by SanBag and relating our concerns. Council concurred with this.
c. Mayor Schlosser read a Proclamation to the Girl Scouts from Troop 1180
proclaming March 8-14 as Girl Scout Week in Rancho Cucamonga.
City Council Minutes
March 4, 1981
Page 2
3. CONSENT CALENDAR.
a. Approval of Warrants, Register No. 81-3-4 for $181,789.49.
(1) b. Acceptance of Parcel Map 5703: located on the west side of Center Avemue
between Victoria and Monte Vista.
RESOLUTION NO. 81-24
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF ~]tE CITY
OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING PARCEL
MAP NO. 5703.
(2) c. Acceptance of Parcel Map 6627: located on the south side of Wilson on the
west side of Hermosa.
RESOLUTION NO. 81-25
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF R~CHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING
PARCEL ~ NO. 6627.
(3) d. Approval to advertise the Carnelian Channel Construction project to seek
bids for the construction of Carnelian Channel. Estimated cost -- $374,000.
(4) e. Property Transfer Tax. Recommend engaging the services of Mr. Gene Tidwell
at a fee of $5.oo per hour plus reproduction costs to research the County's
tax records regarding property transfer fees.
(5) f. Set public hearing date of March 18, 1981 for Zone Change No. 80-12 --
Barmakian. A request for a change of zone from A-l-5 (limited agriculture,
5 acre lot minimum size) to R-l-20 (single family residential, 20,000 square
foot minimum size lot) for 24.36 acres of land located on the north side
of Almond Road, east of Carnelian Street - APN 1061-171-02.
(6) g. Alcoholic Beverage License for Lily T. Tribis, La Mariposa, 8807 Center
Street. Item had been removed from the February 18 agenda for investigation.
A full sheriff's report has been submitted to Council.
(7) h. Approval of State Agreement No. 08-5420 and Program Supplement No. 3. This
will enable the City to take advantage of Federal Aid Emergency Relief
funding for the emergency opening of FAU Routes -- R190, R060, R051, R066,
and R0194 (Hellman Avenue, Arrow Highway, Base Line Road, 4th Street, and
Carnelian Street) as a result of the January-February 1980 storm.
RESOLUTION NO. 81-27
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, AUTHORIZING
THE EXECUTION OF LOCAL AGENCY - STATE AGREEMENT
NO. 08-5420 AND PROGRAM SUPPLEMENT NO. 3.
(8) i. Request to set March 18, 1981 as a public hearing date for consideration
of the proposed modifications to the Omnitrans routes in Rancho Cucamonga.
(9) J. Request for Community Services Director to attend the Parks and Recreation
Society Annual Conference, March 6-9. Request is a budgeted item.
(10) k. Release of bonds: Tract No. 9423: located southwest corner of Beryl Street
and south of Base Line. Owner: Coral Investment, Inc.
Cash Staking Bond $ 2,350.00
Motion: Moved by Mikels, seconded by Palombo to approve the Consent Calendar
as presented. Motion carried unanimously 5-0.
City Council Minutes
March 4, 1981
Page 3
4. PUBLIC HEARINGS.
4A. AMENDMENT TO ORDINANCE NO. 105, RELATING TO PARK DEDICATIONS IN NEW SUB- (11)
DIVISIONS. Staff report by William Holley.
Potential problems have surfaced regarding Ordinance No. 105-B. Therefore, staff
requested that the ordinance be withdrawn from consideration at this time. The
original ordinance would remain in effect.
Mayor Schlosser asked if~there were any objections to the request for withdrawal
of the ordinance. There were none from the public or council. Council concurred
with the staff's recommendation for withdrawal.
Mayor Schlosser announced the Council would adjourn to an Executive Session with
the City Attorney. Council adjourned at 7:20 p.m. and reconvened at 7:25 p.m.
with all council members present.
4B. HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION TO DESIGNATE HISTORICAL (12)
LANDMARKS. Staff report by William Holley.
This was the second reading for Ordinance No. 138 which would designate the Alta
Loma Honor Roll, the palm and eucalyptus street tree plantings along Victoria
and Etiwanda Avenues and the Chaffey-Garcia House as historical landmarks.
Jim Robinson read the title of Ordinance No. 138.
ORDINANCE NO. 138 (second reading)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, RECOGNIZING THE
ALTA LOMA HONOR ROLL, THE PALM AND EUCALYPTUS
STREET TREE PLANTINGS ALONG THE NORTHEAST AND
SOUTHWEST CORNERS OF VICTORIA AND ETIWANDA
AVENUES, AND THE CHAFFEY-GARCIA HOUSE AS CITY
HISTORIC LANDMARKS.
