Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMARCH 5,1963 I INVOCATION PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL APPROVAL OF MINUTES (2-19-63) ARCADIA HIGH SCHOOL (Student. Government) HEARING (Annexation No. 29) (F: 950) 15:5915 M I NUT E S CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA MARCH 5, 1963 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., March 5, 1963. The Invocation was offered by Rev. H, Warren Anderson, Pastor of the Arcadia Community Church. Mayor Butterworth led in the pledge of allegiance to the flag. PRESENT: ABSENT: Councilmen Balser, Reibold, Turner, Butterworth Councilman Phillips MOTION by Councilman Turner, seconded by Councilman Reibold and carried unanimously that the minutes of the Regular Meeting of February 19, 1963 be approved as submitted in writing, Mayor Butterworth welcomed to the Council meeting the Student Government Body of the Arcadia High School and presented the individual legislative and appointee members. The City Attorney reported that with regard to the continued hearing on proposed Annexation No. 29, Northwest Arcadia (Uninhabited), there are two hearings at this time, one being a continuation of the hearing originally set for February 5, 1963, which proceedings were instituted by Resolution No, 3532, and the second being the hearing scheduled for this time and instituted by Resolution No. 3563, The City Attorney continued, that prior to the February 19, 1963 Council meeting, protests had been received and referred to staff for evaluation; that the total assessed valuation in land and improvement of private property in the subject area is $201,850,00; that protests filed by Lowry B. and Pauline C. McCaslin, and Sterling M. and Peggy E. Pailing total $104,400.00; that one-half the total assessed valuation of private property is $100,925,00; and that there is a majority protest made with respect to the privately owned property, To Councilman Turner's question as to whether the acquisltion of the one piece of property subsequent to the initiation of the annexation proceedings had a bearing on the ultimate outcome as to the assessed valuation being applicable at this time, the City Attorney replied that in his opinion protests may be filed at any time up to the close of the hearing on protests, or they may be withdrawn at any time up to the close of the protest hearing, Mayor Butterworth commented that it has been the desire of the Council to encompass in the City of Arcadia the subject area inasmuch as it is an island in the midst of the City of Arcadia; that good government policy, both from an economic and political standpoint would indicate the desirability of such action and that the City Council has done every- thing in its power to accomplish this but that one individual, because of the extent of his ownership, has been able to thwart the elected representatives of Arcadia and thus maintain this island within the City; that in his opinion this is against the will of the majority of the surrounding residents; however, that it is proper that the Council accommodate itself to the law of the State, 1. 3- 5-63 RESOLUTION NO. 3568 ,:;.f. 9fo RESOLUTION NO. 3569 1'1 ~ 1.... 9 ~-o HEARING (Water Wells) (F :965) 15:5916 The Co'mcil determining that there is a majority protest in the subject matter, the City Attorney presented, explained the content and read the titles of the following resolutions with respect to each set of proceed- ings: "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA, FINDING AND DECLARING THAT A MAJORITY PROTEST HAS BEEN MADE WITH RESPECT TO ANNEXATION NO. 29 NORTHWEST ARCADIA (UNINHABITED)." MOTION by Councilman Reibold, seconded by Councilman Turner and carried on roll call vote as follows that the reading of the full body of Resolution No, 3568 be waived: I AYES: Councilmen Balser, Reibold, Turner, Butterworth NOES: None ABSENT: Councilman Phillips Councilman Reibold further MOVED that Resolution No, 3568 be adopted. Motion seconded by Councilman Balser and carried on roll call vote as follows: AYES: Councilmen Balser, Reibold, Turner, Butterworth NOES: None ABSENT: Councilman Phillips "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA, FINDING AND DECLARING THAT A MAJORITY PROTEST HAS BEEN MADE WITH RESPECT TO ANNEXATION NO, 29 NORTHWEST ARCADIA (UNINHABITED)." MOTION by Councilman Turner, seconded by Councilman Balser and carried on roll call vote as follows that the reading of the full body of Resolution No, 3569 be waived: AYES: Councilmen Balser, Reibold, Turner,.Butterworth NOES: None ABSENT: Councilman Phillips Councilman Balser MOVED that Resolution No. 3569 be adopted. Motion seconded by Councilman Reibold and carried on roll call vote as follows: AYES: Councilmen Balser, Reibold, Turner, Butterworth NOES: None ABSENT: Councilman Phillips Hearing continued from February 19, 1963 Council Meeting on written appeal by the San Gabriel Valley Water Company from Planning recommen- dation for denial of request for zone variance and/or special use permit to drill water wells and install and operate water storage, pumping and distributing facilities on property located. on the south side of Clark Street about 400 feet east of Peck Road as set forth in Planning Commission Resolution No, 466, said continuance being