HomeMy WebLinkAboutJULY 27,1961
]
ROLL CALL
ZONE CHANGE
(Miller)
if!!
trNnEXED
I
14:5421
M I NUT E S
CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA
ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING
JULY 27, 1961
Pursuant to the order of adjournment of the regular meeting of the City
Council of July 18, 1961, the City Council of the City of Arcadia met in
regular adjourned session in the Council Chamber of the City Hall at
8:00 P.M., July 27, 1961.
PRESENT:
ABSENT :
Councilmen Butterworth, Reibold, Phillips, Balser
Councilman Camphouse
This being a joint meeting of the Council and th~ Planning Commission
for the primary purpose of in general discussing the proposed commercial
development adjace~t to the West Arcadia shopping area, and specifically
the determination of the requested zone change of Ellen Miller, et al from
Zone R-l and R-2 to C-3 and D for six lots on the north side of Naomi
Avenue east of Baldwin Avenue, Mayor Balser welcomed the presence of
Planning Commissioners: Acker, Ferguson, Forman, Norton and Rutherford.
At the request of Mayor Balser, Planning Director Phelps reviewed the
subject area, illustrating it by various sketches. He stated in part
that it has been predicted that Arcadia's population would eventually
increase to approximately 60,000; that the City is presently in position
to be selective in its zoning but must act quickly; that the status quo
for residential projects in the area is impossible. He emphasized that
all existing residential parcels on both sides of Naomi Ave~ue as well as
the west side of Lovell Avenue could be integrated into the existing
West Arcadia business section without local streets suffef~ng from traffic
problems and that he estimated that 13,000 cars could mov~~in the 26 acre
,
section.
Mayor Balser requested the Planning Commissioners to summarize their
feelings regarding the requested zone change, stating that although
their resolution recommended denial it was assumed by the Council, from
the contents of their minutes and from statements made in discussions,
that the denial was based on disapproval of spot zoning rather than of
the requested zone change, and also the desire for an opportunity to rest~dy
the entire area as a whole.
Planning Commissioner Acker stated in substance that the requested zone
change was recommended for denial by the Planning Commission to enable a
further study after the public hearing and the meeting with the home
owners group, in order to consider the suggestions made, to evaluate the
area and thereafter reach a compromise as to a buffer zone in its proper
ratio; that the Planning Commission has not yet had this opportunity and
that the members are presently not in position to make any comments
except to go on record that in their estimation a study should be made.
Mayor Balser stated that the Council feels an obligation to decide on the
matter inasmuch as it has been under consideration for such a long period,
and that it had been Council's opinion that by correlating the thoughts
of the Commission with that of the Council a decision could be expedited.
Commissioners Forman, Rutherford and Ferguson agreed with Commissioner
Acker's statements and Commissioner Norton had no statement to make at
that time.
To Mayor Balser's request for comments from members of the audience, the
following persons spoke:
1.
7-27-61
14:5422
Mr. Robert Considine, 329 West Naomi Avenue, stated in part that he felt
Arcadia residents were entitled to a definitive statement regarding zoning.
He further commented that there were numerous vacant stores in the present
commercial areas and that it seemed futile in his opinion to add more
commercial zoning that might ultimately become run-down business properties.
Mr. Clarence Skinner, 1229 Lovell Avenue, stated in part that in his
opinion, after several years of consideration that the time is now opportune
for action; that he did not favor more apartment buildings but did favor
commercial development that would benefit the City.
Mr. Paul R. Hackstedde, 333 West Camino Real Avenue stated in part that
inasmuch as Arcadia has home rule the residents may choose the kind of r
city they want; that if the population rises to 60,000 there will probably
be more multiple dwellings than single family dwellings, at which time the
reputation of the City would be changed from that of a city of homes to a
city of apartment dwellers and service areas and that this would mean loss
in porperty values. That from all evidence heard, nothing has been said
as to the City needing more commercial zoning.
