HomeMy WebLinkAboutMARCH 7,1967
1
INVOCATION
PLEDGE OF
ALLEGIANCE
ROLL CALL
MINUTE
APPROVAL
(2-21-67
2-28-67)
HEARING
(Wood)
..9. fvve; u~
-12 4. ,.,,-+.J.
(PI-uJ- U r, ,,.~..v"
HEARING
(Fire Code)
1
ORDINANCE
NO. 1335
ADO PIED
17:6972
MINUTES
CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA
REGULAR MEETING
MARCH 7, 1967
The City Council of the City of Arcadia, California met in regular
session in the Council Chamber of the Arcadia City Hall on March 7,
1967 at 8 p.m.
Christine Van Maanen, City Clerk
Mayor George L. Forman
PRESENT:
ABSENT:
Councilmen Arth, Butterworth, Hage, Forman
Councilman Considine
On MOTION by Councilman Arth, seconded by Councilman Hage and carried
unanimously the Minutes of the Regular Meeting of February 21, 1967
were APPROVED as submitted in writing. On MOTION by Councilman Arth,
seconded by Councilman Hage and carried unanimously the Minutes of
the Adjourned Regular Meeting of February 28, 1967 were APPROVED as
submitted in writing.
Application of J. H. Wood for a business permit to allow him to
demonstrate and sell to residents built-in vacuum cleaner systems.
Appointments only with no door-to-door soiicitation.
Mayor Forman declared the hearing open and Mr. Wood identified
himself and in answer to an inquiry by the City Council he stated he
was familiar with and would abide by the regulation prohibiting door-
to-door solicitation. Whereupon the hearing was closed on MOTION by
Councilman Butterworth, seconded by Councilman Arth and carried
unanimously. MOTION was then made by Councilman Butterworth,
seconded by Councilman Hage and carried unanimously tha~ the
application be APPROVED with the understanding that there will be
no door-to-door solicitation.
Time and place scheduled for the hearing on the proposed adoption by
reference of an amendment of Sections 3111 and 3114.1 of the Arcadia
Municipal Code pertaining to the Fire Prevention Code. Mayor Forman
declared the hearing open and no one desiring to be heard on the
matter the hearing was closed' on MOTION by Councilman Hage, seconded
by Councilman Arth and carried unanimously.
Whereupon the City Attorney presented for the second time, explained
the content and read the title of Ordinance No. 1335, entitled: "AN
ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA,
AMENDING SECTIONS 3111 AND 3114.1 OF THE ARCADIA MUNICIPAL CODE."
MOTION by Councilman Hage, seconded by Councilman Arth and carried
on roll call vote as follows that the reading of the full body of
Ordinance No. 1335 be waived:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Councilmen Arth, Butterworth, Hage, Forman
None
Councilman Considine
1.
3-7-67
TRACT
NO. 26886
FINAL MAP
APPROVED
f- 7.1,2
COMMUNICATION
'HI Zone
RAPID TRANSIT
SYSTEM
f'- 109'...1
AIRPORT
(Ontario)
SIDEWALK '
SALE (WAB&PA)
FI F.'"
" .
I
ART SHOW
Highlander
Cent er
/I,PI?, ,
, I
BID AWARD
(Tractor) ,
P' ~..: fl"
. ,
17:6973
Councilman Hage further MOVED that Ordinance No, 1335 be adopted.
Motion seconded by Councilman Arth and carried on roll call vote as
follows:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Councilmen Arth, Butterworth, Hage, Forman
None
Councilman Considine
On recommendation of the Planning Commission, the final map of Tract
No. 26886, Colorado Boulevard north of Renoak Way, was APPROVED on
MOTION by Councilman Arth, seconded by Councilman Butterworth and
carried unanimously, SUBJECT to continued compliance with conditions
of approval as placed on the tentative map and approval of the design
of the intersection by the State Division of Hig~ways,
1
The communication from the Arcadia Chamber of Commerce concerning
retention of the 'H' Zone regulation as currently designated for both
east and west Arcadia was acknowledged and held for'future reference.
The matter is being considered by the Planning Commission at the
present time.
On MOTION by Councilman Hage, seconded by Councilman'Arth and carried
unanimously the City Council went on record as supporting the City
of Pasadena in its efforts to secure the existing railroad rights of
way for a rapid transit system. The City Manager to communicate said
action to Pasadena City officials.
On MOTION by Councilman Butterworth, seconded by Councilman Arth and
carried unanimously the request of the Ontario Airport Commission for
support in its application for direct air flights from the Ontario
International Airport to Hawaii and other Pacific areas from Cities
which are conveniently served by said airport was granted. The City
Attorney will present an appropriate resolution later in this meeting.
(Resolution No. 3929 adopted)
It was MOVED by Councilman Hage, seconded by Councilman Arth and
carried unanimously that the request of the West Arcadia Business and
Professional Association for permission to hold a sidewalk sale on
both sides of Baldwin Avenue between Duarte Road and Naomi Avenue
and the south side of Duarte Road from Baldwin Avenue to the east
alley way be APPROVED; parking to be prohibited on both sides of
Baldwin Avenue from Duarte Road south to Naomi Avenue, the
Association to provide and place barricades at the parking stalls.
1
It was MOVED by Councilman Arth, seconded by Councilman Hage and
carried unanimously that the request for permission to hold a 3-day
promotional project at the Highlander Shopping Center (March 17, 18,
19) be APPROVED with the condition that there be no rides or animals
utilized in the event. It is to be primarily an art show.
The City Manager advised that the following bids were received for
the purchase of a new tractor with a trade-in of a 20-year-old (1946)
2.
3-7-67
1 ~,oo
AMENDED
MOTION,
POLICE
TRAINING' ,
LIBRARY
FINANCING
1
17: 6974
Model 8 N Ford tractor:
VENDOR
Guptill Equipment Co.
