Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAPRIL 20,1965 "I """'n<" PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL MINUTE APPROVAL (4-6-65) PRESIDING OFFICER \'Is rJ I 16:6512 MINUTES CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA REGULAR MEETING APRIL 20, 1965 The City Council of the City of Arcadia, California met in regular session in the Council Chamber of the Arcadia City Hall at 8 P.M. April 20, 1965. Rev. Stanley W. Courtney, Assistant Pastor, Arcadia Presbyterian Church Mayor Dale E. Turner PRESENT: ABSENT: Councilmen Balser, Considine, Forman, Turner, Reibold None The Minutes of the Regular Meeting of April 6, 1965 were APPROVED as submitted in writing on MOTION by Councilman Considine, seconded by Councilman Forman and carried unanimously. Mayor Turner expressed appreciation for the cooperation received during his tenure as Mayor and in keeping with the precedent of rotating the office every year he announced his resignation as presiding officer of the City Council. Councilman Balser, on behalf of the City Council, accepted the resignation and placed in nomination for Mayor, Councilman Conrad T.. Reibold. Councilman Considine MOVED that the nominations be closed and that the City Clerk cast a unanimous ballot for Councilman Reibold as Mayor. Motion seconded by Councilman Balser and carried unanimously. Congratulations for the accomplishments made during the past year were then extended to resigning Mayor Turner whereupon Councilman Reibold took his place as presiding officer. Councilman Forman then MOVED that Councilman Jess Balser be nominated as Mayor Pro Tempore. There being no further nominations Councilman Turner MOVED that the nominations be closed and that the City Clerk cast a unanimous ballot for Councilman Balser as Mayor Pro Tempore. Motion seconded by Councilman Forman and carried unanimously. Mayor Reibold thanked the City Council for the privilege of serving as its presiding officer for the ensuing year which will be his tenth year on the legislative body; that to him it is a high honor. He explored the physical and financial expansion of the City during those years and enumerated some of the accomplishments; that in his opinion the time has come to devote energies and abilities to con- solidating gains and implementing the plans already developed, i.e., examination of the facilities provided for beautification; Councilman Balser's longtime concern for the safety of children in providing sidewalks to and from schools which presents a problem and a determi- nation with respect to a Community Redevelopment Agency. He 1. 4-20-65 NEH APPOINTMENTS Counc i 1 Liaison League California Cities Freeway Sanitation Districts Capital Projects Land 16: 6513 expressed a desire that at the end of the forthcoming year the work will have been rewarding and profitable to those the City Council represents. Mayor Reibold made the following appointments to serve through April 1966: Civil Defense & Disaster Board Councilman Balser Library Board Councilman Balser Personnel Board Councilman Considine Planning Commission Councilman Forman Recreation Commission Councilman Considine Sister City Commission Councilman Turner League of California Cities Director: Councilman Forman Alternate: Councilman Turner Foothill Freeway Councilman Turner City Manager Schone Los Angeles County Sanitation District Nos. 15 & 22 Mayor is Director by virtue of his office Alternate: Councilman Balser Capital Projects Committee Councilman Balser Councilman Forman Land Committee Mayor Reibold Councilman Considine Standing Committees to remain. 2. 4-20-65 I I PUBLIC HEARING (Piken) I J~ I 16:6514 Planning Commission Resolution No, 542 recommending the denial of a zone change request for the rezoning of property at 710, 716, 720 and 728 W. Camino Real and 1505 and 1529 S. Baldwin Avenue from R-l and R-2 zones to C-l and D zones to permit the construction and operation of a supermarket on said property. Projecturals of the area were reviewed and the Planning Director explained the surrounding uses and explored the contents of said resolution which set forth that the applicant proposes commercial zoning on property surrounded on three sides by residentially zoned and used property; that it would extend commercial zoning farther south on Baldwin Avenue which is already overburdened with strip commercial zoning and development. Reference was made to the activity and noise levels attendant to a supermarket operation which would not be compatible with the neighboring residential properties and convalescent hospital; that the reclassification is not justified by good zoning practices, and based thereon the Planning Commission recommended denial of the application. The applicant, Herbert M. Piken, had appealed the decision for denial through his attorney in a communication addressed to the City Council dated March ll, 1965 and is hereby made part of the record. August J. Goebel, attorney for the applicant, addressed the City Council at length, stating in part that it is the intention of the applicant to construct a supermarket which would comprise only 22 per cent of the two acre parcel with III parking spaces. He