Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutJULY 21,1964 I INVOCATION PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL APPROVAL OF MINUTES (7-7-64) (7-13-64) HEARING (Clarke) , J /03S I 16:6307 M I NUT 'E S CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA JULY 21, 1964 The City Council of the City of Arcadia, California met in regular session in the Council Chamber of the City Hall on July 21, 1964 at 8 P.M. Rev. Walton W. Doering, Pastor of Our Savior Lutheran Church Mayor Dale E. Turner PRESENT: ABSENT: Councilmen Balser, Considine, Forman, Reibold, Turner None MOTION by Councilman Reibold, seconded by Councilman Considine and carried unanimously that the Minutes of the regular meeting of July 7 and the adjourned regular meeting of July 13, 1964 be approved as submitted in writing. Application of James W. Clarke for a business permit to allow a canvass to be conducted of the residential and commercial areas for information to be contained in a City Directory; also solicitation of the merchants for advertising to be placed in said Directory. The publication is proposed to be distributed free of charge to all residents. The City Clerk advised of the receipt of letters on behalf of Mr. Clarke and a communication from the Chamber of Commerce advising that its Board of Directors approved this type of publication. Copies of the proposed directory which would carry the City Crest on the front page were distributed to the City Councilmen. Mayor Turner then declared the hearing open and in answer to his inquiry if anyone desired to speak to the matter, James W. Clarke, the applicant, addressed Council. He stated in part that the same procedure would be followed in Arcadia as in other cities in obtaining pertinent data; that it:should take about 45 seconds to complete the form; that personal contact is the only successful method of securing the required information. In answer to an inquiry by Councilman Considine, Mr. Clarke stated that his reasons for desiring to publish an Arcadia directory are 1) that the City has need for such a publication, 2) the businessmen would support it by their advertising subscriptions and that they need it, and 3) his company would hope to find it financially gainful. He commented further that there were no complaints on file in the records of the Police Department during the years another directory canvass was made. No one else desiring to be heard Councilman Balser MOVED that the hearing be closed. The motion was seconded by Councilman Reibold and carried unanimously. MOTION was then made by Councilman Reibold, seconded by Councilman Forman and carried that the application be APPROVED. Councilman Balser voted 'No'. 1. 7-21-64 HEARING (Smith) -a il 5 C HEARING (Vallone) !J-q 9 / ,,' ;4 16:6308 Application of Howard W. Smith for a business permit to allow the installation and operation of one additional skill game at the Santa Anita Bowling Alley, 188 W. Las Tunas Drive. Mayor Turner declared the hearing open and inquired if anyone desired to speak to the matter. No one responding Councilman Forman MOVED that the hearing be closed. Motion seconded by Councilman Considine and carried unanimously. MOTION was then made by Councilman Balser, seconded by Councilman Considine and carried unanimously that the application be APPROVED. I Planning Commission Resolution No. 517 recommending granting of a zone variance application to permit the relocation of aD eight story apartment building with penthouse lounge heretofore approved by the City, but recommending denial of a variance to permit two roof-top residential penthouses thereon. The applicant, Mike Vallone, duly appealed in writing from the second portion of the recommendation pursuant to which a public hearing was scheduled for this time and place. . Said letter of appeal was made a matter of record, the City Council having received copies thereof. Mayor Turner declared the hearing open and Mr. Vallone addressed Council at considerable length, explaining in part that the number of floors, units, penthouse recreation areas, height of buildings have not been changed; that the applicant is endeavoring to relieve the congestion on the first floor by eliminating two residential units of lesser value for two of the luxury units on the roof; that the outer appearance of the apartment building would not be altered and that the penthouse units would contain approximately 5000 sq. ft. Mr. Vallone unveiled a glass enclosed large scale model of the development. Notice was taken particularly of the two remaining wings which would house steam rooms, gymnasiums, restaurant, complete kitchen and other features. Extensive discussion ensued and in anSWer to questions Mr. Vallone stated in part that there will always be an attendant in the lobby of the building for screening purposes; that the express elevator may be controlled by a key operation, such method being studied by his staff. In discussing the health and recreation aspect, reference was made to the employment of persons to 'perform personal services, such as a masseur, and it was stated for the record that such services would be restricted to the tenants and their guests; that it would not be a commercial venture. The City Council expressed much concern in whether or not the dining facility would be available to outside groups; that if such is the intention it would present an entirely different concept than the I original variance application; that if any commercial usage at all is contemplated it must be so set forth now for inclusion in the resolution which will be prepared by the City Attorney. Mr. Vallone advised that he will not be advertising for customers for any of the recreation facilities; only in the initial publicity for rental and/or leasing will reference be made to the availability of such services. He observed further that should the restaurant not prove profitable the said area may be converted into another lounge; that there are no commercial ventures anticipated other than those which have been outlined in the health and recreational areas. 2. 7-21-64 16:6309 I~ CLOSED Everett Regal, 631 - 633 Fairview Avenue, owner of apartments at said address, spoke in opposition. He stated in part that he had previously gone on record as being opposed to the building as his tenants could not enjoy privacy with the tall structure adjacent to his apartment; that the restaurant facility would undoubtedly be in competition with the others in the City and that the building would adjoin his property at the rear fence line where his pool is located. In answer to his concern about garbage and trash pickup at the new apartment he was advised that it is planned for this service to be conducted from the subterranean area and not from the rear yard which is close to one of Mr. Regal's apartments. He further asked for disapproval of any additional units. No one else desiring to be heard, Councilman Reibold MOVED that the hearing be closed, Councilman Balser seconded the motion which was carried unanimously. Inasmuch as this matter came to the City Council in two separate recommendations, 1) for the approval of the request for permission to relocate the building one lot to the east and 2) for the disap- proval of the request for permission to construct two penthouses on the roof. top, MOTION was made by Councilman Considine, seconded by Councilman Reibold and carried unanimously that the City Council approve the relocation of the building subject to conditions contained in Resolution No. 3642 and upon the further condition that a covenant, in form approved by the City Attorney, be executed and recorded by the property owners agreeing that the properties shall be developed contemporaneously as one unit. During extensive discussion on the second portion of the Commission's recommendation it was pointed out that the recreational areas have been reduced from four to two; that the two residential units would not increase the total number of units within the complex and that access to the recreation facilities will be controlled. Councilman Considine commented in part that he would hope that the Special 'H' Zone established by the City Council would not be jeopardized by permitting what in his opinion could be construed as a nine story building; that the need for business licenses for services to be rendered on the premises were of concern to him; that care should be taken no~ so as to prevent future commercial variance requests. Councilman Balser stated in part that the penthouses would probably not alter the appearance but in his opinion it would violate the policy established by the majority of the City Council for the Special 'H' Zone. He then MOVED that the recommendation of the Planning Commission be sustained and that the request for permission to construct two of the 220 dwelling units as roof-top penthouses be denied. I Discussion was resumed and it was noted that business permits would be required if the restaurant is operated by franchise and of any persons having offices on the premises and charging for services, even if only tenants and their guests would use the services. Councilman Forman then seconded the motion made by Councilman Balser. Roll call vote as follows: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Councilmen Balser, Forman Councilmen Considine, Reibold, Turner None 3. 