Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutJUNE 1,1965 I '",,""An" PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL RESOLUTION NO. 3794 HEARING (Zoning) J- III 0 I 16:6549 MINUTES CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA REGULAR MEETING JUNE 1, 1965 The City Council of the City of Arcadia met in regular session in the Council Chamber of the City Hall at 8:00 P.M., June 1, 1965. Dr. Dale F. Reynolds, Community Foursquare Church Mayor Conrad T. Reibold PRESENT: ABSENT: Councilmen Balser, Considine, Forman, Turner, Reibold None Councilman Turner read in its entirety. Resolution No. 3794, commemorating the public service of the late Kenneth R. Mergen, entitled, "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA, MEMORIALIZING KENNETH R. MERGEN". It was moved by Councilman Turner, seconded by. Councilman Considine and carried on roll call vote as follows that Resolution No. 3794 be ADOPTED. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Councilmen Balser, Considine, Forman, Turner, Reibold None None The City Council continued the hearing on the application of Donald P. Mc Cormac for a commercial rubbish pickup permit. The matter had been continued from the regular City Council meeting of April 16, 1965. Pursuant to the request' of the City Council the City Manager presented a staff report which set forth the number of accounts served by each of the five licensees operating within the City at present. He noted that Section 6434.2 of the Arcadia Municipal Code states that, "No more than five permits for said pickup shall be in effect at anyone time". Gene Gregg, attorney for the applicant, stated in part that it appears from the report that at least two of the licensees are not engaged in competition inasmuch as they each have one account, that of a supermarket in both instances; that in his opinion if it is the intent of the City Council to limit to five the number of licensees, why not limit it to one - that of the City Refuse Service Company which serves 35 commercial accounts in the City. If the intent, however, is to permit open free competition then the regulation should be broadened to so permit; that from the report there are only three companies working in competition; that he is not recom- mending the cancellation of any of the existing licensees; that the ordinance should be broadened to a number in excess of five if this is the intent of the City Council. Councilman Turner stated in part that as he has voiced on other occasions he is opposed to limiting private enterprise; however, 1. 6-1-65 16:6550 this particular.case differs in that it concerns the health and welfare of the community and if too many companies become involved in commercial rubbish collection it becomes a difficult policing activity; that he would agree with Mr. Gregg that one disposal agency should be licensed for the operation. However, inasmuch as the City has the five licensees with no complaints having been received, he MOVED that the application be DENIED and the the applicant's name be placed on the waiting list. 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 HEARING (Zoning) Live Oak and Las Tunas Planning Commission Resolution No. 548 recommending the reclassifi- cation of property bounded on the west by E1 Monte Avenue, on the south by the southerly boundary of the City, on the east by Second Avenue and on the north by a line parallel to and distant 600' northerly of Las Tunas Drive and Live Oak Avenue, easterly to its intersection with Las Tunas Drive, and recommending regulations to be imposed under Zone D. -8-111! Project urals of the entire area were displayed and explained in continuity by the Planning Director and staff, including the chrono- logical background in the history of zoning in the subject area, in particular the northwest corner of Las Tunas Drive and Santa Anita Avenue (commonly referred to as the 'triangle') which area has been recommended for rezoning from C-3 to R-l and R-3. Mayor Reibo1d declared the hearing open and asked for those who desired to be heard on the matter: Mrs. Averil J. Kritt, owner of the approximately 9~ acres referred to as the 'triangle' opposed the reclassification of any of the C-3 zoned property, stating in part that plans for the area cannot be disclosed until the zoning has been determined and asked that the entire parcel be zoned commercially. Fred Woolf, 103 Las Tunas Drive, referred to his communication which was read by the City Clerk. He asked that his single family residence at said address (adjacent to the 'triangle' property) be rezoned from the recommended R-1. He explained that he is negotiating for the sale of his property for a c-o zone which would permit the desired usage (doctor's office). He also presented a petition with 86 signatures supporting the requested rezoning of his property. Homer Shirley, ,President of the Superior Concrete Block Company, I which is located on the southeast corner of Las Tunas Drive and We1land Avenue, requested that the front 150' be zoned C-M with the rear portion remaining in M-l, permitting the manufacture of . concrete blocks. It was pointed out that this is for access purposes off We11and Avenue. Marie Whipple (owner of property at 42 W. Live Oak Avenue) urged commercial zoning on the 'triangle' property. 