|
C.TY OF RIVERSIDE
<br />
<br /> COUNCI LMEMBER$
<br /> Minutes of Regular Meeting of the City Council \~
<br /> Date of Meeting: March 26, 1991
<br /> Time of Meeting: 2 P.M. ,~\ ,~,, ~ ,\ ,\'~,
<br /> Place of Meeting: Council Ch~ber, City Hall WA~O5 1\2\3~,4~5~6\7\
<br />~Roll Call: Present A:A',X~A]X:X~X~
<br />
<br />~Mayor Frizzel announced that Council~n Loveridge ~11 not Be present as he is out of
<br /> to~ and t~t Councilman Clarke ts ill.
<br />
<br /> CLOSED SESSIONS
<br />~The City Clerk announced Chat the City Council would recess to closed session to consider
<br />~personnel matters pursuant to Gover~ent Code Section 54957 and also, purs~nt to Govern-
<br />ment Code Section 54956.9(a), to confer with its atto~ey regarding pending litigation
<br /> which has been initiated fo~ally and to which the City is a party--the title of the
<br /> litigation being Hutton, eC al., v. City, Riverside Superior Court Case No. 209938.
<br />
<br /> ~e Mayor and MemBers of the City Council recessed to the Conference Room adjoining the
<br /> Council Ch~ber.
<br />
<br /> Councilman Buster entered during the above closed sessions. ~X~
<br />
<br /> The Mayor and MM~rs of the City Council returned to the Council Ch~ber.
<br />
<br /> Pursuant to the a~ve closed session and without fomal motion, the City Council autho-
<br /> rized the retention of fomer City Attorney Leland J. ~ompson to assist in the defense
<br /> regarding Mutton, et al., v. City of ~verside in that Mr. Thompson was the City Atto~ey
<br /> at the ti~ of the execution of the challenged agree~nt.
<br />
<br />~P~LIC ~INGS BEFORE M CI~ CO~CIL AT 3 P.M.
<br />
<br />PROPOSED ACQUISITION OF ~ ~OPER~ BY EMI~ DO~IN - ~ISON ST~ET ~DENING BE-
<br />MEN ~GNOLIA ~ GEIELD - COPIED
<br />~3 P.M.--Hearing was called on the proposed acquisition of real property by the City of
<br />~Riverside, through its powers of eminent dom~n, of the fee simple or lesser interests
<br />{real property for the pu~ose of ~dening and ~provement of Harrison Street ~tween Mag-
<br />~nolia Avenue and Garfield Street. A written report was presented from the City Manager
<br />}and the Administrative Services Director, concurred in By the Public Works Director and
<br />~the City Attorney, reco~ending t~t the City Council (1) adopt a Resolution of Neces-
<br />~sity; and (2) authorize the City Atto~ey to commence einent domain proceedings to ac-
<br />equire the remaini~ rights needed for the ~rrison Street ~de~ng from Magnolia Avenue Motion ~ ~ ~X~
<br /> 'X'
<br />~Co Garfield Street. At the reco~endaCion of the Real Property Services Manager, the Second
<br />~heari~ was continued to April 9, 1991, at 2 p.m. All Ayes
<br />
<br /> CASE VAC-9-901 - PROPOSED VACATION OF PORTION OF HOLDING SOU~S~Y OF ~BE~Y BE-
<br /> M~ SPRU~ ~D POP~ - COPIED
<br />3 P.M.--Hearing was called on Resolution No. 17696, adopted on Februa~ 26, 1991, to
<br />consider the request of the California Department of Forest~ to vacate a portion of
<br />Holding Street approximately 66 feet wide by approximately 489 feet long, situated south-
<br />easterly of Mulber~ Street between Spruce and Poplar Streets, Case VAC-9-901. As here-
<br />tofore directed by the City Council, the minutes of the City Planning Commission pertain-
<br />ing to this case are on file and are a part of the evidence submitted at this hearing,
<br />whether or not any portion thereof is read or discussed. The com~nication from the City
<br />Planning Co~ission stated that the Co~ission, by a vote of 8 ayes to 0 noes, approved
<br />'the proposed vacation, subject to the conditions listed in full in the artacCent to the
<br />,co~unication; and deterned that the proposed vacation would not ~ve a significant ad-
<br />;verse effect on the enviro~ent. A ~ttten communication was su~itted from Michael
<br />~Grant of Best, Best & Krieger, on behalf of the Riverside County Transportation Co~s-
<br />ision, relative to the proposed street vacation. The Public Works Director requested a Motion ~X~
<br />,three-week continuance of this hearing. Actordimly, the hearing was continued to Second ~X
<br />~pril 16, 1991, at 2 p.m. ~1 Ayes
<br />,
<br />~~ TO RI~RSIDE ~CIP~ CODE - CASE ~D-5-901 - PROHIBITION OF ~IC~ WO~
<br />bN ~C~ATION~ ~HICLES, INCL~ING WA~RCR~T ~ AIRC~T, IN FRO~ Y~S OF ~SIDEN-
<br />~Z ZOOS
<br />~3 P.M.--Hearing was called on the proposal of the City of Riverside to amend Title 19 of
<br />{the Riverside Municipal Code to additionally prohibit mechanical work on recreational ve-
<br />~icles, including watercraft and aircraft, in front yards of residential zones, Case
<br />~-5-901. As heretofore directed by the City Council, the minutes of the City Planning
<br />~o~ission pertaining to this case are on file and are a part of the evidence submitted
<br />~t this hearing, whether or not any portion thereof is read or discussed. The communi-
<br />Cation from the City Planning Co~ission stated that the Co~ssion, by a vote of 7 ayes ,,
<br />~o 0 noes, approved the proposed Code amendment as presented in the attachment to the .
<br />
<br />76-355
<br />
<br />
<br />
|