Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutNOVEMBER 20,1962 I INVOC~TION PLEDGE OF ALLBG:rANCE ROLL CALL APPROVAL OF MINUTES (11-7.62) HEARING (Mc~od) (F:623) I HEARING (Bensen) (F:929) 15:5825 M I NUT E .S CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA NOVBMBER 20, 1962 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., November 20, 1962. The Invocation was-offered by Rev. W. Stanley Courtney, Assistant Minister of the Arcadia Presbyterian Church. Mayor Butterworth led in the pledge of allegiance to the flag. PRESENT: ABSENT : Councilmen Balser, Phillips, Turner, Butterworth Councilman Reibold MOTION by Councilman Turner, seconded by Councilman Phillipa and carried unanimously that the Minutes of the Regular Council Meeting of November 7, 1962 be approved as submitted in writing. Mayor Butterworth declared the hearing open on the application of Mr. . Don McLeod, 1515 South Tenth ~venue, Arcadia, for a business permit to conduct an auction of antiques at 37 West Huntington Drive, November 24, 25 and 26, 1962, and inquired if anyone in'the audience desired t~ address the Council with regard to the matter. ' The applicant, Mr. McLeod, addressed the Council and in answer to numerous questions, advised that it was proposed to auct~on various antiques imported by the Peter Fyfe Company from Great Britain, said antiques being listed in a .catalog and would be on view for the inspection of the public on November 24th, the actual auction to take place November 25 ' and 26, from 2:00 P.M. to 11:00 P.M. That the premises (Elks' Temple) were leased for the purpose of holding the auction. No one else desiring to be heard Mayor Butterw9rth declared the hearing closed. Councilman Phillips stated in part that it ha~ been:the policy of the Council to restrict auction sales to commodities on the premises, not merchandise brought in for the specific purpose of an auction sale. Mayor Butterworth stated that in his opinion th~s type of merchandise can only be sold at auction. Councilman Balser stated that inasmuch as this type of merchandise would not be in competition with local merchants, he MOVED that the Council. approve the application of Mr. Don McLeod and authorize the issuance to him of a business permit to conduct.a catalog a~ction sale of antiques at 37 West Huntington Drive, November 24, 25 and 26,1962. Councilman Turner seconded the motion which was carried unanimously. Planning Commission Resolution No. 462 recommending denial of request for zone variance to permit second dwelling at 315 LeRoy Avenue. Recommen- ~ation appealed by applicant. The Planning Director reviewed the history of the subject matter, to ~it: That the staff originally reported to the Planning Commission that the subject property did not qualify for a second dwelling under the terms of the Arcadia Municipal Code in that less than 257. of the properties in the block did not hav~ two or more dwellings. ' 1. 11-20-62 l5:5826 That in the block under consideration there are 13 lots, including the Holly Avenue School property; that of these lots the staff had originally stated that three presently have a second dwelling but later discovered that the property at 301 LeRoy Avenue does not have a second dwelling as defined by the Code; therefore only two of the 13 lots have a second dwelling. That it 'had also been assumed by the staff that the subject property had been re- subdivided since 1949 but this is not the case; that the four lots at 333, 325 and 321, and the subject property, were not subdivided "ith the other properties on LeRoy Avenue; that, therefore, the.:subje<;t. property does not qualify for a second dwelling on two points; 1) the rear portion of the lot has not been subdivided since 1949 and 2) that less than 25% of the lots in the block have two or more dwellings. That if the subject property is granted the right to construct a second dwelling it would be the third lot on the street so developed and would still leave less than 25% of the lots developed with a second dwellingo That the property at 32l LeRoy Avenue is developed similarly to the subject property with the main building at the rear of the lot, in which case this property would be entitled to the same right, and in such instance a fourth lot with a second dwelling would exist, thus qualifying the remaining lots on LeRoy Avenue under the te~s of the present ordinance for a second dwell- ing. .That the area would then change from a single family residential character to one of two-family residential character. I The Planning Director also displayed two maps, one showing the general location of the property and the other showing the specific site of the property. The Planning Director added that for the above reasons the Planning Commission twice recommended that the