7-21-64 16:6310 The Motion failed to pass. Councilman Reibold then MOVED that the request for permission to construct two roof-top residential penthouses be granted. Councilman Turner seconded the motion which was carried on roll call vote as follows: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Councilmen Considine, Reibold,. Turner Councilmen Balser, Forman None Brief discussion was then held on the requirement of business licenses by persons rendering services to the tenants. The City I Attorney advised in part that if a professional person is called in by the tenants on appointment if would pose no problem, but if offices are leased on a permanent basis to the exclusion of all others then it would be considered a commercial venture and would require further proceedings and licensing as a business. That a restaurant per se, as distinguished from restaurant facilities for use by the guests or by a caterer when requested by the guests, is not embraced within the pending proceedings. The applicant was also advised that the recreational facilities could not be leased to outsiders for parties, etc., without it being a commercial venture. HEARING (C-C & D) Planning Commission Resolution No. 518 recommending the reclassifi- cation of specified property in said City into Zone C-C (Community Commercial) and into Zone D (Architectural overlay) and recommending the regulations to be imposed under such Zone D. The City Council had previously received relevant material and projecturals were shown. Boundaries of the subject property are Santa Anita on the west, Huntington Drive on the south and the railway right-of-way on the northeast. The area is generally known and specifically referred to in the Central Area Plan (prepared by Wilsey, Ham & Blair, consultants) as the 'Towne Centre'. Central Area Plan Towne Centre The Planning,Director summarized the contents of a report from the Planning Department to the Planning Commission dated June 23, 1964 (complete copy of the report on file in the office of the City Clerk). The report sets forth regulations, although in some respects more severe than had been suggested for any other Central Area Zone, but which are essential in the opinion of the Planning Department, for the redevelopment of the Towne Centre. The report incorporated requirements recommended for plan review, although there is still some question as to who will prepare the plans. Working drawings, building height, setbacks, signs, lighting and landscaping were also explored. .Discussion was held on parking requirements"and the City Attorney referred to Section 9284.2 on "In Lieu Parking". Mayor Turner then declared the hearing open. I August Goebel, 3935 E. Huntington Drive, East Pasadena, representing the A & A Building Materials Company, addressed Council in substance as follows: that the minutes of the Planning Commission meeting of June 9, 1964 are incomplete; that the City Council is entitled to a full, true and correct record of what occurred at the meetings before the Planning Commission; that he is most concerned with the testimony of Messrs. Gutoff and Phelps. He commented on the ways in which the complete record could be made available to the City Council, namely, by a full transcript by ,the certified court reporter who was present, which would be expensive; that he could recall the witnesses and thereby repeat all the testimony which would be unduly and unneces- sarily time consuming; or the staff could complete the partial 4. 7-21-64 16:6311 transcript of the testimony of Messrs. Gutoff and Phelps; that such a transcript would be satisfactory to him. He stated further in part that he had communicated with the City Attorney under date of July 16, 1964 with excerpts that he had made of the omitted testimony referred to above and that in his opinion serious omissions occurred which would be prejudicial to the rights of his clients and asked for an answer at this point in the public hearing. I The City Attorney stated in part that the A & A Building Materials Company does have a right to have its full testimony presented to the City" Council, and concurred that the least time consuming would be to have the staff prepare the necessary additions to the testimony of the two persons (Messrs. Gutoff and Phelps) and have the record augmented by the presentation of such testimony. Councilman Forman MOVED that the staff prepare the suggested augmen- tation of the testimony for inclusion in the record of this hearing; Motion seconded by Councilman Reibold'and carried unanimously. In answer to questions propounded by Mayor Turner, Mr. Goebel stated in part that he does not represent any specified property other than the A & A Building Materials Company; that he began his representation of said company in April of 1963 and he had first appeared before the Planning Commission in requesting relief from the moratorium. Mayor Turner then stated in part that when Mr. Cliff Lance, President of the Company, appeared before the City Council on September 17, 1963 requesting relief from the moratorium to permit the construction of a building for storage purposes, the City Council had instructed the staff to work with Mr. Lance in an endeavor to work out the details which would enable the Council to grant permission to construct the building within the framework of the thoughts of the City Council. Mr. Goebel was then asked what efforts had been made for or by the A & A Building Materials Company to avail 'itself of the condition by which the moratorium could be lifted in compliance with the September 17, 1963 action. Mr. Goebel stated in part that 1) the conditions imposed by the City were acceptable to Mr. Lance but that 2) because of the restrictions imposed by the landlord and other matters which affect the landlord's property, it became an impractical and/or impossible matter. I Mr. Lance, 166 E. Pamela Avenue, President of subject company, corroborated the statement by Mr. Goebel; that the Railway Company was unwilling to agree to the same conditions to which he had consented (stipulation as to the 10 year amortization of the additional facilities which he had intended to construct at approxi- mately $25,000). He stated further, in answer to an inquiry by Mayor Turner, that he had not made any counter-offers or overtures to the City staff who were authorized to work with him. Mayor Turner then stated 'in part that any future City planning must be done with imagination and predicated upon sound planning and economical concept; that the City Council has every reason to believe that the plan can be worked with; that when the request for relief from the moratorium was first presented the majority of the Council at that time determined that it was very possible and feasible that it would be a ten year period of time before this particular piece of property would be affected by the implementation of the Towne Centre Plan, and was willing to grant the relief requested; that if the development did not progress as hoped, then this particular property could be looked at to determine whether or not it was s. 7-21-64 needed for the completion of the plan, or if it had misinterpreted what the plan could do for the City then it might be that this present usage could continue as proper for this area; that this has been brought up to make certain that there is no way to proceed under the relief that has already been granted, Mr, Goebel stated in part that would not the City have the same power to view the property in ten years from now.. could it not more realistically appraise and evaluate the property at that~ time than at present. He asked to make his presentation later in the evening. Norman Cole, 1000 Paloma Drive, asked that the comments between the City Attorney and the Planning Director at the meeting of June 9, 1964 be made available to the City Council. Reference was made to the action