HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - January 4, 1983 - CC (2)1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
1R
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
CITY OF AZUSA
SUPPLEMENTAL MINUTES OF THE CITY COUNCIL
REGULAR MEETING
JANUARY 4, 1983 - 7:30 P.M.
The City Council of the City of Azusa met in regular
session in the Civic Auditorium at the above time and place.
Mayor Moses called the meeting to order and led in the
salute to the flag.
Invocation was given by Reverend James Redner of the
Foursquare Gospel Church.
ROLL CALL
Present: Council Members: Decker, Hart, Cruz, Latta, Moses.
Absent: Council Members: None
ALSO PRESENT
City Attorney Thorson, City Administrator Dangleis, Finance
Officer Cooney, Chief of Police Wood, Personnel Officer Filer,
Assistant City Librarian Vandale, Community Development/Planning
Director Cunningham, Fire Chief Littlefield, Utility Director Hsu,
Director of Public Works Wells, Community Services Director
Guarrera, City Clerk Solis.
SCHEDULED ITEMS
PUBLIC HEARING - On appeal of the action by the Planning Com-
mission granting a conditional use permit to allow an automobile
dismantling operation, located at 1050 West Gladstone. Case No.
C-283, George Rosenfeld. Said appeal was made by McKeand
Mechanical and Jammco Investment, Inc.
-1-
11
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
121
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
RIJ
The mayor declared the public hearing open and the
following discussion occurred:
MOSES: We have a Public Hearing on appeal of action by the
Planning Commission granting a conditional use permit
to allow an automobile dismantling operation located
at 1050 West Gladstone Street. Do you have the
affidavit of proof of publication?
SOLIS: Yes, Mr. Mayor, I have here affidavit of proof of
publication of Notice of this Hearing, published in
the Azusa Herald on December the 22nd. I further
have affidavit of proof of posting, which the
property was posted on December 24, 1982. I also hav
a communication from the Community Development/
Planning Director, in which, while there's no direct
recommendation, it just says, that as a result of the
Public Hearing on this matter, the Planning Commissio
by Resolution No. 1871, copy attached, and by a vote
of 6 to 1, voted to approve the subject conditional
use permit request. That's all I have Mr. Mayor.
MOSES: OK. Anybody for this Hearing? Mr. Artukovich?
State your name and address and nature of business.
ARTUKOVICH: My name is John Artukovich, of 60 W. Wisteria,
Arcadia. I have submitted a brochure here to each
of the members of the Council, and, do you want me
to read this letter that's introduction to the
Exhibits, or, what's your pleasure? It's quite a
lengthy letter and I don't know if you want me to
read it all or, Mr. Mayor, do you want me to read
-2-
s
1
1
2
3
41
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17I
19
2OI,
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
the letter?
MOSES: Yes.
ARTUKOVICH: I have a letter on Jammco Investment, Inc. letter-
head, addressed to the City Council of the City of
Azusa, for the appeal of the Planning Commission No.
1871. 'Honorable Councilmembers: Before addressing
the premises of our objection of the granting of a
permit for an automobile wrecking operation and/or an
auto dismantling yard to George Rosenfeld, or to the
new corporation he has told me he formed to operate
this yard, one very important misunderstanding or
rumor must be cleared up. We are not trying to put
Mr. Rosenfeld out of business, nor are we trying,
carrying on a vindictive program against him because
he refused to sell us the subject one acre property.'
I want to make that very clear. 'Quite to the
contrary, we have had on-going discussions for over
a year and a half about our purchasing this property
and continuing the rental of the 90 foot strip to
the rear of this subject property,' and I might
interrupt reading this letter now to refer to the map
that I included which is the next Exhibit, you might
unfold that and it makes a little bit more clear to
what I'm talking about. Does everyone have one of
these submittals? I have an extra one if you need
it.
HART: Where is the map Mr. Artukovich?
ARTUKOVICH: It's the next Exhibit, it's folded, after the letter.
-3-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
MOSES:
We have a map up here on the board.
ARTUKOVICH:
OK. Do you want me to put my extra one up there?