Mr. Henry H. Hege, attorney for the subject applicants, stated in part
that if there is an increase in population in Arcadia it will be advantageous
to the people living within that area to have shopping facilities available.
He further reiterated statements he had previously made that the subject
six lots are surrounded by commercial zoning; that the applicants have no
objections to the suggested restrictions as set forth in the staff report
submitted to the Council July 5, 1961 and discussed at the July 18, 1961
Council meeting, and that said applicants have a sincere desire to provide
a commercial enterprise of ',which the City would be proud.
Mr. Del Johnson, 250 West Camino Real Avenue, stated in part that it had
been suggested at the informal meeting between the Planning Commission and
the West Arcadia Home Owners Association that a buffer of 180 feet from
Camino Real Avenue and the same distance between the homes on the east side
of Lovell Avenue and the commercial development across the street could be
devised; that they did not object to the subject six lots being zoned
commercial but felt they should be considered as part of the whole area;
that it was felt a commercial development to the rear is more desirable
than having to face it.
Mr. W. Harold Sumner, 375 West Camino Real Avenue,stated in part that he
thought the matter had previously been resolved by the vote of the
majority that they did not want further commercial development in the
West Arcadia area, and that he would like to know if this question must
be resolved every year.
Mr. R. Hatter, 315 West Las Flores Avenue, stated in part that the question
not answered is whether this commercial section is necessary in view of
the proposed commercial area on Santa Anita and Live Oak Avenues, and
that in his opinion the Planning Director should study this aspect. I
Mayor Balser commented that he believes the Council does consider Arcadia
a City of distinctive homes; that in his opinion there is a sufficiency
if not over-abundance of R-3 zoning in the City and that it is necessary
to study further the matter of commercial zoning in that even a city of
homes must have a certain amount of commercial zoning. At his request
the following comments were then made by the Councilmen:
Councilman Phillips stated in part that during the past six years there
have been approximately 38 zone changes or variances granted by the
Council; that in the suggested area the residents would be protected by
a wide green belt, which has proven successful on Michillinda across the
street from commercial; that Mr. Johnson's suggestion regarding backing
away 180 feet from Lovell Avenue has merit but also would create problems
such as splitting ownerships, the relocation of improvements, etc. but
that this could be explored. That although it is incumbent upon the
2.
7-27-61
I
,l.".
rm~;v
I
14:5423
Planning Commission to restudy the area around West Arcadia and try to
determine a fixed point beyond which commercial will not move, he did
not believe the subject six lots should be included in such study as the
applicants are entitled to relief now. That with the assistance of the
Planning Director the area study could be made rapidly, with hearings
before the Planning Commission and report to the Council.
Councilman Reibold stated in part that in his opinion a shopping area in
West Arcadia would not necessarily draw people from miles around inasmuch
as there are numerous shopping areas outside the City boundaries. That
the vacant stores are due to the change in the shopping habits of people
who want to shop where there is ample parking within a short distance of
the shopping area; that an influx of people seems eminent. That spot
zoning does not include the subject six lots inasmuch as they are
completely surrounded by commercial zoning; that he thought Mr. Johnson's
suggestion regarding the south boundary has merit but the proposed
boundary on the east side needs further study.
Councilman Butterworth stated in part that in his opinion it is the think-
ing of the Council and the Planning Commission that the line be held on
further R-3 zoning and that there should be a definitive plan as to the
future zoning of the City; that in view of the fact that the subject six
lots would in all likelihood be zoned C-3 Council should give some thought
to their being zoned C-3 at this time, but that he would be opposed to
extending this further until there has been an overall plan decided upon
by the Planning Department and approved by the Council and the Planning
Commission, and that this should not take a great length of time.
Planning Commissioners Acker and Norton then stated in substance that they
felt the entire matter, including the subject six lots, should be again
referred to the Planning Commission for its recommendation; that although
the commissioners concur that C-3 is indicated on the subject six lots,
in view of the informal meeting with the Home Owners Association and the
hearing it is Planning Commission's recommendation that the entire area
should be restudied.