C. R. -Cook
Adams-Sullivan" Inc.
f1 ft
MAKE AND
MODEL
John Deere 300
Ford 34022G
Massey Ferguson 2135
Massey Ferguson 3165
UNIT COST LESS
INCL. TAX TRADE-IN TOTAL
$3,357.20' $607.20 $2,750.00
3,267.68 150.00 3,117.68
3,444.13 144.13 3,300.00
4,115.20 115.20 4,000.00
It was MOVED by Councilman Hage, seconded by Councilman Arth and
carried on roll call vote as follows that the contract be awarded to
the low bidder, C. R. Cook Ford Tractors, Inc., in the amount of
$3,117.68 which allows for a trade-in of $150.00; 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 contract in form approved
by the City Attorney.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Councilmen Arth, Butterworth, Rage, Forman
None
Councilman Considine
Discussion ensued on the possibility of retaining the old tractor and
use it in weed abatement work, and upon being advised by the City
Attorney in the matter, Councilman Hage amended his motion to provide
for the retention of the 1946 tractor if it is so decided by the City
Manager. Councilman Arth seconded the amendment and it carried on
roll call vote as follows:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Councilmen Arth, Butterworth, Hage, Forman
None
Councilman Considine
The City Manager advised that the City has received $2,450.76 which
represents Arcadia's reimbursement under the California Peace
Officer Standards and Training Act for officers trained during the
calendar year 1966. Communication ordered filed.
The City Council has been considering methods to provide additional
funds needed by the Library during the future fiscal years and in
that regard the City Manager submitted alternative methods in his
report of March 3, 1967. The Library Board of Trustees had requested
approval by the City Council for the holdi~g of a special election'to
increase the statutory limitation of 20~ as provided in the City
Charter.
Councilman Hage expressed concern about the holding of such an
election at an estimated cost of $6500; that if the needs are
justified the C{~y Council in its budget considerations might be
able to appropriate from the genera1,funds: Councilman Arth agreed
and stated in part that special elections tend to receive a light
vote and referred to the burden on the Library Board or a committee
to promote such a measure; that he strongly favored the Library
being open as many hours that it can be used; that in his mind this
could be done without the expense of an election by using general
funds. '
Councilman Butterworth felt that inasmuch as Councilman Considine,
liaison to the Library Board, was not present that the matter should
3.
3-7-67
MOTION
TO TABLE
CIGARETTE
TAX
17:6975
be tabled until the next meeting; that this would give Mr. Considine
an opportunity to be heard on the matter of holding a special
election which the Library Board has unanimously endorsed. Whereupon
he MOVED that the matter continued until the next meeting of the City
Council.
Discussion ensued on the effect of a delay if an election were to be
called and various levies and revenues which are available for
municipal purposes were explored.
1
It being the consensus that the matter be continued the Motion by
Councilman Butterworth was SECONDED by Councilman Hage and carried
unanimously.
The City Manager submitted his report and recommendation of the
proposed imposition of a cigarette tax of 4c per pack (see analysis
dated March 3, 1967). Estimated revenue would be $175,000 and if
approved by the City Council and the ordinance introduced on March 21,
1967 it would become effective May 15, 1967 with first collections
July 31, 1967. The report set forth that 4c was determined because
Los Angeles had recently shifted to that figure, legislation sponsored
by the League of California Cities and the County Supervisors
Association for a state collected 4c tax for locar use; also a trend
among other cities to meet that level. Method of administration was
also incorporated therein. It was recommended that the tax be adopted
to preclude the possibility of having to reduce services to some
extent.
On MOTION by Councilman Hage, seconded by Councilman Arth and carried
unanimously the City Attorney was instructed to prepare an appropriate
ordinance with a 4c per pack rate for consideration at the next
meeting (March 21, 1967).
AUDIENCE PARTICIPATION:
ANNEXATION
NO. 40
.< /16,'<-
'""7'"
ENTRY STONES
PRESENTATION
-1 ~-..' )
Dr. Louis A. Novak, President of the Michillinda Park Association,
815 S. Woodward, Pasadena, presented a petition signed by residents
of an area proposed to be annexed by Arcadia Annexation No. 40. He
also read in full a letter setting forth in condensation the contents
of said petition; wherein it was requested that the City provide for
separate elections of the voters to allow voters north of Huntington
Drive to vote as a unit and the voters living south of Huntington
Drive to vote as a separate unit, which in effect requested Council
to consider two proposed areas for annexation, separated by
Huntington Drive. The petition and the communication were filed with
the City Clerk.
1
Mrs. Harry Lauber, chairman of the Woman's Club Community Improvement
Committee, presented final plans for additions to entry stones at
Fifth Avenue and Huntington Drive, and at Michillinda Avenue and
Huntington Drive. The project is sponsored by the Woman's Club in a
beautification move. Emblems of civic organizations will be displayed
on the additions. In making her presentation Mrs. Lauber commended
the Planning Director and the Director of Public Works for their
cooperation on the project. She introduced John Mill, member of the
firm of Beckhart and Mill, architects who designed the original entry
stones. It was noted that he had donated his time in working on the
project. Cost of the structure estimated at $1,000 would be borne
4.
3-7-67
17:6976
by participating organizations. Mayor Forman on behalf of the City
Council thanked Mrs. Lauber. The City Manager will direct a letter
of appreciation to the Woman's Club.
ORDINANCE
NO. 1336
Adopted
The City Attorney presented for the second time, explained the
content and read the title of Ordinance No. 1336, entitled: "AN
ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA,
AMENDING CHAPTER 2 OF ARTICLE IX OF THE ARCADIA MUNICIPAL CODE BY
REPEALING AND AMENDING CERTAIN SECTIONS THEREOF AND ADDING NEW
SECTIONS THERETO."
1
MOTION by Councilman Arth, seconded by Councilman Hage and carried on
roll call vote as follows that the reading of the full body of
Ordinance No. 1336 be waived:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Councilmen Arth, Butterworth, Hage, Forman.
None
Councilman Considine
Councilman Arth further MOVED that Ordinance No. 1336 be adopted.