MOSES:
You could show it, if you want to point it out. Can
you use it? That way everybody could see it. It
would be for the benefit of the audience only.
ARTUKOVICH:
Well, if anybody in the audience wants to see it, they
can come right up and see it, or I'll show it to you.
'We have had on-going discussions for over a year and
a half about our purchasing this property and
continuing the rental of the 90 foot strip to the rear
of this subject property, and adjacent to his present
operation, for a period of two years with an option to
extend the lease in the event his CUP was renewed
after the present five year period expired in 1984.
We continued to rent him approximately one acre for
$200.00 per month since November of 1978. This is a
mere pittance of rental per month, and was part of
our on-going negotiations while he rented the
subject one acre parcel to Arrow Truck Parts and
Freeman's Auto Towing for storage of trucks and
commercial trailers and for the temporary storage of
cars in impound status. I understand that he had
this one acre property rented for $750.00 per month,
prior to evicting these tenants, approximately 3
months ago; and it was after that time, that he moved
in mostly foreign cars to start a new wrecking yard.
These were not from our 90 foot wide rented one acre.
I had wanted to raise the rent on our parcel over a
-4-
1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
101
11
12
13
14
151
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
year ago, but he refused to pay the increase, and was
continually negotiating to sell the subject property
to us, while enjoying the low rental rate on the
property to the rear.' That's the blue strip.
'Upon his moving wrecked cars on the one acre
property and refusing to pay additional rent on our
property to the rear and not informing us of any
change in plans, we served him with an eviction
notice.' If you'll excuse me, I've had the flu for
about 10 days, and I have a little difficulty
talking. 'It was during the preparation of the
eviction notice that we became aware of the extent
of his flagrant violations of the original CUP of
August 8th, 1979, of which a copy is included.
Accordingly, we demanded that he not only clear our
property, but correct all of his violations, which
are a matter of record with the Planning Commission.
The Planning Commission should never have even
considered or acted upon his case inasmuch as his
CUP was not even valid, under Section 4 of Resolution
1603 of August 8, 1979, whereby the permit was
conditional upon compliance with the requirements of
the permit within six months after the effective
date thereof, and if compliance is not achieved
within such time then the authorization shall become
void and any privileged permit or variance shall be
deemed to have elapsed. Jammco Investment has no
need for the one acre property being proposed for an
-5-
t
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Auto Wrecking Yard, other than as an addition to its
present holdings to the rear. If it were purchased
by Jammco, it would be as an investment for
consideration for improvement as a site for
industrial development, including buildings and/or
other capital improvements. Not as a wrecking, auto
wrecking, dismantling or storage yard.' Excuse me.
(cough) 'Mr. Rosenfeld has recently, within the last
two weeks, without a demolition permit, demolished
and removed a two-story house on the subject property.
The house could possibly have qualified as a
historical monument, according to official sources.
He evidently demolished the house to provide better
access to subject premises through the non -conforming
use area between the Los Amigos Bar and the pottery
shop.' You see my red arrows on that map going from
his existing facility through that corridor between
the bar and the pottery shop to get to the, to the
property that is under appeal here. 'The house
restricted access to the subject premises while he
has been using the area between the two above
described structures as access to the 1050 Gladstone
property for the last couple of months. Evidently
his intent is to connect the present non -conforming
operation at 1042 Gladstone by means of a corridor
through 1046 Gladstone, a non -conforming use area,
to connect the present operation with 1050 Gladstone
and then spread the present non -conforming use over
Q�
i]
1 ^
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
251 26
27
28
an additional acre covered by this application and
appeal. He has within the last week, spread gravel
on the subject property, that's under appeal, with no
grading plan, except to direct all of the water onto
the property to the rear, which belongs to Jammco.
If the City Council were to permit Planning
Commission decision to prevail, it would allow a
condition that would be hazardous to traffic on
Gladstone Street, inasmuch as there's no parking
allowed or available in front of the subject
property; because of narrow fast lanes and there
would be a flow of forklifts and tow trucks from
1042 Gladstone to the new or additional auto
wrecking yard that he is applying for to open at
1050 Gladstone Street. B.- No drainage is available
from the property, unless the property to the rear
is to suffer from a run off of grease and oil.
