R-4571
"
SIS_S 12.2.74 CA
.
RESOLUTION NO. 4571 (ees)
(CLty Council Series)
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF SANTA ~10NICA AUTHORIZING
THE CITY ~~NAGER TO CONTRACT FOR THE
ACQUISITION OF THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT
1640 - 9th STREET.
WHEREAS, the City of Santa Monlca 15 deslrou5 of
obtalning a site on which to construct a new anlmal shelter;
and,
WHEREAS, such a site suitable to the needs of the
Clty has been located; and,
WHEREAS, the owners of said s~te are agreeable to
a sale of thelr property to the City for the sum of One Hundred
Thirty F1V€ Thousand {$135,OOO) Dollars,
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA
MONICA DOES RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. That the Clty Manager be and is hereby
authorized to execute an agreement with the record owners of
the property located 1640 - 9th Street in the Clty of Santa
Monlca for the sale of said property to the City of Santa
Monlca for the sum of One Hundred Thirty Five Thousand ($135,000)
Dollars.
SECTION 2. That the City Controller be and 15 hereby
authorized to lssue a warrant ln the sum of One Hundred Thirty
Flve Thousand (5135,OOO) Dollars to the record owners of the
property located at 1640 - 9th Street in the Clty of Santa Monica
~n full payment for sald property and in settlement of all
claims ln condemnatlon.
SECTION 3. The Clty Clerk shall certlfy to the adoptlon
of this resolut~on and thenceforth and thereafter the same shall
be In full force and effect.
-1-
. . 10;
SIS~S 12.2.74 CA
e
ADOPTED and APPROVED this 10th day of
December
1974.
-?/I d/
Ir,//Q,\/
L.>tL / "/ C-L-t-z,G~ ~
Mayor
ATTES T:
L" ,---:J.? a{5':
~'/ /' 1
" - // ~ ", , /
,V' ''-G-
t Cit, Clerk .
I hereby cert~fy that the forego~ng resolution was
duly adopted by the City Councll of the City of Santa Monlca
at a regular meet~ng thereof, held on the 10th day of
December:
, 1974, by the following vote of the Council:
AYES:
Councilmen: Judson; Lawson; McCloskey; Swink
Trives; van den Steenhoven; Hoover
Counc~lmen: None
NOES:
ABSENT:
councilmen: None
///01'?~' .
~, -
. L-
( Ci Y C~~
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Clty Attorney
-2-
1
., SIS:. 11. 25.74
. ,
e
Santa Monlca, California
November 25, 1974
TO:
MaYor and Clty Council
FROM:
City Attorney
SUBJECT: Council Rules: Commun,cat,ons from the Publ,c
INTRODUCTION:
----- --
C,ty Counc,l Rules wh,ch would permit the C,ty Counc,l to
ThlS report transmits a propOsed amendment to the
the publlC that are placed upon the CounCll agenda.
Control the number and type of wr,tten communicat,ons from
BACKGROUND:
basically restr,cts the type of mater,al that can be placed
The proposed amendment to the Counc,l Rules of Order
election, promotional 'n nature, or wh,ch ,s bas1cally a
or libelous, sUPport,ve Or 'n oPposit,on tc a cand1date fer
upon the Council Agenda. Matter which '8 profane, slanderous
pr'vate matter upon which no coun~'l act,on could be taken or
upon ~hich any council act'on which could be taken would be of
no benefit, would be prohlblted from belng agendlzed.
Because of the system used OVer the years In Santa
Mon,ca for allow,ng c,tizens to correspond with the C,ty Counc11
should be controlled, but should not be prohlblted.
1t Was the feeling of this off,ce that written commun,cat,ons
and to have matters placed before the Counc,l, as agenda 'terns,
amendment to the Rules of Order, this off,ce Contacted the
In connection wlth the pr~paratlon of the attached
-1-
-.
1
, SIS:.l1.25.74
e
County Board of Superv1sors and the Los Angeles C~ty Cauncll
to determlne the manner in which those bodies regulated citlzen
agenda items. The County Board of Supervisors has no program
for allowlng cltizens of the Community to place an ltem on the
agenda of the Board of Supervisors by directing a written
communication to its executive secretary, or otherwise. If
a citizen desires to speak at other than a public hearing
before the Board of Supervisors, he is required to fill out
a for.m stating the purpose of his appearance and what it is
that he wishes to speak upon. This form 15 filled out the same
day as the meet~ng. It is forwarded to the Chairman of the
Board of Supervisors, and if the Chairman desires he may
recognize the person requestlng permission to speak whereupon
such person is allowed the opportunity to appear before the
Board of Superv~sors. If the Chalrman~does not recognlze the
person who requested t1me to speak, that person cannot appear
pefore the Board_of Supervisors at all. Th#refore4 it appears
that the Board of Supervlsors has a strict policy whereby no
cit~zen can place a matter on the agenda, but whereby a cltizen
may speak, if recognized by the Chair, at any particular meeting.
The Los Angeles City Council has a Sllghtly d~fferent
system. If a communicatlon 1S directed to that City Council,
~t ~s forwarded to a special committee which then decides whether
the City Council should hear the matter or not. The Committee,
if it decides that the City Council should hear the ltem, reviews
-
the communication and makes a recommendatlon thereupon, and
-2-
SIS:~ 11.25.74
e
the agenda item that eventually transpires, arises out of
Committee, and not directly from the written commun~cat~on 0
a member of the public.
Thus, the city of Santa Monica ~s somewhat un~que
in allow~ng its citizens to directly place items on its own
agenda without any screenlng process. The proposed reV1Slon5
to the Rules of Order attempt to place some restrlctions upon
that which can he agendized so as to prevent a sltuatlon from
arls~ng where this unlgue and direct system can be abused to
the detriment of both the publ~c and the Clty Council.
ALTERNATIVE SOLUTIONS:
One alternatlve would be to prohiblt wrltten
comrnunicat~ons from becomlng agenda ltems entlrely. ThlS
would mean that no citlzen of the community could cause a
matter to be placed on the counell agenda. A system might be
derlved whereby a citlzen who deslres the Clty Cauncll to
conslder some problem could forward it to the City Manager
or some other c~ty offlclal for hlS attentlon and for the
consideration of such other comm~ttees or boards or even city
departments as could properly respond to the problem. ThlS
alternatlve presents the most OhVl0US way of controlllng that
which 15 placed upon the Clty Caunell Agenda, and is conformity
wlth the practice of the County Board of Supervlsors and the
Los Angeles Clty Counell.
A second alternative IDlght be to establlsh a
screenlng mechanism, whereby all communlcations to the City
-3-