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; that the City Council take no action on the recommendation at this meeting in order to enable staff to submit a more realistic zoning on the 'triangle' area as it felt the property is not suitable 2. 6-1- 65 I JIIII TRACT NO. 22377 (Final Map) 4-/o~~ SISTER CrTY (Skip loader) ~;~ ~ I TRACT NO. 30284 (Reconsideration) 4- /0 71 16:6551 for residential zoning. After considerable discussion it was MOVED by Councilman Turner, seconded by Councilman Considine, that the recommendation of the Planning Commission as contained in its Resolution No. 548 be APPROVED with the EXCEPTION of "STUDY AREA E" (north side of Las Tunas Drive between Santa Anita and El Monte Avenues), and that the change applying to the rear two lots of property on Live Oak Avenue facing WeIland Avenue remain in Zone M-l with the front portion of 150' placed in Zone C-M. It was also the consensus of the City Council that the zoning on the south side of Las Tunas from Santa Anita to Second Avenue should be considered along with the north side (triangle), whereupon it was MOVED by Councilman Balser, seconded by Councilman Forman and carried unanimously that the Motion as stated by Councilman Turner be amended to also include the EXCEPTION of "Study Area B". The following roll call vote was then taken on the primary motion: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Councilmen Balser, Considine, Forman, Turner, Reibold None None It was MOVED by Councilman Balser, seconded by Councilman Forman and carried unanimously that the final map of Tract No. 22377 be APPROVED subject to the original conditions set forth by the City Council at the time approval was given the tentative map (March 2, 1965). The following action was taken on the Sister City Project "Skiploader'~ same to be used in a fund raising campaign to be held in the fall of 1965, the skiploader to be on public view during the campaign: MOTION by Councilman Turner, seconded by Councilman Forman and carried on roll ca~l vote as follows that the $1,000.00 previously appropriated on April 6, 1965 to be used as a down. payment on said purchase and for fund raising purposes be carried over in the Sister City'Account No. 409-32-4 into the 1965-66 fiscal year and that the City Council authorize the purchasing procedure as outlined in the recommendation of the Commission dated May 27, 1965. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Councilmen Balser, Considine, Forman, Turner, Reibold None None The City Manager reported on the request of property owners in the area of the proposed subdivision (located near Orange Grove and Michillinda Avenues) that the City Council reconsider its approval of the subject tract. He advised that all legal requirements have been complied with and referred to the approved lot sizes which were determined and recommended by the Planning Commission and also to deed restrictions which will expire January 1, 1966; that the City Council action does not override deed restrictions with which the subdivider is undoubtedly cognizant. Communications were made part of the record as received from Maurice E. Hibbert; 895 Singing Wood Drive, Harry A. Meskell, 1360 Michillinda Avenue, in opposition to the Tract, and from 3. 6-1-65 16:6552 William Hovanitz, the subdivider, asking denial of the request for reconsideration of the approval. In response to the request of Mayor Reibold, the City Attorney stated in part that: that when a legislative body makes a judgment decision, it is final unless some legal reason exists for reconsideration of a matter. He pointed out that the major problem in the subject case is the fact that the decisions about which complaint is being made were made at the time the tentative map was approved (December 15, 1964) rather than the reaffirmation of those same decisions in the approval of the final map in May 1965. He continued in part that the I subdivision of property is primarily controlled by the Subdivision Map Act of the State; that the City Council has powers in the regulation of design and layout as conferred upon it by said Act; that the requirement was met throughout with the exception of the area requirement of one lot; that the ordinance makes specific provision for the City Council to vary the basic requirements of the subdivision ordinance; that it has granted minor deviations on numerous occasions; that in his opinion the basic decisions were made at the time the tentative map was approved; that if a final map complies with an approved tentative map, the subdivider has the right to have it approved; that the developer of the property could go a different route and file a record of survey after he had a tentative map approved; that unless there be a mistake of fact on the part of the City Council which caused a decision contrary to the regulations applicable or unless there is fraud alleged on the part of the applicant, the decision made at the time of the tentative map approval must be reaffirmed at the time of the final map as long as the final map meets the conditions imposed at the time of tentative map approval. Speaking with reference to deed restrictions, he stated in part that they are not enforceable as such by the City; that they are matters of private right enforceable by persons to whom that right is conferred. With reference to a statement contained in one of the communications that a City staff member had stated he would advise certain property owners of any matter concerning the subject area and that such notice was not