C.- No sewage connection is available. D.- There is
no indication that Mr. Rosenfeld will conform with
the requirements of the CUP for an auto wrecking
yard, any more than he has in the past. He evidently
is planning to wantonly ignore City codes and
regulations again, as exemplified by the demolition
of the house, planning access through an unauthorized
corridor, storing automobiles on the site prior to
the terms of the new CUP, not engineering his
grading nor his drainage, and in general, planning
to do what he very well pleases and personally plans
-7-
1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
151
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
KH
without any official approval. These maneuvers on
his part are a blatant demonstration of how he would
perform if granted a conditional use permit for an
auto wrecking or dismantling yard, as indicated in
the Planning Commission report of November 17th, 1982:
"Staff does not have the time or resources to
continually canvass the city looking for zoning
violations and neither does the Fire Department."
Mr. Rosenfeld takes full advantage of this situation
and condition. We and our neighbors feel that we
do not need any more auto wrecking or dismantling
yards in our area. They are an eye -sore and create
a sort of blighted area. We are more than willing
to let Azusa Wrecking continue to operate on our
rented area in the rear of the subject property if
Azusa Wrecking would: A. Comply with the conditions
of the 1979, original 1979 CUP. B. Pay a fair and
equitable rental rate, approximately $500.00 a month
for the remaining two years, plus or minus of his
zoning variance. This has been extended or continued
for two years or more at 1046 Gladstone Street, by
Planning Commission action on November 17, 1982.
Their action is not quite clear as to duration of time
which should be clarified by the Planning Commission
and City Council.' Now, do you have any questions?
LATTA: Somebody has gone to a lot of work to put this
together for us.
ARTUKOVICH: Well, my office did that, yes.
Cf'�L
t
11
1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
HART: Mr. Artukovich, what happens to these two parcels tha
are owned by the, that are presently owned or taken
over by the IRS? Will they be put up for sale
eventually, or what's the status on them?
ARTUKOVICH: Well, I'm not aware of the status of that property
that's owned by the IRS. I think you're referring
to the Los Amigos Bar into that.
HART: Pottery Shop.
ARTUKOVICH: Pottery shop, or whatever, but that's an M-2 zone
that is not, does not have a conditional use permit
for auto wrecking and dismantling. And, he should
not be allowed to use that as an access from one
property to the other. If you see what he plans to
do, and also, if he doesn't do that, if he doesn't
go through there, then they have to go out into the
street with their fork lifts and tow trucks and we
have fast moving traffic there, there's no parking.
I believe he intends to open a new wrecking yard
under a new corporation and I think specialize in,
and I'm not sure of all of this, I just heard this,
specialize in wrecking foreign cars. And, it's a
new company, and it's going to be a totally separate
operation from the other. And he has no access excep
through that corridor between the bar and the pottery
shop, or to go out into the street, counter the
traffic, the flow of traffic, and then into the
front gate, on Gladstone Street. We don't have any
parking in front of our construction yard; there's
am
1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-10-
no parking available in front of that property that
is being requested for a conditional use permit.
HART:
Well, we do not need another auto wrecking yard on
Foothill Blvd.
ARTUKOVICH:
You mean on Gladstone.
HART:
I mean on Gladstone. We can't do anything about the
ones that are presently there, but, we can do
something about this one, not another one.
ARTUKOVICH:
Well, that's what I'm trying to make you aware of.
And, I hope the map I've drawn shows a true, you
know, some of the Councilmembers I'm sure have been
down there, maybe some of you haven't, and I think
the plan and the map gives you a pretty good picture
of the existing condition and what would happen if
we had another wrecking yard, which we really don't
need. He has the availability of the dark blue strip,
I believe. The blue strip is the portion that he has
been renting from us since 1978 for $200.00 a month,
which was a ridiculously low rental, which is really
not a matter for the Council, but, he moved, he moved
in a whole, a vast number of cars to the red area,
before he got a CUP, and they didn't come from the
blue area, they came from another source, and then,
when we noted all of his violations, then, and gave
him an eviction notice, because he didn't want to pay
the extra rent, an equitable rent, for the blue area,
then he moved some cars out of there and I made a
complaint to the Planning Commission, and they
-10-
1 Adnk
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
151
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
M
stopped him. But, that area back there is still
available to him if he would so wish to rent it,
-11-
and you would not have a new wrecking yard up front,
it would be contained in the back where it's been
for the last three years.
