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