Council deny the applicationo Mayor Butterworth declared the hearing open on the subject matter and inquired if anyone desired to address the Council in favor of the requested variance 0 Mr. Robert Townsend, 321 LeRoy Avenue, addressed the Council and stated in part that his property is immediately adjacent to the applicant's property; that it is also developed only at the rear and many of the points pertaining to the applicant's property also pertain to ~is property. That he was speaking on behalf of the applicant; that it was not their desire to establish an R-2 zone in the area; that the property was purchased in 1948 by the applicant under the provision that there was sufficient space for the erection of two houses; that in those days the lot lacked only a few square feet of permitting three houses; that the structure presently on the lot was built before the adoption of Ordinance No. 990; that the front of the subject property was not improved at that time due to financial necessity and that it was fully intended to improve the front of the property when finances permitted. That on a street consisting of homes valued at $30,000 to $35,000 the present construction does not represent a full, complete and best development of the property, but could be . considered a depressed or blighted area in an otherwise fine residential street 0 That unless relief is granted the blight will continue in perpetui Mr. Townsend continued, suggesting in substance that the ordinance be modified to permit lots developed in R-l areas with improvements on the rear of the lot to permit the construction of an additional residence on the front, which would then permit the property owner to enjoy the full rights and benefits of his property and would improve a lot that is a blight. That he did not think two houses on a lot of this size would cause as much congestion as one house on a lot 75' x 100' . In answer to Councilman Turner's question, Mr. Townsend replied that if the requested variance is denied it would create a hardship to the applicant; that he had no present intention of requesting a variance to improve his own property similarly. , 20 11-20-62 'j , ~. . ". 15:5827 I The Planning Director, in answer to questions, stated in part that if the City desires to continue developing into the type community the Council desir~s, there will be. a difference in lots. That with regard to Mr. Townsend's suggestion, in his opinion such modification would weaken the ordin4nce; that the Council should consider making it more restrictive, such as in instances where there are presently two houses on one lot in an R-i area, one house be identified as non-conforming. That the subject lot could be improved by landscaping, a swimming pool, and the like. He also mentioned that he had not been aware that there was more than one dwelling unit on the subject lot; that the application set forth the information that the subject lot is occupied by one residence; that if there are presently two dwelling units on the property, then the reques~ed variance would make it three. It was stated that the two units mentioned were a two story garage with an apartment above the garage and a separate garage with a bedroom and bath therein. The Planning Director also commented that the Planning Commission had given the matter considerable study and were unanimous that the application be denied. Mayor Butterworth commented in substance that he could understand the reason for the Planning Commission's recommendation for denial; that to grant this request and the next one would precipitate the area into Zone R-2, but that he agreed with Mr. Townsend that there is an unfortunate condition existing from the standpoint of community development and planning; that the present ordinance, if it is inflexible, would cause the condition to continue in perpetuity and would depress the entire neighborhood; that there are many lots in Arcadia similar to the'subject lot and that a modification of the ordinance along the line suggested would be beneficial to both the subject land owner and the adjoining land owner. That perhaps the Modification Committee should consider the recommendation. The Planning Director replied that the Planning Commission, the Modification Committee and the staff have been studying the matter. He described other sections of the city where there are old streets with new streets adjacent thereto where circumstances such as the subject condition exist. Mayor Butterworth interpolated that the difference of the improvement of the rear portion of large lots with the front portion vacant should be distinguished. That large lots with houses in the front are normal, but that Mr. Townsend's suggestion is to modify the ordinance only insofar as it would apply to the older structures