at the request of applicant to enable the Council to consider the content of said written appeal, Mr. G. E. Curtis, owner of subject and adjacent property appeared at said Council Meeting of February 19, 1963 in favor of the requested zone variance and/or special use permit. I Upon Mayor Butterworth announcing that the Council would now hear any- one else in favor of the subject requested permit, Mr, J, E. Skelton, Vice President of the applicant company, located at 11142 Garvey Blvd" El Monte, addressed the Council. He summarized the written appeal presented to the Council February 19, 1963, emphasizing points set forth in paragraph 2 on page 3, citing sections 9275,1 and 9275,1.22 of the Arcadia Municipal Code, the last paragraph on page 3, paragraph 2 on page 4, the last paragraph on page 5 and citing section 9266.2,1 2. 3- 5- 63 ','" : , 1 ~ .", 15:5917 on page 5, and paragraph 2 on page 6. He also mentioned that he wished stated for the record that the pictures,mentioned at the meeting of F~bruary 19, 1963, had subsequently bee~ presented to the City Clerk for distribution to the Council, (Appeal on file in office of the City cterk) . Mr. Skelton then introduced Mr. M. E. Mosely, President of applicant company, adding that Mr, Mosely was an exp~~t engineering witness who would be willing' to testify to the effect of' such a well in this vicinity. I Mr. Mosely addressed the Council, stating in part that: The water area which this proposed plant would serve has be~n growing in recent years at the rate of 1000 customers per year, whiq~ is one of the reasons for their desire to build an additional plant; that his company is certificated to serve the areas on both sides of Peck Road in the vicinity of the Chicago Park Tra~t since 1937; that the are~:'includes the portion annexed by Arca~ia; that in 1945 his company extended its service up to Clark Street (Tract No. 13286); that the"company has been serving two properties on the north side of Clark Street for 17 years and one on the west side of Clark Street, all in the:City of Arcadia for approximately the same length of time; that: his company began about six years ago to search for a plant site in the vicinity of Clark Street which was in line with its general program for two main transmission lines, one down: Peck Road and one down Durfe~ Avenue. That in 1960' an agreement was ~e~ched with Mr. Curtis to pur~hase property on the south side of Clark ~treet which area has since b~~n annexed to Arcadia, put that it was not'unti1 May 1962 that title wa~ cleared. That the City' of Arcadia is gr~dually moving to the south 'while his company has retreated to the: area east of Peck Road an4 generally south of Clark Street. That he wished~'to reiterate that his compariy::does not wish to compete with Arcadia for water service, but that it cannot abandon service to existing custo~rs or to abandon its certifi~ate without an order of the Public Utilities Connnlssion. ': , Mr. Mosely continued, adding in part that his company is aware of Arcadia's announced plan, if the election of ,March 12, 1963 results in a yes vote, to:'p~y the cost of Metropolita~;Water District annexation water rates anq"that there is probably so~ ~oncern about his company serving some s~+l parts of the City; howe~~i, it is the opinion of his company that tl).e cost of this should best g<{on the water bill; that'if any temporary prpblem exists with respect to'his company serving a Few customers in Arcadia, it would be minor ancf:of short duration. ' , ' . I Mayor Butterwor~h commented that the propos~d well being 1000 feet away from the nearest: Arcadia well, the Council has the thought that this' would deplete 16ca1 water supply and that testimony should be directed to the point w~ere it would not. j' The City Attorney explained the precise nat~re of the application; to wit: That it is actually an application f~r'two permits, one properly addressed in t~e first instance to the Plann~ng Commission for the ~pecial use permit; that in the same application tl).eFe was a request for a permit to be issued by the Council which requires;a special permit from the Council for any 'type of well within the City; that this second phase of the application would be considered separately at a subsequent ' hearing; that ~f the Council denies the speq~al use permit there would be no purpose served in having a hearing ori:'the other type of permit. That the principal portion of the applicatipu is directed to the ' special use pe~it under the section of the' zoning ,ordinance that designateR the,'deuelopment of natural resou!,ses as a special use in any zone. . . The City Attorney variance would ~e l' continued, stating applicable in this that ~hl\ only proceeding is -, ; ~ .; point in which a the extent that a ~ '. 3. 