Motion: Moved by Frost, seconded by Palombo to waive further reading. Motion
carried unanimously 5-0.
Mayor Schlosser opened the meeting for public hearing. There being no response,
the public hearing was closed.
Motion: Moved by Frost, seconded by Mikels to approve and adopt Ordinance No.
138. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: Frost, Mikels, Palombo,
Bridge, and Schlosser. NOES: None. ABSENT: None.
4C. INDUSTRIAL ASSESSMENT DISTRICT~-01. (13)
Mayor Schlosser announced that he would step down from the Assessment District
public hearing since he had his business and owned property in the area under
consideration. He stated that Mayor pro-tem Bridge would conduct the hearing.
Mayor pro-tem Bridge announced that this was the time and place for hearing the
protests or objections to the "Report" and proposed construction and all other
related matters in Assessment District No. 79-1.
City Clerk Wasserman reported that Notice had been given in the manner and form
as required by law (pursuant to the provisions of the Streets and Highways Code)
and an affidavit for the filing of the boundary map and certificate of mailing
were on file in the Clerk's office,
Lloyd Hubbs, city engineer, then turned the meeting over to Max Brown, bond
counsel for the project. Mr. Brown summarized the procedure to be taken. He
said this was the first of two public hearings relating to the formation
City Council Minutes
March 4, 1981
Page 4
of Assessment District No. 79-1. At this time the City Council would be dealing
in generalities with the improvements, the costs, and the methods of the assess-
ment spread. If Council proceeds to the second public hearing, then Council
would be authorizing staff to proceed with detailed plans and specifications.
At that time Council would have final plans, construction bids, and proposals
for the sale of bonds. However, at this time, he said the Council would be
dealing with schematics, general nature, location, and extent of the improve-
ments. City Council could abandon the plans, proceed, or continue the matter.
Mr. Brown stated that the testimony to be heard should deal with the boundaries,
works of improvements, or method and formula proposed by the Assessment Engineer.
He said the law requires that assessments be apportioned to the properties in
accordance to the benefits they receive from the works of improvements.
He then turned the meeting over the Walt Hamilton, the Assessment Engineer, who
presented a report on the written protests which had been received. He announced
that a total of 46.1% protests had been received up to the time and place of
the hearing. He summarized the debt report, briefing Council as to the extent
of the works of improvements and explained the method and formula that was used
for the spread of the assessments.
Mayor pro-tem Bridge opened the meeting for public hearing to those who had
submitted a written protest. Those speaking in protest were:
1. Joe Dilorio, representing Richard Ortwein of the Koll/Lyon Company. He
stated they were not totally against the Assessment District. He said there was
disagreement with the street layout. Some property owners were not ready to
develop their property, therefore, did not want the streets put in at the present
time. He said what everyone wanted to do was to adjust the streets, and he felt
that if this were tabled for about thirty days, these adjustments could be worked
out to everyone's satisfaction. He stated that regarding the storm drains, they
needed about thirty days to work out the philosophy of how to best spread the costs.
2. Jim Westling, O'Donnell Brigham. He stated they were in favor of the
formation of the Assessment District. Regarding the written protest which they
submitted, he said they were concerned about the spread of the costs. However,
they felt that this could be worked out. He expressed a disagreement with the
location of the storm drain 19-A. They wanted to have this drain put back on the
east property line where it originally had been placed.
3. Jack Corrigan, Daon Corporation. He stated that they could take care
of their own problems, and they simply would not want to be a part of the Assess-
ment District.
4. Larry Turpin, Assistant City Engineer for Ontario. He stated that
Ontario was concerned about the impact the storm drain would have on the properties
down stream in the City of Ontario.
5. Hal Haldin, civil engineer representing property owners west of Haven
Avenue. He stated that the property owners west of Haven would have to pay
considerably more for storm drains if they Joined this Assessment District. It
was more cost effective for them to form their own District. He stated that
this area represents approximately 138.32 acres and that about 75 percent of the
property owners have protested the Assessment District.
6. Richard Clayton, plant manager of Martin Marriotta facility, west of
Haven and south of 8th Street. He stated that he was asked to make the following
statement: "That their attorney said that by law special assessments required
special benefits and they could not see any benefits to their parcel of land in
this assessment and the possibility of legal action is being considered."
