HomeMy WebLinkAboutFEBRUARY 17,1970
CITY COUNCIL PROCEEDINGS ARE TAPE RECORDED AND ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
I
INVOCATION
PLEDGE OF
ALLEGIANCE
RmLC~L
MINUTES
HEARING
(Lot Split)
Continued
to
March l7
f~<<
I
l8:7577
M I NUT E S
CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA
REGULAR MEETING
FEBRUARY l7, 1970
The City Council of the City of Arcadia, California, met in regular
session in the Council Chamber of the Arcadia City Hall on February
l7, 1970, at 8:00 P.M.
Mr, Eric Beckstrom, First Church of Christ, Scientist
Mayor C. Robert Arth
PRESENT:
ABSENT:
Councilmen Butterworth, Considine, Rage, Helms, Arth
None
MOTION by Councilman Helms, seconded by Councilman Considine and
carried unanimously, the minutes of the regular meeting of February
3, 1970, was APPROVED.
Appeal from the Planning Commission decision for denial of an applica-
tion for a division of property at l20-l50 East Duarte Road. The
Planning Director explained that the Commission denied the request when
it became obvious that all of the property owners affected by the lot
split would not or could not reach an agreement; that the Commission
felt it could not in good conscience approve an illegal division of
property as it would be tantamount to condoning illegal divisions
which could have widespread implications affecting the entire city in
its future growth pattern. He further stated in part that the applicant
apparently had been an unwilling victim; that she had recourse through
the courts if she so desired.
Mayor Arth declared the hearing open and Mrs. Ilse E, Friedman, ll867
Sunset Boulevard, Los Angeles, stated in part that she was unaware of
the situation at the time she purchased the subject property; that it
was not until she applied for a modification to permit one additional
sign that she was informed that the seller of the property, Lands and
Buildings Company, had never legalized the property division; that
unless some type of legalization is made the title to the property
would be so clouded in perpetuity that it would be virtually impossible
to effect a sale should the need to do so arise. She noted there was
one property owner who would not discuss the problem. She asked for
practical relief in some way.
No, one else desiring to be heard the hearing was CLOSED on MOTION by
Councilman Hage, seconded by Councilman Butterworth and carried
unanimously.
During the deliberations, Councilman Butterworth suggested continuing
the hearing and subpoena the one opposing property owner and hear his
explanation; Councilman Helms made reference to a communication from
the 'Planning Department to Mrs. Friedman dated July 8, 1970, and stated
in part that he would not approve an illegal lot split especially one
involving commercial property. It was the consensus of Council that
neither would it want to legalize such a property division, however,
with the thought that perhaps some remedy coutd be found by bringing all
the parties together it was MOVED by Councilman Butterworth, seconded
by Councilman Ha~ and carried unanimously that the hearing be reopened
and that the City Attorney be instructed to apply to a court of competent
jurisdiction for the issuance of a subpoena orderi~g the party "in question,
together with a request that a representative of tre Lands and Building
Company, appear before Council on March l7 in connection with the applica-
tion of Mrs. Friedman. The applicant to have her ~ttorney present also.
- 1 - 2-l7-70
HEARING
(Lot Split
1160 W. Orange
Grove Avenue)
//071-/1
l8:7578
Appeal filed by William Hovanitz from the decision of the Planning
Commission in its denial of his application for a division of
property at ll60 W. Orange Grove Avenue.
FULL TRANSCRIPT OF THIS MATTER ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CITY
CLERK. ALL EXHIBITS FILED DURING THE PROCEEDINGS ARE ALSO IN SAID
OFFICE.
A detailed explanation of the zoning requirements for the development
of the subject property was made by a staff member of the Planning
Department. He noted - in part - that the application for a lot
split proposed to create four lots from one in an R-O zone which
carries a requirement for 30,000 sq. ft. lots; that the width and
depth of each parcel exceeds the minimum standards for the zone, I
however, the total lot area of each parcel is below the requirement.
The four parcels would carry dimensions of between 15,040 sq. ft and
19,774 sq. ft., as compared with the 30,000 sq. ft. regulation. He
stated further in part that as an alternate it would be possible to
create two lots from the one large parcel thus meeting the requirement.
