09-28-1970 - Regular Meeting - Minutesi-
-MINUTES, OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL
-CALIFORNIA
CITY OF WEST COVINA,
SEPTEMBER 28, 1970.
The regular meeting of the City Council was called to order at
7:40 P.M. by Mayor Ke-n Chappell in the West Covina Council Chambers.
The Pledge of Allegi.ance was led by Councilman Robert Young; the
invocation was given by Reverend Robert F. Condon of the Queen of
the Valley Hospital.
Pr)T.T. rAT.T.
Present: Mayor Chappell; Councilmen Shearer, Nichols,
Young, Lloyd
Others Present: George Aiassa, City Manager
Lela Preston, City Clerk
George Wakefield, City Attorney
H. R. Fast, Public Service Director
George Zimmerman, City Engineer
Richard Munsell, Planning Director
Ross Nammar, Administrative Analyst
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
September 14, 1970
September 21, 1970
AWARD OF BIDS
PROJECT NO. SP-71006
APPROVE COOPERATIVE
AGREEMENT WITH.
UMARK, INC.
Motion by Councilman Lloyd, seconded by
Councilman Young, and.carried, approving
...... .. mimkites as submitted. (Councilman Shearer
abstained due to h.is'absence at this
me it! t i
Motion by Councilman Lloyd, seconded by
Councilman Shearer, and carried, approving
minutes as submitted.
LOCATION: Azusa Avenue to Shadow Oak Drive
(Council reviewed Engineer's report....)
The City Clerk stated 8 bids..received in
the Office of the City Clerk at 10-00 A.M.
on September 23, 1970; all were reviewed
and determined to be valid bid proposals:
Griffith.Co., Los Angeles Alternate A
$129,815.40
Alternate B
$148,993.20
D & W Paving, Glendora A
$136,260..00
B
$157, 221. 80
Crowell &,Larson, Bld. Pk. A
$139,744.30
B
$165,166-30
J.K.Mu phy, Van Nuys A
$141 153.15
B�
$160.241.63
Aman Bros. Covina A
$-14-1., 380. 8 6
B
$162., 83 3. 20
Vernon Paving, Los Angeles A
.$152,403.27
B
$172., 919. 0 7
Sully -Miller, Long�Beac-h A
$160,93.5.40
B
$179,889.82
Louis Lopez, Glendora A
$185,603.44
B
$209,686.'64
Councilman Young: Mr. Ma-yor,,noting that the low
bid on Alternate A
and B is the Griffith Company of Los Angeles
and noting the recommendations
of the City
Engineer and the fact that the bid price is well within
the budget
estimated for this work, I move that- the - Alternate
IIRII�.'bid of the
Griffith Company of Los Angeles presented at.the
bid.opening of
,,,.as
September 23, 1970, for Project..SP 71006 be accepted -and that the
Mayor and City Clerk-.be-autho-rized to execute an agreement with the
7
7 f.,
REG. C.C. .9-28-70 Page Two
PROJECT NO. SP-71006 - Cont1d..
said Griffith Compapy, subject to a portion that,may yet be
negotiated under Alternate "A".
Seconded -by Councilman Nichols.
Mr. Wakefie ld: Mr. Mayor and Councilmen, as.I understand. it
City Attorney the Coopexative-Agreement between�the.-City,and.
Umark-h-as-not yet been. executed -by, Umark-ar..,has,
Umark deposited its�share of the funds -with the,City. -Under-the
circumstance!&,I think the award of the contract to.Griffith Company
should be made ,subJect- to the execution of the Cooperative, Agreement.
and the depos-it-of funds-by--Umark-wi-th the� City.
Councilman YG.ung:--..-- With the. consent, of these-cond,� I�.so. amend -the
motion.s
Co.uncilman -Nichols seconded the amended motion.
Motion carried on ro-1l,call.vo-te as follows:
AYES: Councilmen Shearer, Nichols, Young, Lloyd, Mayor Chappell
.NOES: No n6 ",,,
ABSENT: No n e
PROJECT NO. TS,70,019., LOCATION,: Northeast corner of Vincent Ave-nue
UNDERGROUND..INSTALLA- and Center Street.
TION OF ' TRAFFIC SIGNAL (Council reviewed Engineer's report.)
CONTROLS Informal bids were received on Aug-ust 20,
1970.
