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