already taken that would make available to the City Conncil a complete transcript of the testimony between Mr. Gutoff and Mr.Phelps and any other pertinent testimony, In answer to questions Mayor Turner advised that all persons will be heard up to the hour of 11:30 P,M., at which time other items will require the attention of the City Council; that any person present who may not be heard by that time will be heard at the continued hearing; that if all persons present at this meeting are heard the public hearing will then be held open for the introduction of documentary evidence only. William Gockley, 1722 Alta Oaks Drive, addressed Council stating in part that he was representing the Arcadia Business Association, that it has supported the Wilsey, Ham & Blair plan from its beginning to its eventual adoption and are now urging for the implementation of the plan through zoning, He further stated that the Association is of the opinion that to delete any of the area recommended by the plan would defeat its purpose and asked that the C-C & D encompass the entire area. William Littlefield, 1624 Lee Avenue, spoke about the alleged de- ficiencies and inaccuracies in the Wilsey, Ham & Blair Report. He submitted to the City Clerk copies of a communication he wrote City officials under date of February 13, 1964. He also received permission to type up his complete statement'and submit it to the City Clerk for incl~sion in the official record. O. K, Earle, one of the owners of property at 41-45 E. Huntington Drive, expressed concern in the requirement of complete working drawings; also about the requirement that the plans and specifica- tions be prepared by a registered architect; that the licensed building designers should be given consideration; that it may be the intention to include them but it should be spelled out in the requirements. Mr, Earle further stated that he felt considerable more study should be given the allocation of spaces in the parking dis- tricts. Mayor Turner advised Mr, Earle that a letter had been , received from Mr, Horton, of his staff, incorporating most of the points brought up by Mr. Earle, Richard English, 114 St. Joseph Street, spoke briefly about the proposal for underground electrical service; suggested caution be exercised in the recommendations so that rates will not be increased by the utility company.The City Attorney advised that the wording was fu~nished by the Company to the City. Dexter Jones, 38 E. Huntington Drive, attorney for the Peerless Linen Supply Company (corner of Santa Anita and Santa Clara) protested on behalf of the Company; that the zone is not proper and that the re- gulations are not set forth sufficiently enough to inform the property owner with a non-conforming building use the way he could rebuild, remodel or replace items of the present businesses, 6. 7-21-64 .' 16 :6312 I I I I TRANSCRIPTION Drive, Arcadia, Norman Cole, 1000 Paloma ~ubject area. "I wish to go on record at this time and state that any comments or observations which I might make I speak for no one but myself. It is my hope to show you gentlemen that if you permit a change in the present M-l zoning on property owned by my family at 29 - 39 Santa Clara Street and 32 Front Street to a much more restrictive zoning proposed under the new provisions without any provisions for relief for these re- latively new buildings, that you will be unjustly depriving me of the proper and reasonable use of my property and substantially reducing the value of this real estate in the market by subjecting these buildings to restrictive uses that are entirely borne to the light industry uses for which these buildings were designed five years ago. You are being asked by the Planning Department and the Planning Commission to adopt a new restrictive zoning for our property. I believe gentlemen you can appreciate this situation in which we find ourselves at the'present time. If you would think in terms of owning this property yourself... you put up a building representing a large investment.. the City has given you its blessing by issuing a con- struction permit., you abide by all the regulations .. the fi~e zone, the parking, and by the Government depreciation standards the building should have a life bf 40 to 60 year~, then, gentlemen, approximately 36 months after the completion of this building - just three short years - after you have completed your building, the City which gave you its blessing three years earlier to construct the building, starts a program which will make your buildings obsolete and out of date. Now with these buildings less than five years old, you gentlemen are being asked to give final approval to a change in zoning for these buildings "hich would make these relatively new structures unsuitable for the use under the new zoning laws and these relatively new structures' difficult to rent and place in jeopardy - a large investment that we have made in .this property just a few years ago. Owner of property within the "I would like to review briefly the physical aspects of the property we are talking about and its location. It is presently zoned M-l, light industry. The resol~tion before you seeks to reclassify this property into a new C-C zone with an architectural overlay. Our property at 29 to 39 Santa Clara Street comprises eight separate shops and offices built for light industry occupancy. Incidentally, these buildings were designed and constructed under the supervision of a licensed architect, Mr. Richard Weimer, These small shops:have special industrial electrical wiring and plumbing and large swing-up loading doors in the rear of each shop, Some of the shops have other special features for industrial occupants. "Now you gentltmen say that the shops or units which I have just des- cribed would appeal to a businessman wishing a facility for a pedestrian or walk-in type of business such as the new proposed zoning law suggests for this structure. The eight rental units which I have described above are on the north side of Santa Clara Street and in such a location the front of my building looks across the street into the rear access area of our local post office with its mail loading plat- form, mail trucks and employee parking. Now could any reasonable person say that such a location would be sensible and generally acceptable to any merchant wishing to establish a pedestrian oriented or walk-in type of business as suggested by the new zoning.. or would you say that the present use is being made of this property through the medium of our present light industry zoning is much more sensible and reasonable, , "In the construction of our buildings five years ago - we had a floor elevation problem. There was a small difference of about two feet in the elevation between the front of our Santa Clara building and the rear of the structure, This is not unusual in Arcadia, but in construct- ing such a building considerable thought has to be given to what usages are to be made of the building when it is completed. In the building of an industrial building to serve the uses of light industry here in Arcadia - it was more important for us under such circumstances to have a level loading area in the rear of these buildings than to have a street entrance in the front of the buildings and we did not expect the structure 6a 7-21-64 would cater to any large pedestrian business. As a result we placed steps in the front of our buildings so that business would have to go two steps to gain access to the offices located on the property. These steps are rarely used by our present industrial tenants and offer no inconvenience to them as they enter their shops and offices from the rear parking lot virtually all of the time. However these steps I have just mentioned would be a tremendous disadvantage to the desirability of these rental units if the proposed zoning for this property is adopted, and we have to seek new tenants catering to a pedestrian oriented or walk-in type of business. This one factor alone would place our buildings at great disadvantage in seeking new qualified tenants to fill vacancies, In no other important retail location in the City of Arcadia do prospective clients have to go up the steps to gain access to a first floor shop or store. This would add just another problem to the many we would already have if this new proposed zoning is permitted to become a part of our t official regulations without some relief for these relatively new buildin "As I mentioned we have eight rental units on Santa Clara Street. In addition to these we have a ninth rental unit on the rear of our property and it goes