3-5-63 15:5918 variation from the architectural overlay requirement would be necessary to accomplish the purposes of the application. That a variance is predicated primarily upon the premise that because of circumstances peculiarly applicable to the property in question or to the intended use thereof, the strict application of the ordinance is found to deprive the property owner of rights enjoyed by other properties in the same zone and vicinity and is properly granted when the facts are such that it would be an unreasonable application of the ordinance not to grant the parties some relief. That a special use is based upon the initial recognition of the propriety of the use itself under the ordinance but in relationship only to the circumstances applicable to the uses and its location and relationship to other properties. I The Planning Director pointed out that the plan developed for the general Chicago Park area has been implemented by the adoption of zoning and controls to result in the type of development desirable for the City of Arcadia; that in his recommendation to the Planning Commission three specific points were made, in substance that 1) the development of the property as proposed by the applicant with sheds and a water storage tank would not be in keeping with the applicable architectural overlay regulations which were developed to encourage and protect industrial development in the subject area; 2) that the proposed improvements are not likely to encourage additional types of development in the area such as the three recently constructed; and 3) that the comprehensive general plan for the area would, from a planning viewpoint, be adversely affected, Councilman Reibold inquired of the Planning Director if he felt that: 1) the presence of the tank would preclude other investment in the area; 2) if it were moved two or three lots away would it have an adverse effect; 3) if the tank were 30 feet instead of 40 feet would it make any difference? The Planning Director replied in the affirmative to questions 1 and 2 and explained, in reply to 3, that this would make very little difference; that if the Council were to consider the place- ment of the tank in the City it might be better if it were completely below ground and in that event there would be no adverse effect on the adjoining property. ~ The City Manager read in its entirety his report to the Council on the matter dated March 5,1963, which stated in substance that historically the City has denied requests from others to locate water wells within the corporate, limits of the City, primarily to protect the underground water supply and to control use of such water through the pricing process; that a suitable location for the facilities proposed on Clark Street could be found in the area served which would reduce the cost of transmission facilities; that Mr. Curtis, who appeared at the February 19, 1963 Council Meeting in support of the application, is the individual who sold the subject property to the applicant company; that Mr. Keith Davidson, owner of approximately 10 acres directly opposite the subject property on the north side of Clark Street, has filed an objection to the granting of the request as being detrimental to adjacent properties. That the report of the Planning Commission, dated December 6,1962, deals with the characteristics of the area, recent development trends, and other considerations and recommendations. I The City Manager continued, reading the nine conditions of approval recommended for Council's consideration if it decided to approve the application, adding the following tenth condition not set forth in the report, to wit: that adequate storm drainage facilities should be provided for the property in case of overflow of the tank. The City Manager then added, in part, that it is true that some of the City's water properties are not protected but that a program is under way to enclose all such properties with masonry walls, etc.; also that all of the reservoirs constructed in the past four years have been of the underground type. 4. 3-5-63 15:5919 MOTION by Councilman Turner, seconded by Councilman Balser and carried unanimously that the six page appeal of the applicant company, the City Manager's report of March 5,1963 as supplemented at this meeting, the Planning Department report to the Planning Commission dated December 6, 1962, the Keith Davidson protest and any,ot~er protest, and the subsequent documents filed by the appl'icant company as indicated at this meeting be made a part of the record in the subject proceedings. I Mr. Skelton again addressed the Council, requesting a continuance of the hearing in order to confer with 'staff as to the conditions enumerated in the City Manager's report of March 5,1963. The City Manager suggested that in this respect it might be well to first have a Councilmanic determination in the matter; that if the Council should determine to deny the application no useful purpose would be served by a consultation as to the conditions. Upon the advice of the City Attorney that Council discussion first ensue prior to closing the hearing, opinions of the individual Council- men were expressed ir part as follows: Councilman Balser: That one of the reasons the subject area was annexed to Arcadia was to try to develop it into an Arcadia industrial center with substantial well planned industries, which would have a tendency to reduce the tax burden of the citizens of Arcadia; to eliminate some of the objectionable uses that had been in effect and had caused problems to the City; that he is in full accord with the report of the Planning Director; that he does not feel the proposed water facility would be in keeping with the planned development of the area; that there is land available to the south of the subject area not