Motion seconded by Councilman Rage and carried on roll call vote as
follows:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Councilmen Arth, Butterworth, Hage, Forman
None
Councilman Considine
ORDINANCE
NO. 1339
Adopted
The City Attorney presented for the second time, explained the
content and read the title of Ordinance No. 1339, entitled: "AN
ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA,
AMENDING ARTICLE VII OF THE ARCADIA MUNICIPAL CODE BY ADDING THERETO
A NEW CHAPTER 7 ENTITLED "COMMUNITY ANTENNA TELEVISION FRANCHISES."
MOTION by Councilman Hage, seconded by Councilman Arth and carried
on roll call vote as foll~ws that the reading of the full body, of
Ordinance No. 1339 be waived:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT: ,
Councilmen Arth, Butterworth, Rage, Forman
None
Councilman Considine
Councilman Hage further MOVED that Ordinance No. 1339 be adopted.
Motion seconded by Councilman Arth and carried on roll call vote as
follows:
1
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Councilmen Arth, Butterworth, Hage, Forman,
None
Councilman Considine
RESOLUTION
NO. 3929'
Adopted
The City Attorney presented, explained the content and read the title
of Resolution No. 3929, 'entitled: "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA, URGING' APPROVAL OF APPLICATION OF
THE ONTARIO AIRPORT COMMISSION FOR AIR SERVICE DIRECTLY FROM ONTARIO
TO HAWAII AND OTHER PACIFIC AREAS."
MOTION by Councilman Butterworth, seconded by Councilman Arth and
5.
3-7-67
"\
RESOLUTION
NO. 3928
Adopted
BOWLING
SQUARE, INC.
17:6977
and carried on roll call vote as follows that the reading of the full
body of Resolution No. 3929 be waived:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Councilmen Arth, Butterworth, Hage, Forman
None
Councilman Considine
Councilman Butterworth further MOVED that Resolution No.
adopted. Motion seconded by Councilman Arth and carried
vote as follows:
3929 be
on roll call
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
,Councilmen Arth, Butterworth, Hage, Forman
None
Councilman Considine
1
The City Attorney presented, explained the content and read the title
of Resolution No. 3928, entitled: "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA, MAKING FINDINGS AND DETERMINATIONS
CONCERNING AND REVOKING THE PERMIT TO OPERATE A BOWLING ALLEY AT
1020 SOUTH BALDWIN AVENUE IN SAID CITY."
(See full transcript in City Clerk's office) (attached)
It was noted that no communications were received'on the matter since
the last meeting of February 28. Jerome Stevenson, counsel for
Bowling Square, Inc., 1020 S. Baldwin Avenue, advised that since the
said meeting he had made a diligent effort to find some area of
agreement~;:"itl1"his clients to be offered to the City Council and had
been informed by them that the prior representations which they had
made relative to the limitation of hours of sale, restrictions of
juveniles on the premises while alcoholic beverages were being sold,
would be substantially required if the business were to continue; the
primary concern being the 6 p.m. to midnight period when two leagues'
would be 'bowling each night five nights a week;; that their offers
having been' unsuccessful, he was not prepared to offer anything
additional at this time. He continued that although the regulation
prohibiting alcoholic beverages on the concourse, spectator section
or in the area used for bowling itself had not been followed by the
strict letter of the law, it has not resulted in any untoward activity
in the bowling center. In answer to why his clients had not pursued
the litigation which was instigated by them, he stated in part that
he and his clients sincerely tried to formulate a satisfactory so-
lution short of trying the lawsuit; that if the anticipated action is
taken by the City Council, his present position would be to request
that the matter be set for trial at the earliest convenience of the
Court.
During the discussion Councilman Butterworth observed that he could 1
not accept the representation that the operators of the bowling alley
are going bankrupt; that he agreed with a statement made by a
minister of a local church at a September 6, 1966 meeting - that if
bowling fails it is not because liquor could not be sold or served
on the concourse; that Council has been trying to stand on principle
and in his opinion Council has no alternative but to revoke the
business permit in light of open defiance by the operators of the
bowling alley in continuing to serve alcoholic beverages. He
continued that if the Courts decide in favor of the operators, then
this Council would at least have kept good faith with the people.
The City Attorney stated at this point he knew of no communication
6.
3-7-67
17:6978
which would lead Mr. Stevenson's client to bel~eve that the City
would favorably consider the suggestions concerning limitation of
alcoholic' beverages in the bowling alley to after 6 p.m., and not
when juveniles were 'on the premises; that there were preliminary
discussions but nothing that he knew of which would lead them to
believe solutions of that nature would have been seriously considered
by the City.
I
Councilman Butterworth stated in substance that the City has had no
such suggestions, and as far as he was concerned if such were
submitted and the Council, by a majority vote, adopted a resolution
permitting the sale of alcoholic beverages, it would be the first
time to his knowledge that a legislative body was,,~illing to change
its enactment because of unlawful conduct of a pe'tson within its
jurisdictional limits.
'Speaking to the comments made by Councilman Arth that he would be
willing to acc~pt a compromise which would provide for the exclusion
of minors in the bowling alley after 6 p.m. when liquor would be
sol:d, Councilman Butterworth stated in part that in his opinion the
regulation was designed to protect all persons who bowl; that it was
the desire to make bowling a family sport.
Councilman Arth stated that upon recall he could recollect that
Mr. Vander Meulen represented that there were very few minors in the
bowling alley after 6 p.m. and if he limited the serving of alcoholic
beverages until after that hour there would be no problem, but that
no absolute statement to that effect was made.
Councilman Hage in setting forth his position 'stated in part that ~e
felt there was a lack of communication and recalled what in his
opinion was an indefinite approach to Council 'on revamping the
selling periods of liquor; that his main objective in the matter is
the protection of teenagers and children.
Mayor Forman expressed concern that the operators are functioning in
a manner inconsistent with City regulations which could lead to the
breakdown of other regulatory measures in the city which would create
a greater problem, and strongly recommended that action be taken at
'this meeting. All were in accord that they did not like to jeopard-
ize the business of anyone. :
1
'Councilman Butterworth further observed that Council has two separate
matters before it at this time, 1) the proposed adoption of a
resolution revoking the permit and if the operators continue to do
business then a complaint should be issued forthwith; and 2) whether
or not an offer is received from the operators in connection with ~
compromise which would result in a subsequent modification of the
legislative statute; that there is nothing in that regard before
Council at'this time, and he would favor the presentation of the
re'solution.