Circumstances surrounding the zoning requirement were chronologically
explored and reference was made to Section 9lll.6 of the Arcadia
Municipal Code whereby only the City Council can grant a variation
from the requirement. It was noted that Tract 30284 (Green Oaks Drive)
adjacent to the subject property - was developed by Mr. Hovanitz
during a period when l5,000 sq. ft. was required, although deed
restrictions called for 26,000 sq. ft., that as a result proceedings
were instituted calling for 30,000 sq. ft. lots and that became a
reality in November of 1965. The Planning Commission denied the
subject application for division of the property and Mr. Hovanitz
subsequently appealed that decision.
Mayor Arth declared the hearing open and the following persons addressed
Council.
IN PART.
Richard A. Levin, l843 Greenfield, Los Angeles, attorney for the
applicant, stated that Mr. Hovanitz would first speak to the matter,
then George Ripper and that he would later submit a presentation. He
asked for and received permission to summarize his client's position.
Prior to this, Mr. Levin remarked that in his opinion Councilman
Butterworth might be biased in this matter by reason of the fact that
at a time when the applicant was seeking permission to have another
tract acted upon, Mr. Butterworth (not on t~ City Council at the time),
appeared before the legislative body and opposed that application;
that the issues involved although not identical, are similar and
evidently Mr. Butterworth has formed an opinion with respect to lot
size in the area; that he raised the question at this time as it might
be necessary for him to ask Mr. Butterworth to disqualify himself from
judgment in this matter.
I
Councilman Butterworth responded that, as an attorney himself, he
recognized the obligation Mr. Levin has to his client and that the
matter has been raised quite properly, however, he would analyze it
differently; that it was correct that at a time when he was not a
member of Council, he represented a property owner's association in
connection with an application of Mr. Hovanitz for permission to
subdivide property in the same area as that currently before Council;
that he also was concerned about the possibility of a conflict in this
situation and had addressed a letter to the City Attorney asking if
there was legal conflict. He received a reply, indicating that he did
not have a conflict; that therefore there is no necessity for him to
disqualify himself; that he intends to participate in the proceedings
and on that basis he respectfully disagreed with Mr. Levin; he contin-
ued that while he resides in the area his home is sufficiently removed
from the subject property that no matter how the decision goes it could
not make any difference to him one way or another.
- 2 -
2-17-70
l8:7579
I
William Hovanitz, 1160 W. Orange Grove Avenue, made an extensive pre-
sentation in part as follows; he felt he could speak with expertise
on real estate values and sale prices of homes; by virtue of his
building experience he had kept current on valuations. With regard to
the original tract (No. 30284) those homes sold for between $74,000 and
$79,000. That tract being adjacent to the property he is now seeking
to subdivide into four lots. He filed a letter from a local realtor
indicating the lots should bring a total of $l35,000. He exhibited
and filed diagrams showing lot sizes and sales price therefor. The
plan for the new development calls for three lots to face Michillinda
Avenue and one facing Green Oaks Avenue-all of lesser dimension than
the required 30,000 sq. ft. He felt that the intersection of Michillinda
and Orange Grove Avenues with its traffic was a major factor in not
holding to the 30,000 sq. ft" that the value of property on Michillinda
Avenue is far less than the value of comparable property in any interior
street in the Upper Rancho area; that it is a thoroughfare while directly
across the street is the City of Pasadena with its Sears Shopping Center.
He plans to construct homes at least equal to the size and value of those
on the east side of Michillinda and north of Hampton Road and greater in
value than those on the east of Michillinda south of Hampton Road; he
felt that Orange Grove Avenue would not be affected as the north side of
that street is in the City of Sierra Madre with relatively small lots with
homes in the neighborhood of from $20,000 to $40,000. One of his exhibits
indicated sale prices of homes sold during the last five years in the
Upper Rancho which information was obtained from actual escrow and multiple
listing data. Plans and landscaping proposed for the four lots were
discussed. Some discussion held on a sewer line. He concluded by stating
in part that there is no conceivable way the proposed development could
depreciate the area, economically or esthetically.
Mr. Levin then submitted a petition signed by l5 property owners in the
immediate area of the proposed division of property wherein it was stated
that the completion of the project would enhance property values; that
if it were not allowed to proceed property values would be seriously
affected by further deterioration of the land. It petitioned Council to
reverse the decision of the Planning Commission and approve the lot split
application.
All exhibits and the document of appeal are in the record of the City Clerk.