in the City and nearer the area to be served by the applicant company; and that it would be a definite deterent to the planned development of the area as contemplated. " Councilman Turner:, That basically he agreed with Councilman Balser; that the proposed deyelopment of the subject property with shed and water storage"tank would not ,comply with the applicable architectural overlay as it is now established and would be detrimental to the future develop- ment of the area. Councilman Reibold: That he would sustain that the City take the posLtion that it ':would not want the Par 3 Golf- Course, the Turf Club and a,few'others to'drill their own wells, but in the subject situation, it is a public utility not in competition to any City area and that the matter rests on the question of whether or not it could be made architecturally applicable. That if this phase could be worked out he would favor the application. I The City Attorney then made suggestions and observations to guide the Council in its discussion and deliberation and the City Manager pointed out that the staff has expressed opinions with regard to the results of the characteristics of the area, Mayor Butterworth: That he commended the applicant for an intelligent and well written appeal; that the Council recognized its rights; that it is good policy to support the recommendations of the Planning Commission unless they are arbitrary and capricious, which is not the case in this instance inasmuch as its decision was unanimous; that under the circumstances he felt that the proposal as now set forth would violate the general plans and be detrimental to the adjoining property and that he was inclined to deny the applicant's appeal, MOTION by Councilman Balser, seconded by Councilman Turner and carried unanimously that the hearing be closed. 5" 3-5-63 HEARING (Mouser) (P:LS) TRACT NO. 27619 (Revised Tentative) q ~ or; 15:5920 Councilman Turner MOVED that on the basis of the proposed development on the subject property with sheds and a tall water storage tank that would not comply with the applicable architectural overlay and would be detrimental to the present and prospective industrial development and would materially further deter the further improvement of the area, that the special use permit and the variance request be denied. Council- man Balser seconded the motion which was carried on roll call vote as follows: AYES: Councilmen Balser, Turner, Butterworth NOES: Councilman Reibold ABSENT: Councilman Phillips I Appeal from Planning Commission recommendation for denial of lot split request on property located at 2520 South Santa Anita Avenue. The Planning Technician displayed a sketch of the subject property and explained that the Planning Commission had denied approval on the basis that the lot had a 72 foot frontage whereas the Code requires a 75 foot frontage. The appellant, Gerald D. Mouser, addressed the Council and stated in part that the new lot would measure only three feet under the 75 foot requirement and in his opinion would not be noticed on a lot with over 16,000 square feet. Discussion ensued, and it being the determination of the Council that inasmuch as the subject lot would have the above mentioned minimum square footage requirement and that other lots in the area were not noticeably wider in frontage, Councilman Reibold MOVED that the Council approve the lot split request of Gerald D. Mouser on property located at 2520 South Santa Anita Avenue, subject to conditions contained in Planning Department report to the Planning Commission dated February 8, 1963 on the subject lot split application. Councilman Turner seconded the motion which was carried on roll call vote as follows: AYES: Councilmen Balser, Reibold, Turner, Butterworth' NOES: None ABSENT: Councilman Phillips MOTION by Councilman Balser, seconded by Councilman Reibold and carried unanimously that the Council accept the recommendation of the Planning Commission and approve Revised Tentative Tract No; 27619, located east of Santa Anita Avenue between Longden Avenue and Palm Drive, consisting of 14 single family lots, subject to the following conditions: 1. Install standard street improvements required ordiLance. Improvements, grades and drainage satisfaction of the Director of Public Works, encroach in curb returns. by the subdivision shall be to the No driveway shall I 2. Provide all easements required for rear line utilities. 3. Remove all trees and structures from the street right of way. 4. Remove all structures and buildings within or across the tract boundary. These removals or relocations shall comply to all City Ordinances, Codes and regulations, and be done to the satisfaction of the Department of Public Works, including garage at 39 West Palm Drive. 5, Dedication of street 60 feet wide, or provide planting and sidewalk easements for any portion of right of way less than 60 feet wide, 6. 3-5-63 I I ~~) -' ZONE VARIANCE (American Lu'theran Church) " '.let!,' 15:5921 6, Birchcroft Street cuI de sac shall be shifted to allow complete construction of curb, gutter and pavement. 