It being the consensus of the Council that no further action be taken on
the rest of the area, excluding the subject six lots, until definitive
action is taken, Councilman Butterworth moved that Council disapprove the
recommendation of the Planning Commission as contained in its Resolution
No. 409, and grant the zone change request of Ellen Miller, et al from
Zone R-l and R-2 to Zone C-3 and D for six lots on the north side of
Naomi Avenue east of Baldwin Avenue, said zone change to include the
conditions contained in the Planning Commission report of June 26, 1961
as submitted to the Council July 5, 1961, which are as follows:
1. The southerly 12 feet of lots 5 to 10, inclusive, Tract No. 4611,
shall be dedicated or offered for dedication to the City of Arcadia
for the widening of Naomi Avenue.
2. That either the easterly 15 feet of lots 1, 2, 3 and 4 and the
westerly 15 feet of lot 5 of Tract No. 4611, or the westerly 30 feet
of said lot 5 be dedicated or offered for dedication to the City of
Arcadia for alley purposes.
3. All properties required by items 1 and 2 hereinabove to be offered
or dedicated for street or alley purposes be improved to City standards,
or that a cash or surety bond in the estimated amount of the cost of
such improvements, as determined by the City Engineer, be deposited with
the City of Arcadia.
4. No building shall be erected or maintained on the southerly 27 feet
of lots 5 to 10, inclusive. At least 9 feet of the southerly 15 feet of
that portion of each of said lots remaining after the dedication of the
southerly 12 feet for street purposes shall be suitably landscaped and
maintained.
3.
7-27-61
RECESS
ACQUISITION
OF PROPERTY
(Duarte Rd,)
1~A1:)
INDEXED
14:5424
5, Signs shall be
building frontage.
and no flashing or
one square foot of
to be mounted flat
to be allowed,
area for each foot of
against the building
limited to
All signs
roof signs
6, All lighting of the above described areas and the buildings thereon
shall be directed away from adjoining residential property,
7. All plans shall be submitted to the Planning Commission for approval
as to plot plan, architectural treatment, walls, landscaping and signs
before issuance of a building permit,
8, Lots 5 to 10 inclusive shall be developed contemporaneously as a I
unit and as one building site.
9. The Planning Commission or City Council may modify any of the fore-
going conditions if such modification will not adversely affect property
or improvements in the vicinity and if such modification will equally
accomplish substantially the same results as will the adherence to the
foregoing conditions,
10, All of the dedications or offers of dedication required in items 1
and 2 above, and the improvement of such dedications or the deposit of
the bond required by item 3 above shall be complied with prior to the
rezoning becoming effective and operative,
Councilman Reibold seconded the motion which was carried on roll call
vote as follows:
AYES: Councilmen Butterworth, Reibold, Phillips, Balser
NOES: None
ABSENT: Councilman Camphouse
At 9:40 P.M. Mayor Balser declared a recess.
The meeting reconvened at 9:45 P.M.
The City Manager advised that in compliance with instructions of the City
Council of July 18, 1961, negotiations were commenced for the acquisition
by the City of certain property on Duarte Road west of City-owned property;
that an agreement has been reached for the assignment of options held in
escrow at the Citizens National Bank of Arcadia for the following land:
Parcel Address Lot Tract Width Area Price Cost
No, No , .!i2.....- ii.Ll (sq. ft. ) - Sq, Ft.
3 68 W, Duarte Rd. 11 6074 100 37,057,2 $30,250 .8163
4 72 W. Duarte Rd. 12 6074 111 38,928,4 26,400 .678
6 100 W, Duarte Rd. 70 23,754.5 23,509 .9893
(Eas t 70 feet of part of Lot 4, Santa Anita Colony)
Totals: 281 99,740,1 $80,159 .8036
(Price includes title policy and all escrow costs) .