'Mr. Levin introduced George Ripper, 499 N. Scanlon Drive, Beverly Hills,
who stated in part that as an appraiser of residential properties he
recognized that Orange Grove and Michillinda Avenues are both busy
streets and if the proposed plan were allowed to go through it would
be an added area of development; that at the present time the subject
corner adds nothing to the neighborhood.
I
Mr. Levin prefaced his summation with a request which was granted for time
for a rebuttal following any presentation by the opposition. He then
s.tated in part: that an attempt has been made to show in the light of
characteristics of the property that the type of homes which can be con-
structed realistically will sell for approximately $70,000; that when '
property directly across the street is selling for far less and with
frontage on a street with heavy traffic $l25,000 residences cannot be
constructed and sold; that as long as the homes to be bui lt are comparable
in ~ize to the homes adjacent to the subdivision, namely the Green Oaks
development and Michillinda Avenue, there would be no adverse effect on
the market value of surrounding properties; that it would not make economic
sense, to insist upon the application of the 30,000 sq. ft. requirement on
the subject property because no one would purchase a $l25,000 home at the
intersection of Michillinda and Orange Grove Avenues; that it Wl uld place
a hardship on the applicant if he were required to construct 30,000 sq. ft.
homes; that the only alternative for Mr. Hovanitz would be to combine
the lots into two.
2-l7-70
- 3 -
l8: 7 580
He continued in part that it seems to him there is a question as to
the constitutionality of the city enacting legislation which in effect
substantially reduces the value of a person1s property without economic
justification or without some type of a showing that it is really
necessary to advance the economic interests of the community to protect
property values. He said he was not challenging Council but felt
Council should consider the reasonableness of the regulation specifically
as it applies to the location of Michillinda and Orange Grove Avenues.
He concluded by stating in part that what Mr. Hovanitz has done is of
real value and an asset to the community; that if he were permitted to
continue with his plan the City should be pleased and proud of the type
of subdivision proposed with fine expensive residential homes. He urged
a reversal of the decision of the Planning Commission.
I
In anSWer to a request of Council the City Attorney then read Section
9l11.6 of the Arcadia Municipal Code - "VARIATIONS. The Council, upon
recommendation of the Planning Commission, or in the exercise of sound,
reasonable judgment, after proof of necessity presented therefor and a
finding by a majority of the members of the Council entered in the
Council minutes that a variance is necessary, may grant such variations
from the requirements of this Chapter if it thus determines to be
warranted and required by reason of the size, use, shape, topography
or other conditions of the property within the subdivision or of
property adjacent thereto; provided, however, that no variations may
be made of any requirements imposed by the Subdivision Map Act, except
as therein provided."
Councilman Helms stated in part that he had the benefit of being present
during the proceedings before the Planning Commission and although Mr.
Levin has made an interesting and thorough case, proof of necessity has
not been shown to his satisfaction whereby the variance should be granted;
that in light of the aforesaid code section, he felt Council should proceed
at this point,
It was the consensus of Council that it would like to hear from those in
opposition to the appeal and Mayor Arth so called.
Robert Quenell, 825 Singing Wood Drive, President of the Upper Rancho
Santa Anita Association, expressed opposition to the granting of the
appeal and stated in part that if it had not been for one of its members
receiving a notice of the hearing, the association would not have known
about it. He suggested a review of the requirement concerning notification
and that it include a provision for property owner associations to be so
notified.
In his presentation Mr. Quenell reviewed statements made by Mr. Hovanitz
and reference was made to the circumstances surrounding the approval of
Tract 30284 (Green Oaks Avenue). He stated in part that at the time Mr.
Hovanitz filed the final map of that particular subdivision he was fully
aware of the strong community opposition as evidenced by the filing of a
petition with 355 signatures of residents in the area; that a law suit
had been filed by several residents in opposition to the plan. He then
submitted two affidavits, one by the former Planning Director and one by
his assistant. He observed that copies could be supplied Mr. Hovanitz
and Mr. Levin if they so desired. He said his purpose in submitting
these was to show that the planning department staff was not aware of
the deed restrictions requiring 26,000 sq. ft. and it relied solely upon
the regulation requiring l5,000 sq. ft. That the same staff urged, after
consideration of all of the facts, the enactment of the present R-O zone
requiring 30,000 sq. ft., that Mr. Hovanitz had opposed the legislation
but the Council after reviewing all the facts did enact the requirement
and denied Mr. Hovanitz' request that his property be excluded. He
stated further in part that Mr. Hovanitz agreed to redesign the plans in
I
2-l7-70
- 4 -
l8:758l
accordance with those worked out with the association to provide for
fewer lots of a larger size, however, Mr. Hovanitz later changed his
mind and reversed his decision. He then filed with the City Clerk a
cOPY' of the association1s letter to Mr. Levin summarizing the agreement.