7. Fees and deposits required: ,. , Street light installation Street sign installation Street tree installation Recreation fee - 11 lots at $25,00 $920.00 140.00 408.00 275.00 TOTAL $1,743.00 8. Dedicate a one foot strip to the City of Arcadia in fee at the westerly end of ' Birch croft Street, 9. Dedicate a one foot strip in fee to the street right of way line adjacent to 29 in an approved trust. of Arcadia along the Palm Drive, or place City West " 10. A covenant in form approved by the City Attorney shall be recorded agreeing that for the purposes of Article IX of the Arcadia Muni~ipal Code the exterior boundary of said tract' ,shall constitute the rear lot lines of Lots 5, 6, 7, 9, 10, 11 and '12. " 11. The entry street off Palm Drive shall b~ a 60 foot wide street rather than a 50 foot as shown on the p~an for a portion of the street. Planning Commission Resolution No. 471 approving and recommending Council approval of revised plans for a church to be constructed at 110-118 West Duarte Road under a variance heretofore granted for such purpose. ./ The Planning Technician read the staff report on the subject matter, stating in substance that the original plans~had been for Gothic construction and the new proposal is for a ~ontemporary design which the Planning Commission felt is a better us,,"of the subject property. He pointed out Section 4 and subsection F of the Planning Commission Resolution No. 471. Councilman Balser commented that he had bee~ present at the Planning Commission meeting of February 13, 1963 and that no residents of the subject area had opposed the proposed plans. Councilman Balser thereupon MOVED that the recommendation of the Planning Commission, embodied in its Resolution No. 471 be approved and that the petition of the American Lutheran Church of Arcadia for a zone variance to permit the construction of a church, including Sunday School Classrooms, kitc~~" facilities and automobile parking on property located at 110 and l18'West Duarte Road, Arcadia, be approved upon the :onditions contained in said Resolution No. 471. Motion seconded by Councilman Turner and carried unanimously. Planning Commission Resoiution No. 472 recommending denial of a zone variance to allow to remain a carport illegally constructed on property at 1122 West Huntington Drive. ' fl. '~~~he Planning Technician explained that said recommendation was made on . I the basis that allowing such carport to remain would be materially detrimental to the property owners involved; that the specifics are set forth in said Resolution No. 472. , ZONE VARIANCE (Vidican) 7. 3- 5- 63 BID AWARD (Removal of Trees) JC}bl BID AWARD (Removal of Library Building) Y 1 c).:!J FOOTHILL FREEWAY y~, '71 ~ ,- 15:5922 The applicant, John P. Vidican, 763 Arcadia Avenue, presented a petition of owners of adjacent property in favor of the granting of the application. He then addressed the Council stating in substance that the additional carport was necessary because he had sold one apartment with two carports, leaving one apartment with no carport. That since the building had been constructed requirements for carports had increased and not being able to secure a building permit the subject carport had been constructed illegally. Councilman Balser ~ that the recommendation of the Planning Commission, embodied in its Resolution No. 472, be approved and that the application of John P. Vidican and Violet Vidican, for a variance to allow a carport illegally constructed without a building permit to remain on property located at 1122 West Huntington Drive, Arcadia, be denied. Councilman Turner seconded the motion which was carried unanimously. I Following bids received March 4, 1963 for the removal of 110 parkway trees, the lowest bid being made by Johnson Tree Service in the amount of $6,172,00: Johnson Tree Service California Tree Service, Inc. $6,172.00 $6,335.00 Councilman Turner MOVED that the Council accept the recommendation of the City Manager and the Director of Public Works; that a contract for the removal of 110 parkway trees be awarded to Johnson Tree Service in the amount of $6,172.00; 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. Councilman Reibold seconded the motion which was carried on roll call vote as follows: AYES: Councilmen Balser, Reibold, Turner, Butterworth NOES: None ABSENT: Councilman Phillips Following bids received March 4, 1963 for the demolition of the former library building at Wheeler and First Avenues: Atlas Crane & Rigging Co. Aztec Stone & Brick Co. Mead House Wrecking Co. Self Wrecking & Supply,Inc. $5000.00 6600.00 18,333,00 20,700.00 MOTION by Councilman Balser, seconded by Councilman Reibold and carried unanimously that the Council accept the recommendation of the City Manager and the Director of Public Works and that the bids be referred to staff for further analysis and study. I The City Manager read portions of his report dated March 5, 1963 to the Council on the subject matter, wherein he had submitted revised preliminary plans showing location, profile and ramp locations for the Foothill Freeway, and which contained his recommendation. The City Manager pointed out that the preservation of as much as possible of the existing parkway on the east side of Baldwin Avenue in the construction of the Baldwin extension is the desire of the City as well as the residents south of Colorado and that the City has been working with the County toward this end; however, that this matter is not controlled by the present freeway plan and is another consideration. 