where only the far rear of the lot is developed, so as to permit a new structure on the front and not have to count on the 25% limitation, and in answer to his query as to whether this would be a revolution in zoning, the Planning Director stated that he thought it would; that it would be a definite weakening of the ordinance. He added that there is nothing in the ordinance prohibiting the front yard being beautified. I Mayor Butterworth inquired of Mr. Townsend if a waiver or covenant could be secured from those owners of property on his block not having a second dwelling that they would not build second dwellings; that this suggestion had been made by the City Attorney, and that if such waivers or covenants could be secured he, for one, would be willing to approve the requested zone variance and Mr. Townsend's if he so desired. Mr. Townsend stated that he would consider the suggestion. No one else desiring to speak in favor of the requested zone variance, Mayor. Butterworth stated that the Council would now hear from those in opposition, and the following persons spoke, stating in part: Mr. B. Pearson, 258 West Magna Vista: That he had presented a petition with signatures of sixteen residents of Magna Vista to the Planning Commis- sion as being opposed to the requested zone variance; that on behalf of such residents he wished to voice opposition at this time. That the area is not blighted and that if the variance were granted it would result in other similar requests. He inquired as to what the applicant intended doing with the property at the rear if the request is granted, and was advised that if the variance is granted the applicant would have the legal right to rent both structures. To Mayor Butterworth's question as to 3. 11-20-62 15:5828 whether the people on Magna Vista might temper their attitude if a way could be found to place a building just on the front portion of the two lots, excluding the rest of the lots from second residences, Mr. Pearson replied that he would have to make inquiries. Mrs. Jos. Schubert; 276 West Magna Vista: That she doubted if the residents of LeRoy Avenue would be amenable to the suggested covenant or waiver suggestion in that this might place a restriction on their properties. Mayor Butterworth explained that the residents would not be giving up any- thing the residents presently have; that the two lots are unique since there are no dwellings on the front portion. Mrs. Schubert suggested that inasmuch as the property is expensive, perhaps the applicant should sell the property and enable a purchaser to tear down the building in the rear and build a $45,000 home in the front; also that she did not see anything blighted about undeveloped land. I No one 'else desiring to be heard, Mayor Butterworth declared the hearing closed. The Councilmen then expressed their opinions, in part, as follows: Councilman Phillips: That at the time Ordinance No. 990 was adopted and subsequently modified, he had favored a more restrictive ordinance than the one now in effect; that he was opposed to a second house on any lot; that in his opinion the Planning Commission and staff are trying to hold the line and deserve the Council's support. That he was aware of the applicant's problem but that he did not favor any further modification of the ordinance. Councilman Phillips then MOVED that the Council accept the recommendation of the Planning Commission as contained in its Resolution No. 462, and deny the request for a zone variance to permit a second dwelling at 315 LeRoy Avenue. Councilman Balser seconded the motion. Councilman Turner: That there are times when there has to be a guide-line drawn; that there must be exceptions to all rules.and in the subject matter in his opinion, vacant property is more detrimental to the community than a second house; that the suggestion of improving the front portion of the subject lot with a swimming pool and shrubbery could be expensive. . Councilman Balser: That in his opinion a second house changes the character of a neighborhood; that he personally knows of instances where there are houses in the rear and the front portion of the lot is improved by land- scaping. That if the City's ordinance on the subject were modified or changed for the applicant and the Townsends, to permit them to have second houses,., it would only open the way to other similar requests. That requests of this nature have been denied in the past; that experience has proven that it is difficult to hold the line after an exception is made. That he agreed with Councilman Phillips that Ordinance No. 990 should be made even more restrictive rather than less restrictive. I Mayor Butterworth: That in this instance he intends voting to sustain the Planning Commission; that it is not desirable to have a full R-2 