He related circumstances surrounding the development of the original
subdivision (Tract No. 30284).
I
In conclusion Mr. Quenell stated in part that reasons given by Mr.
Hovanitz as to why the lot split would not be detrimental to surrounding
neighborhood might apply if the property were in Pasadena or Sierra
Madre, but is not true of property in Arcadia to the south and east
of the subject land; that living in the Upper Rancho Santa Anita area
is a way of life, not an economic consideration and is based on the
desire of the residents to live in the peace and beauty of one of the
most outstanding communities in Southern California; that it was for
the preservation of this concept that Council adopted the R-O (30,000
sq. ft), That a further subdivision in the area and a repetition of
Tract 30284 would be a tragedy and inconsistent with the action of a
former City Council. He urged Council to reject the appeal and uphold
the ruling of the Commission.
Tad Fessendon, llOO W. Orange Grove Avenue, Vice President of the Upper
Rancho Santa Anita Association, presented for the record and read in full
a prepared statement made to the flanning Commission on January 27, 1970.
A diagram was shown indicating the areas in which the persons signing the
petition lived. This statement included comments concerning the present
R-O zoning, the attempt made by the association five years ago to assist
in working out a solution with Mr. Hovanitz of the overall problem of his
entire property which suggestions had subsequently been rejected by Mr.
Hovanitz, the current situation concerning the remaining parcel of property
which is proposed for division contrary to the existing 30,000 sq. ft.
regulation and the extreme concern of the property owners in the Upper
Rancho Santa Anita area about the proposed lot split and its affect upon
the community should the application be granted. In conclusion, Mr.
Fessendon suggested that if there were doubts, one should visit the
Green Oaks Avenue tract to see how close together are the houses; that
it does not in any way conform to the type of property south of it on the
east side of Michillinda or east of it on the south side of Orange Grove
Avenue.
I
'Mr. Hovanitz then addressed Council stating in part that at the time he
asked Council to exclude the subject area, including Tract 30284, from
the 30,000 sq. ft. requirement, he was told by the former Planning
Director that due to resident emotion and problems involved at the time
to let it go; that there would be no problem of getting lots of the
size approved for the original tract when he so desired; that deed
restrictions were known to staff before he submitted a plan. He
concluded by sta~ing in part that it is not a matter of convenience,
but' a matter of necessity that the property be divided in the requesied
manner, and that as Councilman Butterworth observed the lot split would
not affect his property which is, in his opinion, an indication it would
not affect the Upper Rancho Santa Anita area.
Mr. Levin then addressed Council stating in part that he had clocked a
substantial flow of traffic at the subject intersection which would be
a deterent to any higher priced homes than those proposed by his client;
that he questions the reasonableness of the requirement; that the
opposition of virtually all of the property owners in the area is not
adequate reason for denial and that it would not adversely affect
properties either economically or esthetically. He suggested conditions
which could be placed on an approval such as providing for ample space
between the houses; that the test must be objective and whether or not it
is a reasonable development even if 99% of the area may for reasons of its
own, rational or irrational, be opposed; that which should not be a
consideration.
2-l7-70
- 5 -
l8:7582
No one else desiring to be heard, the hearing was CLOSED on MOTION by
,Councilman Butterworth, seconded by Councilman Helms and carried
unanimously.
Councilman Considine stated in part that at the time Tract 30284 came
into being there was much opposition, there were long hours of debate
and discussion and as a result the R-O zone with its 30,000 sq. ft.
came into existence; that knowing problems at that time the subdivision
could have been completed as one unit with much less effort. That he
is torn between something that seems to be a logical conclusion and
something which is obviously in opposition to the existing ordinance;
that the ~plicant filed for the lot split with the full knowledge of I'
the ordinance; that it comes down to whether or not to maintain the
requirement or to permit the subdivision to be completed in a manner
originally conceived but never applied for. He referred to the deed
restrictions protecting the Upper Rancho Santa Anita area; that the
smaller lots in Tract 30284 were allowed to go in practically under the
line during a period when the restrictions had elapsed and the R-O
30,000 sq. ft. did not apply.