given, it was the opinion of the City Attorney that this was a volunteer service which was not rendered but does not of itself vitiate the proceedings which were taken. He concluded that the Subdivision Map Act makes specific provision for judicial court revrew of any decision made by a governing body; that there is a 90-day Statute of Limitations on such an action. Maurice Hibbert, 895 Singing Wood Drive, made an extensive presen- tation on behalf of the Santa Anita Property Owners' Association, referring in part to the owner's statement of November 23, 1964 which was furnished by the subdivider concerning deed restrictions and stating in part that he had been informed that had the matter of I deed restrictions been brought to the attention of the Planning Director and others who were concerned with the problem of making recommendation, their conclusions might have been different and/or the action of the City Council might have been different in both December 1964 and in May 1965; that although the Association does not feel that any person deliberately avoided giving notice of pending proceedings, the owners of property in the immediate area do feel that they haven't had their day in court so to speak. He continued in part that the majority of the property owners first heard that the subdivision plan was imminent only after the action of two weeks ago; that since then communications had been addressed to the City Council to which Mr.Hovanitz had made his reply; that a 4. 6-1-65 16:6553 petition had been circulated asking the City Council to reconsider its approval of the subject tract map; that a final determination was not being requested but that time be afforded in a proper manner for further study of the entire subject. Mr. Hibbert then presented to the City Clerk 20 petitions with 266 signatures. I Discussion ensued with specific reference to lot sizes in R-O zones, with suggested amendments to the R-O zone regulations, and with Mr. Hibbert's suggestion that regardless of the outcome of the matter before the City Council that consideration be given to more than one R-O classification, i.e., the Upper Rancho Santa Anita area be zoned to require minimum lot size of perhaps not less than 25,000 sq. ft. Mayor Reibold inquired of the City Attorney whether or not a public hearing could be held if there be reason for reconsideration. The City Attorney stated in part that the subdivision as approved does meet the City's requirements with the exception of one lot; that he doubted that this was sufficient to reverse its position as it was surely called to the attention of the City Council at the time of approval of the tentative map. That as to the matter of deed re- strictions, the subdivider is required by the Subdivision Ordinance only to set forth in the application what deed restrictions are proposed; that he will endeavor to sustain whatever position is taken by the governing body; that the City Council is bound to work with what the ordinance requires. Mr. Hibbert stated in part that it is the desire of the Association to avoid litigation; that it is presenting a suggestion for a satisfactory approach to the problem. Robert E. Carter, attorney for the subdivider, stated in part that it is the intention of his client to cooperate in every reasonable way with the abutting property owners; that the City Council has made its final determination and on this basis the subdivider has expended considerable money. Willard G. DeGroot, 1101 Singing Wood Drive, stated in part that 17 years ago he built in the area because of its zoning and restrictions and urged the City Council to reconsider its action in order to afford the property owners an opportunity to present their case. I Harry Meskell, 1360 Michil1inda Avenue, stated in part that a portion of his property is within the land to be subdivided; that in his opinion the subdivision is in violation of the deed restrictions which will remain in effect until January 1966. He explored the lot sizes, setbacks and square footage of the proposed subdivision. He concluded his remarks in urging the City Council to reopen the matter for further consideration. William Hovanitz, 1160 W. Orange Grove Avenue, explained in part that he has been endeavoring for many years to secure sufficient property in the area to make a good development. Edward Butterworth, 1145 Singing Wood Drive, Chairman of the Zoning Committee of said Association, stated in part that in his opinion the applicant did not make a full fair disclosure in his application dated November 23, 1964 as it pertains to deed restrictions; that this could constitute a constructive fraud without any intentional wrong-doing on the part of the applicant, but that the effect has been relied upon by the City and relied upon to the detriment of the Association. He urged reconsideration in permitting the abutting landowners to present their case. 5. 