referred to a zone variance granted by the City to the Richfield Oil Company in 1961 wherein approval was given for the construction of a building which would have comprised 35 per cent of the area with 73 parking spaces," Reference was also made to a zone variance granted in 1961 which among other uses granted variances for the construction of a hotel for retired persons at 720,- 728 W. Camino Real; that all the uses were for C-2 zoning and that in his opinion the property is not truly for R-l or R-2 uses; that the requested C-l zoning is a more restrictive use than the previously approved C-2 zoning. Photographs of the existing improvements on Baldwin Avenue and Camino Real were exhibited by Mr. Goebel as he verbally explored the neighboring properties and the uses thereof. He observed that with the proposed shopping facility traffic would be generated in that direction thereby increasing business for all surrounding stores and improving the City's tax base. The Planning staff had made certain conditions to be imposed should the request be granted and Mr. Goebel stated with reference thereto that, 1) the service station on the southwest corner of Baldwin Avenue and Camino Real should not be blocked off by a wall - that a free flow of traffic should be permitted; 2) that the recommended re- quirement for underground utilities would be economically prohibitive to his client. He also touched upon his client's participation in the cost of traffic signal installation at the intersection of Baldwin Avenue and Camino Real, the type of storage building for crates, bottles, etc., and advised that the loading and unloading facilities would be at the northwest border of the building which woulq lessen the noise for the adjacent convalescent hospital. Referring once more to the zone variance granted the Richfield Oil Company, Mr. Goebel quoted from a letter written by the City Manager 3. 4-20-65 16:6515 to Mr. Rheingruber of the Oil Company dated March 1, 1961: "We have reviewed with the City Attorney the status of the zone variance granted by the City of Arcadia in Resolution No, 3315 for properties at the southwest corner of Baldwin Avenue and Camino Real. It is the opinion of the City Attorney that no extension of said variance will be required in order to construct the additional proposed buildings at a future date beyond the six-month period from date of granting said variance." He continued that on April 17, 1961 the Oil Company, owners of the property, executed a corporation grant deed to the City for a 20 I strip of land on Baldwin Avenue for street I widening purposes and by such dedication after receipt of the above mentioned letter had vested an interest in the property and that the property was maintained in Zone C-2, He further stated in part that his client could use the plot plan of the Oil Company but that he preferred to use his own which is a better plan from an economic position, good zoning standpoint and for the welfare of the City. A copy of a letter from the Richfield Oil Company to his client was then handed to the City Clerk for the record. It set forth reasons for the acquisition of the subject property and some of the conditions imposed in the granting of the variance in 1961. It was Mr. Goebells contention that there is a continuing right to use the land for uses under C-2 zoning and concluded his presentation with an appeal to the City Council for a reversal of the decision of the Planning Commission. During the ensuing discussion it was brought out that the matter before the City Council at this time is the request for a zone change, whereas the approval granted the Richfield Oil Company in 1961 was for a zone variance under certain conditions and in accordance with a specific plan. The City Manager advised that on November 16, 1960, subsequent to the adoption of Resolution No. 3315 (November 15, 1960) he received a call from Mr. Rheingruber and in response he had sent him a copy of the resolution and advised him that, lIyou have raised a question as to whether or not it is necessary for you to begin construction on all of the buildings indicated on the plans submitted. After a review of this matter with the City Attorney this is to advise you that you may commence the construction of your service station at any time independent of any other buildings shown on the submitted plan. It will be necessary, however, that the existing buildings of the entire parcel be removed as part of the construction of the service station" . He continued with reference to a letter dated February 6, 1961 to Mr. Rheingruber, "that prior to the issuance of a business license I for the operation of said station it will be necessary for the City to receive dedication of 20' of land for the widening of Baldwin Avenue as required by Resolution No. 3315 and for all existing , buildings to be removed from the total parcel which is described as follows . . .", That on March 7, 1961 the City Attorney addressed a communication to Mr. Rheingruber that it would be necessary to execute the deed as one of the conditions in the granting of the zone variance; that Mr. Rheingruber had been well advised with regards to the deed and that there were other communications which would clarify the statement that the only reason the property was dedicated was predicated upon the letter from the City of March 1, 1961, because 4. 