develop- ment in the subject area; that the property owners on Magna Vista Avenue have a right to be protected in their property holdings. That he agrees with Councilman Turner that the present ordinance is not a good one if it operates to permit vacant property such as this to remain in existance, in that it tends to depreciate LeRoy Avenue and deprives the owners from the proper use of their property. That in his opinion a second dwelling would benefit the neighborhood. That Mr. Townsend's suggestion should be brought to the attention of the Planning Commission and the Modification Committee for consideration. The following roll call was then taken on the motion made: AYES: Councilmen Balser, Phillips, Butterworth NOES: Councilman Turner ABSENT: Councilman Reibold 4. ll-20-62 I O. i'335 Eal~ (F:9l4) I TRACT NO. 27444 (F inal ) (F :916) ""." .,,-- 15:5829 Counci+man Phillips further MOVED that the Planning Director advise th~ ~lanning Commission of Mr. Townsend's suggestion that Ordinance No. 990 be amepded to permit those houses that have de~p setbacks, and require development in the front portion of the lots not to apply to the 25% figure:and that the Planning Commission cOnsider the suggestion. Councilman Turner seconded the motion which was carried.unanimously. The City Attorney suggested that the point of'discussion of the Planning Commis~ion not' be 'limited to the precise suggestion'; that he and others might have other suggestions that would fit in with the thinking of the majority of the Council. Mayor Butterworth commended the City Attorney for the suggestion and advised the Planning Director that this was the thinking of the Council. ' East side of Sixth Avenue lOO feet south of Beverly Drive - 6 lots. MOTION by Councilman Balser, seconded by Councilman Turner and carried unanimously that the Council accept and approve final map of Tract No. 22335 subject to the following conditions as set forth in letter from the Planning Commission of November l4,l962: 1. Provide all necessary rear line utility easements. 2. Remove all buildings and structures within or across the tract 'boundaries prior to the si&ning of the final map. 3. Remove all trees from the street right of way. 4. Install all standard street improvements required by the subdivision ordinance. Improvements, grading, grades and drainage shall be to . the satisfaction of the Director of Public Wo,ks. Minimum grade of 0.4% will be refluired. ' 5. Dedicate a 5 foot planting and sidewalk easement completely around IIA" Street. . 6. Pay the following fees: Installation of street trees Installation of street name signs Installation of steel street light posts 6 lots recreation fee @ $25.00 $ 76.50 70.00 230.00 150.00 $526.50 Total 7. A covenant in form approved by the City Attorney shall be recorded agreeing that for the purpose of Article IX of the Arcadia Municipa+ Code the exterior boundary line.of said tract shall constitute the' rear lot line of lots 3 to 6 inclusive. That the City Clerk be and she is hereby authorized and directed to endorse in due form such approval and acceptance on said map and to affix thereto the Corporate Seal of the City or Arcadia and to certify to the adoption and passage of a Minute Order at such time as there shall be deposited with the City of Arcadia a good and sufficient Surety Bond guaranteeing certain improvements in said Tract No. 22335, pursuant to Section 9114 of the Arcadia Municipal Code. Upon the Planning Director advising that the subdivider had requested action by the Council on the final map of Tract No. 27444 be continued to the next Council meeting, Mayor Butterworth ordered the request granted and stated that the matter would appear on the agenda for the Council meeting of December 4,l962. 5. 11-20-62 BID AWARD (Beautifi- cation of Santa Anita. from Camino Real to Live Oak) (F: 945) BID AWARD (Compact Motor Vehicles) (F:954) 15:5830 Following bids received November 1, 1962 for the beautification of Santa Anita Avenue from Camino Real to Live Oak Avenue, the lowest bid being made by Lupe de Anda, Los Angeles, in the amount of $34,700.00: Lupe de Anda, Los Angeles Valley Crest Landscape, Inc., Van Nuys Beverly Landscape Co., Beverly Hills Hammer Company, Inc., Santa Monica Roy C. Barnett, Riverside Moulder Bros., Glendale Aka-Tani Landscape Co., Culver City R & M Landscaping & Irving C. Hoffman Landscape Services, Inc., Monrovia Martin E. Roe Kawai Bros., Anaheim D & M Sprinkler Co., Paramount James E. Boothe. Buena Park. $34,700 35,349 35,666 36,032 36,260 37,3l0 40,176 4l,950 42,540 47,12l 47,150 48,450 48,931 I Councilman Turner ~ that the Council accept the recommendation of the City Manager and the Director of Public Works; that a contract for the beautification of Santa Anita Avenue from Camino Real to Live