Councilman Young�-.* Mr:. Mayor-,. it ..appears., that ...,the. City
Eng-ineer. Is, of f1ce, in .)going.., back. .,and., getting
the.se -bids has come. in with. f,igures co.nsider-
ably under that.whichwas..bid at the_time....._and�I.move that the report
of the City ."'Enginee-r., da-t-ed-,..Septem-be�r.-,-1-8-i-- 1970j
recommendations. ther-e-in,be-adopted.
Seconded:by Councilman Lloyd. -Motion
carried on roll, call -�vote as , f ollows:
AYES: CouncIlmen Shear.ex, Nichols,, Young, Lloyd, Mayor Chappell
NOES: None',�
ABSENT: None -
Councilman Shea-rer: Mr. Mayor,.I would like to,stronglyurge
the ..staff. to keep a: close acco-unti-ng..on the
cost of; this: installation.,since, to. tmy'-..
knowledge, and I have made a few inquiries, it i-s,. .,if..not. the_only
one, one of -a very. few of such installations in the State -of.
California and it does�pr.esent some maintenance problems, and I would
hope staff would record-the.cost of maintenance of-thi.sparti-cular
controller.
(Council agreed and Mayor Chappell asked Mr. Aiassa to please make a
note of thisrequest and he agreed to do so.)
PUBLIC WORKS � ' *
PRECISE PLAN,NO..298-R
STREET IMPROVEMENTS
WEST COVINA CHURCH OF
CHRIST
release of cash deposit
1970 STORM 'DRArI.N BOND
ISSUE, PROPOSITION -PAP.
LOCATION.: 705 North Lar-k- Ellen, Avenue_
Motion. by.. Councilman Nichols., -seconded, by
Councilman -Young., and carriedT, .'acc6pting
street improvements and,, authorizing_the_
in therp-,amG.unt -of
.-(.Council reviewed Enginee-rl-s report.)
RESOLUTION NO. 4233 The City Clerk presented:
ADOPTED 11 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF WEST COVINA, ENDORSING LOS ANGELES
2
REG. C.C. 9-28-70 Page Three
1970*STORM DRAIN BOND ISSUE - Cont-ld.
COUNTY PROPOSITION "All WHICH WILL APPEAR ON THE NOVEMBER 3 GENERAL
BALLOT.o'
Mayor Chappel-1: Hearing. no objections, wa-ive-further.read-
ing of the body of said Re,solution.
Motion by Councilman Nichols, seconded by Councilman Young.,
adopting said Resolution.. Motion carried on roll call vote.,,as
follows:
AYES: Councilmen Shearer, Nichols, Young, Lloyd,,Mayor Chappell
NOES: None --
ABSENT: None
Motion by Councilma n Nichols that the Council.authorize the Mayor
to personally endorse Proposition "A'! in accordance with the request
of the Board of Supervisors.
Councilman Young: A point of order, Mr. Mayor. Why couldn't
the Mayor.do it anyhow without a.motion?
Councilman Nichol-s; The Mayor may make..any endorsement for
himself but if he makes.the-.e.ndorsement
..officially as the Mayor of West Covina he
is speaking,,for--the-entire Council body and I think—wou,ld require all
of our permi-asion...
Councilman Young: I am -all for it, but,.I didn,lt think he was
that tied down. 1. wi.11,.se.cond,..the motion.
Councilman S,hea.-er:: For, the benefit of the. audience. I. think it
?xopo
should be.t -pointed, out that.if,_1 zition
PA"- f ails the. City will, have. . to come....up_..
with approximate1y. one Vand-a qu,artex, -mi,11ion., dol-l-ars_,out._.of _oux.
own funds to� pay for improvements that, we. are almo,st.-oblig.ated to
put in. So it does behoove.all o f-us, not-only,the. Mayor, but all
of the Councilmen;and-everyone,present tolacatively,,-cam aign for
P.,
the passing -of this bond issue.
Motion carried.
Mayor Chappell: With the concurrence of the.Cou.nci1,I..pl.an
on vigorously working on this.,Propo.sition
because,I--think it.is something very
important to our City at this.time, fin ancially, as well as improving
our storm drain''.p1roblems.
PARCEL MAP NO. 1727 LOCATION: North of Amar Road, and east and
DONALD L. BREN CO. west --o-f-A71 zu-sa Avenue.
(council re:v-iewed -Engineer's report...)