City Council Minutes
March 4, 1981
Page 5
7. Bill Kirkland of KBL, property located south of 8th Street and bordering
on the west side of Haven. He said they did not want the District since this
area has less drainage problems. It was a matter of getting value for their
dollar and that $4700 per acre was not value from their viewpoint.
8. Gregg Fromme, Fromme Investments, property located on 6th Street and
Turner Avenue. He stated he was impressed from the drainage meetings that he
had attended that the group east of Haven, who would be paying for the majority of
the drainage system, was not particularly concerned about the west of Haven group.
They were not concerned if they did have their own drainage district. The facts
that its 149% minimum of an increase added expense to the west Haven group as
opposed to a 12~% added expense to the rest of the District if the west Haven
group were allowed to form was very important statistics.
9. Jack McNay spoke in favor of proceeding with the Assessment District.
Mayor pro-tem Bridge stated that Council was now hearing from those protesting
the formation of the District.
10. Vito DiVito Francesco, representing the Sylvester property. He said
that in regard to the Sylvester property there are no plans to develop the pro-
perty and its not on the market for sale. In view of these facts, they requested
the Sylvester property be deleted both for streets and drainage purposes.
They also wanted to go on record as joining with Joe DiIorio in asking that the
matter be referred back for futher study so that the District can move forward
with the exclusion of the Sylvester property both as to streets and drainage. He
also stated that a concern of theirs was that if the entire district went in,
what assurances would property owners have that they could go to a future buyer
of the property and assure them that there will not be any future drainage problems.
11. Bill Milliken, member of the west Haven group and manager of the La
Mancho Golf Course. He said only those west of Haven was protesting. The reason
East Haven group would like to see the district formed over as much acreage as
possible so they could have as many people pay for this drainage problem as possi-
ble; that way it would not cost them as much.
12. Morton DeVote. He handed in a written petition to Mr. Hamilton at the
time he spoke. They were owners of Parcel 236 at southeast corner of the Assess-
ment District. He said the only proposed benefit to them would be line 19-D
for storm drain benefits. They were protesting the District because they felt
the $4700 assessment was not fair for his property since they basically did not
have storm drain problems.
13. Ben Wick, owner of 10 acres at the corner of Rochester and 8th Street.
He said he was speaking as part of the previous petition submitted by Mr. DeVore.
They were requesting the Consultant and Engineering Department to look at line 19-D
to see if they could become a separate district. It would compose of all the pro-
perty owners along Rochester Avenue.
14. Keith Walker, representing owner of Parcel No. 257 south of the parcel
owned by Mr. Wick. They were concerned about the method of assessment and protesting
inclusion of line 19-D at this time. They were also concerned about the re-routing
of Rochester Avenue.
Mayor pro-tem Bridge asked if there were others who wished to address the issue
in protest. ~here being no response, Mr. Bridge called a recess at 8:45 p.m.
The meeting reconvened at 9:05 p.m. with all members of the Council and staff
present.
City Council Minutes
March 4, 1981
Page 6
biayor pro-tem Bridge asked for those who wished to address Council in favor of
the District to now come forth. Speaking in favor were:
1. Richard Borston, Milliken State Investors. He said he had 20 acres just
north of 4th Street. He felt the Assessment District was important for the
development of the general area and to have the same district without being
fragmented. He said the district would eventually benefit them because with the
Assessment District formation, the development would profit and values would
increase.
2. George H. Minmack, representing B. D. Galleano, et. al, owners of 50
acres on the south side of Arrow Highway east of Haven. They felt that it was in
the best interests of the entire area that the storm drains be built and be
built according to a master plan. We now have a master plan, and they think
it is workable. He said they were only affected by the storm drain portion of
the plan. He said they needed the drain coming from the Daon property and would
like to have it completed in a reasonable time. He did not want to pay his
money for drainage and then find someone dumping water onto him, and thus hurting
his development. He said that anyone who did not become a part of the plan
should be done by a contract with specified timing -- what they will build, when,
and how. He expressed that the cost should be based upon the total acreage, and
not let each person take care of his own problem. He said they did not want any
changes on line 5-D which was the line that drains Mr. Galleano's property. He
was willing to pay for the benefit.
3. Robert Houtz, chief engineer for the Sante Fe Land Improvement Company
and owner of 130 acres on the south of Arrow Highway about where Milliken Street
will eventually go. He suggested that this be held over for thirty days so the
various interest groups could work together to come up with some solutions. He
said line 9-A served his property.