Mayor Arth stated in part that with regard to one of the contentions
that the land is in a so-called fringe area - on a corner and bordering
other cities - there are many other fringe areas and if zoning is not
protected other areas then become apprehensive with property value loss.
He cited examples with identical circumstances. He agreed with Mr.
Considine that it is a matter of either maintaining zoning which has been
set up for continuity to protect property values, or whether to permit
developers to divide property in any manner any place in the City.
Councilman Rage stated in part that prior to hearing the discussions this
evening he had thought the logical step would have been to continue with
the subdivision as originally planned; that now to hear how the 30,000
sq. ft. requirement was enacted and that the subdivider went ahead with
the original tract with the knowledge that 30,000 sq. ft. would be
required thereafter, he would not favor approving the subject lot split
just because the original subdivision is now a reality. He favored up-
holding the Commission's denial.
Councilman Helms stated in part that pursuant to the Arcadia Municipal
Code Section as read by the City Attorney, he concurred completely with
the position taken by his colleagues.
MOTION
Councilman Butterworth stated in part that he also concurred in this
particular matter; that an approval of the application could easily
constitute a precedent not only in the Upper Rancho Santa Anita area
but in others; while Council is not bound by the action of the Planning
Commission it has been the custom of this body to think seriously on its
recommendations unless it is demonstrated that it acted in an arbitrary
or capricious manner. He agreed that under the code section the burden'
of proof lies with the applicant and has not been met in his opinion.
Whereupon he MOVED that it be the express finding of this Council that
the Appellant has failed to show the necessary burden of proof or
necessity to sustain the appeal under said code section and that the
appeal be denied. Motion seconded by Councilman Helms and carried on
roll call vote as follows:
1
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Councilmen Butterworth, Considine, Hage, Helms, Arth
None
None
2-l7-70
- 6 -
l8:7583 ~
/
/'"
PLANNING Council received the completed Initial Housing Element report in_order to
(Initial qualify for planning assistance under the provisions of Section 70l
Housing of the Housing Act of 1954, as amended. The document was approved
Element) by the Planning Commission on February lO, 1970. lIt was MOVED by
ff' ~ +: Councilman Hage, seconded by Councilman Considine and carried unanimously
. "t~#'
, - that the document be approved.
1
RECREATION
COMMISSION
(Little
League
Michi lUnda
Park)
It &7"~./'
APPROPRIATION'
FOR PATH
R '. Jl;xlv,
VARIANCE
EXTENDED
30 DAYS
(Howser)
f' /0'1-/
1
On December 12, 1969, the Arcadia Coast Little League submitted to the
Recreation Commission, a request for a new backstop on the baseball
field located on the Hugo Reid Primary School grounds (also known as
Michillinda Park). The playground on said property has a joint city-
school USe. It was noted in the initial request that the Board of
Directors of the Coast Little League had pledged a cash payment of
$500 and the Rancho Santa Anita Association had pledged $300.
The Commission recommended that the $800 offered jointly be accepted
and that the City provide the necessary additional funds for the
construction of a combination backstop and foultip screen at the park.
MOTION by Councilman Considine, seconded by Councilman Hage and carried
unanimously that the offers be accepted. It was noted that staff will
take advantage of the availability of fill dirt from the reservoir for
a complete redevelopment not only to install a new backstop but relocate
and improve the entire field at the subject location.
The Recreation and Youth Commissions recommended the appropriation of
$700 from the Recreation Department budget for use by Path as it deems
necessary. Councilman Helms stated in part that the teen center is a
highly desirable activity for the youth of the city and MOVED to approve
the recommendation and that staff be authorized to APPROPRIATE $700 from
Account 450-25-l (Recreation - Youth Contingency Account) for use at the
teen center for such purpose as the Path Board of Directors deem necessary.