MOSES:
Thank you.
ARTUKOVICH:
Any other questions? None. Thank you for hearing me.
MOSES:
Anyone in the audience for this Hearing? Please
come forward, state your name and address.
ROBIN:
Good evening, my name is Robert Robin, my address is
1937 West Chapman Ave., in the City of Orange. I am
a Director of Gladstone Automotive Service, the
corporation that is operating the subject property
in question along with Mr. Rosenfeld, who is also a
Director and Officer of the Company. I have not had
an opportunity to review the printed material that the
Council has been provided, but I would like to reply
to the various allegations that Mr. Artukovich has
just voiced, if I could see a copy of the letter he
referred to.
MOSES:
Is that permissible?
ROBIN:
The status of the property at present is that it is
a level parcel, approximately one acre in size.
There is gravel put down upon it to a 2 to 3 inch
depth, as requested by the Planning Commission. I
will not address Mr. Artukovich's motives objecting
to our business. I think it's quite apparent from
the banterings of the various sums that he has
-11-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
received in rental, what his motivations are. We,
when I say we, I refer to Gladstone Automotive
Service, intend to operate the property as a
wholesale lot, as we indicated to the Planning
Commission; specializing in more expensive automobile
parts. This is primarily aimed not at the public,
but wholesale auto body shops. There will be
adequate parking, as indicated to the Planning
Commission, on the premises. In fact, there was a
specific condition imposed on the issuance of the
conditional use permit for such parking. In
respect to the building, referred to as demolished
without a demolition permit. A demolition permit
was secured through the City of Azusa, because the
property was, in fact, condemned by the City. It
was a stone house, 2 stories, in very poor condition.
Mr. Rosenfeld, prior to the condemnation, had
expended in excess of a thousand dollars in materials
alone, for its repair. The adjacent property that
Mr. Artukovich has referred to, which I will refer
to as Azusa Auto Wrecking and Dismantling, located
at 1042 Gladstone, is entirely separate business
and property. That particular property is an auto
dismantling over -lay zone. It is not the intention
of our company, which is Gladstone Automotive
Services, to commingle the inventory of Azusa
Automotive Dismantling. In fact, they will be two
entirely different qualities of auto parts.
-12-
R
.!L%
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
A
10
11
12
13
141
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Gladstone specializing in late model, domestic and
foreign vehicles only. We've had a previous hearing
before the Planning Commission, where Mr. Rosenfeld
personally appeared, explaining his desires in
creating additional business in the City of Azusa.
His employees, both in Azusa Auto Wrecking and
Gladstone Automotive Services, will largely be local
residents. Mr. Rosenfeld has met with the City
Engineer, I believe, in discussing the merits of
grading, drainage and other municipal requirements
incidental to the subject property at 1950 (sic)
Gladstone Street. I believe that he has substantial
complied with everything. We are, at present,
coordinating the use of the property incidental to
an eviction action by Jammco Investments on a
certain described strip of land to the rear of
1950 (sic) Gladstone Street. It is anticipated in
the next 30 days, the property of both Azusa Auto
Wrecking and Gladstone Automotive Services should
be removed from that rental property and vacated.
The condition of said property, that particular
strip to the rear of 1950 (sic) Gladstone Avenue,
was and always has been a storage property for
motor vehicles and assorted metal parts, even prior
to the leasing of said property by Azusa Auto
Wrecking. The condition that it is in, at present,
is the same as it was when initially rented. I
would like to say that Mr. Rosenfeld is a sincere
-13-
L
t
11
21
3
4
5
6
r
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
man. I've known him for 18 years. He is possessed
of good faith and is making a major investment in
this community to the business of both Azusa Auto
and Gladstone Automotive Services. I do not feel
in any way he has any intentions whatsoever to
circumvent the City's regulations in maintaining
Municipal Code. Thank you.