8. 3- 5- 63 I I G' '. PLANNJ:NG DEPARTMENT FEES (F:Rev,Fees) 1963-64 GAS TAX BUDGET J ,,16 15:5923 Mr. John Saunders, 841 San Sime?n Road, addressed the Council and thanked it for, its support. He commended the staff for its work in endeavoring to have the silhouette lowered to t~e lowest possible level and urged t~at the Council be d~ligent in noting that no marked change in the eievation is made unless it is lowe~. , 't '" Councilman Reibold MOVED that the Council accept the recommendation of the City Manager and approve the revised plarys in principle, with a request to the State Division of Highways traF the four foot berm, or a four foot wall be constructed,where berm'construct<~n is impract~cal, along the south line, be included in the fi~al const.uction plans; that the State Division of Highways be requesteq' to relocate the railroaq and construct the Baldwin Avenue overpass aF the earliest possible date so that Baldwin Avenue, between Colorado an~ Foothill Blvd. may be opened prior to' completion of the'freeway, ~n~ that there be no ,marked change in elevation (unless lower) from the"prospectus submitted. Councilman Balser seconded the'motion which was carried unanimously with the exception of Councilman Turner, who abstafned from voting. MOTION by Councilman Balser, seconded by Copncilman Reibold and carried unanimously that the Council accept "the rec~mmendation of the City Manager and authorize the following changes in the fee schedule pertain- ing to matters coming before the Planning Commission and the City Council relating to planning matters: Present ,Recommended Appeals from Application ,Fe~ Fee Planning Commission Zone Change $25.00 $i25.00 Variance 35.00 125.00 $100.00 Special Use Permit 35.00 125.00 100,00 Modification 10.00 10.00 10.00 Subdivision' 25,00 plus 50.00 1.00 per lot Lot Splits 10.00 50.00 25.00 The City Manager submitted a report of the Engineering Division of the Department of Public Works for budgeting of gas tax funds for the fiscal year 1963-64 and recommendation that the following projects be budgeted from the following available funds: FUNDS AVAILABLE: Unbudgeted balance - State Unbudgeted balance - County Estimated Balances to become Available from Completed Projects $ 9,372.97..,"" 20,867.23 75,575.39 ESTIMATED TO ACCRUE - 1963-64: State County TOTAL AVAILABLE 128,430.00 32,000.00 $266,245,59 PROJECTS TO BE BUDGETED FROM AVAILABLE FUNDS: 1. Reconstruction and resurfacing of Santa Anita Ave. from Orange Grove to Grandview Avenues 2. Widening of Campus Drive, Arcadia Wash to Holly, including signal & channelization modification at Holly 3. City wide maintenance program 4. Additional amount for widening Duarte Road from Holly to Baldwin Avenues 5. Traffic Signals on Live Oak at Greenfield,' Las Tunas at El Monte and Santa Anita at Diamond $ 50,000.00 48,000.00 45,000.00 66,000.00 45,000.00 TOTAL $254,000.00 9. 3- 5- 63 ST. JOSEPH ST. (Vacation) F,~ r'f/~ HARNESS RAe ING SEASON (Allocation) J:~ RADIO TECHNICIAN (Locher) tli . , . 61 ~ I '--' ' 'M-'~ WATER DEPARTNENT (Records) ", ~ ,;':. . /.1 " ,'J (~,) 15:5924 Councilman Turner inquired as to when the narrowing of the island south of Foothill Boulevard on Santa Anita Avenue is contemplated and a left hand turn pocket provided, commenting that in his opinion this is one of the biggest bottle-necks the City has traffic-wise. The City Manager replied that no plans had been prepared in that matter except to schedule it for the time the freeway construction is started, for the reason that there will be a co~siderable amount of change in Santa Anita Avenue between Colorado and Foothill Boulevard as a result of the freeway construction; that the State will undertake the widening and the adding of additional lanes as approaches to the freeway on and off ramps are considered, I The City Manager further stated, in answer to Councilman Turner's suggestion that some relief be obtained in that area at this time, that some plans could be prepared to include the subject block; that the City will have some additional funds and that another recommendation would be made to the Council. Councilman Turner then MOVED that the Council accept the recommendation of the City Manager and the Director of Public Works and approve the above projects as the Gas Tax Program for 1963-64, and authorize the Director of Public Works to prepare the project statements and resolutions for submission to the Council. Councilman Balser seconded the motion which was carried on roll call vote as follows: AYES: Councilmen Balser, Reibold, Turner, Butterworth NOES: None ABSENT: Councilman Phillips MOTION by Councilman Balser, seconded by Councilman Turner and carried unanimously that the Council accept the recommendation of the City Manager and defer action on the request from the A & A Building Material Company to vacate a portion of St, Joseph Street, east of Front Street, pending'the filing of a final report by the Planning Consultants. MOTION by Councilman Reibold, seconded by Councilman Balser and carried on roll call vote as follows that the Council accept the recommendation of the City Manager and authorize the transfer and appropriation of the sum of $8,200.00 from the Unappropriated Surplus Account No. 290 in the General Fund to Police Department