Motion seconded by Councilman Considine and carried on roll call vote as
follows:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Councilmen Butterworth, Considine, Hage, Helms, Arth
None
None
A request for an extension of his variance on property at 24l W. Colorado
Boulevard to July l, 1970, had been filed by Fred N. Howser. The variance
had been granted by Resolution No. 4040 permitting the, construction of a
l7 unit complex, extensions had been granted with the last to expire
February 19, 1970. The communication from Mr. Howser indicated efforts to
proceed had been made, but with the difficulties of the cost of construction
and the current money market it, had been impossible to get started. It was
noted that Mr. Howser had recently applied to the Planning Commission for
permission ,to increase the units to 20; that the request had been denied
by the Commission as it felt a new set of plans was indicated. The denying
resolution would be on the Commission's agenda for February 23 and there
would be a ten day appeal period thereafter. ,It was the consensus of
Council that the matter would be better resolved as a unit and Councilman
Helms MOVED to grant an extension to March l7, 1970. Motion seconded by
Councilman Considine and carried on roll call vote as follows:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Councilmen Butterworth, Considine, Hage, Helms, Arth
None
None
2-l7-70
- 7 -
CONTRACT
AWARD
ST. JOSEPH
RESERVOIR
NO. 2
AND
NEW ROOF
NO. 1
/' /19~
WAB&PA
(Art Show)
II.' P F(
V :/..d
,;Jj., tl. ti l /.
KITCHEN
EXHIBIT
11- ';0 IV
~J. ti ;!/ fJ
AMENDED
UTILITIES
AGREEMENT
-/-;l7/-J:?
GASOLINE
PURCHASE
1970-71
/:/O~D
l8:7584
The City'Manager reported and recommended the contract award on bids
received for the construction of St. Joseph Reservoir No.2 (Schedule I)
and for a new roof at St. Joseph Reservoir No. 1 (Schedule III). The
consulting engineer, Ken ,Mullen, explained that the anticipated life of
a new roof would be close to 25 years. Staff will provide information
on the actual life of the old roof.
It was MOVED by Councilman Considine, seconded by Councilman Helms and
carried on roll call vote as follows, that the contract for the con-
struction of the St. Joseph Reservoir No.2 (Schedule I) be awarded to
J. D. Diffenbaugh, Inc., in the amount of $556,565, and'that the contract
for the new roof at the St. Joseph Reservoir No. 1 (Schedule III) in the 1
amount of $26,587 be awarded to J. Putnam Henck; that all other bids
be rejected; that any informalities or irregularities in the bids or
bidding process be waived, and that the Mayor and City Clerk be and they
are hereby AUTHORIZED to execute the documents in form approved by ,the
City Attorney.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Councilmen Butterworth, Considine, Hage, Helms, Arth
None
None
Funds for these projects - Water Department Acct 470-70 (Schedule I)
Water Department Depreciation Reserve Account (Schedule III)
It was MOVED by Councilman Helms, seconded by Councilman Butterworth
and carried unanimously that the request of the West Arcadia Business
and Professional Association for permission to hold a children's
Clothesline Art Show on March 7, 1970, be APPROVED. Locations will
be the east and west sides of Baldwin Avenue between Duarte Road and
Naomi Avenue, and in the Golden West Village Shopping area. All
installations will be subject to the approval of the Director of
.Public Works and insurance must be in force.
It was MOVED by Councilman Considine, seconded by Councilman Hage
and carried unanimously that the request of the West Arcadia
Business and Professional Association for permission to conduct a
mobile home kitchen decorator exhibit for a three week period during
March or April be APPROVED. To be held in the parking area west of
the stores on Baldwin Avenue between Duarte Road and Naomi Avenue.
The approval made subject to inspection by the Fire and Building
Departments.
It was MOVED by Councilman Considine, seconded by Councilman Hage and
carried unanimously that the Amendment to Utilities Agreement No.
7Ut-34l9 in connection with relocation work necessitated by construction
of the Foothill Freeway, Road 07-LA-2l0, 30,1/32.6 between Santa Anita
Avenue and Huntington Drive be APPROVED and that the Mayor and City 1
Clerk be and they are hereby AUTHORIZED to execute the agreement.
On recommendation of the City Manager and the Finance Director it was
MOVED by Councilman Hage, seconded by Councilman Butterworth and carried
on roll call vote as follows, that the City indicate its intent to be
included in the call for bids by Los Angeles County for the purchase of
gasoline under the Cooperative Agreement for the ensuing fiscal year,
that the Finance Director be and he is hereby AUTHORIZED to so notify
the County Purchasing Agent. (Council expressed interest in knowing
how much of a savings was effected by this arrangement).