The City Attorney advised that'if'the resolution'is adopted the
bowling alley would not lawfully operate, with or without liquor;
that the permit could not be reinstated without a noticed public
"hearing' upon a new application.
Counsel for the bowling alley referred to minutes in which his client,
Mr. Vander Meulen, stated to the City Council that the business could
not survive financially without the sale of alcoholic beverages, that
it is the one high source of revenue. He also referred to what he
7.
3-7 - 67
Resolution
No. 3928
Adopted
.-:i ( ,/4
I
MARGOLIN
-7 J ~',~
//. / './
/ ~ t.
EL MONTE
ADJOURNMENT
17:6979
thought was an area of compromise on the part of his client made
some time ago indicating he would preclude juveniles from the premises
when leagues were bowling and during which time liquor would be sold;
that perhaps there was a lack of communication at that time; that he
has tried to effect a compromise in an impossible situation and to
avoid revocation of the business permit; that if nothing can be
worked out then the only course of action would be to contest the
matter in court.
DiscusSion continued on the time element involved and Councilman 1
Butterworth stated in part that Mr. Vander Meulen has known for a
week what the City Council was considering, and assuming the
revocation resolution is adopted ~t this meeting and he continues to
operate without a permit, then, in his opinion, a complaint should be
issued and let matters take their normal course; that the City cannot
padlock the premises - only a court of proper jurisdiction can do
that, which could take weeks.
Mayor Forman then called for the formal procedure in resolution
adoption:
MOTION by Councilman Butterworth, seconded by Councilman Hage and
carried on roll call vote as follows that the reading of the full
body of Resolution No. 3928 be waived:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Councilmen Arth, Butterworth, Rage, Forman
None
Councilman Considine
Councilman Butterworth further MOVED that Resolution No. 3928 be
adopted. Motion seconded by Councilman Hage and carried on roll call
vote as follows:
AYES:
Arth(with the understanding that he would like to hear any
compromise if same were forthcoming from Mr. Vander
Meulen), Butterworth, Hage, Forman
NOES:
ABSENT:
None
Councilman Considine
In conclusion the City Attorney advised that the adoption of the
resolution revokes the permit. In order for the operators of Bowling
Square, Inc., to lawfully engage in business hereafter a new appli-
cation would have to be filed and processed, all requiring a public
hearing after a published notice.
The City Attorney advised that the courts ruled against the City in
the case of Arcadia vs. Margolin on the basis that the City was not
damaged and that the liquidated damages in the contract were, in
effect, a penalty. He will submit a summary and background of
information.
1
The City Manager noted an invitation from the City of El Monte
(benefit art show).
At 10:25 p.m. Mayor Forman adjourned the meeting in memory of
Mrs. John Panatier, who passed a on March 5.
Mayor Form
~,~~/
-hA< 0
City Clerk y 8.
3- 7 - 67
1
1
T RAN S C RIP T ION (insofar as decipherable)
OF THE PROCEEDINGS IN CONNECTION WITH THE HEARING ON
BOWLING SQUARE, INC.
(REGULAR MEETING OF THE ARCADIA CITY COUNCIL, MARCH 7, 1967)
Mr. Nicklin,
City Attorney:
/- C??L
Councilman Rage:
City Attorney:
Jerome Stevenson:
(Counsel for
Bowling Square)
(Presented Res. 3928)
I would point out to you that, if adopted, this then would revoke
the permit. The revocation would be effective upon the adoption.
If it be adopted I would recommend a formal service upon the
operators. I would point out that if there have been no overtures
yet to accept the suggestion made at the last meeting that they
comply with our regulation and dismiss the law suit in which
event these matters would be dropped, I would only point out that,
if adopted, ,this then revokes their license and it would take a
new application to reinstate it. I don't know that there will be
any such agreement and in anticipation of, I would only point out
that you have two alternatives to either suspend it rather than
revoke tonight with a mandate that it be revoked at the expiration
of so many days or that the revocation take effect one day, five
days, sometime in the future. This was not explored at the last
meeting.
Have we received any communications on our approach from last week.
There have been no communications received. We've been at a
stalemate for some time. Counsel for Bowling Square is here.
I don't know whether he is in a position to address Councilor not.
Since our appearance here last week I took it upon myself to
contact various people in the bowling industry - some members
of Bowling Proprietors Association to determine if this particular
type of limitation that has been spelled out in your condition
could be lived with and was advised by people who are much more
knowledgeable in that area than I am that it cannot be. I then
went to my clients and made a deligent effort, at least on my
part, to find some area of agreement or something that could be
offered to the Council. They advised me that the prior
representations that they had made concerning the limitations on
hours of sale, restrictions of juveniles in the premises while
alcoholic beverages were being sold, would be substantially
required if this business is to continue; and there was nothing
really new that could be offered by them to the Council.
As I pointed out their primary concern was the 6-to-midnight
time when the two leagues are bowling five nights a week. Their
prior offers and agreements to comply with your regulation
otherwise apparently have been unsuccessful and for that reason
we are not prepared to offer anything additional tonight.
I would point out before action is taken by the Council that
through my offices there are various employees of these premises
that have been contacted by the present management. As you well
know, Mr. Vander Meulen has only been associated with this
operation for about a year - March of 1966. He has discussed
the matter with employees who are still working in the location -
in the bowling center - who have been there as long as four years
and has been advised by them of apparent widespread violations
of these conditions for some substantial'period of time prior to
the time he became associated with them. I point that out, not
because we are happy to be able to report that to you, I point
it out because apparently even though this condition has not
been followed by the strict letter of the law, it has not resulted
in any untoward activity in the bowling center. Apparently,
1.
1
1
Bowling Square, Inc.
March 7, 1967 - Continued
(insofar as decipherable)
Mr. Stevenson:
Continued
although alcoholic beverages of all types have been sold, there
have been to my knowledge no arrests - at least no frequency of
arrests - for drunkenness, intoxication and the various things
that one would anticipate in the misuse of alcoholic beverages.