Oak Avenue be awarded to Lupe de Anda, Los Angeles, in the amount of $34,700.00; that all other bids be rejected; that any irregularities or informalities in the bids or bidding process be.waived, and that the Mayor and City Clerk be authorized to execute such contract on behalf of the City for the performance of the contract and in the amount specified, in form approved by the City Attorney; and that an allocation of $42,000.00 be transferred and appropriated from Reserve for Capital Projects Account No..285 in the General Fund to Capital Improvement Projects Account No. 207-A. Councilman Phillips seconded the motion which was carried on roll call vote as follows: AYES: Councilmen Balser, Phillips, Turner, Butterworth NOES: NOlle ABSENT: Councilman Reibold Following bids received November 14,1962 for four new compacts (two pick-ups for the Water Department and two passenger type cars, one for the Water Department and one for the Engineering Department) with five vehicles to be accepted in trade, consisting of a 1954 four door Ford sedan, a 1957 four door Bel Air, a 1957 four door Ford and two 1958 l/2 ton Ford pick ups: Hutchings Motors BID PROPOSAL (For all vehicles) $5,677 .32 ALTERNATE I (Passenger cars only) $3,020.83 ALTERNATE II (Trucks only) $2.656.49 Kent Motors No Bid $2,817.63 No bid F.O.B. Arcadia, including all applicable taxes and trade in allowances. Councilman Phillips ~ that the Council accept the recommendation of the I City Manager and the Purchasing Officer; that a contract be awarded to Kent Chevrolet for Alternate I in the amount of $2,817.63 and to Hutchings Motors for Alternate II in the amount of $2.656.49; that any irregularities or info~lities in the bids or bidding process be waived, and that the contracts be executed on behalf of the City for the performance of said contracts and in the amounts specified in form approved by the City Attorney. Councilman Balser seconded the motion which was carried on roll call vote as follows: AYES: Councilmen Balser, Phillips, Turner, Butterworth NOES: None ABSENT: Counci lman Re ibo ld 6. 11-20-62 BID AWARD (Tires & Preventative Maintenance Program) (Ii': 953) I BID AWARD (Peek Road Pumping Station) (F:946)- I l5:583l Following bids received for tires and a preventative maintenance program for all City vehicles: FIRESTONE GENERAL TIRE GOODYEAR Ravon Nvlon Ravon Nylon . Rayon Nvlon 670 x l5 13.77 l4.89 l5.55 l6.17 15.32 l8.00 700 x 15 22.65 24.91 25.17 26.42 25.11 27.62 825 x 20 42.82 47.11 47.90 56.15 47.66 52.43 1000 x 15 75.50 83.88 121.77 (Preventative maintenance program includes monthly inspection of all City tires for correct air pressures and sizes, corrective attention, rotation, flat repairs and road service). General Tires proposed a maintenance program for which no charge would be made except for road service at $5.00 per hour. Firestone proposed free monthly inspection with a dismounting and mounting charge of 50~ for passenger cars and $1.00 for trucks and a flat repair charge of $1.75 for passenger cars and $3.50 for trucks. Road service at $3.50 per hour. Goodyear proposed a charge of $5.00 per hour for all services. MOTION by Councilman Turner, seconded by Councilman Balser and carried on roll call vote as follows that the Council accept the recommendation of the City Manager and the Purchasing Officer and authorize an agreement being awarded to Firestone Stores for the purchase of tires and a preventative maintenance program for all City vehicles; that all other bids be rejected; that any irregularities or informalities in the bids or bidding process be waived, and that said agreement be executed on behalf of the City for the performance of said agreement, in form approved by the City Attorney: AYES: Councilmen Balser, Phillips, Turner, Butterworth NOES: None ABSENT: Councilman Reibold Following bids received November 2,1962 f~r the construction of Peck Road Pumping Station, the lowest bid being made by Pylon, Inc., in the amount of $56,440.00: Pylon, Inc. Triad Piping & Construction Co. Fontana Steel, Construction Div. West & Wiggs, Inc. J. M. Covington Corporation John L. Meek Construction Co. Hydro Construction Co. Wonderly Construction Co. Mitchell Engineering Co. $56,440 56,660 59,995 6l,480 62,850 64,390 64,748 78,774 79,400 MOTION by Councilman Phillips, seconded by Councilman Turner and carried on roll call vote as follows that the Council accept the recommendation of the City Manager and the Water Superintendent; that a contract for the construction of Peck Road Pumping Station be awarded to Pylon, Inc. in the amount of $56,440.00; that all other bids be rejected; that any irregularities or informalities in the bids or bidding process be waived, and that the Mayor and City Clerk be authorized to execute such contract on behalf of the City for the performance of the contract and in the amount specified, in form approved by the City Attorney: AYES: Councilmen Balser, Phillips, Turner, Butterworth NOES: None ABSENT: Councilman Reibold 7. 