by the address of 32 Front Street. This building is located adjacent to the Santa Fe Railroad tracks. The building was built ex- clusively for industrial purposes. The zoning recommended for this building is also pedestrian oriented walk-in type of business, The paved portion of the street ends at my building. From my property line east to the intersection' of Santa Clara is roughly 175', We have no side- walks there except those which are on my property, ~Can any of you gentlemen, in good conscience, say that such a location would be suitable for the new zoning which is being recommended. ,A pedestrian oriented walk-in type of operation... this building does not have a single feature about it location-wise, construction-wise - that would recommend it to the new proposed zoning, yet, gentlemen, it is less than five years old. What are we supposed to do with several thousand dollars of industrial wiring we placed in this building for prospective industrial tenants,. I have on many occasions had opportunities to discuss my situation with men from the Planning Commission, Planning Department and even City Council members,. The impression I get is that I have little to worry about regarding the future of my Arcadia property. It is their general feeling that I can probably carryon my rental operation without special problems or without harassment and I might say that I even get the same feeling from the contents of a letter that was sent to another Arcamia businessman and a copy of which was sent to me by the writer.. this business man was located in the north Arcadia triangle and it was written by Mr. Harold Schone, October 4, 1963. I quote from Mr. Schone's letter: 'It certainly has not been the intent of the staff nor the City Council to legislate any existing business out of business, In the first place we do not believe that it would be legally possible to do so without compensating the owner for the property"..., the intent is to control expanded uses of property in the Central Area that do not meet the criteria of the Plan.. non-conforming uses would be continued until such time as the property owner felt it w~s economically advantageous to dispose of his property or convert it to a use in compliance with the then existing regulations,'" I "I believe, gentlemen, that if you will study all of the many facets surrounding the proposed zone change and how it might effect my property which is presented zoned M-l, I believe that you will agree that I do have reason for concern and for the future value of my property despite the confidence expressed by Mr. Schone and by others, "On July 8, 1964 I directed a letter to the Arcadia Planning Department to the attention of Mr. Phelps, I asked him to advise me in writing whether the buildings I own on Santa Clara Street and the building on the rear of this property at 32 Front Street would be conforming or non-conforming based on the new proposed C-C & D Zoning for this area. A prompt answer was received from Mr. Phelps under date of July 13, 1964. If I interpret his letter correctly I would'say that my Santa Clara buildings comprising eight rental units would be conforming as to the structure, rear yard, etc., but occupied by several non-conforming uses, The rear building located 6b 7-21-64 I along the Santa Fe track non-conforming as to the rear yard require- ment and the tenancy. Under the Arcadia Municipal Code, 9245.2, 9245.3 and 9248, our building on Santa Clara with its eight rental units would be under the following restrictions when and if the new zoning regula- tions are adopted making present industrial uses non-conforming, Under these restrictions in this relatively new building built for industrial occupancy, my present tenants or any tenants we might have in the future ., that we might obtain ... would be prohibited from expanding into one or more of these units; although the engineering and architectural lay- out for this building was designed so that an occupany of one units could expand into a second unit, because we left a large connective entrance in the middle of each unit so that one occupant could go frow one unit to two. In this way we have flexibility to our central operation by making available right single units or four larger contiguous units, "The proposed new zoning regulation will make several tenants presently occupying this building non-conforming in use. Now the Arcadia Municipal Code 9245.2 says that non-conforming uses in a conforming building may not be expanded or extended into any other portion of a building. I maintain that this regulation i~ the absence of any provisions for relief for this relatively'new building would unjustly deprive me of the proper and reasonable use of this new building and reduce its value in the market place. ' "In Paragraph 9248 of the present Arcadia Code it states that if there is a cessation of a non-conforming use in a conforming building for a period of 90 days it shall be conclusively presumed to constitute the abandonment of such non-conforming use. The use of the premises thereafter would be limited to the uses permitted in the new restrictive zoning requirements unless a verified' declaration containing various data was filed with the City Clerk requesting an extension which might or might not be granted, "The new proposed zoning regulations would present a continuing problem because of our eight rental units normal vacancies occur and the questions come up.... do the new requirements apply to one unit that may be vacant at the time or only to the whole building.. this is not spelled in the Arcadia regulations that I have been able to find and I believe needs clarification. Is such a ruling to be left up to the City Attorney, the Planning Department or should it be part of the Mu~icipal Code and in a language that all property owners could understand. I "The question comes up, gentlemen, at what point in the occupancy of this building do I have to have a variance' for a potential tenant whose business operation does not comply with the new Community Commercial architectural overlay zone which you are being requested to approve this evening. When does the 90 day abandonment clause, as it affects non- conforming uses in my property, go into effect? Would such a rule be effective in any individual unit once their non-conforming use had not been in effect for 90 days.. or would the status of my building remain unchanged just so long as I had one remaining unit occupied by a tenant whose operation was non-conforming. These are all questions I think in all fairness should be answered before anything is done in..",.,.. I have found a wide difference of opinion among the views of the Planning Staff, the Planning Commission and even members of the City Council on this matter. I believe that this matter needs clarification before this new zoning is made regulatory upon my property, "This new proposed zone change would pose some problems for my building at 32 Front Street if we accept Mr. Phelp's opinion expressed in his letter of July 13, 1964" that this building would be non-conforming if approved by the zone change, As I have mentioned it would be virtually 'impossible to find a tenant with this property facing the railroad tracks other than the one who might be able to occupy it for non-conforming use. This has not been an easy building to find a tenant for even under present zoning regulations and under the proposed restrictions for this railroad located property the possibility of finding a tenant would be very difficult, 6c 7-21-64 Now the Planning Staff or members of the Planning Commission or even members of the City Council have said that I am merely making problems for myself by bringing these questions up, however, there are many problems that should be looked at if we are to make an effort to protect the rentability of this building and protect its investment value. If we lose a tenant in this building and are unable to find a new one - I am speaking about 32 Front Street - a new one that is acceptable to all concerned and a 90 day period lapses, would not our zoning take on the higher and much more restrictive category that is being discussed tonight. Unless we were to file papers with the City indicating that this condition was temporary when we might not have any way of knowing whether it was temporary or not and seek the City's indulgence to help us in our problem we can continue on indefinitely and still arrive at the same answer. The new zoning re- regulations being proposed on my property will bring with it many problems. I The buildings I own were not designed for purposes compatible