4-20-65 16:6516 they had been advised prior to that date. Mr. Goebel stated in part that he was endeavoring to point out that it was after the March 1, 1961 letter from the City Manager to Mr. Rheingruber that the deed was executed, and the fact that there were communications between the City Manager and the City Attorney enclosing the deed before that, strengthens the point that the deed was not executed until after the receipt of said letter. I The City Manager stated further in part that in response to his letter of February 28, 1961 the City Attorney concurred with him that, lithe variance will continue in effect without interruption so long as construction is diligently prosecuted without interruption... If there is any appreciable hiatus between the completion of the service station and the commencement of construction of satellite buildings the owners would be well advised to apply for an extension of the variance at this time to protect them from any unforeseen contingencyl~ The Manager stated further that there were a number of personal conversations but his file does not reveal that the information received from the City Attorney was ever transmitted. In response to an inquiry as to whether or not the land is currently zoned C-2, the City Attorney stated in part that there is no question but what the basic R-l zoning was not changed by the granting of the variance; that Mr. Goebel does not dispute that, but that he (Mr. Goebel) is contending there is a continuing right to use the plot plan for certain uses that would be permissible in Zone C-2. When asked for clarification of the status of the zone variance the City Attorney advised that if a variance is not used within six months or if it is abandoned, then it ceases to be in force or in effect. He referred to substantial changes which have been made in the basic ordinance since 1961 and that in his opinion a variance does not remain foreve~ just because an applicant uses a portion of the land that was granted by variance he does not thereby preserve forever the right to use all the rest of it for the purpose for which it was granted; that a variance is granted from the provisions of the ordinance as then in effect. D. C. Pennington, 711 W. Camino Real, and Mr. Watts, 750 W. Camino Real, both spoke in favor of the supermarket; that it would be an improvement to the area. Ella Hilford, 621 Callita, opposed the rezoning favoring the existing residential zoning. I Irving Figus, attorney for the owners of an apartment directly across the street from the proposed development, stated that a supermarket with its attendant activities would be detrimental to his property and that of the adjacent convalescent hospital. Mrs. Vogel, 528 S. Baldwin Avenue, spoke in concern of what type of development would be approved for the subject site and stated that the supermarket would be detrimental to the neighborhood. Orlando Clarizio, owner and immediately to the south of operator of the convalescent hospital subject site, spoke at length and 5. 4-20-65 16:6517 exhibited drawings of the area, stating in part that the noise factor wo~ld be harmful to his patients; that the hospital was constructed at its location because it was felt that it would be protected from further commercial infringement on Baldwin Avenue and suggested that the applicant seek other property already zoned for the requested use. Frgnk Kelley, 725 Callita, opposed more supermarkets in the area. I No one else desiring to be heard, it was MOVED by Councilman Turner, seconded by Councilman Forman and carried unanimously that the hearing be CLOSED. Councilman Considine advised that as liaison to the Planning Commission, it was the general feeling of the Commission that the subject property is validly zoned as R-l and R-2; that any variances which may have been granted in the past were no longer in effect; that there is a strong feeling that there is already sufficient undeveloped commercial property in the City and that the City should endeavor to retain the residential atmosphere where zoned and confine the commercial businesses to the existing land already classified therefor and undeveloped; that he concurred in the recommendation of the Planning Commission for denial of the zone change. Councilman Forman recalled that he was a member of the Planning Commission when the variance was granted the Richfield Oil Company in 1961 for which he had voted at the time; that when he reviewed the material submitted to the City Council for the present zone change application he assumed that with the exception of the corner property on which the Oil Station had been constructed the rest of the property had reverted to its original zoning; that he was of the opinion that the City should 'hold the line' on further commercial zoning, particularly when there is other commercial property being developed in the area; that there is no way of calculating the amount of traffic that may be generated by the new