11-20-62 COMPLETION OF WORK (Senk Construction Co.) (F:763) COMPLETION OF WORK (Uni ted Concrete Pipe Corp.) (F:908) CURB, GUTTER lie SIDEWALK INSTALLATION (El Sur lie Santa Anita) (F:884) STORM DRAIN EASEMENT (Holly lie Huntington) (1'X1W (D:1247) 15:5832 MOTION by Councilman Balser, seconded by Councilman Turner and carried on roll call vote as follows that the Council approve the recommendation of the City Manager Pro Tempore and the Water Superintendent .and accept the work of the Senk Construction Company for the construction of Baldwin Reservoir No.2 as satisfactorily completed and authorize final payment to be made to said firm at the expiration of the 35 day time limit as prescribed in the contract: AYES: Councilmen Balser, Phillips, Turner, Butterworth NOES: None ABSENT: Councilman Reibold MOTION by Councilman Phillips, seconded by Councilman Balser and carried I on roll call vote as follows that the Council approve the recommendation of the City Manager Pro Tempore and the Water Superintendent and accept the work of the United Concrete Pipe Corporation for cleaning and cement mortar lining water mains in place as satsfactorily completed and authorize final payment at the expiration of the 35 day time limit as prescribed in the contract: AYES: Councilmen Balser, Phillips, Turner, Butterworth NOES: None ABSENT: Councilman Reibold The City Manager advised that~the Department of Public Works has made a survey of the curb and gutter installed on El Sur Avenue to the present time and has found that 74% of the curb and gutter has been installed on the north side of the street and 62.7% on the south side of the street; that a further survey was made of the east side of Santa Anita Avenue between Floral Avenue and Foothill Boulevard and that curb, gutter and sidewalk has been installed on 68% of this frontage. Th~ Director of Public Works briefly reviewed the procedure of the City in such instances, to wit, that the Streets and Highways Code provides that the City Engineer and the Street Superintendent may, and he shall upon the direction of the City Council, cause the installation of curb, gutter and sidewalk, or curb and gutter, to be installed in anyone block on one side of the street where 50% or more has aiready been installed. Councilman Phillips MOVED that the Council approve the recommendation of the City Manager and the Director of Public Works and authorize and direct the Director of Public Works to institute proceedings to have curb and gutter installed on El Sur Avenue, and curb, gutter and sidewalk installed on Santa Anita Avenue, in accordance with the provisions of the Streets and Highways Code. Councilman Balser seconded the motion which was carried unanimously. The City Manager advised that as a result of the construction of the storm drain at Holly Avenue and Huntington Drive as part of Project 405 - 1958 Storm Drain Bond Issue, it is necessary for the Flood Control District to I secure from the City an easement for the purpose of maintaining a covered storm drain and appurtenant structures at this location. That an easement has been prepared approved as to form by the City Attorney and the Director of Public Works. Councilman Balser ~ that the Council accept the recommendation of the City Manager and the Director of Public Works and approve the easement to the Los Angeles County Flood Control District for the purpose of maintaining a covered storm drain and appurtenant structures at the Holly Avenue and Huntington Drive storm drain and that the Mayor and City Clerk be authorized to execute said easement. Councilman Phillips seconded the motion which was carried unanimously. 8. 11-20-62 TRAFFIC SIGNALS (Job #264) S:Traffic I CALL FOR BmS (Orange Grove No.5 Well) (F :951 I ORDINANCE NO. 1193 (Adopted) (F:JiZn 15:5833 MOTION by Councilman Turner, seconded by Councilman Balser and carried unantmously that the'Council accept the recommendation of the City, Manager and the Director of Public Works and approve plans and specifications as submitted' for the installation of traffic signals at the following intersections, funds for such construction being presently budgeted and available: Duarte Road and El Monte Avenue: V~hicle and pedestrian actuation will be provided on El Monte Avenue. This installation will be financed with State Gas Tax Funds. Santa Anita Avenue and Campus Drive Santa Anita Avenue and Duarte Road Duarte Road and First Avenue Duarte Road and Second Avenue: N~w installations will be made at Campus Drive, First and Second Avenues and the installation at Santa Anita Avenue and Duarte Road modified. The