with the new suggested zoning, therefore, to be- treated fairly if the new regula- tions take effect we will almost have to expect ------------ and under- standing of our problem from those responsible for making such decisions for the City. "As a property owner I would feel much more comfortable and secure if the answers could be found in our Municipal Code where we can all look at them. Through the medium of a variance we might be able to solve some of the more difficult questions which may come up from time to time, however, the very fact that we might have to operate all or any part of our property under a variance would, in my opinion, reduce the investment and resale value considerably, It is our hope that the City would not force us or that of any innocent purchaser of our property into a position of having to operate under a variance in a virtually new building, The issuance of a variance can be time consuming and involve considerable detail and may even be costly, "I only ask you gentlemen one question, Does it seem fair and reasonable that the owner of a new building, less than five years old, should be con- fronted with all of these problems. I trust gentlemen that you will vote against the rezoning of the triangle north of Santa Clara Street. The Wilsey, Ham & Blair report stated that 1980 ia the target date for the completion of this plan: This land is properly zoned now and is not needed for the success of the plan"and may not be needed for many years in the future and indeed may not be needed at all unless the Towne Centre concept is a great success. "We have often been told' how important the proposed Tower complex Heiss building was to the success of the plan, yet we have no evidence up to this time of this building being erected. The Arcadia Tribune under date of January 2, 1964 - an article discussing this matter, stated that Mr. Harold Achone was advised that the Tower structure would be under construc- tion by late winter, meaning the last minter we just passed or early spring which is the spring we just passed. A brochure issued by the agent of this building promised occupancy in this structure by December of 1964. We know these events have not happened and yet the lives and the property of many persons are being effected by these proposals as if they were accomplished facts. , "If you feel in good conscience you must vote for this rezoning for the goo of the entire City and I am sure you would vote for it for no other reason, then I urge that you instruct the Planning Department to develop some fair and reasonable rules to govern the use of my relatively new structure, They will do this at your insistence. If the City is unwilling to grant any re- lief for my new buildings then I would like to sit down with representatives of the City and seriously discuss with them the sale of my property to them, If such a sale is consummated then these funds can be reinvested into an area where the investment climate is more favorable. "Thank you gentlemen, for your courteous attention," 6d 7-21-64 In answer to an inquiry by Mayor Turner, Mr, Cole stated that he would welcome a clarification by the Planning Director of a statement made by Mr. Phelps at the Planning Commission meeting of June 9, 1964; that it pertained to the building being used as a foundry; that he, could not locate any reference to it in the minutes of said date. I The Planning Director endeavored to recall - in substance he stated - that the present uses and occupancies of Mr. Cole's building are relatively light in nature, they do not produce much noise or odor, smoke, etc; that the present uses would be permitted on a non- conforming basis; also if continued in their present form they would not be detrimental; that if redevelopment occurs it might become more feasible economically as well as advantageous for Mr. Cole to have a transition occur in the use of his buildings. Discussion ensued and Mayor Turner suggested that the City Council request from the staff a written report as to its interpretation of the ordinances presently on the books insofar as they are applied to the questions posed by Mr, Cole. Mr, Cole commented that he would appreciate this, I 6e TRANSCRIPTION August J. Goebel - representing owners of property within subject area. "As all of you know I represent A & A Building Materials Company. The owners, Cliff and Jack Lance, are both long time residents of Arcadia and civic leaders, I think for that reason they are entitled to maybe a little more consideration than this ethereal outside developer we hear so much about. They have been here since 1944 in that same location. We have appeared from the inception of this Towne Center plan and attacked a particular phase of the plan, not the whole plan, 1 don't intend this evening to reiterate any of the legal problems I feel are causing - or deprivation of rights - that I feel you are causing my client. I feel the record is clear up to this point either by way of correspondence or by way of matters presented to you I orally, However, I would like to summarize some of the things that I think are of utmost importance from solely the standpoint of my client, "First of all, the matter I have just touched upon - these gentlemen are not the Johnnys-come-lately. They have been here since 1944. They didn't come here to make a profit and leave. They came here in 1944 and have become a substantial part of this City. Incidentally, when they came here in 1944 the land that they in turn occupied - as has been testified previously by Mr, Lance' - was land that was kind of a dumping ground for water. They had to cause it to be filled to put it to the use to which they put it. Also, gentlemen, they do not own this property. They lease the property. I would like to clear up one point which I feel was a great error that was made by Mr, Lance in, I be- lieve, one of the earlier meetings - he was asked how long his lease had to run and he stated that it was on a year-to-year basis. Gentlemen, I have searched my records and Mr, Lance has searched his. I would state to you that his lease expires on March 31, 1973. Now the fact that they are a substantial customer of the S~nta Fe Railroad - the fact that they have occupied the premises this long on, I believe, a five or ten year lease with renewals, I think that this is a pretty good indication that these gentlemen are going to occupy that ground so long as they are permitted to by the City because Santa Fe will permit them to do it. "Secondly, A & A Building Materials Co" contributes and has contri- buted much to this City and its residents by way of payroll, by way of real property taxes, by way of sales taxes. You can check the records to find out the amount of sales tax that they are contributing which come back to the City. "Thirdly, and I think this is a very important point, gentlemen, A & A Building Materials Co" is located in the least desirable portion of this triangle for a pedestrian otiented commercial type of development. It is at the northerly point.of this ,~riangle, immediately adjacent to the railroad tracks and if and when this area develops, this is going to be the last area to develop. I don't see how anybody, be they -from the Wilsey, Ham & Blair report - be they from the Planning staff- can look at that property as it is located and say that this property is going to be one of the first or one of the intermediate properties to develop. Gentlemen, it has to be the last. Inthis connection, un- doubtedly the only use that will ever be made of that property is parking. I raised this point with Mr. Gutoff and I raised it 'with Mr. Phelps, The answer was, I believe, and if you'll look at the minutes you will find that while the plans shows it parking, it is not necessarily parking. Gentlemen, I can't conceive of a high class specialty pedestrian oriented commercial use that could occupy that land in any foreseeable future regardless of how this Towne Center develops. I (At this time Mr. Goebel presented to the City Clerk a map furnished to him by the Santa Fe Railroad indicating land in colors). 