development; if it will draw from other areas; what hours it will have to maintain to succeed. Councilman Balser stated in part that the Commission has set forth its reasons for denial in Section 2 of the Resolution (No. 542) with which he concurs; that in his opinion the proposed development is not compatible to surrounding areas and therefore MOVED that the request for zone change from Zone R-l and R-2 to Zone C-l & D be DENIED; that the recommendation of the Planning Commission as contained in its Resolution No. 542 be sustained. Councilman Turner seconded the motion which was carried on the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Councilman Balser, Considine, Forman, Turner Mayor Reibold None I Mayor Reibold stated that in his op1n10n the City cannot approve or deny land uses on the basis of too many of anyone outlet. 6. 4-20-65 PUBLIC HEARING SCHEDULED TRACT NO. 29178 (Tentative Map) I !fr/Oj LOT SPLIT APPEAL ?,~ be ~('J 16:6518 May 18, 1965 at 8 P.M. was set as the time and place to hold a public hearing on Planning Commission Resolution No. 546 recommending the amendment of Division 3, Part 5, Chapter 2, Article IX of the Arcadia Municipal Code~ pertaining to R-2 zone (two family zone). On MOTION by Councilman Turner, seconded by Councilman Forman and unanimously carried the revised tentative map of Tract No. 29178 (250 W. Foothill Boulevard) was APPROVED upon the conditions specified by the Planning Commission. The subdivision will now have twelve lots instead of the original nine (the developer desires to remove the old structures thereon, thus adding three additional lots), On MOTION by Councilman Balser, seconded by Councilman Forman and unanimously carried the City Council sustained the decision of the Planning Commission and denied the request of Joseph M. Chaffers for a lot split which would permit three lots to be created on property at 1127 S. Santa Anita Avenue as the lots if so divided would be irregular requiring relief from special setbacks as they apply to Santa Anita Avenue. HIGHWAY The City Manager submitted a communication from the State Division of PROGRAM Highways on a Study for planning a continuing highway program (after 1972); the purpose of said report is to outline work to be done after t 1.1 ''''~.ll<.v.(\ ~ completion of the Inter-State Program in 1972. He advised that the ~d I Director of Public Works is a member of the State-County-City Cooperative Committee and will be attending all meetings in con- nection therewith, The communication was ordered FILED. ADVERTISE FOR BIDS (Water main) EXTENSION OF CONSTRUCTION DATE (Ludwig) ~ 1'030 I ADVERTISING SIGNS 1ur On MOTION by Councilman Balser, seconded by Councilman Turner and carried unanimously the plans and specifications for the water main replacement in Norman Avenue from Holly Avenue to Baldwin Avenue were APPROVED and the City Clerk was authorized to advertise for bids to be received May 3, 1965 at 11 A.M. The request of Ludwig Engineering and Science was APPROVED on MOTION by Councilman Forman, seconded by Councilman Turner and carried unanimously that a six months extension be granted on the construction date on property sold by the City to the Company at Santa Clara and Santa Anita Avenue. The Agreement, based on the escrow closing date, sets forth that construction begin by April 10, 1965. The Company advised that it is not in a position to construct facilities for its USe on said property and is endeavoring to dispose of same for a similar use. The six months extension period is to provide time for said disposition. In order to more clearly define sections in the Municipal Code per- taining to advertising signs the following MINUTE RESOLUTION was adopted on MOTION by Councilman Forman, seconded by Councilman Turner and carried unanimously: The City Council hereby RESOLVES and determines that normally sized and located awnings and canopies, and vertical sun shade drops suspended from such awnings, canopies, and similar projections, which are erected and used primarily for protection of customers and dis- played goods from the sun and the elements, and which incidentally displays advertising copy limited to the name and nature of the business conducted on the premises, shall not be considered as 7. 4-20-65 COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY <1-'1 () tl,/-A 16:6519 "Advertising Structures" within the meaning of Article VIII, Chapter 7 of the Arcadia Municipal Code, and specifically Sections 8711 and 8724 therein." Pursuant to instructions from the City Council at the last regular meeting of April 6, 1965, the City Manager submitted a proposed preliminary budget of $69,900 for the operation of a Community Redevelopment Agency based on two specific areas proposed for redevelopment (Peck Road and Central areas). Additional limitations were also included in his report dated April 20, 1965. Incorporated therein was the recommendation that the City Council approve on specified conditions the sale of additional property on Peck Road to Arcadia Industries, Inc. I Councilman Forman referred to the two additional sections proposed for inclusion in the new ordinance, Nos. 13 and 14. That Section No. l3 