Account No. 421-3b for extra traffic control in connection with the 1963 Harness Racing Season: AYES: Councilmen Balser, Reibold, Turner, Butterworth NOES: None ABSENT: Councilman Phillips The City Manager presented for Council's ratification a modifying agreement between the City and Albert Locher to repair and maintain the radio equipment of the City. I Discussion was held regarding Councilman Turner's query regarding the sick leave accumulation clause and of making it retroactive; that he would favor the agreement being more specific. Thereafter Mayor Butterworth requested the agreement to be clarified in line with the discussion held and resubmitted to the Council for its consideration at the next Council meeting (March 19, 1963). The Council indicating its determination that pursuant to Section 34090 of the Government Code the Water Department Inventory Records more than five years old could be destroyed inasmuch as they have been audited and are no longer required, the City Attorney presented, explained the 10. ) 3- 5- 63 I I RESOLUTION NO. 3554 RESURFACING 1962-63 - No. 2 - Job No, 279 r[", q 70 .5' COMPLETION , OF WORK' (Traffic ~ignals)' , gq&O COMPLETION OF WORK (Orange Grove No. 5 Hell ) } ~,n .. ",' 15::;925 content and read the title of Resolution No. 3554, entitled: lOA RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA, AUTHORIZING THE DESTRUCTION OF WATER DEPARTME~ INVENTORY RECORDS OVER FIVE YEARS OLD." MOTION by Councilman Turner, seconded on roll call vote ,as follows that the Resolution, No. 3554 be waived: , , by Councilman, Reibold and carried reading of the full body of AYES: Councilmen Balser, Reibold, Turner, Butterworth , , NOES: None ABSENT: Councilman Phillips Councilman Turner further MOVED that Resolution No. 3554 be adopted. Motion seconded by Councilman Reibold and carried on roll call vote as follows: AYES: Councilmen Balser, Reibold, Turner, Butterworth NOES: None ABSENT: Councilman Phillips MOTION by Councilman Reibold, seconded by Cpuncilman Balser and car~ied unanimously that the Council accept the recommendation of the City , Manager and the Director of Public Works and' 'approve the plans and specifications' for the resurfacing of the following streets, the program to be financed from State Gas Tax f4nds and State Highway Maintenance funds, and that the City Clerk be authorized to advertise for bids to be: received March 18, 1963 at li~oo A.M.: " Cortez Road Victoria Drive El Sur Avenue Southerly 20 feet of Colorado Street Colorado 'Street ' Columbia Road to Coronado 'Drive Magellan Road to Golden West ,Avenue Tenth Aven~e to Mayflower Avenue Michillinda Blvd. to Princeton Road " Princeton ~oad to Upper Y I: , MOTION by Councilman 'Balser, seconded by C~uncilman Reibold and carried on rOll,call vote as follows that the Counci~' approve the recommend~iion of ,the 'City Manager and the Director of Pubj.ic Works and accept the' work'of C. D. Draucker, Inc. for the installation of traffic signals " , ,(Job No. 264) and authorize ,final payment to,be made in accordance' with the contr~ct with said f{rm for such wotk, and the bond released after 'the expiration of the required 35 daY#1 , " ,'- AYES: Councilmen Balser, Reibold, Turner, ,Butterworth NOES: None ABSENT: Councilman Phillips MOTION by Councilman Turner, seconded by COHncilman Balser and carri~d on roll call vote as follows that the Council approve the recommendation of the City Manager and the Water Superinten~ent and accept the work'of Roscoe Moss Company for the drilling, casi~g. perforating, developing and testing of a 16 inch water well known as:Orange Grove No.5 as satisfactorily completed and authorize final payment at the expiration of the 35 day time limit as prescribed in the contract with said firm for such work: ' AYES: Councilmen Balser, Reibold, Turner, Butterworth NOES: None ABSENT: Councilman Phillips 11. 3-5-63 BUSINESS PERMIT (Gallal) ~ qc, ~ REFUND (Gillis) g~~ ORDINANCE NO. 1196 (Adopted) .1-'.' q.-:.-:t RESOLUTION NO. 3556 '1. q~j ~ 15:5926 MOTION by Councilman Turner, seconded by Councilman Balser and carried unanimously that the Council approve the request of Joseph C. Gallal to withdraw his application for a business permit to establish and operate a 20 table billiard room at 37 East Huntington Drive and that such application is herewith withdrawn and the permit revoked. Mayor Butterworth stated for the record that Mr. Gallal was granted the subject permit by a 3 to 2 vote of the Council at its meeting of February 19, 1963; that he consulted an attorney and was advised that he had a chance to stand on the permit; that it developed there was considerable opposition due to this; that Mr. Gallal sacrificed his own personal interests, business desires and wishes for the benefit of the Downtown Business Area in order to accommodate himself as a citizen to the problems of the downtown area; that he took pleasure in publicly commending Mr. Gallal for his attitude in this matter; that he is to be congratulated; that he has demonstrated that he is a fine and very outstanding citizen of the community and that he thought he has made a very constructive step toward the important development of the downtown area ,in that he has eased a tension that built up on this matter. I MOTION by Councilman Turner, seconded