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Councilmen Butterworth, Considine, Hage, Helms, Arth
None
None
2-17-70
- 8-
HEARING
SCHEDULED
/f --' .t:.v>telAJ '
..;;r '- ' of ," ,
&f 'U/,.JI.,
I ;1
,
DEBRIS
BASIN
REPORT" I
_1' I..AJ r4
~,,i;~.(
I
ICE SKATING
P1;~:'1
, ,f ,- v
fA V'! .~
18:7585
On MOTION by Councilman Helms, seconded by Councilman Butterworth
and carried unanimously, March 3, 1970, was set as the date for the
public hearing on the proposed five year Capital Program,
Council received the staff report on the 'progress being made at the
Santa Anita Debris Disposal site (dated February l3, 1970). It was
noted that comments made by the Los Angeles County' Flood Control
District are now a matter of record and afford a.basis for future
negotiations pertaining to the subject area. The Director of Public
Works felt that the hazard no longer exists.
It was noted that the fourth grade students at Holly Avenue School
had signed a petition expressing appreciation for the action taken
by the city in approving sites for ice skating. A letter will go
to the class with a copy of the effecting Ordinance (No. l408).
AUDIENCE PARTICIPATION
J- 1;,-;3
ORDINANCE
NO. l408
INTRODUCED
RESOLUTION
NO. 5014
ADOPTED /
1
RESOLUTION
NO. .ooTI 0'/.>'-
ADOPTED
George Gaffney, 935 W, Duarte Road, addressed council asking that
information be made available to him concerning the improvement of
Duarte Road, its cost for different portions of the street; what
certain property acquisitions cost and when the unfinished street
work will be completed. Staff will so provide.
The City Attorney presented for the first time, explained the content
and read the tit le of Ordinance No. l408, ent it 1 ed: "AN ORDINANCE OF
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA ADDING SECTION 9275.l.50.l TO
THE ARCADIA MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS FOR ICE
SKATING RINKS."
It was MOVED by Councilman Helms, seconded by Councilman Considine,
and carried on roll call vote as follows, that the reading of the
full body of Ordinance No. l408 be WAIVED and that same be and it is
hereby INTRODUCED.
'---
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Councilmen Butterworth, Considine, Hage, Helms, Arth
None
None
The City Attorney presented, explained the content and read the title
of Resolution No, 50l4, entitled; "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF ARCADIA IN MEMORY OF THE HONORABLE GLENARD P. LIPSCOMB."
It was MOVED by Councilman Helms, seconded by Councilman Considine
and carried on roll call vote as follows, that the reading of the full
body of Resolution No. 5014 be WAIVED and that same be and it is hereby
ADOPTED.
, AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Councilmen Butterworth, Considine, Hage, Helms, Arth
None
None
The City Attorney presented, explained the content and read the title
of Resolution No, 50l5, entitled: "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF ARCADIA DECLARING ITS INTENTION TO VACATE HAVEN AVENUE
BETWEEN SANTA ANITA AVENUE AND FIRST AVENUE."
J-; )J ,;13 It was MOVED by Councilman Hage, seconded by Councilman Butterworth
and carried on roll call vote as follows, that the reading of the
full body of Resolution No. 5015 be WAIVED and that same be and it
is hereby adopted.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Butterworth, Considine, Hage, Helms, Arth
Councilmen
None
None
- 9 -
2-l7-70
HELMS
/'
CONSIDINE
/
MINI BIKES
PROCEDURE
(Hearings)
ADJOURNMENT
l8:7585
Because of the concern expressed by Councilman Helms at the plight of
residents in certain areas where markets have closed, staff was asked
to study the situation to ascertain what, if anything, could be done
to alleviate the problem.
Reported On forthcoming taxation initiative measures which was discussed
at a recent League of California meeting. Staff will endeavor to obtain
more concise data.
Councilman Butterworth stated in part that some thought should be given
to making locations available for the young people to ride mini bikes
and MOVED that the Recreation and Youth Commissions investigate forthwith
the feasibility of locating an area where mini bikes could be lawfully
and safely ridden without noise disturbance to the residents. Motion
seconded by Councilman Helms and carried unanimously.
1
With refe~ence to notification to interested persons in matters requiring
public hearings involving property, it was noted that the Planning
Commission, on its own initiative, has instituted a study in this regard.
At ll:30 P.M., it was MOVED by Councilman Helms, seconded by Councilman
Butterworth and carried unanimously that the meeting ADJOURN sine die.
c/~~~
Mayor
ATTEST:
~4~~;Ug~~
City Clerk
\
1
2-l7-70
- lO -