RESOLUTION NO,.;..4234,- The City Cleirk-presented.,:_
ADOPTED PA RESOLUTION OF THE CITY. COUNCIL OF
THE:CITY ' OF WEST COVINA,. APPROVING
FINAL --PARCEL, M&P--NO, .17,23 .; 11 ., , � - I
Mayor Chappell:- Hear-ing,--no obje-ct.-i-ons, walve-further..re-ad-
ingw:,of the -body., of .sa-id...
Motion by C.ouncilm-a-ni!�Young,,.,,secon-dediby Councilman Shearer,.. -adopt-
ing said Re�solution,: ;Motion carxied-on.x,oll call vote as follows:
AYES: Counci:lmen.Sh&6Lrer, ,Nicho.l.s,. Young, Lloyd, Mayor Chappell
NOES: Nqn&.-
ABSENT: None --.--
MAINTENANCE DISTRICT LOCATION: Amar Road and Azusa Avenue
i
NO. 1 - WOODSIDE VILLAGE (Council reviewed Engineer's report.)
- 3 -
REG. C.C.. 9-28-70
PROJECT NO. SP-68007
Page Six -
I
I I
Mayor Chappell:
Hearing no -objections, waive further reading..
of the body of said Resolution.
Motion by Councilman Shearer, seconded by Councilman Young, adopting
said Resolution.
Councilman Young: A point of order. I thought this was a
public hearing and it seems like we are
doing everything without a public he-aring.
Mr. Wakefield:_ ...Cou.nc�i.l,man,....Y-ou.ng, -you will remember the
City Attorney public hearing was closed at the last
.regular meeting and staff'was instructed
to revise the Engineer's report and exclude from the assessment
those costs attributable to the lowering of the water main. This
resolution thenisimply confirms the assessment as to the remaining,,
cost.
Councilman Young: Why are we treating the property owner at
location number two differently from the
property owner at'location number one?
Mr. Wakefield: Is the property you have reference to the
City Attorney General Motors property?
Councilman Young: I guess so, I am not,.su,re,. Apparently we
are lowering the water main at city cost
at point No. 1 and at the cost of the
property owner at point No. 2 because the property owner apparently
requested the relocation..
Mr. Wakefield: This particular parcel of property was
City Attorney ileproved pursuant to a specific.petition.
of the property owner which requested not
only the work be done,.but al'so,th'at the water line be lowered..
Councilman Young: We -can grant the request and whatever con-
ditions we are.placing on-the.request and
if this is agreeable to the,property owner that precludes.any,
further discussion of the equities involved as to cost,-etc.0 is
that correct? (Answer: Yes) Thank you, I understand it now.
Motion carried on roll call vote as follows:
AYES: Councilmen Shearer, Nichols, Young, Lloyd, Mayor Chappell
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
PLANNING COMMISSION
Action of 9/16/70 (Council * reviewed action; Councilman Lloyd
called up Item 6 - Unclassified Use Permit
No. 161, Atlantic Richfield Company and
Council agreed.)
Councilman Nichols: A question before voting on this. In the
new N-C zone a gas station is by an
unclassified use permit - is that correct?
Mr. Munsell:
Planning Director
Councilman Nichols.
superseded the C-2.?
Mr. Munsell:
Planning Director
That is correct. All commercial zones
except O-P allow gas stations by unclassi-
fied,use permit.
The old C-2 used to allow by right?
(Answer: That is correct) Has the N-C
No, the N-C superseded the C-1.
REG. C.C.' 9-28 -70 Page Seven
Plan. Com. Review of Action
Councilman Nichols: If under the prior zoningit, would have
required an unclassified use' permit in that
location? (Answer: Yes, that -is correct..)
Mayor Chappell:
Are there any objections to calling -up.
Item 6? (None)
Councilman Young: Mr Mayor - in the Department report on
the landscaping at the Jack I,Martin-resi-
d6nce. I see correspondence in the file and
a lot of history on this situation. I wonder if we might have
further information. I don't know exactly what is happening, it
appears to be informational and yet there are questions involved
and allegations by Mr. Martin respecting.other homes that have
similar type shrubbery or hedges and his reasoning for having, and
I am,w*ondering ) if this is worthy of further cons idekati6ft' by Cou".ficil.
I am intrigued by what I see in the file.
Mr. Munsell: The item comes before the Commission
Planning Director at the request actually of the District
Attorney, and one reason you,have a little
more extensive,re ' port than we normally provide is that on the
summary sheet for the Department Reports we neglected to put the
addr*ss�,`,and since we thought that might catch your eye we thought
we i��,`96tterlprovide-all the information.