four intersections will be coordinated to provide maximum flow in the direction of heaviest traffic. State and County Gas Tax funds will be used to finance the installation. Santa Anita and Longden Avenues: V~hicle and pedestrian actuation will be provided in all directions. A left-turn phase on Santa Anita Avenue is included. State Gas Tax Funds will be used for financing. Santa Anita and Wistaria Avenues: Vehicle and pedestrian actuation will be provided on Wistaria and the installation will be financed from City Capital Project Funds; That inasmuch as it is necessary that the State Division of Highways approve the plans prior to advertisement for bids, the City Clerk be authorized to advertise for bids upon receipt of approval from the State Division of Highways. Councilman Phillips ~ that the Council accept the recommendation of the City Manager and the Water Superintendent; that the plans and specifications for the drilling, casing, perforating, developing and testing of a 16 inch water well, to be known as Orange Grove No.5 Well be approved as submitted; that the City Clerk be authorized to call for bids for such work in conformance with said specifications, expenditure for such purpose being provided in the 1962-63 budget, Water Reserve and .Depreciation Fund, Major Projects, Item '3, said bids to be returned December 3, 1962 at 11:00 A.M. and submitted to the Council at the regular meeting of December 4, 1962. Councilman Turner seconded the motion which was carried unanimously. The City Attorney presented for. the second time, explained the content and read the title of Ordinance No, 1193, entitled: "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA, ADDING TO PART 2 OF CHAPTER 4 OJ;' ARTICLE IV OF .THE ARCADIA MUNICIPAL CODE A NEW SECTION 442l ENTITLED 'MOTORIZED DEVICES PROHIBITED'." MOTION by Councilman Phillips, seconded by Councilman Balser and carried on' roll call vote as follows that the reading of the full body of Ordinance No. ll93 be waived: AYES: Councilmen Balser, Phillips, Turner, Butterworth NOES: None ABSENT: Councilman Reibold Councilman Phillips further MOVED that Ordinance No. ll93 be adopted. Motion seconded by Councilman Balser and carried on roll call vote as follows: AYES: Councilmen Balser, Phillips, Turner, Butterworth NOES: None AnSENT: Councilman Reibold 9. 11-20-62 RESOLUTION NO. 3526 (F:935) RESOLUTION NO. 3531 (F:920) RECESS l5:5834 The City Attorney presented, summarized the content and read the title of Resolution No. 3526, entitled: "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA, GRANTING A VARIANCE UPON SPECIFIED CONDITIONS FOR THE ERECTION AND MAINTENANCE OF A MOTEL ON PROPERTY LOCATED AT 225 COLORADO PLACE IN SAID CITY." MOTION by Councilman Balser, seconded by Councilman Phillips and carried on roll call vote as follows that the reading of the full body of Resolution No. 3526 be waived: AYES: Councilmen Balser, Phillips, Turner, Butterworth NOES: None ABSENT: Councilman Reibold I Councilman Balser further MOVED that Resolution No. 3526 be adopted. Motion seconded by.Councilman Phillips and carried on roll call vote as follows: AYES: Councilmen Balser, Phillips, Butterworth NOES: Councilman Turner ABSENT: Councilman Reibold The City Attorney presented, explained the content and read the title of Resolution No. 3531, entitled: "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA, INSTITUTING PROCEEDINGS FOR, SETTING A PUBLIC HEARING CONCERNING AND GIVING NOTICE OF THE TIME AND PLACE OF SUCH PUBLIC HEARING CONCERNING THE PROPOSED ANNEXATION TO THE CITY OF ARCADIA OF CERTAIN TERRITORY ADJACENT AND CONTIGUOUS TO THE PRESENT CITY LIMITS OF SAID CITY, SAID TERRITORY BEING SITUATED NEAR THE SOUTHEASTERLY PORTION OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA AND DESIGNATED AS 'ANNEXATION NO. 30, SOUTHEAST ARCADIA (UNINHABITED)'." MOTION by Councilman Phillips, seconded by Councilman Balser and carried on roll call vote as follows that the reading of the full body of Resolution No. 3531 be waived: AYES: Councilmen Balser, Phillips, Turner, Butterworth NOES: None ABSENT: Councilman Reibold Councilman Phillips further MOVED that Resolution No. 3531 be adopted. Motion seconded by Councilman Balser and carried on roll call vote as follows :' AYES: Councilmen Balser, Phillips, Turner, Butterworth NOES: None ABSENT: Councilman Reibold Mayor Butterworth declared a recess at 9:25 P.M. The meeting reconvened at 9:30 P.M. I AUDIENCE PARTICIPATION: RE ORDINANCE NO. 1188 (Proposition W - November 6,1962 Ballot) (F:928) Mayor Butterworth announced that a communication dated November 8, 1962 had been received by the Council from Mr. Sol Hirschhorn, Executive Director of the California Credit Merchants Association, requesting permission to address the Council on the subject of