MOSES: Anyone else in the audience for this hearing? Anyone
against the hearing? Please come forward and state
you name and address, again.
ARTUKOVICH: Yes, John Artukovich, again. I wanted to rebut the
gentleman's statements there. As far as Mr.
Rosenfeld's major investments in Azusa, there are
none. He has a couple of old shacks on the
property and as far as his specializing, he or his
partners or group, specializing in custom or
foreign automobiles, the lot is about 25% full,
at present, with the same kind of junk cars that
he has over in Azusa Auto Wrecking property, in his
existing operation. As far as spreading the gravel
on the property, with Planning Commission
regulations. In 1978 it was mandated that he should,
in his Azusa Auto Wrecking operations, at 1042
submit a drainage program and engineering to the
City and, he never did do that. He went to Mr.
McKeand, behind him, who has also noted an appeal
here this evening, and asked him for an easement
across his property, and Mr. McKeand told him he
-14-
i
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
would think about it, and why didn't he make him an
offer on some sort of token, payment, for getting an
easement across his property for drainage, and he's
never seen Mr. Rosenfeld since. Mr. Rosenfeld's
good faith ended right there, as far as drainage
and grading and his cooperation with the neighbors.
As far as Jammco's intentions and his innuendos
about our intentions, Jammco and Artukovich's future
-15-
business does not depend on that piece of property
there next door. We wouldn't mind, we wouldn't
mind acquiring it, using it for some future capital
investment, but, that's by the boards now, we're
not even concerned with that. Thank you.
MOSES:
Thank you. If there's nothing else, I'll entertain
a motion to close the Public Hearing.
CRUZ:
So moved.
DECKER:
Second.
MOSES:
OK. If that's consensus, we'll close it. What's
the wish of the Council?
DECKER:
Can we hear from Bill Cunningham?
MOSES:
Bill, would you please come forward? State your
name and title, that way the audience will know.
CUNNINGHAM:
Bill Cunningham, Planning Director.
DECKER:
Bill, I noticed that the Staff wanted the Planning
Commission to approve this rather complex situation
here,
CUNNINGHAM:
Complex, because of, there's been a number of items
mentioned tonight, that are really not a part of this
-15-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
M
Public Hearing, or shouldn't be. First of all
this Body heard on a previous occasion, proposal
on the revocation of a conditional use permit for
an existing auto dismantling/auto wrecking yard.
And, this Body has already taken action on it and
on that map, that's represented in the blue. What's
before the City Council tonight, is the area outlined
in red, which is the proposed conditional use permit
for a new auto dismantling yard. The Planning
Commission has held a Public Hearing on that new
conditional use permit; Staff recommended approval
and I'll explain that in a minute, and Planning
Commission upheld Staff's recommendation and approved
it along with 22 or 23 conditions, which, I think,
pretty much sets a record in this City. The reason
Staff recommended approval for that, is some number
of years ago, the Planning Commission held Public
Hearings and recommended to this Body, the City
Council, and the City Council approved that auto
dismantling yards would not be permitted anywhere
in the City of Azusa with the exception of an M-2
zone and an auto dismantling over -lay zone. On
that map, that auto dismantling over -lay zone is
represented by that black dotted line. In other
words, auto dismantling operations are permitted in
that area and no place else. And, given that,
Staff in evaluating it, felt that with proper
conditions, that since the area was limited to that
-16-
11
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
13
14
15
16
171
19.1
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
very small area, and is in M-2 and completely
surrounded by M-2 zoning, we recommended approval.
And, Planning Commission approved the conditional
use permit based on those facts. The other things
that I would recommend to the Council, not get
involved with, is some hearsay as far as what the
man might do crossing other people's property and so
on; I don't know if that's really germane to this,
and yes if, you feel that is not the proper place for
an auto dismantling, if you feel that you do not want
to see anymore in the City; if you think there might
be a traffic problem on Gladstone, those, I think,
are appropriate questions.