The situation we have is a heavy planting
in the front yard of the individual's home and called to the
City's attention by a neighbor apparently in disagreement,,with the
neighbor or the shrubbery or both. As indicated by the-.note.there
are probably a number of similar overgrown front yards,throughout
the City'. The code indicates that any planting within.a.,frontyard..
is acceptable only if it does not take the form of a-hedge,ove.r.
3h- high;ihtermittent trees, low fences are acceptable. As a.
general rule this has somewhat of a low priority on our list of items
to enforce or.'to proceed against and as a consequence it is more of
a call bas.is, If an individual calls and indicates. �they _..are
extremely unhappy and are aware it*, is, a -violation of. the.,Ordinance
we take action.at their request. In this,,case we-did.have a call
and we did take action requesting the individual to trim his hedge
in such a way so -it would. . meet the 3h' limit -and if he.wants trees
sticking out -of the hedge that would be acceptable. We made a
number of complaints to the District Attorney in the last couple of
months and some have come back to us, one was the peacock situation
and now this. Probably because he,al,so has a heavy workload. In
any event it came back to the Commission to de.te,rmine.if..this growth
was in fact -a hedge- I !
I had a discussion with Mr. Martin this. -
morning and the Special Enforcement Officer and..I wi.l.l.meet with.-
them,orl-.the 6th to discuss in greater -detail how he.can solve his
problem.and perhaps rel.ie.ve.his.neighbor of the unhappy.sItuation.
Generally speaking.with regard to the.additional hedges existing
throughout the City, if Council should desire we would drop..some
of our other priority items�'.,and. ..proceed on ,.abatJhgj hedges,...
otherwise we would prefer to do it,,-o.n a call basi's only.1
Councilman Nichols: Mr. Mayor, it is my opinion -that this i.s. in -.--
one of the, -areas that 'the ;City had, best—
be.advised to proceed carefully. Thi,s
gentleman has counted by his.own determination. some. hundreds ..of
residences in the city that.in his opini.on�lare iniequal violation,..
and without recounting I can,confirm that he is in all-probabil.i.ty
exactly correct. I think-, we -have a; law on. the books-'.:that-.-dn
literal interpretation can bring -nothing, but pain tolour-city...staff.
and our enforcement,agenc'. Generally we have expressed a concern-
y
with these typesof.growths where they have had an obstructive aspect
and I think 'thi-s2� is -�. one of the laws that must be treated with
the milk of human kindness and some rationale. I woluld*think that
7
REG. C.C. 9-28-70 Page Eight
Plan. Com.'Review of Action
,the Council would be on very sound ethical and moral grounds to
instruct'8taff to review its enforcement,policy in this area and
hold of ' f-on this particularmatter until further interpretation is
made.
Councilman Shearer: I think, it is worth a trip by this -partic-
�ular address. I dro.ve by Saturday ,
afternoon* needless to say,,,i.t is not -in the sense that.you would-.
normally �hink of as a hedge. .-It-looks-more like -:a jungle.. It
is not like ' 4h I -hig�h, it is lik.e . 12-k-. -high and not Jike, a hedge ,
but like a whole...wall fortress. As_I approached- it I saw on.,�_...
this same street. hedg@§ not 4-1 - --high-but..-.51 or over. . So At.. will be
a ticklish -problem., I doubt,that there -are hundreds.of-pl.'aces,in
the City that are in -the extension of violation this is....and then
here we'get into the area of what is just not a little bit or'
a big violation. So Ithink it presents a difficult problem to
staff because we do'have a law on the books that says"you shall not!�.'
And this individual hasand someone raised the point and staff is
faced with -the fact they have,a law and someone has complained and
can they really turn, in effect, the other way and ignore it?
Mayor Chappell: It will be interesting to,have Mr. Munsell
report back,� to us: after he meets with
Mr —Martin.
Councilman Young..
Having raised the issue...I.am.concerned
.-...because we have:a citizen.. here. who.. is
-growing things in his,. front .,yard ... and he
is about to- be,branded-ias 1'a:'criminal- on, that count.. -_a, good. -tax-
paying, citizen,who, i,s irritating -his- neighbor apparently, I.and.. yet
I don I t know f or . who -se., benef. it this hedg-e -law existg . -and., -what-the
reasons f or- -the. standards are. Does it exist for, the. sake,. of. the
neighbor, or for the cars travelling,on the street? .In.other words)
who is entitled to,make;_the�complaint? In light-of,-thi.s,ge.ntleman _s.
own research which,,.I would, like. to accept at face -value ..at, the.
m e' t I
am n . - I would lsugge,st,.�. that. we� request the PlIanning,-Depar-tMent,
and Planning Commi.ssion, to �review - this Ordinance: with the. ..idea in
mind of at ..least an appropriate amendment; to --take-dt, --speci.fi,cal.ly
to the purpose we.i.are-concerned with. .1-didn't know.we.�had an.