Recommendation of City Manager that the Council authorize the acquisitio
of said property and that a warrant in the total amount be drawn and pai
to the Escrow Department of the Citizens National Bank, Arcadia Branch.
Councilman Phillips stated, concurred in by the other members, that it is
imperative that the City gain control of the subject land and permit the
City Manager to proceed with negotiations for the acquisition of Parcels
2 and 5,
Councilman Phillips then moved that the Council accept the recommendation
of the City Manager and authorize the acquisition of the property listed
above at the prices above outlined and that the sum of $80,159 be trans-
ferred and appropriated from unappropriated surplus account No, 290 in
the General Fund to Capital Improvement Projects Fund, Account No. 614; and
4.
7-27-61
"'\
I
ACQUISITION
OF PACIFIC
ELECTRIC
RAILWAY
PROPERTY
~Jbq ~
If
INDEXED
I
14:5425
that a warrant in the total amount of $80,159.00 be drawn and paid to
the Escrow Department of the Citizens National Bank, Arcadia Branch.
Councilman Butterworth seconded the motion which was carried on roll
call vote as follows:
AYES: Councilmen Butterworth, Reibold, Phillips, Balser
NOES: None
ABSENT: Councilman Camphouse
The City Manager stated that under date of AprilS, 1960 he was
authorized to negotiate the purchase of a part of the former right of
way fronting on Huntington Drive for reasons set forth in report on
file in office of the City Clerk, for the sum of $25,250 ($1.645
per square foot or $329 per front foot). That under date of August 9,
1960 his office notified the Pacific Electric Railway Company that the
City was desirous of negotiating for the acquisition of a sufficient
portion of its right of way to provide an outlet to Santa Anita Avenue
and received their offer to sell the portion required for the sum of
$165,450. (Land required: 2.015 acres more or less at approximately
$1.86 per square foot). That on February 21, 1961 an appraisal of said
land was authorized, and further negotiations with the Pacific Electric
Railway resulted in their offer to sell the entire 5.716 acre parcel for
the sum of $397,400 which they had valued at $460,000, which would leave
a total of $231,950 for the balance of 3.701 acres. (The appraiser
estimated this 3.701 acres at $238,235).
The City Manager continued, stating in substance that since the property
is zoned for manufacturing (M-l), it is felt that control of its eventual
development should be in the hands of the City; that the property owners
to the south, who now front on Morlan Place, could be contacted regarding
the sale of the property for the purpose of adding to the depth of their
property so that adequate frontage, with a depth, could be developed on
the new frontage created by the new street construction, this to be
accomplished by moving the street north of the location if only the 2.015
acres were acquired. Also that surrounding property values could be
increased under such a program and further development in the area
encouraged.
The City Manager then recommended that Council authorize action on one of
five suggestions as listed in his report of July 25, 1961 (on file in
office of the City Clerk).
Lengthy discussion ensued. It was stated that the purchase of this
property is the first opportunity that the City has had to do something
tangible for the downtown area and that a large portion of the purchase
price could probably be recovered in the appreciated value to the rear of
the property with the extension and construction of Santa Clara Street.
It was also suggested that a resolution be prepared for submission to the
Council at the Council meeting of August 1, 1961 with a notice of intent
to condemn, to be mailed to the company with a final offer. The City
Attorney pointed out that the submission of a new offer cancels all out-
standing offers. He also explained the ramifications of condemnation
proceedings, including the approximate cost which he estimated at about
$10,000. That it is a matter for Councilmanic determination, based on
the evidence presented by the City Manager, as to whether the price is
unduly high.
Councilman Butterworth felt that on a cash sale a price could be negotiated
somewhere between $350,000 and $375,000 and suggested that the City ~illnager
telephone the home office of the Pacific Electric Company in Boston with
an offer of $375,000.
5.
7-27-61
WATER DEPT.
