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
---------------