LATTA: Can I ask a few questions along those lines, based
on some of the testimony? I'm looking at the 22
items that are part of the conditional use permit and
my concerns are that there would be any violation
of these 22 items. I noticed that the Planning
Commission and Staff recommended 15 parking places.
My question is, are they provided? It goes on to tall
about the drainage here, that all yards shall be
graded to drain to the public street or as may be
approved by the Public Works Director.
CUNNINGHAM: Well, of course, they're not provided yet, because
this conditional use permit is not official until
your decision tonight. If you deny it, obviously
they're not going to make those improvements. If
you approve it, they will have to make those
-17-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
161
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
improvements or they'll be back in the same situation
that the other company, which is also Mr.
Rosenfeld, and has an interest in, which is
represented in the blue on that; they can be
CIMM
challenged and they can be before your Body in
terms of revocation of that use permit. A use
permit you have authority over at any time. This
Body can revoke a use permit and that's provided
for in the appropriate section of the City
Ordinance.
LATTA:
So, then what you're saying is, none of these 22
items will go into effect until we take action,
such as approve it. If we happen to approve it.
CUNNINGHAM:
If you approve it. If you don't approve it, they,
obviously, they're not going to improve the
property.
MOSES:
How about the conditions of the past, when they
had . . .
CUNNINGHAM:
On the old, the other conditional use permit?
Which was the other item before your Body. We did
receive a complaint in our office, a number of
months ago, from Mr. Artukovich, and we investigated
those complaints and we felt that there was
justification for carrying it further. So, we
recommended to this City Council that the item be
referred to the Planning Commission, to hold Public
Hearings on possible revocation of that use permit.
In the interim, Mr. Rosenfeld took action to correct.
CIMM
1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
231 24
25
26
27
28
We made our report to the Planning Commission and
Planning Commission, based on the fact that he did
take action to correct those conditions and we
found that the conditions were corrected in full,
recommended to continue the use permit on all of
the property he owns in fee. They did revoke it for
a portion of it that he had been leasing from Mr.
Artukovich.
MOSES: He did abide by all of his CUP's.
CUNNINGHAM: We went to the site the day of the Public Hearing
before the City Council. We, being, the Fire Chief,
Public Works Director, and myself, and we found
that all of the conditions of that previous
conditional use permit were being met.
MOSES: OK. Thank you.
CRUZ: Mayor Moses.
MOSES: The Hearing is closed.
VOICE FROM
AUDIENCE: Closed? You brought him up.
MOSES: No. He's part of the Staff.
ARTUKOVICH: You can't re -open it? I would like to refute some
of the statements he made. Thank you.
CRUZ: Mayor Moses?
MOSES: Yes.
CRUZ: I've been at the site and it is one of the cleanest
wrecking yards I've seen in Southern California.
I mean, it's completely covered with gravel, but, I
mean, the present operation. And if he does the
-19-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
$i
10
11
121
13
141
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
MOSES: Same, same thing.
DECKER: I'll second the motion.
MOSES: Any other discussion?
LATTA: I have a question Mr. Mayor, and it's of Mr.
Artukovich, and it's a yes or no, so he won't have
to get up and speak.
MOSES: We have . . .
CRUZ: It's closed already, Mr. . . . .
-20-
-1
same thing with the proposed addition, I can't see
any problems. It is located within the proper zone
and the Planning Commission did give it a unanimous,
except for one. I think six votes to one vote, and
now, I'd like to offer a motion approving Conditional
Use Permit No. C-283, with the attached 21 conditions.
MOSES:
Any other discussion?
DECKER:
Deny the appeal? Deny the appeal, I take it.
MOSES:
Deny the appeal?
CRUZ:
I beg your pardon?
MOSES:
To deny the appeal.
CRUZ:
No. To approve the, as the Planning Commission
approved it. Oh, the appeal. No, I'm not concerned
with the appeal, I'm concerned with the conditional
use permit here.
DECKER:
The effect, I guess, is denying the appeal.
THORSON:
Yes. That is correct. That motion would be for the
approval and also included in the motion would be
the approval of the Environmental Declaration.