(Equipmen t)
'7; ~-d-
INDEXED
CADWALLADER
PROPERTY
~
RESOLUTION
NO. 3401
v
RESOLUTION
NO. 3402
V
INDEXED
14:5426
Councilman Butterworth then moved that Council authorize the City Manager
to telephone the home office of the Pacific Electric Railway Company in
Boston and make an offer of $375,000 for the acquisition of their property
consisting of 5.716 acres. Councilman Phillips seconded the motion which
was carried on roll call vote as follows:
AYES: Councilmen Butterworth, Reibold, Phillips, Balser
NOES: None
ABSENT: Councilman Camphouse
The City Manager advised that funds have been provided in the Water
Department budget for the purchase of a Mobile Hydraulic Hammer. I
Motion by Councilman Reibold, seconded by Councilman Phillips and carrie
on roll call vote as follows that Council accept the recommendation of
the City Manager and the Purchasing Officer and authorize the acceptance
of the proposal of Crook Company of Los Angeles, California; that a
purchase order be issued in the amount of $8,495 for an "Arrow Mobile
Hydraulic Hammer No. G200" with dual drive wheels and tires, tamper
attachment and asphalt cutting head, said amount including all a~~licable
taxes, F.O.B. Arcadia:
AYES: Councilmen Butterworth, Reibold, Phillips, Balser
NOES: None
ABSENT: Councilman Camphouse
Motion by Councilman Butterworth, seconded by Councilman Reibold and
carried unanimously that the matter of the proposed acquisition of
Cadwallader property north of Huntington Drive, south of the abandoned
p. E. right of way, east of Third Avenue and west of the Wash, be tabled
until the matter of the acquisition of the Pacific Electric Railway
property is determined.
The City Attorney presented, explained the content and read the title of
Resolution No. 3401, entitled: "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA, RESCINDING RESOLUTION NO. 3399."
Motion by Councilman Phillips, seconded by Councilman Reibold and carried
on roll call vote as follows that the reading of the full body of
Resolution No, 3401 be waived:
AYES: Councilmen Butterworth, Reibold, Phillips, Balser
NOES: None
ABSENT: Councilman Camphouse
Councilman Phillips further moved that Resolution No, 3401 be adopted.
Motion seconded by Councilman Butterworth and carried on roll call vote
as follows:
AYES: Councilmen Butterworth, Reibold, Phillips, Balser I
NOES: None
ABSENT: Councilman Camphouse
The City Attorney presented, explained the content and read the title of
Resolution No, 3402, entitled: "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA, REQUESTING FROM THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF
THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES CERTAIN GASOLINE TAX FUNDS FOR THE IMPROVE~mNT
OF FOOTHILL BOULEVARD, A PUBLIC STREET IN SAID CITY OF ARCADIA."
~~tion by Councilman Reibold, seconded by Councilman Butterworth and
carried on roll call vote as follows that the reading of the full body
of Resolution No. 3402 be waived:
AYES: Councilman Butterworth, Reibold, Phillips, Balser
NOES: None
ABSENT: Councilman Camphouse
6.
7-27-61
14:5427
Councilman Reibold further moved that Resolution No. 3402 be adopted.
Motion seconded by Councilman Phillips and carried on roll call vote
as fo llows :
AYES: Councilmen Butterworth, Reibold, Phillips, Balser
NOES: None
ABSENT: Councilman Camphouse
I
!ft,q/P
Mr. W. W. Steiner, speaking from the audience, identified himself as
an employee of the Pacific Electric Company, connected with the real
estate department, and expressed interest in the proposed P.E. property
acquisition matter discussed at this meeting.
p. E. RAILWAY
ADJOUR~D At 10:25 P.M. Councilman Butterworth moved that the meeting adjourn.
Motion seconded by Councilman Reibold and carried unanimously.
~,~~-'--<)
M Balser
ATTEST:
~~/%a )Cl7U~
City Clerk
I
7.
7-27-61