I point this out only to show that apparently within certain
reasonable limitations the premises could operate as other
bowling alleys do. Aside from the prior representations that
have been made by my client, he is not in a position to make
any additional offers tonight. Thank you.
Counci Iman
Butterworth:
I have a question I would like to pose. You instigated a complaint
for injunctive action on behalf of your client which I recognize
as the proper procedure and accepted procedure to test the
legality of this ordinance of this City. The first preliminary
steps through the restraining order and preliminary injunction
were denied. This was quite some time ago. As you know and as
Mr. Nicklin and I know, a suit for an injunctive relief is given
priority on a trial calendar, and I have been advised that you
have not set this for hearing yet. Is there some reason why
your client is not pursuing a litigation which it instigated and
through which it can have a very quick and effective remedy.
Mr. Stevenson:
There is no question that if the anticipated action is taken
tonight that the matter will be set in the immediate future.
Something must be done to determine basically who is right. This
has not been done in the past. After the motion for the temporary
injunction - restraining order - pending the final determination
of the issue on the merits, although the merits of the case were
not argued before 'the Court, Judge Wells indicated, although he
had some rather strong feeling that opposition was well taken,
he felt that any intermediate relief that might be offered would
not be required in view of the fact that ultimately damages had
been requested... After that hearing I had some considerable
discussion with Mr. Skinner of Gibson, Dunn and Crutcher -
various written communications back and forth with the thought
in mind that perhaps some kind of compromise could have been
reached. Apparently nothing has been accomplished along that
line. It is my present position to request that the matter be
set for trial at the earliest convenience of the Court.
Councilman
Butterworth:
I don't mean to second guess you, but you come here with a plea
of hardship on behalf of your client which purportedly will arise
out of his inability to sell liquor if his permit is revoked and
it does seem to me that had this matter been set for trial within
a reasonable period of time after the preliminary injunction had
been denied - I am not trying to second guess you - it is your
client and you do what is best for your client, but nonetheless
had that action been taken you would have been in a position,
I would think, to go to trial on this thing in a very short period
of time and that being so I can't see why arguments of hardship
on behalf of Mr. Vander Meulen should have very much bearing
with this body at this time.
Mr. Stevenson:
In my last discussion personally with Mr. Skinner I fully
anticipated that some compromise couWbe offered to the Council
that could be acceptable to the Council. That was the purpose in
my di'Scussion of the matter with him. I have pursued the matter
with my clients with the hope that something could be done to
alleviate the pecu~iar situation that I didn't find elsewhere.
Councilman
Butterworth:
Again at the risk of being argumentative and I don't want to be
because you are doing a job here for a client, but assuming that
negotiations were being conducted by you in good faith and I
know they were, under what conceivable course of thinking on
2.
1
1
Bowling Square, Inc.
March 7, 1967 - Continued
(insofar as decipherable)
Councilman
Butterworth:
continued
behalf of Mr. Vander Meulen could he in the midst of the discussion
engage in a course here of just cold premeditated defiance of
the statutes of Arcadia.
Mr. Stevenson:
My only reply to that, Mr. Butterworth, as an attorney you are
well aware of the fact that as lawyers we have to handle the
legal aspects of a case unemotionally. Now, I went to
Mr. Vander Meulen at the time the suit was filed when they
approached me and asked me if I wo~ld seek judicial relief from
what we considered to be and what I still consider to be an
invalid ordinance of the City of Arcadia. With all due respect
to your legal representation and the members of the Council, this
is the position we took in the law suit and as an attorney for
my client I have to put this point forth. He told me at that
time that the only reason this matter had come to life last
summer was when he came to the Council for an additional dance
permit; that he was unaware of it and I accept his representation
in good faith. He told me that when he came into that place and
bought the stock interest in it and became an officer and director
approximately one year ago that he observed no limitations or
restrictions of any kind on the premises, certainly no enforcement
of the ordinance at that time. He had no reason to believe that
such a limitation existed because although he had engaged in this
type of industry, in other communities he had never seen such a
restriction.
It was at my insistence and as a manner of showing good faith and
respect to this Council that I got my clients to restrain
themselves from further sales of alcoholic beverages on the
concourse, although sales in that location was substantially all
of the sales made at this location. This was an effort on my
part to show some good faith on their part in this action which
was filed in court.
Now, it has simply become as I indicated last week, economically
impossible for this business to continue. We have a single
purpose million dollar building there that has got to be converted
into an ice skating rink or a church or something. Bowling alleys
are rather single purpose buildings. If the bowling business
cannot be conducted there - not only Mr. Vander Meulen but I
would assume the owners of the property will suffer substantially
and my experience which is limited in the bowling field, but I
have certain contacts in the industry and I have discussed it
with men whose knowledge and ability aod experience I respect.
They advised me that no bowling center whether Mr. Vander Meulen
operates it or anyone else is going to survive without the sale
of alcoholic beverages to the people who come there for bowling,
who stay there the limited period of time required for that
activity in bowling leagues. So we face this problem. The man
is going bankrupt. He has lost many thousands of dollars since
at my request he ceased the sale of alcoholic beverages at the
time the suit was filed.
Councilman
Butterworth:
Then he started it again against your advice.
Mr. Stevenson:
I was unaware of the fact that he did and he stopped it upon
my advice and if he had called me and asked me about it I would
have asked him to continue the procedure that I had recommended
to him.
Councilman
Butterworth:
Thank you.
Mayor Forman:
Thank you.
3.
1
1
Bowling Square, Inc.