has merit in that the Agency would make an offer to a property owner at the fair market value of such property as established by an appraisal made by a qualified appraiser as appointed for the purpose by the Agency, but that in his opinion Section No. 14 would weaken the position of the Agency in that it would require that the right of eminent domain not be exercised by the Agency unless the owners of at least fifty per cent of the land area within a project area indicate approval by either one of three means, I) voluntary sale or agreement to sell, 2) execution of enforceable options, 3) execution of an Owner's Participation Agreement. That he is not favorable to this particular section. Councilman Considine stated for the record: "An Arcadia citizen, Donald Ehr, had expressed strong objection to the Redevelopment Agency, based largely upon the right of eminent domain. Mr. Ehr felt that the City should not use eminent domain procedures to obtain land which would not be used for public purposes. Mr. Ehr indicated that he was confident that there are a large number of citizens within the City of Arcadia who would be more than willing to devote time and energies to putting together the same type of development utilizing the funds of various property owners who would pool either properties and/or funds to create the same type of development." Councilman Considine advised further that he asked Mr. Ehr if he would be willing to Chairman such a Committee at the Council's pleasure and Mr. Ehr replied in the affirmative. Councilman Considine stated in part that it therefore becomes a point of con- sideration at this time whether to defer action on the creation of the agency for a period of from thirty to sixty days to give a citizen an opportunity to see what a group of property owners could do; that he felt the suggestion was a direct request by Mr. Ehr and that in all fairness he should be heard. I The City Manager stated in part that he had no quarrel with Mr. Ehr's perronal opinion, but pointed out that about four years ago a meeting was held with about 150 persons present at which time a Central Area Land Owner's Association was formed; that the group had diminished to some 25 persons through the intervening years; that the effort was totally unsuccessful in the endeavor to get the property owners together; that it was similar to that suggested by Mr. Ehr. Councilman Balser stated in part that in his opinion no one could question the sincerity of Mr. Ehr, but that he could not agree with him in this instance because for over twenty years private enterprise has been trying to redevelop certain areas in the City; that he did 8. 4-20-65 16:6520 not see where private en~erprise could do anything in 30 or 60 days; that it would be an unnecessary delay in the formation of the Agency which is needed by the community. It was Councilman Balser's observation that the City Council should be the Agency and that no one could question its sincerity in do~ng what is right for the citizens. He stated that he agreed with Councilman Forman regarding Section No. 14 of the proposed ordinance as it would deter progress; that he was in favor of all the other procedural steps as proposed. I Councilman Turner stated in part that he felt strongly about Section No. 14; that the City Council as elected officials do not have the prerogative to go into an area and exert its will to take away prime assets of property owners without their concurrence in the action; that in his opinion at least a substantial percentage of the people affected should be in accordance therewith; that unless at least 50 per cent concurrence could be obtained it would not be right to take the property because it is good for the City, however, if 50 per cent of the property owners in a blighted area would petition the City it would then be incumbent upon the Agency to go in; that the City is not in the position of exercising the right of eminent domain for private development purposes. Referring to the budget figure of $69.900 he stated that it is money which could not be recaptured unless the City would be successful in securing private enterprise which would bring in additional tax revenue and suggested taking a very close look before creating the Agency. Councilman Considine agreed with Councilman Turner regarding Section No. 14; that based on his personal contact with citizens the condemnation factor is the primary objection; that if the ordinance is adopted he would favor its inclusion. Councilman Forman, in referring to the requirement for 50 per cent or more of the property owners consent, stated in part that there will be some absentee owners who would be leasing or renting their property and they would not be interested inasmuch as they receive income and would not be concerned about the condition of the property or what a r~development of the particular area would mean to the City. Councilman Balser observed at this point that the suggested budget figure seems a little high to him but he noted that the City Manager has indicated that the work would be performed as cheaply as possible; that with reference to the eminent domain provision he felt it