Ordinance like,,, th.is,,'. I JaIwaya-'thought. I ...could,,. grow, anything I wanted,
in my frontli-yar�0--and�,nG'W-'I�f�l,�nd.,-out�-I�,can-.I-t.
I would requ,est'-.,it.-bel!,studied�.
Co,qncilman Nichols: The..r,,e �.are - a lot of , elements in thi.s... not
expr,e�ssedim this,, report. , -I..rec-all-_-.a_year.
or,,,so ago �a,complaint about: -a .-s,imi1.ar..,type,,,
of situation�,16dged -by a neighbor because',he.-found.it liter -ally,...,_. -
impossible .,to!.,back-.1�.in-to--.��the... street f-,rom his. awn property,and-have .
any sort of � a1�gnment of:the.� traf f ic l,ane 4becau-se of the., growth, . in
the' setback 'area : in. the! f ro nt, of the prope rty. .. Now .. i f _ this - i.s_the,
element. ...of concern, �'%if the- enf orcement is based an-obstruct.1an tar..
any rationale. to the,,. -growth, of� shrubbery dn the f r.ont yard ,,,then.,. I..
think enforcementz--is,in order., -but -if it was -based onthe.,tact.,..,
that- there - is. -growth .'in the- front yard and some -one says. i I t now
passes the, line!,of hedge�, and is in excess,af .4.1 if that is the
criteria and �if,lenforcem,,.--ri.t.,!.is:-to-be..,predicat6d---.on�,,that�,.-.the,n-.I,--,.
am afraid -we -are indeed �-In--I-trab-le-.
Iman Nichol-s: seconded by*:Counc*ilman,Llayd, ...thc�t
Motion by'Councl
this be refdrred:back-to staff';to look -into this77ffgtter �furthe_rf___-
Motion carried; Cou�ncilman-i -Shearer . voting
Motion'by Cou-n4c-i-lman--:Young, seconded by Councilman, Lloyd-,_ and:
U:
carried, that Concil receive and file the,Planning Commission
review of ac�ion da�,,e'd_,Sept`effiber 16, 1970,i*with the exception of
Item 6.
8
a
E
REG. C.C. 9-28-70
Planning Com. - cont'd-
Page - Nine
PARCEL MAP NO. 1760 LOCATION: 1077 Springmeadow Drive
James & Mabel Low REQUEST: Approval of a parcel map to sub-
divide a 1.1 acre parcel into two lots in
the R-1 Zone, Area District III (minimum lot 14,400 square feet).
Recommended by Planning Commission Resolution No. 2281.
(Mr. Munsell, Planning Director, summarized Planning Commission
Resolution 2281 setting forth conditions of approval; slides shown
of the property and explained.)
Mr. Munsell: I might advise Council that the City
Attorney has thoroughly looked at this
and determined that the Commission was
acting on the legal splitting of the lot as per zoning and that
the,private deed restrictions were not a matter for the Commission
to be concerned on in a zoning hearing, and that this approval will
not subrogate the validity of the deed restrictions.
Councilman Young: If this lot split is approved how will the
two lots vary in size from the average in
the community there?
Mr. Munsell: The lots in this particular tract
immediately around this area.are roughly
the acre size. The whole tract was sub-
divided generally into acre size lots, but the zoning to the south
and northeast has more the one-third acre si.zQ. lots, 14,4001 or a
little over. Generally speaking, however, within any one-half mile
radius those lots in the same area district would average out at the
third acre size. The lots immediately to this tract are one acre or
better.
Councilman Young: I.noticed from some of the communication
here, a letter dated July 7, 1970, indicat-
ing that a.buyer bought into this property
unaware of;the deed restrictions indicating perhaps some mis-
representation. Is this property they are referring to under the
same buyer?
Mr. Munsell: I believe so, but I am not sure if it is
.the same buyer.