6f 7-21-64 (Goebel - continued) "I believe I will have to submit at a later date a copy or an excerpt of a copy from the letter which I believe went to Mr. Nicklin from Counsel for Santa Fe - to become part of this - because I think it materially shows the amount of land that is owned by them in that particular area. I "Also one other matter that I feel, while it was covered before the Planning Commission and I know certain members of the Planning Commission made note of it, it has not been touched upon here.. That is that the Industrial Committee of the Chamber of Commerce, a Committee that I believe Mr. English now heads but at that time was Chairmaned by another gentlemen, and incidentally, this Committee had not one single property owner from this northerly triangle north of Santa Clara as a member of it - recommended to the Planning Commission - Gentlemen, this report is in your file - that this area north of Santa Clara remain zoned as it is at the present time. This is the point I am trying to bring out this evening. "One other point - there was a suggestion made previously and touched upon particularly by youMr. Mayor this evening - that A & A Building Materials Company proceed by way of a moratorium condition that they build a building amortized over a period of ten years and as Mr. Lance stated and as I stated, this is acceptable to them but the condition imposed by Santa Fe made it, if not totally impossible, totally impractical. I would state here and now and I have verified this with Mr. Lance just a few moments ago - Mr. Lance tells me that if over a period of five years he were permitted to make improvements so long as he were not restricted in the type of improvements he were to make other than under existing ordinances and the amount periodically be set forth, he and his company would be willing to construct over this five year period improvements totaling $125,000 and he would be willing to amortize those over a period of ten years from each increment period. ... if he put in $25,000 the first year and that would be written over a period of ten years, the next $25,000 the second year, you would start a new ten year period in that particular facit of it. Now we point out that we are willing to do this. We are willing to cooperate. I think the City Attorney has been given some information from Santa Fe with respect to some of their problems - matters which I am not at liberty to go into this evening. At this point Mayor Turner asked: "What would be the difference in this proposal from the one we have al- ready given a relief on in the past. You still have the problem of agreement to reach with the Railroad. What was their stipulation as to what they would agree to on the first application?" I Goebel: "As I understand it, Mr. Mayor, what there was in my proposal here would eliminate the condition that Santa Fe be required to acquiesce in this particular condition which I understood was imposed by the City in September". In answer to Mayor Turner's inquiry as to the Railroad's objection to the amortization period, Mr. Goebel stated: "This I will frankly state that I am not familiar with and again I believe it goes to the matter that the most they would give by way of a lease is ten years and other matters that have been presented to Mr. Nicklin. I am not completely certain on all of these matters. If the Council desires, I would certainly make it a point to get from Atchison, Topeka, and Santa Fe Railroad their expression on their willingness, or lack of willingness, to proceed along such lines". 6g 7-21-64 Mayor Turner stated in part that it is highly important that the Railroad stipulate its recommendations under which it would allow A & A Building Materials Company to proceed; that this is the line which should have been followed last September when the staff was given instructions to work with the Company so they could make the improvements they so desired; that staff is still operating under the same instructions and that as of today they have not been outlawed. that the staff should be given a chance to say it can or cannot be done rather than to take the path that it should not be part of the overall plan. Goebel: I "I would agree to obtaining this information. However, it is my firm conviction and the position of my client that this procedure which is being suggested here and which I state my client would acquiesce in, is the lesser of two evils. I strongly urge that to impose the type of zoning that you are doing - for all the matters, the reasons we have set forth - is improper. I can't too strongly urge that particular point. However, I will get from Santa Fe an indication of their willing- ness or lack of wi11ingess; if they are unwilling, the conditions they would like to see. "Another point which I feel is entitled to serious consideration. You have not seen to this moment one single property owner in that triangle north of Santa Clara who has come in here and said, "Gentlemen, I want this C-C zoning. To the contrary, it has been almost unanimous - and I think over a period of time it has been unanimous - that they do not want this zoning..so while I have previously stated that the property owners did not want this.. I did this in summary fashion and believe that if you will search the record you will find that every property owner in there has voiced an objection to any change in zpning. "On this matter of relief from the moratorium ordinance - this basically isn't getting to the problem because it is in substance postponing the ultimate answer to a period ten years from now; so that you will be able to take a second look at it and as I have pointed out before I think the logical, the practical, the sensible way is to leave this as it is, then as the area develops exercise the power and the judgment based on the facts at that time, then make your zoning. "One other point - this goes to what Mr. Phelps said this evening. It touches the very matter that I have been saying all the time. Right now you have a Town Center concept. You have a model. You have a pamphlet. You have maps and sketches and projectura1s. Everybody has stated this plan should be developed in stages. Mr. Phelps said this evening and I am not quoting him verbatim, but I believe it is correctthat maybe there won't be a change as is set forth in this model but they would just do it with a refacading of some of the existing buildings. This is the point we are .trying to make that by zoning now you are going to go ahead I and hurt somebody without the resulting benefit to this -other area. Even though there is a finding in the resolution that the entire area must be zoned at one time - I have heard nothing other than the statement of Mr. Gutoff and the statement of Mr. Phelps and the statement of Mr. Gockley this evening that again this outside developer - and I would like to see an outside developer come in who has one parcel of property tied up in that northerly triangle particularly or generally in the whole area who is going to develop this along this Town concept. It has been going for two years and there has been no developer stand here yet - one man, a Mr. who said he moved here from Beverly Hills and he was in- terested in the area. He had some backers. They don't have any property under option. They don't own any property. it These matters have all been presented to you in detail before and I'd t~ke to talk to you now both as an attorney for A & A Building Materials Co., and as a lawyer who has been practicing here in the E1 Rancho area since 6h 7-21~64 I 1956, who has resided in this area for quite some time. I would also state that when I am asked where I reside, I state with pride that I live in Arcadia. I think this pride that we have in Arcadia should be two types of pride - pride in the physica1.e1ements that we have-here - the homes, the library, the matters that you gentlemen have caused to be developed but there should also, be pride in how we treat the prop1e who are a part of both the business world; the industrial world and the residential world. I think here from your standpoint you can avoid a great injury to people who have contributed much to this city by holding off on rezoning that northerly small portion. I want to re- emphasize, we don't oppose the whole Towne Center plan. If we could get what we are asking here you would find that my client would do all in his power to assist. I think a requirement of screening, for example, of an architectural overlay - even in this industrial zone - requiring - some type of conformance with a cleanup of this area. In this connec- tion I would state maybe the City should take it upon itself to repave some of St. Joseph Street and Front Street. I understand quite a bit of water collects there. Put curbs in and start the ball rolling on this particular thing. ' "Now let's go into a solution, gentlemen. First, I think we all know the plan won't develop overnight. It's going to take, 5, 10, 15 or 20 years. Maybe it don't develop at all. In the interim I say by what can be pre- cipitous action, you are going to cause unnecessary hardship for an area that can only be used