March 7, 1967 - Continued
(insofar as decipherable)
Councilman
Butterworth:
I would say, Mr. Mayor, we have had of course evidence directly
contrary to the representations that have been made by
Mr. Vander Meulen, to wit, that he is going bankrupt because he
can't sell liquor on the bowling concourse. Now we heard
testimony here from a man whose name I can't remember but who
I think was a member of the Presbyterian Church who got up here
and talked at length and stated that he had made a number of
inquiries about bowling and people that engage in bowling
activities and he believed as I believe that if a bowling alley
fails it is not going to fail because they can't sell liquor on
the concourse. The testimony of this man was simply to the
contrary. The belief asserted here by Mr. Vander Meulen,
bowling allover is difficult... It is a sport that is fading out
a little bit and maybe bowling alleys are going to have to be
converted to skating rinks. I mean if the sport dies like this
golf deal you know they had in the depression, miniature golf,
whatever they call it, it may be an activity that some will have
to go under. And I simply, myself, am not prepared to accept the
representation by Mr. Vander Meulen that he is going to go
bankrupt just because people can't swill hard liquor on the
Concourse while they bowl. It is not a reasonable proposition and
I can't accept it. I don't accept it. Now, I don't want to hog
the conversation but I feel this way about it. We have been
trying to stand on principle. If we are wrong, we are wrong, but
that is up to the court to decide.
As I have indicated before, I think Mr. Vander Meulen could
have practically been to trial at this time. If he is going to
go to trial in the immediate future then let him go to trial but
in the meantime I don't see how We have any course open to us
except to do exactly what we did last week. This Council voted
unanimously to revoke the permit and we instructed the City
Attorney to prepare a resolution. I think myself the time has
Come to act. I see no purpose in suspending the permit. I mean,
what useful purpose is served by suspending this man's permit.
He is going to be out of business assuming some court order
doesn't interfere with the suspension process. He is going to be
out of business for two or three or four months, I can't see any
practical difference between a suspension in the revocation of
the permit. I think the matter should be brought to trial and
that is up to Mr. Vander Meulen and I think it is up to us now
to give the dignity to our statutes that they must have and meet
violations of City law the only way we can meet it.- ~his way by
the revocation of this man's permit and by very prompt filing of
a criminal complaint against Mr. Vander Meulen.
As I say, if he is right and they declare this ordinance invalid,
then I think this Council has done everything to keep good faith
with the people and we are in a position to tell the people that
we did everything we could to keep this community the way we want
it, to keep bowling a family sport but the Courts of this State
have indicated that we have exceeded our power, and I am
prepared to give that answer to the people. On the other hand,
I think we have a very excellent chance of winning. So does
Mr. Skinner of Gibson, Dunn and Crutcher and I know that
Mr. Nicklin will join with him in a very vigorous defense of the
legislative enactments of this body. In any event, I think that
we should now enact the reso1utional ordinance revoking this
permit.
City Attorney:
I don't mean to say this to influence your judgment but in
fairness to counsel present I know of no communication to him
that would have lead him to believe that the City would
favorably consider the suggestions that were made here tonight.
Namely, no sale prior to six and no minors thereafter if liquor
were sold. There were preliminary discussions but I know of
4.
1
1
Bowling Square, Inc.
March 7, 1967 - Continued
City Attorney:
continued
Councilman
Butterworth:
Councilman Arth:
Councilman
Butterworth:
Councilman Hage:
(insofar as decipherable)
no communications to counsel that would have lead them to
believe solutions of that kind would have been seriously
considered.
In any event we have had no such suggestions and as far as I am
concerned if a suggestion came along such as that, that we do
permit the sale of liquor and this Council by a majority of votes
adopts that, as far as I am concerned as an attorney, it would
be the first time in my knowledge that I have ever known of a
legislative body that has been willing to change its enactment
because of the unlawful conduct of a person within its
jurisdictional limits and I certainly will not buy it.
I look at this just a little bit different in that I think we
have a tentative proposal tonight that we heard at pre-Council
meeting that would actually preclude liquor being served at any
time that minors were present, with a 6 o'clock break that minors
were not allowed in the building after 6 and liquor would not
be sold before 6. This is the first time I have been aware of
this type of proposal. I am not, as an individual, apt to run
anyone out of business as such, but I don't condone the actions
of Mr. Vander Meulen ,in the outright defiance of the law; but if
he would agree to a compromise, I think this would be a compromise
that would give us everything that we have asked for. I would be
willing to go along with it. I know we have a difference on
Council.
If I could say one more thing, I will be quiet, and that is this:
I think Mr. Arth, that your thinking along the line presupposes
that the sole purpose of the statute was to protect children in
bowling alleys and I don't think so. I have never heard the
matter even discussed from that standpoint until in recent weeks.
I think that the ordinance is designed to protect all people who
are bowling, not only children but women who may be down there
from the use of alcoholic beverages on the concourse, to wit,
we want to keep it a family sport. I think it is even designed
to protect men from... either men or women... drinking hard
liquor on the concourse. I don't think it is just to protect
children, not that that is not very important, I agree with you,
but I think the statute goes far beyond that. That is the reason
why I can't see this compromise which I quite grant would certainly
provide effective protection for children.
I feel pretty deeply on this, too. I don't feel that Mr. Vander
Meulens going broke is a question here. We certainly don't want
any business to go broke in Arcadia if we can at all prevent it.
Certainly he went against the Council's ruling - the City
Ordinance - by selling liquor in defiance of the ordinance and
this certainly can't be condoned in any way at all; however, I get
a feeling of a very definite lack of communications here. I
remember that - at lea~ this is my recollection - that we were
approached tentatively on a definite revamping of the selling
periods as to whether it was 6 to midnight or whatever it was.
I am not too sure, but it was a very tentative thing... It wasn't
put to me with an idea that it was a very serious approach that
they had given to this and therefore we should approach in a
very serious way. Maybe I missed something in our conversation.
I don't feel that - certainly I wasn't on the Council when this
ordinance was put through - but I would think that this ordinance
was put through with the protection of the under-21 person in
mind, because I don't have any particular feelings against an
adult drinking if that is what he wants to do, but I do have a
very definite feeling about teenagers and alcohol mixing. As to
5.
Bowling Square, Inc.
March 7, 1967 - Continued
(insofar as decipherable)
Councilman Hage:
continued
whether an agreement should be reached at this time I am not
sure, but my main point in the bowling square issue is to keep
the alcohol and the teenagers - or the children - apart. And
if this can be achieved in some manner this is what I want,
not necessarily the closing of Bowling Square, not necessarily
the protection of Mr. Vander Meulen, just this question achieved.