6-1-65 MOTION FIREWORKS' SALE & DISPLAY A: pfL WORK COMPLETION (Pump Station) J /0 ~} (') ADVERTISE FOR BIDS (Reservoir) FUND TRANSFER (Combined City Yards) :J 790 \ 16:6554 Extensive discus~ion ensued on the legality of reopening the matter with the City Attorney advising in part that so far he knew of no basis on which to alter the decision of the City Council; that the decision made in December 1964 in approving the tentative map set the stage for the approval of the final map and it is a matter of right as long as the subdivider complied with the conditions imposed in the approval of the tentative map unless the decision was the result of fraud or mistakes of material facts. After further discussion, it was MOVED by Councilman Balser, seconded by Councilman Turner that the City Council defer for 30 days the decision on the matter for reconsideration; that during the interim the subdivider I provide a copy of the deed restrictions on the proposed subdivision for study by staff and City Council and that staff be instructed to withhold signing the subdivision map until expiration of the delay period. The following roll call vote was then recorded: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Councilmen Balser, ,Considine, Forman, Turner, Reibold None None It was MOVED by Councilman Turner, seconded by Councilman Forman and carried on roll call vote as follows that the request of the American Legion Arcadia Post No. 249 for permission to sell fireworks on July 2, 3, and 4, 1965 and to hold a display of fireworks on July 4, 1965 be APPROVED; that permit fees in connection therewith be and they are hereby waived. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Councilmen Balser, Considine, Forman, Turner, Reibold None None It was MOVED by Councilman Balser, seconded by Councilman Forman and carried on roll call vote as follows that the work as completed by Pylon, Inc., in the construction of modifications to the St. Joseph Booster Pump Station be accepted and that final payment be authorized in accordance with the contract: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Councilmen Balser, Considine"Forman, Turner, Reibold None None It was MOVED by Councilman Forman, seconded by Councilman Balser and carried unanimously that plans and specifications be approved and that the City Clerk be authorized to advertise for bids for the construction of the Baldwin No.3 Reservoir, bids to be received June 28, 1965 at 11 A.M. I It was MOVED by Councilman Balser, seconded by Councilman Turner and carried on roll call vote as follows that the sum of $189,713 be appropriated from Water Fund Earned Surplus Account No. 290 to the following accounts: No. 470-58 Water Dept. Share - Equipment Service Garage No. 470-70-6 Water Dept. Share - Land Purchase Combined City Yards $20,048 169,665 $189,713 6. 6-1-65 WORK I COMPLETION (Streets) J /011 WORK COMPLETION (Street improvement) !f1093 FURNISHING GASOLINE 1965-66 81040 ANNEXATION (TEMPLE CITY) I P >JC--- ' 16:6555 AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Councilmen Balser, Considine, Forman, Turner, Reibold None None This transfer is in connection with the completion of all land purchase costs and the completion of the service garage (see the report of the City Manager dated May 27, 1965). It was MOVED by Councilman Turner, seconded by Councilman Forman and carried on roll call vote as follows that the work as completed by Griffith Company in the resurfacing of various streets be ACCEPTED and that final payment be authorized in accordance with the contract: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Councilmen Balser, Considine, Forman, Turner, Reibold None None It was MOVED by Councilman Forman, seconded by Councilman Turner and carried on roll call vote as follows that the work as completed by the D & W Paving Company in the improvement of Duarte Road from 160' westerly of Third Avenue to Fifth Avenue be ACCEPTED and that final payment be authorized in accordance with the contract. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Councilmen Balser, Considine, Forman, Turner, Reibold None None It was MOVED by Councilman Considine, seconded by Councilman Balser and carried on roll call vote as follows that the recommendation of the City Manager and the Purchasing Officer be accepted and that the City Council award the contract for the furnishing of gasoline to the City for the fiscal period July 1, 1965-66 to Richfield Oil Company in accordance with the report dated May 26, 1965. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Councilmen Balser, Considine, Forman, Turner, Reibold None None Councilman Turner asked staff to compare the figures with those of Los Angeles County. Pursuant to instructions of the City Council of May 18, 1965 the City Manager submitted an annexation study of the area bounded by the west City limits, south property line on Duarte Road, east side of Rosemead Boulevard and south side of Huntington Drive. It was MOVED by Councilman Turner, seconded by Councilman Balser that the City Council take no action at this time and that Temple City be so notified. Discussion ensued on the intent of the motion as stated. Councilman Turner explained that he was not opposing the annexation at this time personally; that he desired additional information concerning the area between Huntington Drive and Foothill Boulevard before making his decision; that in his opinion this area, although not in the proposed annexation to Temple City, was important to the City of Arcadia; that the City might be interested in the area after study 7. 