Ordinance No. ll88, approved by the electorate as proposition W on November 6, 1962, and that such request had been granted. Whereupon Mr. Hirschhorn spoke at length, summarizing a memorandum which he presented to the Council, together with other documents, in opposition to said Ordinance No. 1188, and citing in substance that although said ordinance was approved by the electorate, popular vote laws which are repugnant to basic rights guaranteed to individuals cannot be enforced. lO. 11-20-62 l5:5835 (F:928) He mentioned a memorandum decision by Judge Stevens of Oceanside in a similar case which declared a similar ordinance invalid, adding that there is a vested right in lawful occupation subject only to regulation 'but not prohibition. He also quoted an excerpt from Mr. Nicklin's opinion during the time the Green River type ordinance was under discussion in Arcadia, to wit, that in Mr. Nicklin's opinion the Green River Ordinance may be too restrictive and is unnecessary to accomplish the protection of those citizens who desire to be protected. I Mr. Hirschhorn completed his dissertation with the plea that the Council a) declare Ordinance No, ll88 unconstitutional and that it be withdrawn; or b) that the Council, by an affirmative vote of at least four members, amend or repeal Ordinance No. ll88 and reinstate Ordinance No. l006. The following other persons addressed the Council in opposition to Ordinance No. 1188 as a detriment to livelihood: Mr. Walter Schrader, l5l Genoa Street, representing Electrolux Products, Miss Criss and Miss Hamilton, representing Avon Products. The City Attorney, in explanation of the opinion he was quoted as making, stated' in part that this occurred approximately four years ago, at which time there had been several months of discussion on a series of various proposals to alleviate some of the evils that the then Council thought existed in door to door solicitation; that he had been requested by the Council to express his opinion on the relative merits of various proposals that were under consideration at that 'time; that it was his opinion then and now that the Ann Arbor ordinance did afford protection to those who sought the protection. . That since that time and after some four years of experience the majority of the present Council felt that the residents should be given an opportunity to express themselves on more restrictive legislation. That the subject ordinance was adopted by the Council for the limited purpose of placing it on the ballot for ratification by the people and that it is an initiative measure not a referendum as thought by some persons. The City Attorney continued that for the record he wished to state that 1) the ordinance is not yet in effect; that it will be in effect ten days after the Council, by resolution, declares the results of the election held November 6,1962 and that this cannot be done until the certificate of the election results from the Los Angeles County Registrar of Voters is received; 2) that the ordinance is not an absolute prohibition of all door to door selling, such as Avon or Electrolux, whose modus operendi envisages return engagements by, consent of their customers. The City Attorney also stated that the Oceanside opinion, mentioned by Mr. Hirschhorn, is up on appeal; that it will be va~uable to have a California decision on the validity of the Green River ordinance as it has been tested in other states but not in California. I Mayor Butterworth advised that no action by the Council would be taken at this time to enable it to study the documents presented by Mr: Hirschhorn. , Councilman Phillips commented that when Ordinance No. 1188 was submitted to the electorate the Council did not try to influence anyone; that it was presented on its merits and that all publicity was contrary thereto, but still there had been an approximate two to one vote in its favor. MATTERS FROM THE CITY OFFICIALS: (F:833) The City Attorney mentioned the memorandum he had submitted to the Council and the City Manager regarding the chain of command, stand-by officers, etc. in the event of a disaster, citing sections from the Military and Veterans Code on such subject, and Mayor Butterworth stated that this matter, among others, would be discussed at the ll. ll-20-62 ADJOURNMENT l5:5836 November 29, 1962 Council discussion meeting. Mayor Butterworth ordered discussion on the report dated November 14,1962 by the Capital Projects Committee continued to the next Council meeting. Councilman Phillips reminded the Council of the meeting of Independent Cities to be held at the Rodger Young Auditorium on November 21,1962 at 7:00 P.M. At lO:lO P.M. Mayor Butterworth adjourned the meeting. [w/(jJ~ I Mayor Butterworth ATTEST: f/J ;J ,.- Uut'.kr777..A< '.z " City Clerk ~/70t#~ I 12. 11-20-62