Mayer Forman:
Thank you. I will go back to what I said at our last meeting.
I have a great concern with this mans doing things that are not
permitted by the permit and doing it openly, because this I feel
would lead to the possibility of breaking down of other
ordinances, other laws that we have in town, and create a
greater problem than we have with this single establishment.
I certainly feel very strongly about doing anything that would
possibly put a man out of business for a short time or forever.
I feel quite concerned for the employees that are working there
and deriving their livelihood from the place. But I come back
to the basic principle again that if you can get away with this
in this establishment what is to prevent you from getting ~ay
with other things in other establishments where laws are devised
to protect the individuals, the people, the citizens of our
community. So I feel quite strongly that as was requested by
the City Council a week ago... the drawing up of this resolution...
and I feel it should be adopted tonight.
1
Councilman
Butterworth:
In any event, Mr. Mayor, I think we have got two separate
matters: one was the adoption of a resolution and the prosecution
of Mr. Vander Meulen if this course of conduct continues. The
second thing is whether or not an offer is received at some
time from Mr. Vander Meulen and his attorney in connection with
a compromise of the situation which would result in a subsequent
modification of our legislative statute. These are two separate
things. We have nothing before us at this time and it does
seem to me that we should now go forward and revoke this mans
permit to operate a bowling alley right now. If the resolution
is prepared, Mr. City Attorney, I would like to have a vote
on that and if anything else comes up on the other matter we
can all be heard at any time it comes up.
City Attorney:
I believe I read the title in full a moment ago so that a motion
to waive the full reading is in order and then a motion to adopt.
Now I would like to clarify one statement you have made that he
should be prosecuted if he continues to operate his establishment
in this manner or some such wording. The fact is that if this
resolution is adopted then he doesn't operate, period, whether
with or without liquor, with or without anything.
Councilman
Butterworth:
I stated it inartful1y, I mean if he is out as far as we are
concerned his permit to operate a bowling alley is revoked. If
he continues to do business then I think that a complaint should
be issued forthwith.
1
Councilman Arth:
I wonder if Mr. Stevenson came forward if there is something
he might possibly like to say.
Mr. Stevenson:
One member of the Council made the statement that there was lack
of communication. There might well have been a lack of
communication on my part in the last few months when I have been
representing Mr. Vander Meulen but with regard to some of the
statements that have been made tonight I would respectfully call
to the Council's attention the Minutes of the Council meeting
of last September. I believe the Minutes of the meeting were
for September 6 at which time Mr. Vander Meulen made a statement
6.
1
1
Bowling Square, Inc.
March 7, 1967 - Continued
(insofar as decipherable)
Mr. Stevenson:
Continued
to the Council that his business could not survive financially
without the sale of alcoholic beverages which is customary in
all bowling alleys in Southern California. The Council Minutes
reflect that Mr. Vander Meulen invited an inspection of his
records. If there is any question in the minds of any of the
members of this Council as to whether or not ,this Bowling Center
can survive as such under this condition then I would stand
ready to prove by competent evidence to the Council - not only
can this bowling center not survive with such a limitation but
no bowling center could because the fact of life in the bowling
industry is that there has been a serious over-saturation of
bowling centers in Southern California and in fact throughout
the Country in the last few years. When these things are
planned and erected they are built as I pointed out the last time
I was here to bring various sources of revenue. The one high
margin source of revenue is the sale of alcohol. The price of
bowling although rent has gone up, taxes have gone up, expenses
have gone up, payroll has gone up, the price of bowling in
California has not gone up a penny in almost ten years, so the
bowling center itself will not survive, with all due respect to
Mr. Butterworth's opinion that he does not believe Mr. Vander
Meulen in saying so.
We can document the fact that the premises cannot survive under
these conditions. We would be most happy to do that before the
Council insofar as representations to an area of compromise.
The minutes I have just referred to last September show an
appearance by Mr. Vander Meulen at which time he indicated and
so did Mr. Wilson who is a proprietor in the community, that they
would be happy to keep the juveniles out of their premises during
the times the leagues were in there bowling which was the critical
time when alcoholic beverages were to be sold. These represen-
tations were made to this Council many months ago and certainly
I would hope, I would have thought, would have provided some
basis for compromise if compromise was in order, but if one is
not in order and was not then, then nothing further that I might
say along that line would be of any effect tonight. I would
certainly strongly urge for my client that he resolve this
situation. He might win a battle and lose a war and I have
explained this to him. He is taking a tremendous and calculated
risk as you well know, involving not only his own financial
interests but the interests of his employees and other investors
in this business.
Councilman Arth:
Mr. Stevenson, I am reaching back a little ways, as I say into
September, but my own recollection is that he represented that
there were very few minors on the bowling alley after 6 o'clock,
therefore if he limited the serving of mixed drinks to after 6
there would be no problem, but this was not an offer that I
recall in which he made any type of a promise that he would
restrict minors to the hours prior to 6 o'clock and the serving
of liquor after that, in other words to an absolute type statement.
Mr. Stevenson:
I am a late comer to this, sir, and I was not here representing
him... I can only refer to what appears in the Council Minutes
of September 6 at which time Mr. Wilson, the owner of one of
the other two establishments in the community, addressed the
Council and I believe I can quote here, "Children do net frequent
the bowling lanes after 6 p.m. at which time organized leagues
take over the facilities. He continued that the business is in
a period of financial difficulty and that to prohibit the
players from being served alcoholic beverages in the immediate
area of the lanes would mean the loss of the bowling leagues,
that they would go elsewhere'.'.. We have been advised, although
I have not heard it personally, I was advised today that the
7.
Bowling Square, Inc.
March 7, 1967 - Continued
(insofar as decipherable)
Mr. Stevenson:
Continued
third competitor in town is advertising the fact that Bowling
Square is going out of business and his might be a very good
bowling center for summer leagues to sign up. This hasn't
enhanced our business position either.