for parking and there is no present fore- seeable need for it. To exclude the area from this triable it is not going to hurt this Town Center concept one single bit. I have heard nothing anyplace in all these meetings I have attended where anybody ,has said that to exclude that other than the b~id statement that it should be included. As I said before, no high class pedestrian oriented shop is going to go up there in that northerly area and put up a shop ,or in the area where Mr. Cole is and, look into the back of the post office loading dock. As I have said many times,' you have the power in the future to rezone this at a time when you can exercise judgment based on the development of this plan.. that's all we are asking.. if it doesn't develop, leave it alone; if it does develop and somebody comes in and purchases the property or even if they 'don't purchase the property, then rezone your property. I have told you what we would like do from a development standpoint.. I would ask':you to take this practical ,look at it and I'll be through. - I "You can include this in the Town Center - the triangle north of Santa Clara - and if you do-that - and I don't make this statement as an idle statement - there is going to be a lawsuit. Forget for the moment who wins this lawsuit. At that point, the City of Arcadia has lost, my client 'has lost. I don't care how you look at it.. The City has lost because your whole plan is going to be delayed in all probability. The client has lost because he goes through the necessary expense of a law- suit. Maybe he wins, maybe he doesn't, there is a winner and a loser in every lawsuit. I think that if we exercise good sound business j',dgment that I know each and everyone of you gent1eme~ have - you wouldn't be here if you didn't have the best interests of the City at heart - The only sound logical conclusion can be to leave that north area of Santa Clara zoned as it is at the present time.. then whether 2, 5, 10, 20 years from now - tak~ your second look at it., In the meantime, if you want to impose some requirements with respect to screening and matters such as this type. .'we offered many months ago and I believe there was a meeting in Mr. Schone's office, Mr. Nicklin, Mr. Boller, Mr. Jones, I was there, representatives of theSanta Fe Railroad.. we made this same type of suggestion then. We had hoped that something would come out of that meeting, but it did not. I would feel again something can be done along these lines. Just to digress, there has been a request made for Mr. Lance to go-along with putting in sidewalks and curbs in front of his building.. we want to do these things, however, we can't where we don-'t know where we stand. Even under this moratorium situation this is not logical. The logical approach is to leave it ~s it is, then if the ,~ I 6i 7-21-64 land value goes up and this is our problem - again my client will not benefit from any increase in land value.. they are there as a tenant with a lease running through 1973. Almost nine years to go. I strongly urge that the area north of Santa Clara be omitted from this Town Center because my clients can't live with it. You are going to cause them to do one of two things - either'seek further remedy or say to them pick up your business and move. It is as simple as this, this is why we are here. At this point Mayor Turner asked whether or not Mr. Goebel intended to encompass the entire area north of Santa Clara, or only the land occupied by the A & A Building Materials Company. I Mr. Goebel stated: "My reasoning, Mr. Mayor, is this - I feel if we came here and said exclude only my clients' property you gentlemen with propriety could say to me - you have only a small portion here.. it does not make good sense because there is not a good natural dividing line - a street to exclude only your client's property, therefore, your request is denied.... Certainly this is all I, as an attorney, am interested in. I think from a good sound zoning standpoint it is wiser to exclude everything north of Santa Clara." Mr. Goebel then stated he would submit to the City Clerk for the record excerpts from the letter referred to - from the Santa Fe Railroad. No one else desiring to be heard, Councilman Reibo1d MOVED, seconded by Councilman Forman and carried unanimously that the hearing be continued to the regular meeting of August 4, 1964 for the sole purpose of receiving documentary evidence only. I 6j 7-21-64 .' " Walter Gockley, 1722 Alta Oaks Drive. I ".. I am here tonight representing officially the Arcadia Business Association. It has been my pleasure to sit on the Arcadia Business Association Board as well as to sit with the Board of Directors of the Central Landowner's Association since the very beginning of the plan- nings that have evolved into what we are up to tonight. From these very beginnings the plan and the subsequent hopeful C-C zoning is now before us. Through this entire period, I would like to say that the various departments of the City, from the City Manager right on down, have done everything in their power to help implement the plan. Surely the members of the City didn't do this to help a few poor merchants down on Huntington Drive.. it must have been the thought in back that even- tually the City would reap the harvest of higher taxes from this area if the business was to blossom and develop as it should. ".. The Arcadia Business Association has steadfastly supported the concept of the Wilsey, Ham & Blair report all the way through from its presentation ~o its eventual adoption. We are now faced with the implementation of this plan through zoning. We urge for this zoning. It would seem from previous hearings that the problem, if there is one, lies within the physical area of the concept of the dimensions of the area to be included. We might as well lay it on the table, gentlemen, you know it and I know it, Mr. G~ebe1 knows what we are talking about.. whether we include the entire triangle or whether we delete the small triangle along side the railroad track. If this design concept is to become a reality then we feel that there must be absolute assurance of ample acreage being available for the development on a long range plan. Anything less immediately defeats the interests of the potential developers. I :.. We have along Huntington Drive been interrogated repeatedly by people representing outside interests who are concerned about making investment in the area. We have talked repeatedly with real estate brokers who are interested in helping to promote the area for the redevelopment. The plans which you have approved have opened up a wealth of new potential investment in the area, however, all of this is predicated on the hope that there will be sufficient acreage to develop on the long range plan. We are not fortunate enough in the downtown central area to look toward the future development of taking over residential areas on the perimeter which are possibly decadent and can be rezoned in the future to add to our acreage. We have already on the north a planned industrial area. We have on the south apartment zoning. We have on the east the' City limits and we have on the west the County Park and the Race Track. This, gentlemen, encompasses us within an absolute area which in the foreseeable future could not be expanded. If you wish to delete from this area a portion of the property cutting down further on the acreage which is available we in the Arcadia Business Association feel you have defeated the purpose. We therefore respectfully submit to you that we ask either for the proper C-C Zone and the D overlay to encompass the entire area, or we ask that you scrap the plan and forget the entire project or any rezoning. We feel that the zoning if it were to apply to only part of the property would defeat the purpose of the development we hope for and would only then place a burden on the merchants who are currently in the area requiring them. If they wanted to do a paint-up fix-up sort ofa project which would be all that would be left for us, it would then require them to meet certain extra problems that we couldn't encompass. ".. Within the area on Huntington Drive we do have several successful merchants as I am sure you are all familiar. You have men who have been there many years and have made a good living who are currently conducting a good sound business. We also ha~ some who are barely hanging on by their eye teeth. you know that too, gentlemen. We have vacant buildings. We need to develop this area into a sound, progressive, forward looking plan which is approved and properly zoned.. we may then with