would never be exercised unless absolutely necessary for only the best interests of the City; that its inclusion would be a handicap and faith should be placed in the City Council. I Discussion continued on the restrictions embodied in the proposed ordinance; that it applies only to the two areas (Peck Road and Central area); it prohibits the Agency from operations in any area not industrially or commercially zoned at the time of the creation of the Agency; that the Agency could not go into an area that might be subsequently zoned for said uses and it would further restrict the Agency from going into an area now zoned residentially and rezoning it to industrial or commercial uses. The two sections which had been under discussIon were then officially considered. Councilman Forman MOVED that Section No. 13 be incorporated in the proposed ordinance. Councilman Balser seconded the motion which was then carried unanimously. 9. 4-20-65 RESOLUTION NO. 3780 P; 1J-<vvA.:' ,.e.L5 , r 0__ f :5,(, ,n\- ~ , ORDINANCE NO. 1204 (Emergency) 16:6521 Councilman Balser then MOVED that Section No. 14 be removed from the proposed ordinance. Councilman Forman seconded the motion which failed to carryon the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Councilmen Balser, Forman Councilmen Considine, Turner, Reibold None Councilman Considine then MOVED that Ordinance No. 1278 be tabled and that the motion of the City Council of February 16, 1965 introducing said ordinance be rescinded. Motion seconded by Councilman Turner and carried on roll call vote as follows: I AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Councilmen Balser, Considine, Forman, Turner, Reibold None None George Copans, 122 E. Colorado Boulevard, expressed satisfaction at the action taken by the City Council; that it could now be possible for private enterprise to accomplish the redevelopment of areas without condemnation proceedings; that the talents of the City staff could assist; that in his opinion it is the best choice the City Council could have made. Irving Livingston, 1927 Highland Oaks Drive, deplored the action taken by the City Council; that the City Council is passing up an opportunity for the betterment of the City and the taxpayers as a whole. The City Attorney presented, explained the content and read the title of Resolution No. 3780, entitled: "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA, DENYING A REQUESTED SPECIAL USE PERMIT FOR A GERIATRIC AND ORTHOPEDIC HOSPITAL AT 504-508 WEST HUNTINGTON DRIVE IN SAID CITY." MOTION by Councilman Forman, seconded by Councilman Balser and carried on roll call vote as follows that the reading of the full body of Resolution No. 3780 be waived: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Councilmen Balser, Considine, Forman, Turner, Reibold None None Councilman Forman further MOVED that Resolution No. 3780 be adopted. Motion seconded by Councilman Balser and carried on roll call vote as follows: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Councilmen Balser, Considine, Forman, Turner, Reibold None None I The City Attorney presented and read in its entirety Ordinance No. 1234, entitled: "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING THE ARCADIA MUNICIPAL CODE BY ADDING A NEW PART 4 ENTITLED "MODIFICATION OF ESTABLISHED SETBACKS" TO CHAPTER 3 OF ARTICLE IX THEREOF." MOTION by Councilman Forman, seconded by Councilman Turner and carried on roll call vote as follows that Ordinance No. 1284 be ADOPTED. AYES: Councilmen Balser, Considine, Forman, Turner, Reibold NOES: None ABSENT: None 10. 4-20-65 RESOLUTION NO. 3781 16:6522 The City Attorney presented, explained the content and read the title of Resolution No. 3781, entitled: "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA, APPOINTING A DIRECTOR AND ALTERNATE DIRECTOR TO THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE LOS ANGELES COUNTY DIVISION OF THE LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES AND RESCINDING RESOLUTION NO. 367,1." ' MOTION by Councilman Balser, seconded by Councilman Considine and carried on roll call vote as follows that the reading of the full body of Resolution No. 3781 be waived: I AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Councilmen Balser, Considine, Forman, Turner, Reibold None None Councilman Balser further MOVED that Resolution No. 3781 be adopted. Motion seconded by Councilman Turner and carried on roll call vote as follows: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Councilmen Balser, Considine, Forman, Turner, Reibold None None The City Attorney presented, explained the content and read the title of Resolution No. 3782, entitled: "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA, APPOINTING A MEMBER TO THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT NO. 15 OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY, AND DESIGNATING AN ALTERNATE MEMBER THERETO." RESOLUTION NO. 3782 MOTION by Councilman Forman, seconded by Councilman Considine and carried on roll call vote as follows that the reading of the full body of Resolution No. 3782 be waived: AYES: NOES: ABSENT : Councilmen Balser, Considine, Forman, Turner, Reibold None