1
Below the comment here by Mr. Wilson is the comment by
Mr. Vander Meulen... He stated that less than one percent of his
bowlers in his establishment were under 21 years of age in his
l'i,'t&'i~'h t1\~st ~'/,b~l~d t'~,ub 1~'ll~~'f:'Se~xtt~~tntti~n't,l1~1 ilaigc~3Hg'[o'-.
It this was not represente3 or 1'[ it was inade~uatery representeg,
I have discussed this with Mr. Vander Meulen and he has indicated
to me and to Mr. Skinner that'he would post signs on his premises
prohibiting minors from coming in after 6 o'clock in the evening
and this representation was made to Mr. Skinner who was
representing this Council at the court building in Los Angeles.
Now maybe there was a lack of communication at that time. Maybe
there has been lack of reason in the matter. I don't know. I
have only tried my best to compromise an impossible situation
and to avoid a disastrous consequence of revocation by this
Council. If there is still room for it I would be most diligent
in trying to work something out, if not, then he can only take
the course of action which is left open to him which is to
contest the matter in court.
Mayor Forman:
Thank you, Mr. Stevenson.
Councilman
Butterworth:
I can't think of another sport, if this be a sport, that makes
the representation that it can't succeed unless the participants
drink hard liquor during the course of the participation in
that sport. That to me is the most inconceivable comment on
something or other that has come to my mind for some time.
Councilman Hage:
I don't know of the sport but I think the same thing could be
contended by a lot of restauranteurs that their restaurant could
not exist unless they had an alcohol permit so that they could
serve drinks.
Councilman
Butterworth:
He has a restaurant here and Council has stated that liquor can't
be served, what he means is that it can't be served on the
concourse. They have a cocktail bar and if anybody wants a shot
of Scotch or Bourbon, all they have to do is cross over about
35 ft. and walk in and swill as much as they want. What we are
talking about - all bowling alleys have that. We are not
stopping that - all we are talking about is can they swill it
down on the concourse.
Councilman Hage:
Yes, I think that the argument that is being done - or whatever
it is, whether it is this or otherwise - it is being done on
all the other towns around here, there is no argument as far as
I am concerned, because I think Arcadia is different in many
respects. However, I think also that the law is therefore...
again I will have to say Mr. Vander Meulen's going broke is not
the question that we have here before us.
1
Councilman Ilage:
In my mind it is the juveniles and the alcohol and that is the
only question.
Mayor Forman:
He w not operating the bowling alley according to the permit
that was issued to him, regardless.
Councilman Hage:
That's right. He broke the Arcadia law by doing what he did a
couple of weeks ago.
Mayor Forman:
This is the thing we are deciding. It is not all the rest of
this. He broke the law. I don't know why.
8.
1
1
Bowling Square, Inc.
March 7, 1967 - Continued
Councilman Hage:
Mayor Forman:
Councilman
Butterworth:
Councilman Hage:
Mayor Forman:
Councilman
Butterworth:
Councilman Hage:
Councilman
Butterworth:
Mayor Forman:
Councilman
Butterworth:
Councilman Hage:
City Clerk:
Councilman
Butterworth:
Councilman Hage:
(insofar as decipherable)
I think there is still a lack of communication as far as I
personally am concerned and maybe I wasn't listening very
closely at some of our meetings, but I would like to modify
this. You said immediately. I would sooner like to say make
a definite date, give a few days grace ~ something on this.
Say to Saturday...
Now wait a minute. We are not being unreasonable when in
prosecuting Mr. Vander Meulen under the circumstances of this
case and apart wholely from his open defiance of the law -
he has had one week now to know what is going to happen tonight,
that is the first thing, so we adopt this ordinance tonight,
or this resolution and his permit is now revoked. Let's assume
he opens up for business anyway. He is then operating without
a permit and we file a complaint against him. We can't go down
and padlock it. It has got to go up in front of a court of
proper jurisdiction anyway and any attorney here knows that
as a practical matter, you are talking about anywhere from
three to six weeks before you get a hearing date on it to
say nothing about continuances and presumably he is going to
be operating during this period of time. So I think that the
sooner we get going with the criminal prosecution the better.
That shows my lack of understanding of the law. I didn't
understand the legal aspects.
I had the same question and he indicated this to me.
Only an attorney would realize it so it isn't as if the door is
going to be padlocked.
As I understood it, it would be padlocked tomorrow - they are
out of business.
We can't do it. Only the court can do it and I suppose it can
only do it by putting him in jail until he finally agrees to
padlock it, but I think we should vote on this resolution
tonight. I think a complaint should be issued forthwith against
Mr. Vander Meulen and then we let things take their normal
course and Council here wants to bring up some kind of a
proposition why we will await that proposition, but in the
meantime I think we better get on with the prosecution.
Do we have a motion to waive the reading of the full body of
Resolution No. 3928.
I will make the motion to waive it.
I will second it. I hope I understand it.
Roll Call: AYES: Councilmen Arth, Butterworth, Hage, Forman
NOES: None
ABSENT: Councilman Considi~e
I now MOVE for its adoption.
Second
9.
1
1
Bowling Square, Inc.
March 7, 1967 - Continued
(insofar as decipherable)
City Clerk:
Roll Call: AYES: Arth. I vote yes, although with the
understanding that if Mr. Vander Meulen can
come forth with a positive - what would be
compromise - it would be my desire, I would
like to hear it in the intervening time. It
is a yes.
City Attorney: You must keep in mind that it requires a noticed
hearing to grant a new application. I want you
to understand that.
Councilman Butterworth: We understand it.
Councilman Hage: I am not sure that I do.
City Attorney: Adoption of this Resolution revokes the permit,
period. It: is not if, and, or but.; you revoke
it, period. And in order for him to lawfully
engage in business hereafter we would have to
process a new application which requires a
published notice. That is all.
Mayor Forman: It is standard procedure.
Councilman Butterworth: Just like any other permit.
AYES: Councilmen Butterworth, Rage, Forman
ABSENT: Councilman Considine
Mayor Forman:
The resolution was adopted.
Councilman
Butterworth:
I take it, Mr. Manager, that we will check on this bowling alley
within the next day or so and if he continues to operate we will
let the normal courses of prosecution take place.
10.