confidence go to outside interests and tell them they can come in and join us in operating a very successful area for the City of Arcadia. Thank you." 7-21-64 LIBRARY (Water ~eepage) A:Lb ~ t-.v , I~,,, FOR BIDS (Pipe) PROPERTY ACQUISITION (Combined City Yard) 3 '/10 BID AWARD (Reservoir) 4- /05 / I 16:6313 An appropriation of $4000 was authorized for transfer from Reserve for Capital Projects Account No. 285 in the General Fund to Capital Improvement Projects Account No', 510 LIB~Y ALTERATIONS on MOTION by Councilman Balser, seconded by Councilman Forman and carried on roll call vote as follows and that said amount be used for the repair of damage at the Library 'Building caused by water seepage in accordance with the report submitted by the Director of Public Works and the Building and Safety 'Superintendent. AYES: NOES: AESENT: Councilmen Balser, Considine, Forman, Reibold, Turner None' None MOTION by Councilman Balser, seconded by Councilman Considine and carried unanimously tbat the City Clerk be and she is hereby authorized to advertise for bids for the purchase of cast iron pipe for the Water Department. Bids to be received August 14, 1964 at 11 A.M. In continuance of property acquisition for the combined City yard, MOTION was made by Councilman Riebo1d, seconded by Councilman Considine and carried on roll call vote as follows that property located at 24 South Fourth Avenue (portions of Lots 11 and 12 of Tract No. 8504) be purchased from Mr. and Mrs;'Haro1d R. Wilson in the amount of $11,220; that the City pay all dosing escrow costs with the exception of internal revenue stamps and any taxes due with the right of the seller to occupy said property up to October 1, 1964; that the City Manager be and he is hereby authorized to execute escrow instructions in form approved by the City Attorney; that the sum of $11,400 be transferred from Reserve Capital Projects Account No. 285 in the General Fund to 'Capital Improvement Projects- Account No. 302 - Property Purchase - Combined City Yard. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Councilmen Balser, Considine, Forman, Reibold, Turner None None The following bids were received in connection with the construction of the Orange Grove Reservoir No.5: J. D. Diffenbaugh, Inc. E. M. Penn J. Putnam Henck Kemper & Hoagland Engineering Rex W. Murphy Ecker Bros. Christie Co. Service Construction Peter Kiewit G. W. Galloway $293,467 294,492 298,433 313,300 319,900 326,926 331,800 342,000 363,919 389,365 Upon recommendation of the Engineering-Science, Inc., (consultants for the Water Department) MOTION was made by Councilman Balser, seconded by Councilman Considine and carried on roll call vote as follows that the City award the contract to the low bidder, J, D. Diffenbaugh, Inc., in the amount of $293,467.00; that all 7. 7-21-64 ~ PROPERTY PURCHASE (Combined - Yard Site) 4'/:2 J' CAPITAL . IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS 3: REPORT (LMD) CENTRAL AREA (Mo~atorium) 16:6314 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 authorized to execute a contract in form approved by the City Attorney. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Councilmen Balser, Considine, Forman, Reibold, Turner None None Continuing the acquisition of property for the combined yard site, MOTION was made by Councilman Considine, seconded by Councilman Reibold and carried on roll call vote as follows that the City purchase from W. A. Mathewson property at 55 S. Fifth Avenue (Portion of Lot 9 Tract No. 5205) in the amount of $13,000; that the City pay closing costs, excluding any taxes due, with the right of Mr. Mathewson to occupy said property up to October 1, 1964; that the City Manager be and he is hereby authorized to execute escrow instructions on behalf of the City in form approved by the City Attorney; that the sum of $13,200 be transferred from Reserve for Capital Projects Account No. 285 in the General Fund to Capital Improvement Projects Account No. 302 - Property Purchase - Combined City Yards. I AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Councilmen Balser, Considine, Forman, Reibold, Turner None None MOTION by Councilman Forman, seconded by Councilman Considine and carried on roll call vote as follows that the recommendation of the City Manager pertaining to reappropriation of funds for the com- pletion of the Capital Improvement Projects listed in'his report be APPROVED and that $52,206 be authorized for reappropriation and that the City Controller be authorized to make the proper dis- bursements; also recommended the sum of $861.00 be appropriated to Account #234, Santa Anita Village Lighting - City's share. (This amount is required to cover the City's share of intersection lighting in Lighting Maintenance District #20 (amount is now charged to Abatement Receivable Account). AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Councilmen Balser, Considine, Forman, Reibold, Turner None None The Annual Lighting Maintenance Districts Report in accordance with prov1s10ns of Section 18730 Chapter 6 of the Streets and Highways Code was received approved and placed on file for tax levy at the proper time on MOTION by Reibo1d, seconded by Forman and carried on roll call vote as follows: I AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Councilmen Balser, Considine, Forman, Reibold, Turner None None The owner of the Arcadia Muffler Company addressed Council with reference to the action taken by the City Council on July 13, 1964 in the granting of his request for a business permit to allow him to 8. 7 - 21-64 16:6315 conduct his business at 334 E. Huntington Drive, specifically to the conditions imposed. Discussion ensued, with Mr. Jack Kawahata stating in part that he plans to start to clean and paint up but 'could not comply with the site clearance at this time. He would be willing to comply with the conditions in stages and in five years would have the building up to the requirement. I Whereupon Councilman Forman MOVED that the conditions of approval imposed be amended to waive the clearing of the site, the con- struction of a new building in compliance with the proposed Zone 'D' regulations, provided the owner complies in full conformance with the conditions within five years after date of occupancy. Councilman Reibo1d seconded the motion which was carried unanimously. Introduced The City Attorney presented for the first time, explained the content and read the title of Ordinance No. 1248, entitled: "AN ORDINANCE OF THE ClTY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING CHAPTER 2 OF ARTICLE IX OF THE ARCADIA MUNICIPAL CODE BY AMENDING SECTION 9233 THEREOF; BY ADDING THERETO A NEW SECTION 9231.18; AND BY ADDING TO PART 6 THEREOF A NEW DIVISION 8 ENTITLED "C-C COMMUNITY COMMEIl.CIAL ZONE" ,CONTAINING TITLES 1 AND 2 AND SECTIONS 9268.1 THROUGH 9268.2.6." ORDINANCE NO. 1248 MOTION by Councilman Reibold, seconded by Councilman Forman and carried on roll call vote as follows that the reading of the full body of Ordinance No. 1248 be waived: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Councilmen Balser, Considine, Forman, Reibold, Turner None None MOTION was further made by Councilman Reibo1d, seconded by Councilman Forman and carried on roll call vote as follows that Ordinance No. 1248 be INTRODUCED. AYES: NOES: ABSENt: Councilmen Balser, Considine, Forman, Reibold, Turner None None Introduced The City Attorney presented for the first time, explained the content and read the title of Ordinance No. 1252, entitled: "AN ORDINANCE OF THE ClTY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING THE ARCADlA MUNICIPAL CODE BY REPEALING, SECTION 4125.11.3 THEREOF, AMENDlNG SECTIONS 4125.6, 4125.11.1 AND 4133.1 THEREOF AND ADDING A NEW SECTION 4133.8.1 THERETO." ORDINANCE NO. 1252 I MOTIO~ by Councilman Balser, seconded by Councilman Reibo1d and carried on roll call vote as follows that the reading of the full body of Ordinance No. 1252 be waived: AYES: NOES: ABSENt: Councilmen Balser, Considine, Forman, Reibold, Turner None None 9. 7-21-64 ADJOURNMENT 16:6316 MOTION was further made by Councilman Balser, seconded by Councilman Forman and carried on roll call vote as follows that Ordinance No. 1252 be INTRODUCED. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Councilmen Balser, Considine, Forman, Reibold, Turner None None The City Attorney distributed copies of a proposed ordinance for Zone M-l P.I.D., its contents to be s~udied by the City Council and staff members. At 12:02 A.M. the meeting adjourned to Monday July 27, 1964 at 8 P.M. ATTEST: m~~ ~~$;?~ ~7A~ City Clerk j)oLr E~ Mayor Turner 1 10. 7-21-64 I I