Councilman Young: I just wondered if we are being put in the
position of helping to put the heat on the
architectural committee to approve develop-
ment... --
Mr. Munsell: In terms of this type of situation the
architectural committee has civil rights
to enforce its deed restrictions and the
action we take here does.not prejudice their right to enforce the
deed restrictions.
Councilman Young-.. I,wondered about that, but I suppose
strictly speaking it doesn't.
Councilman Shearer: (Requested the reshowing of the slide of
the property) In R-1 area district III is
there a frontage requirement --for a lot?
Mr. Munsell: All lots are required to have a frontage
on a street. However, in hillside terrain
this has been waived consistently to make use of the property.
This would not be an unusual situation.
Councilman Shearer:
A comment
zoning on
- it would appear- that maybe the
this is a little misappropriate
- 9 -
REG. C.C. 9-2,8-70 Page Ten.
Planting Com,. (Parcel -Map -1760)
for the.area. We have an a rea that averages one -acre parce1s,
Area District V, we also have I an Area District IV, but thi.s,-..a-r.e.a.
is zoned Area District III. dt may be'one of those thing.s_that_
no one thought would become a problem. Legally, as. far.-as_._o-ux_
zon-ing ordinance, 'a iian�could.have..3,lots-there. He could..dividb
an Acre into thre&14,40,01 lots and still be within the,present.,..
zoning of the City of -West Covina. It would seem to me-that.,.as.....
early as 1967, not to cast. stones at_ the good people. living -in.
that area, 'but they were aware of this potential problem, and__
they probably should -have com& in'for it to bei,rezoned. 'Due to
the'f act it is. - zonea_ Area -District III I don.7t, t.�ink.-we.., an deny
the owner his request when it:meets�. all legal requirements__
Motion by -!Councilman She,arer,. seconded by Councilman. Young,,
apprqving': Planning Commis'sion Resolution No. UK.',
Council 'man Young,:.. V�wouId like to say I -seconded it with
some!: regre t, be,c.au se I have. a f eeling,
we; are getti,ng-,i.nto a_pkob,lem_fdZ. -the. Cour.ts.
Cou�;ncilman Shearer: I would like toiamend my -motion to read-,
that_' in no way. off ering. any comment'
with regard to the deed�restrictions.
Coundilman�Young: I certainly accept that.
Motion carried.
RECREATION & PARKS'
COMMISSION
Action of 9-22-7.0. ;-(doun-cil revi,ewed.-actio,n,..)__--
readi-ng
Councilman Young:, It is,,obvious- in.. .the_summa4y_.of__
action that, the, CommIssion is,.e-xpandi.ng
opportunities for.,,,.,t,he use of ,recreation
time and:I-thinktnat.!.,snould be noted,, and I,move that the.summary-
of action be accepted:.and filed.
-ire
Seconded,by, Councilman She-c x..
Councilman Young: I - amend m �motion to,.i,nclude,the
y
approval by" Council ok..,the__prop6-s,ed fees
as; recommended- by. the "'Re-cre�Ation--,.and..P.ark.-..
Commission..
Councilman Shearer accepted-the.amendment.
Councilman Lloyd.- Mr. Mayor. I really have no great
.,,obj,ection but on, the-ba.§i.s. of parliamentary
..... .. that we,... P.accept" the.. second or reject
the-; .,motion, 1. -would,:, r4_-mind this ;.august -body_t�atl'.*.. any motion
presented cannot.be chan�ed, even,by. the. m.ak-er,,.,on.ce.,,.i.t.,.i,s,'!seconded.
I will go along with,the procedure, presented�,.he-re.,-.thi:s,...e.t7e.ni,ng.. and
in the, past, but, .I . would. remind, you ...that, _it_happen.s_--to_ be. ...one of
the things that is pretty onerovz&-to me. If a:m6tion is made it
should�be inclusive of all t11t9g4;,. If I am in error I think our
parliamehtakiAh might correct me?
Mr. Wakefield: Mr-, Mayor -and ..members. of the City Council,
I learned long agoll.that:the rule.of'
-amentary procedure applicable to the
parli
City Council is, Rule III and while we deviate someti�ies from the
.Robert's Rules of Order, so long as the intent of the mo tion and
the subject is,,clear it is not necess I ar . y thaf_'-w6.adhere strictly
�:'formal'xules.
to the
�',;Mo.tio.n, carried'. on rol 1 call vote as follows:
AYES: Councilmep.She,arer,, Nichols,, Youngi Lloyd, Mayor Chappell
NOES: None
ABSENT: None 10