4. Chuck Caldweil, representing himself and partner, Cadillac Fairview.
They have 85 acres at the northeast corner of Haven and 8th Street. They recog-
nized the benefits the Assessment District would bring to the area and were in
favor of the formation of the district.
5. Jeff Sceranka, representing the Lucas' family. He spoke in favor of the
District and encouraged the Council to move ahead with it and not wait.
6. Betty McNay, owner representing 6 acres of land. She felt it was to
everyone's benefit to support a master plan. She said the area had been engineered
in the past under the County, but there were some who had opposed those plans. If
they had proceeded, then the drainage system would be in today. She encouraged
Council to proceed.
There being no further public responses, the Mayor pro-tem closed the public
hearing.
Councilman Mikels asked for the total percentage of protests at this time. Mr.
Hamilton announced that there were 49.04 percent protests. However, Mr. Bridge
stated that many were conditional.
Motion: Moved by Palombo, seconded by Mikels to continue the hearing to April
15 in order to give staff time to work out problems with the property owners.
Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: Frost, Mikels, Palombo, and Bridge.
NOES: None. ABSENT: Schlosser, who had excused himself from the discussion because
he owned property in the area.
Mayor pro-tem Bridge called a recess at 9:40 p.m. The meeting reconvened at
9:50 p.m. with all members of the council and staff present.
City Council Minutes
March 4, 1981
Page 7
4D. CODE ENFORCEMENT PROGRAM. (14
Jack Lam presented the staff report.
Jim Robinson read the title of Ordinance No. 139.
ORDINANCE NO. 139 (first reading)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, ESTABLISHING
A GENERAL PENALTY FOR WILLFUL FAILURE TO APPEAR
AS INDICATED ON A CITATION ISSUED FOR VIOLATIONS
OF ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA.
Motion: Moved by Palombo, seconded by Mikels to waive further reading. Motion
carried unanimously 5-0.
Mayor Schlosser opened the meeting for public hearing. There being no response,
the Mayor closed the public hearing. Mayor Schlosser set March 18 for second
reading.
Councilman Frost wanted to know the need for this and asked if there have been
some problems. Mr. Lam stated that staff felt it was necessary to put on the
citation a penalty for failure to appear in order to give more clout to the
citation program.
%he City Attorney said this was a standard procedure for assuring appearances
on the citation.
Mr. Frost said this was in anticipation to a need, not because of an answer to
a problem. The City Attorney said that was correct, and that this was the "teeth"
to the program. Frost then requested more backup when this came up for second
reading.
Mayor Schlosser asked if there were any public comments to Resolution No. 81-30.
There were none, therefore, the Mayor closed the meeting for public comment.
Motion: Moved by Bridge, seconded by Mikels to approve Resolution No. 81-30
and to waive the entire reading. Motion carried unanimously 5-0. Jim Robinson
read the title of Resolution No. 81-30.
RESOLUTION NO. 81-30 (15)
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, DESIGNATING CERTAIN
CITY EMPLOYEES TO ENFORCE CITY ORDINANCES AND ALL
PRIMARY AND SECONDARY CODES REFERRED TO THEREIN.
City Council Minutes
March 4, 1981
Page 8
5. CITY MANAGER'S STAFF REPORTS.
(16) 5A. RECOMMENDATION TO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION FOR ALLOCATION FOR ADDITIONAL
LIFELINE RATES. Staff report by Lauren Wasserman.
The recommendation submitted to Council was to join with other co~unities of
the West End of San Bernardino County to request the Public Utilities Commission
to have the Southern California Edison Company transfer the West End from Region
C to Region H, thus making the area eligible for lifeline rates. This would
result in a special lifeline rate for electricity used for air conditioning during
the hot summer months.
Jennifer Alloway was present representing the Public Utilities Commission to
answer any questions of the Council.
Mayor Schlosser opened the meeting to the public for comment. There being none,
he closed the public portion of the meeting.
Motion: Moved by Mikels, seconded by Palombo to approve Resolution 81-28 and
to waive the entire reading. Motion carried unanimously 5-0. Jim Robinson
read title of Resolution No. 81-28.
RESOLUTION NO. 81-28
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA REQUESTING
TRANSFER OF SOUTHERN CALIFONRIA EDISON
COMPANY'S ONTARIO DISTRICT FROM REGION C
TO REGION H.
(17) 5B. RECOMMEND ENDORSEMENT OF SENATE BILL-2~ A MEASURE CONCERNING THE
STATEWIDE PLANNING PROCESS. Staff report by Jack Lam.