6-1-65 16:6556 of a report on the economics of the area contiguous to Arcadia. It was Mayor Reibold's contention that the City is obligated to advise Temple City whether or not Arcadia is interested in the annexation and that if the intent of the motion is that the City is not opposing the annexation then this is the position of the City. It was Councilman Balser's observation that his interpretation of the motion differed, whereupon, he withdrew his second and MOVED that any further consideration by the City of Annexation No.8 be terminated and that staff be instructed to so advise Temple City. Councilman Forman seconded the motion which was carried on roll call vote as follows: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Councilmen Balser, Considine, Forman, Reibold Councilman Turner None I Mayor Reibold asked the City Manager to indicate to Temple City the suggestion of Councilman Considine that the boundary lines be the back property lines of the lots bordering the street rather than the center line of the street so the street is not divided between two controlling agencies. J /lot Pursuant to instructions the City Manager presented a progress report on the latest May Company developments (dated May 27, 1965). Discussion followed on various aspects of the proposed development and the City Manager advised that at the present time consideration is being given by the May Company to include an automotive accessory shop; however, it may not materialize. The City Clerk read into the record a communication from Mr. & Mrs. John Baxter, 515 Columbia Rd., concerning the posSibility of the automotive shop. The City Council was also advised that representatives of the Santa Anita Village Association had this date presented for filing an application for a zone change from C-2 to C-l on the subject property; that same was not accepted pending an opinion from the City Attorney as to the rights of persons other than owners of property to file an application for a zone change. MAY COMPANY The City Attorney stated in part that inasmuch as he had just learned of the situation it was his opinion that the staff acted in a correct manner in not accepting the application; that he would prefer to have the opportunity of reviewing an opinion he previously made in a simi- lar case. Edward De Rin, President of the Rancho Santa Anita Resident's Association, referred to a petition which he presented to the City I Clerk protesting the 240,000 square foot development in the subject area; that it would cause excessive traffic, creating a public nuisance; that there are two other areas (downtown and West Arcadia) which could accommodate a major department store and urged the City Council to encourage such locations for this development. Warren F. Paetz, Secretary of the Santa Anita Village Association, stated in part that there have been no significant changes in the proposed building and that the Association is now firmly convinced that the proposal is wrong for the immediate area; that it will adversely affect the future development of the two existing commercial shopping zones in the City and that it properly belongs in one of those; that it would then be welcomed by them. 8, 6-1-65 16:6557 Mr. Paetz read a resolution adopted by the Association on May 27, 1965 in protest and presented to the City Clerk the aforementioned application for rezoning and asked that it be delivered to the Planning Commission with the City Clerk's notarization affixed thereon. ,He stated in part that there, is no quarrel with the City Councilor staff, neither are they resisting the advent of a major department store in the City, but they will resist a change to the established neighborhood shopping center in the subject area. I In answer to inquiry the City Attorney stated in part that if forced to give a final decision immediately he would be inclined to rule that the application should be filed by a person legally interested in the property; that he preferred to reserve final judgment until reviewing an opinion written by him some time ago on the subject. D. Paul DuBois, attorney for the Santa Anita Village Association officers, referred to Sections 9293.1 and 9293.9 of the Arcadia Municipal Code relating to change of zone applications and in particular explored the legal interpretation of the term "any interested person", The City Attorney commented that he would appreciate rece~v~ng reference material from anyone who has researched the question recently. He continued that the former speaker had interpreted Section 9293.9 just the opposite of the meaning that the City Attorney had placed on it. He also pointed out that any approved zone change would take at least five months to become effective and that in his opinion the owner could in the meantime use the property for the purpose for which it is presently zoned. Robert Brown, 305 Vaquero, stated in part that it was his under- standing that the City Council, the Planning Commission or any interested person could initiate a request for a zone change; that from his point of view the City Council would be wise to so do. Upon advice from the City Attorney that should he conclude that the application is valid within the meaning of the Code, he would so advise the City Clerk, who would then file it with the Planning Commission; that if he ruled contrariwise she would then so advise the applicants with the return of the filing fee which accompanied the application. It was then so ordered by Mayor Reibold. COMMUNICATtoNS Mayor Reibold ordered the following communications acknowledged in the record and FILED: I A~ f'R.. a. League of Women Voters regarding its study program for the forthcoming year. !