CRUZ:
Correct.
MOSES: Same, same thing.
DECKER: I'll second the motion.
MOSES: Any other discussion?
LATTA: I have a question Mr. Mayor, and it's of Mr.
Artukovich, and it's a yes or no, so he won't have
to get up and speak.
MOSES: We have . . .
CRUZ: It's closed already, Mr. . . . .
-20-
-1
t
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
221
23
24
25
26
27
28
LATTA: I can't ask a question of him?
MOSES: No. Not unless we open the Hearing again, and I
we . .
LATTA: It's considered a Hearing when I have a question of
someone?
MOSES: Well, we'll just ask the City Attorney on that.
THORSON: If you wish to re -open the Hearing, it would be by
consensus of the Council.
LATTA: Is it a Hearing when I have a question of someone?
THORSON: I've never seen any law one way or the other on it.
Technically, it is, because it's a member of the
public speaking to the Council.
MOSES: If you want to make a motion to open up the Hearing,
Mr. Latta?
LATTA:
Well, I was just curious if Mr. Artukovich was aware
of these 22 items in the conditional use permit,
which may cure the problem and his concerns. He may
not be aware that they have to be put into effect
and includes . . . .
HART:
Perhaps you could share yours with him and that will
take care of it.
LATTA:
Well, that was the question I had of him. Are you
aware of the conditional use permit, the 22 items?
ARTUKOVICH:
The Hearing is closed, I can't answer that.
LATTA:
Well, I thought I did pretty good at getting my
question out.
ARTUKOVICH:
If you want to make a motion, I'll answer you.
MOSES:
Do you want to make a motion?
-21-
i
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
SOLIS:
You have
a,
Mr.
Mayor, . . .
LATTA:
I would
like
to
hear his response. Yes, that's not
so much to ask.
SOLIS:
Mr.
Mayor, you
have a motion and second before you.
MOSES:
OK.
We'll have
to withdraw the previous motion, if
we're
going to
re -open it.
ARTUKOVICH:
Is
the Hearing
re -opened?
DANGLEIS:
No.
CRUZ: Mr. Mayor. Mayor, these conditions were presented
by the Planning Commission and Mr. Artukovich must
have been there at the Hearing. He's acquainted
with these conditions that are attached on to the
conditional use permit. So, we can carry on all
night long on this discussion, back and forth, and
we're still going to end up in the same location.
DECKER: Let's have a roll call.
MOSES: OK, we have a motion and a second, Roll Call.
HART: What's the motion?
LATTA: To deny the appeal was the motion.
SOLIS: Motion is carried. Councilwoman Hart voting no.
THORSON: Mr. Mayor, in that regard, I will prepare the
resolution and present it at your next meeting.
MOSES: OK. Thank you.
After due discussion, the City Council considered the
initial study of Assessment of Environmental Impact with respect
to the matter above described. The City Council, as a result of
said consideration, and the evidence presented at the meeting on
said matter, determined that the Negative Declaration had been
-22-
i
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
171
18
19
20
21
22'
23
24
25
26
27
28
prepared and considered pursuant to the provisions of the
California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, as amended, and the
State CEQA Guidelines and approved the said Negative Declaration.
Moved by Councilman Latta, seconded by Councilwoman
Hart and unanimously carried to adjourn.
Time of Adjournment: 10:04 P.M.
These Supplemental Minutes for the Council Meeting of
January 4, 1983 were adopted by the Azusa City Council this
7th day of March, 1983.
`770.1u�
ugene F. Moses, Mayor
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) ss.
CITY OF AZUSA )
I, Adolph Solis, City Clerk of the City of Azusa, do
hereby certify that the foregoing Supplemental Minutes of the
Council Meeting of January 4, 1983 were approved at the March 7,
1983 meeting of the City Council by the following vote, to wit:
AYES: Council Members: HART, CRUZ, LATTA, MOSES
NOES: Council Members: NONE
-23-
i
0
1 Absent: Council Members: DECKER
2
3 �f
4
Adolph Solis, City
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-24-