Councilman Mikels said that had this law been in effect, the State would not
have been able to change the transportation budget which he had talked about at
the beginning of the evening.
The law would prohibit state agencies from overstepping their authority, and
thus making changes in plans by local or regional agencies. This Bill would
establish uniform public hearing process for modifications of local elements of
State plans.
Motion: Moved by Palombo, seconded by Mikels to support Senate Bill-2 and
to direct staff to convey this to our locally elected representatives in Sacra-
mento. Motion carried unanimously 5-0.
(18) 5C. THE PROCESSING OF DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS IN THE JOHN BLAYNEY ALTERNATIVES
AREA. Staff report by Jack Lam.
The City of Rancho Cucamonga recently received a letter from the State Office
of Planning and Research (OPR) which modified their original approval of exten-
sion for the General Plan. Originally there was a condition which stipulated
that prior to approval of any development application during the General Plan
process, a finding must be made that the project was consistent with both the
existing and the proposed General Plan. The current modification would allow the
City in those alternative areas the flexibility of proceeding with development
applications if the City Council wished.
OPR said that where the existing General Plan does not contain any-adopted land
use policy, the City Council shall substitute the following finding: "There
is reasonable probability that the land use proposed by a tentative subdivision
map, parcel map, zone change, or land use permit will be consistent with the
proposed general plan."
City Council Minutes
March 4, 1981
Page 9
The Council spent considerable time discussing this amongst themselves with the
City Attorney. Mr. Dougherty said the Council has to make a finding for the
property not in the Blayney Alternative area, and find that project is consistent
with the Blayney General Plan. He said this gave the city a problem in the
alternative area because there was no proposed land use designation.
He suggested that in any map that the Planning Commission tentatively approves
until we have a general plan adopted that a condition of approval could be
inserted and that condition be that the final map not be approved unless it is
consistent with the general plan at the time of final map approval.
Ralph Lewis, Lewis Homes, said they would agree to such a condition as the City
Attorney just outlined. They would take their chances.
Doug Hone said he would not support such a plicy. He said it was possible that
someone could proceed, go through the Planning Commission and staff, and have a
condition happen that a hearing occur on a general plan on a subsequent date and
have a group of citizens at that hearing and Council feel moved to change a
consistency situation and the person would not even know about it until he was
ready to have his final map done. He said the reputation and credibility of the
City would be very much at stake.
Jim Banks questioned how OPR could make such changes. He thought this was
inconsistent with the Government Code. Mr. Dougherty explained that our problem
was that we only have a land use element not an existing general plan. OPR is
saying that Council can approve a development if it is consistent with the existing
land use element and the proposed general plan. But in that alternative area,
there is no existing land use element. So we are excluded from considering any-
thing in there unless the previous condition set by OPR is modified. OPR says if
City Council agrees, then the City can go ahead and consider development for the
alternative area if it is consistent with the proposed general plan.
Ron Tannebaum felt that if Council considered this suggestion, they would be
opening up to many problems.
Bruce Chitiea said that a condition like this gave the Council less flexibility
rather than more by moving from an open to closed political process.
Doug Gorgen said he had a tract in that alternative area also and wanted to know
how this all affects him. Mr. Lam stated that his tract was processable because
he had a much lower density, therefore, he could come under everyone of the
categories.
The City Attorney said that if Council denied this recommendation by the OPR, then
they would not be able to come back at a later date until after the final adoption
of the general plan and change your mind. He said that if Council did not take
action, then they were under the old conditions, and when they finished the hearings
on the land use element and were satisfied at what you want, then you could consider
this at that time.
Motion: Moved by Palombo, seconded by Mikels to close the debate. The motion
carried by the following vote: AYES: Palombo, Bridge, Schlosser. NOES: Frost,
Mikels. ABSENT: None.
Motion: Moved by Bridge, seconded by Palombo to table the issue. Motion carried
unanimously 5-0.
6. CITY ATTORNEY'S REPORTS.
The City Attorney requested time after the meeting to meet with Council in
closed session regarding a legal matter.
City Council Minutes
March 4, 1981
Page 10
7. ADJOURNMENT.
Motion: Moved by Palombo, seconded by Mikels to adjourn the meeting in memory
of Leonard Gorczyca, Chairman of the Historical Commission who passed away
recently. Council adjourned to a Legal Session to reconvene on Monday, March
9, 1981 at 7:00 p.m. for the General Plan public hearings. Meeting adjourned
at 11:35 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Beverly Authelet
Deputy City Clerk