Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutFEBRUARY 20,1967 I I ROLL CALL ANNEXATION DISCUSSION 17 : 6959 MINUTES CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING FEBRUARY 20, 1967 Pursuant to the order of adjournment of the regular meeting of the City Council of February 13, 1967, the City Council of the City of Arcadia met in adjourned regular session in the Council Chamber of the City Hall at 7:30 p.m., February 20, 1967. (No action was taken at said meeting.) PRESENT: ABSENT: Councilmen Arth, Butterworth, Considine, Rage, Forman None Mayor Forman welcomed and introduced the Board of Directors and the City Manager of the City of Pasadena. Arcadia City officials had invited the Pasadena officials to discuss various aspects of the proposed annexation by Arcadia of territory contiguous thereto. Arcadia had filed, with the Local Agency Formation Commission, on January 27, 1967, a proposal to annex territory bounded by the rear property lines lying on the west side of Rosemead Boulevard, north to Foothill Boulevard, east to Michillinda Avenue and south to Temple City Boundaries. Also included was the Anoakia School area and a corridor of Foothill Boulevard from the school to Michillinda Boulevard, the school being located on the north side of Foothill Boulevard west of Baldwin Avenue. During the interim Pasadena filed annexation proposals for areas 1) bounded by Foothill Boulevard on the north, the railroad on the south, Rosemead on the east and the present City limits on the west, 2) follows the aforementioned area to the south extending farther east with Colorado Boulevard as the southerly boundary and Foothill Boulevard on the north ending at Michillinda Avenue on the east, the westerly boundary would be the present City limits, 3) area bounded by Rosemead on the east, Grayburn on the south and City Limits on the west. In addition, Pasadena filed a protest against annexation proposals by Arcadia, of property lying on the west side of Rosemead Boulevard north of Huntington Drive. In his presentation, City Manager Phillips of Pasadena referred to a cooperative study of inter lying unincorporated ar~as by the Cities of Pasadena and Arcadia which was completed in September 1966. Zoning of the areas proposed for annexation by Pasadena was explored and the hope was expressed that the legislative bodies of the two cities could reach a measure of general understanding prior to the hearing before the Local Agency Formation Commission (March 22, 1967). Arcadia City Manager Cozad, in his presentation stated in part that Arcadia was following the guidelines of the said joint study; that it showed Rosemead Boulevard as the logical boundary line between the two cities and that Arcadia was claiming both sides in order to eliminate any confusion as to which city would have jurisdiction over Rosemead Boulevard. 1. 2- 20- 67 17:6960 During the meeting Richard Eckfield, administrative assistant in Pasadena, presented Pasadena's position in filing for the various areas as outlined earlier by Mr. Phillips; that Pasadena has filed to the center line of Rosemead Boulevard, to the center line of Colorado Boulevard and to the east side of Michillinda Avenue, although it would be Pasadena's recommendation that it be to the center line of Michillinda Avenue similar to Michillinda Avenue north of Foothill Boulevard. Discussion held on the location of the boundary line at this section. I Discussion was held on the proposed annexation by Arcadia of the Anoakia School area. A staff member of the Local Agency Formation Commission referred to government code sections governing contiguity. Reference was made by Pasadena officials to that city currently providing water and postal service for some of the area proposed to be annexed by Arcadia; also to areas, in the Pasadena School System. Jurisdictional responsibility for certain streets was also touched upon. The possibility of the center line of Rosemead Boulevard becoming the boundary line between the two cities was explored. It was pointed out to Pasadena officials that Arcadia has in the main adhered to the rear property line rather than a middle of a street boundary; that this allows one jurisdiction being responsible for street maintenance, traffic control, etc., that this precept also tends to lessen confusion on the part of the property owner. The officials of both cities expressed the hope that ,some solution can be amicably worked out prior to the hearing before the Commission; that as a result of this meeting an insight has been gained into the problems. The City Managers of both cities will meet during the interim in an endeavor to arrive at a mutual agreement. (DISCUSSION ON RECORD IN THE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK.) Mayor Forman adjourned the meeting at 8:55 p.m. Mayor Forman ATTEST: City Clerk I 2. 2-20-67 ---------------