None Councilman Forman further MOVED that Resolution No. 3782 be adopted. Motion seconded by Councilman Turner and carried on roll call vote as follows: AYES: NOES: ABSENT : Councilmen Balser, Considine, Forman, Turner, Reibold None None RESOLUTION 1"3>6' The City Attorney presented, explained the content and read the title of Resolution No. 3783, entitled: "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA, APPOINTING A MEMBER TO THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT NO. 22 OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY, AND DESIGNATING AN ALTERNATE MEMBER THERETO." MOTION by Councilman Forman, seconded by Councilman Turner and carried on roll call vote as follows that the reading of the full body of Resolution No. 3783 be waived: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Councilmen Balser, Considine, Forman, Turner, Reibold None None Councilman Forman further MOVED that Resolution No. 3783 be adopted. 11. 4-20-65 RESOLUTION NO. 3784 11-. ;)(,~AC d ~ 7?JY' Y1~ -d /o7Y- 16:6523 Motion seconded by Councilman Turner and carried on roll call vote as fo llows : AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Councilmen Balser, Considine, Forman, Turner, Reibold None None The City Attorney presented, explained the content and read the title of Resolution No. 3784, entitled: "A RESOLUTION SUPPORTING ASSEMBLY BILL NO. 2050 AND URGING THE PASSAGE OF SUCH BILL BY THE ASSEMBLY AND THE SENATE AND THE APPROVAL THEREOF BY THE GOVERNOR OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA." I MOtION by Councilman Turner, seconded by Councilman Forman and carried on roll call vote as follows that the reading of the full body of Resolution No. 3784 be waived: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Councilmen Balser, Considine, Forman, Turner, Reibold None None Councilman Turner further MOVED that Resolution No. 3784 be adopted. Motion seconded by Councilman Forman and carried on roll call vote as fo llows : AYES: NOES: ABSENT : Councilmen Balser, Considine, Forman, Turner, Reibold None None The City Manager was authorized on MOTION by Councilman Forman, seconded by Councilman Turner and carried unanimously to proceed with the sale of property to the Arcadia Industries as outlined in the report dated April 20, 1965 embodying the proposed conditions for the creation of a Community Redevelopment Agency. Councilman Turner referred to an informative pamphlet with reference to traffic signals, stop signs, etc. In reply to his query of the City Attorney he was advised that the lawsuit on property at Santa Anita Avenue and Las Tunas Drive was still pending; that it may be a year before its conclusion. Councilman Turner stated for the record: "I would hope that private enterprise would prove us to be partially correct in not proceeding further with this Community Redevelopment Agency. I personally would have gone along with it with the inclusion of Section No. 14, however, I I have not indicated and I am sure it has been obvious that I have had a lack of conviction that this Agency could or would accomplish those goals that have been indicated that it might to the extent that they would be better goals than private enterprise could come up with SOoner or later and at certainly a lot less cost to the City. A good example of what private enterprise can do if they have the incentive is the acquisition of very expensive property on Huntington Drive by the United States National Bank for its expansion for which they have no immediate plans but they have tied up the land in order to protect themselves. So if there is an interest and a desire, private enterprise in my opinion can and will do the job. Anything we can do to help them I am sure there would be a willingness to do so. I would have voted for the Agency on the basis of No. 14 and I would like to be on record to that extent". 12. 4-20-65 APPOINTMENT RECREATION COMMISSION CITY ATTORNEY I COUNCILMAN TURNER MAYOR RE IB OLD 4 /07'-1 I 16:6524 Stanley S. Boss, 934 Paloma Drive, was appointed on MOTION by Councilman Forman, seconded by Councilman Balser and carried unanimously, to the vacancy on the Recreation Commission created by the resignation of Robert Watkinson. Said term will expire June 30, 1965. The background of Mr. Boss was presented which reflected knowledgeable qualifications for the appointment. Reported briefly on his trip to Sacramento on April 13 and 14; that the annexation bills had been continued one week in an effort to lessen some of the opposition and that only three preemption bills were heard, and none were approved by the Committee on Criminal Procedure. Referred to a brochure on City government and to an informative telephone directory. Staff to proceed with completion, Stated in part that he had mixed emotions about the outcome of the creation of a Community Redevelopment Agency; that he had discussed the matter with some of the property owners involved and did not feel it unjust to require 50 per cent concurrence before proceeding; that Section 2124.4 of the Procedural Ordinance could be used if appropriate. Mayor Reibold adjourned the meeting at 10:30 P.M. ATTEST: ~~~J~~ City Clerk 13. 4-20-65