by Councilman Balser and carried on roll call vote as follows that Council accept the recommendation of the License Officer and authorize the refund of $18,75 to Stuart A. Gillis, being a portion of the license fee for a business which he sold: AYES: Councilmen Balser, Reibold, Turner, Butterworth NOES: None ABSENT: Councilman Phillips The City Attorney presented for the second time, explained the content and read the title of Ordinance No. 1196, entitled: "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING THE ARCADIA MUNICIPAL CODE BY ADDING THERETO A NEW SECTION 6425.10 ENTITLED I SAME. SAME. NEWSPAPERS I ." MOTION by Councilman Reibold, seconded by Councilman Turner and carried on roll call vote as follows that the reading of the full body of Ordinance No. 1196 be waived: AYES: Councilmen Balser, Reibold, Turner, Butterworth NOES: None ABSENT: Councilman Phi'l1ips Councilman Reibold further MOVED that Ordinance No. 1196 be adopted. Motion seconded by Councilman Turner and carried on roll call vote as follows: AYES: Councilmen Balser, Reibold, Turner, Butterworth NOES: None ABSENT: Councilman Phillips I The City Attorney presented, explained the content and read the title 0 Resolution No. 3556, entitled: "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA, REQUESTING EXCLUSION FROM THE UNIFIED SEWER MAINTENANCE DISTRICT OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY OF THAT PORTION OF SAID DISTRICT INCLUDED WITHIN THE CITY OF ARCADIA BY REASON OF ANNEXATION NO. 30, SOUTHEAST ARCADIA UNINHABITED." MOTION by Councilman Balser, seconded by Councilman Turner and carried on roll call vote as follows that the reading of the full body of Resolution No, 3556 be waived: AYES: Councilmen Balser, Reibold, Turner, Butterworth NOES: None ABSENT: Councilman Phillips 12. 3-5-63 I I RESOLUTION NO. 3557 'r " ." 1: q ,J.. ,-,' -' RESOLUTION NO. 3558 f1~ RESOLUTION NO. 3559 j, \'(':~, 15:5927 Councilman Balser further MOVED that Resolution No. 3556 be adopted. Motion seconded by Councilman Turner and carried on roll call vote as follows: AYES: Councilmen Balser, Reibold, Turner, Butterworth NOES: None ABSENT: Councilma~ Phillips The City Attorney presented, explained the ~ortent and read the tit~e of Resolution No. 3557, entitled: "A RESOLUTfON OF THE CITY COUNCIL 'pF THE CITY OF ARCAIlIA, CALIFORNIA, DECLARING It, ?ORTION OF LOS ANGELES' , COUNTY CONSOLIDATED FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT INCLUDED WITHIN THE CITY OF 'ARCADIA BY REASON OF ANNEXATION NO. 30, SOUTHEAST ARCADIA UNINHABITED IHTHDRAWN FROM ~UCH DISTRICT." ~",; , , MOTION by Counct~man Turner, seconded on roll call vote as follows that the 'Resolution No. 3557 be waived: by Councilman Reibold and carried ,I, : reading of the full body of :t., Ii '~ AYES: Councilmen Balser, Reibold, NOES: None ABSENT: Councilman Phillips Turner, Butterworth :t';; Councilman Turner further MOVED that Resolution No. 3557 be adopted. Motion seconded by Councilman Balser and car~ied on roll call vote as follows: AYES: Councilmen Balser, Reibold, Turner, Butterworth NOES: None ABSENT: Councilman Phillips The City Attorney presented, explained the content and read the title of Resolution No. 3558, entitled: "A RESOLUTION OF TIlE CITY CqUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA, DENYING A REQUESTED VARIANCE TO ALLOW TO REMAIN'A CARPORT ILLEGALLY CONSTRUCTED ON PROPERTY AT 1122 WEST HUNTINGTON'DRIVE IN SAID CITY." MOTION by Councilman Reibold, seconded by Councilman Balser and carried on roll call vote as follows that the reading of the'full body of Resolution No. 3558 be waived: AYES: Councilmen Balser, Reibold, Turner, Butterworth NOES: None ABSENT: Councilman Phillips Councilman Reibold further MOVED that Resolution No. 3558 be adopted. Motion second~d by Councilman Turner and car~ied on roll call vote as follows: AYES: Councilmen Balser, Reibold, Turner, Butterworth NOES: None ABSENT: Councilman Phillips The City Attorney presented, explained the content and read the title of Resolution No. 3559, entitled: "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING REVISED PLANS FOR A CHURCH TO BE CONSTRUCTED AT 110-118 WEST DUARTE ROAD UNDER A VARIANCE HERETOFORE GRANTED FOR SUCH PURPOSES." MOTION by Councilman Balser, seconded by Councilman Turner and carried on roll call vote as follows that the reading of the full body of Resolution No. 3559 be waived: AYES: Councilmen Balser, Reibold, Turner, Butterworth NOES: None ABSENT: Councilman Phillips 13. 3- 5-63 15:5928 Councilman Balser further MOVED that Res61ution,No. 3559 be adopted. Motion seconded by Councilman Turner and carried on roll call vote as follows: AYES: Councilmen Balser, Reibold, Turner, Butterworth NOES: N;'ne ABSENT: Councilman Phillips AUDIENCE PARTICIPATION No one in the audience desired to address the Council. I }~TTERS FROM THE C~TY,OFFICIALS There' ~~fe no matters from the City Cfficials. ARCADIA Pete John~6n, of the Student 'Governing Body of the Arcadia High School, HIGH SCHOOL acting as Mayor, expressed the appreciation of the body for the (Student opportunity afforded to observe City Government in action. Governing Body) ADJOURNMENT At 10:00 P.M. Mayor Butterworth adjourned the meeting. ~Jl(jJ~ Mayor Butterworth ATTEST: f~-I~17/U~ 'urn 7?w~ City Clerk I -14. ' 3- 5-63