}//O / b. Request of Mrs. Phyllis B. Muench asking reconsideration by the City Council of Tract Map No. 29178 (property located at 250 W. Foothill Boulevard). It was pointed out that the tract map complies with Code requirements. p: .j2, c. Protest to annexing to Temple City by Mr. and Mrs. Lawrence Galt. d. !J : P e... Co rn ~ /-) , /'l-t..!> Collins & Sons' Disposal Company, regarding commercial rubbish permit. (City currently has licensed the permitted number of businesses). 9. 6-1-65 ORAL PARTICIPATION ORDINANCE NO. 1286 ADOPTED d- i/O;? ORDINANCE NO. 1291 INTRODUCED ORDINANCE NO. 1292 INTRODUCED 16:6558 Mr. & Mrs. Robert Arth, 1017 Catalpa Road, both urged the City Council to consider the residents of the community during deliberations on zoning matters. The City Attorney presented for the second time, explained the content and read the title of Ordinance No. 1286, entitled: "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING SECTION 9233.12 OF THE ARCADIA MUNICIPAL CODE BY RECLASSIFYING FROM ZONE R-3 TO ZONE PR-3 AND TO ZONE C-2 AND ALSO ZONE D (ARCHITECTURAL OVERLAY) THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 653 FAIRVIEW AVENUE IN SAID CITY." I MOTION by Councilman Forman, seconded by Councilman Considine and carried on roll call vote as follows that the reading of the full body of Ordinance No. 1286 be waived: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Councilmen Balser, Considine, Forman, Turner, Reibold None None Councilman Forman further MOVED that Ordinance No. 1286 be adopted. Motion seconded by Councilman Considine and carried on roll call vote as follows: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Councilmen Balser, Considine, Forman, Turner, Reihold None None The City Attorney presented for the first time, explained the content and read the title of Ordinance No. 1291, entitled: "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING DIVISION 3 OF PART 5 OF CHAPTER 2 OF ARTICLE IX OF THE ARCADIA MUNICIPAL CODE AND RELATED SECTIONS THEREOF." MOTION by Councilman Balser, seconded by Councilman Considine and carried on roll call vote as follows that the reading of the full body of Ordinance No. 1291 be waived: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Councilman Balser, Considine, Forman, Turner, Reibold None None It was MOVED by Councilman Balser, seconded by Councilman Turner and carried unanimously that Section 9253.2.9 "Parking Requirement" be amended by placing a period after the word "long" in the second sentence, and starting a new sentence with the words, "each parking space II . I Councilman Balser further MOVED that Ordinance No. 1291 be INTRODUCED as amended. Councilman Forman seconded the motion which was carried on roll call vote as follows: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Councilmen Balser, Considine, Forman, Turner, Reibold None None The City Attorney presented for the first time, explained the content and read the title of Ordinance No. 1292, entitled: "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING SECTION 7212 OF THE ARCADIA MUNICIPAL CODE." 10. 6-1- 65 I RESOLUTION NO. 3793 ADOPTED .f}IJO~ I COURT ACTION NOTICE OF SUBDIVISIONS 16:6559 MOTION by Councilman Considine, seconded by Councilman Forman and carried on roll call vote as follows that the reading of the full body of Ordinance No. 1292 be waived: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Councilmen B~lser, Considine, Forman, Tu~ner, Reihold None None Following discussion it was MOVED by Councilman Turner, seconded by Councilman Balser that the last six lines on Page 2 and the first seven lines on Page 3 be eliminated and that the words M-2 be inserted after M-l in the first line of Paragraph 2 on said page. Councilman Considine further MOVED that Ordinance No. 1292, as amended, be INTRODUCED. Councilman Forman seconded the motion which was 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. 3793, entitled: "A RESOLUTION ,OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA, DETERMINING AND ESTABLISHING REGULATIONS APPLICABLE TO THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 653 FAIRVIEW AVENUE IN SAID CITY UPON ITS CLASSIFICATION INTO ZONE D (ARCHITECTURAL OVERLAY)." MOTION by Councilman Considine, seconded by, Councilman Forman and carried on roll call vote as follows that the reading of the full body of Resolution No. 3793 be waived: AYES: NOES: ABSENT : Councilmen Balser,. Considine, Forman, Turner, Reibold None None Following discussion it was MOVED by Councilman Forman, seconded by Councilman Turner and carried unanimously that Paragraph 13 be deleted. Councilman Forman further MOVED that Resolution No. 3793 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 On MOTION by Councilman Forman, seconded by Councilman Balser and carried unanimously the City Attorney was authorized to sign and file an appearance in Los Angeles Superior Court Action No. 854491 - Validation of Water Reimbursement Contract. On recommendation of Councilman Considine provision will be made for 11. 6-1-65 ZONING ADJOURNMENT 16:6560 notification, to persons involved, of all proposed subdivisions in the same manner as modifications, lot splits and variances. On recommendation of Mayor Reibold, it was moved by Councilman Balser, seconded by Councilman Forman and carried unanimously that staff prepare a study for consideration by the Planning Commission on the zoning west of Baldwin Avenue on Camino Real. Mayor Reibold ordered the meeting adjourned at 11:50 P.M. I ATTEST: ~2;~~ City Clerk I 12. 6-1-65