Loading...
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.