No preview available
HomeMy WebLinkAboutOCTOBER 17,1961 I: INVOCATION ROLL CAL:!.. APPROVAL OF MINUTES (10-3-61 & 10-10-61) HEARING (Richards) 14: 5499 M I NUT E S CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA REGULAR MEETING OCTOBER 17, 1961 The City Council of the City of Arcadia met in regular session in the Council Chamber of the City Hall at 8:00 o'clock P.M., October 17, 1961. The Invocation was offered by Councilman Butterworth. PRESENT: ABSENT: Councilmen Butterworth, Camphouse, Reibold, Phillips, Balser None MOTION by Councilman Phillips, seconded by Councilman Reibold and carried unanimously that the minutes of the Regular Meeting of October 3, 1961 and the Adjourned Regular Meeting of October 10, 1961 be approved as submitted in writing. Mayor Balser declared the hearing open on the application of Michael L. Richards, 1978 E. Orange Grove Blvd., Pasadena, for a business permit to solicit door to door for work of repairing Electrolux equipment, Mondays through Saturdays, 9:00 A.M. to 5:00 P.M. and evenings by appointment; and inquired if anyone in the audience desired to address the Council regarding the matter. Mr. Richards, the applicant, addressed the Council, and in answer to various '~L.I~questions, advised that he had been employed by the Electrolux Corporation ~j /~ for approximately 15 years. That he worked alone and that he also sold new equipment. Upon the City Clerk advising that his application only stated that he solicited service, the applicant advised that he had inadvertently ~~ omitted this information from the application. That he was aware of the fact that there was presently a permit issued to another person in Arcadia soliciting Electrolux sales and service but that he felt that due to the population increase the area warranted additional coverage; that the parent company did not award routes to their personnel, this being left to the discretion of the individual representatives. J 1 No one else desiring to be heard Councilman Camphouse MOVED that the hearing be closed. Councilman Butterworth seconded the motion which was carried unanimously. Councilman Camphouse further ~ that, in view of the fact that the application is not explicit as to the desires of the applicant as well as the overlapping of representation in the area without any apparent discrimi- nation on the part of the parent company, the Council find and determine that the granting of the permit and the conduct of the business for which the permit was requested will be detrimental to the public welfare of the City of Arcadia and the inhabitants thereof and that the Council deny the application of Michael L. Richards for a business permit to solicit door to door for work of repairing Electrolux equipment. Councilman Phillips seconded the motion. Councilman Butterworth stated in part that he felt it would be discriminatory if another person is authorized to sell Electrolux equipment in Arcadia and the applicant is not; that in his opinion the Council has to be consistent and bar everyone or allow the applicant to solicit; that in his opinion the applicant would not be saturating the community and that he should be permitted to amend his application in lieu of filing a new one. Also that he would like to see the anti-solicitation ordinance come before the Council so that the Council can adopt a consistent policy; that in view of the circumstances he does not know why the applicant should not solicit. 1. 10-17-61 HEARING (Wigdahl) 17/"",, I ~ J"-:" O:NDEXED HEARING (McBane) ..J -; 7 ')~ INDEXED 14:5500 The following roll call was then taken of the above motion: AYES: Councilmen Camphouse, Phillips, Balser NOES: Councilmen Butterworth, Reibold ABSENT: None Mayor Balser declared the hearing open on the application of Panorama Bowl, Inc., doing business as Santa Anita Bowl, by Arthur E. Wigdahl, 278 Granada, Long Beach, Vice President and Assistant Secretary of Panorama Bowl, Inc., for a business permit to operate as new owners, the bowling alley and billiard tables at 188 West Las Tunas Drive, Arcadia, known as Santa Anita Bowl, and inquired if anyone in the audience desired to address the Council regarding the matter. 1 Mr. Arthur E. Wigdahl addressed the Council and in answer to various questions, advised that his corporation is interested in four bowling alleys at the present time, located in Long Beach, Pasadena and Wilmington. That his corporation has under construction a bowling alley in Granada Hills and in Santa Paula. That his company is a corporation, owning the majority interest in Panorama Bowl; that his corporation both owns and operates the facilities and is well known to fully cooperate with any municipality wherein their bowls are located. That extensive cleaning up and refurbishing is anticipated; and that they understood and would comply with any City restrictions as to the sale of liquor. No one else desiring to be heard Councilman Reibold MOVED that the hearing be closed. Councilman Butterworth seconded the motion which was carried unanimously. After discussion as to restrictions incorporated in the permit granted the previous owner of Santa Anita Bowl, Councilman Reibold MOVED that the Council authorize the issuance of a business permit to Panorama Bowl, Inc. to operate as new owners the bowling alley and billiard tables at 188 West Las Tunas Drive, Arcadia, known as the'Santa Anita Bowl, upon the same conditions as were last imposed and in effect in the existing permit at the same location, including but not limited to the prohibition against the selling of liquor on the lanes, and that there continue to be no direct entry from the bar to the lanes. Councilman Butterworth seconded the motion which was carried on roll call vote as follows: AYES: Councilmen Butterworth, Camphouse, Reibold, Phillips, Balser NOES: None ABSENT: None Mayor Balser declared that this is the time set by Resolution No. 3410 for the Council to hear protests made by any person owning real property with- in the territory proposed to be annexed (1167 West Duarte Road - Lot I, Tract No. 10815), and to consider the recommendation of the Planning Commission as to zoning to be adopted concurrent with such annexation. The City Clerk read a communication from Mr. and Mrs. Peter G. Fisher, 1 9157 Greenwood Avenue, San Gabriel, protesting both the proposed annexation and the recommended zoning. Mayor Balser then inquired if anyone in the audience desired to be heard regarding the proposed annexation. Mr. Henry Hege, 651 West Duarte Road, Attorney, representing Dr. J. Kendall McBane, the owner of the property proposed to be annexed, addressed the Council, requesting and receiving permission to speak on the matter of zoning prior to the proposed annexation, inasmuch as, he stated, the zoning would be material to any decision made by the owner as to the annexation. Mr. Hege continued, stating in substance, that his client had no objection to the Planning Commission Resolution No. 418, with the exception of subdivision a of Section 2, to wit: "That no apartment house thereon constructed shall exceed one st~ry in height, nor shall it be more than 18 feet in height above the final grade." 2. 10-17-61 .,,\ 14:5501 Mr. Frank D. Slocum, 9412 Duarte Road, presented to the City Clerk a petition which he stated contained signatures of 35 property owners adjacent to and adjoining the subject property, who would be, as stated in the petition, adversely affected by a change in zone of the subject property by reason of the surrounding properties being zoned R-l; the resultant increase in traffic and that an additional apartment building in the neighborhood would detract from the desirability of the area as residential. Mr. Slocum also referred to the alleged unattractive appearance of the other apartment building in the area, and invited the councilmen to personally view the neighborhood. 1 The Planning Director displayed a map of the vicinity and explained the zoning recommended by the Planning Commission, including the recommended D overlay. The following persons also addressed the Council and voiced their opposition to the proposed zoning as recommended by the Planning Commission, among their objections being another apartment house in the vicinity of their homes, the one presently there being unattractive; the fact that there were many apartment buildings in the City not filled to capacity; the additional traffic; the fact that cars are parked on the streets all night; and the three foot side yard setback; Mr. L. R. Galloway, 9416 Duarte Road, San Gabriel Mr. and Mrs. Jos. R. Baer, 9411 E. Duarte, San Gabriel Mrs. Helen F. Eldred, daughter of owner of property at 9408 E. Duarte Rd., S.G, Mr. Harold E. Foreman, 9169 E. Greenwood Ave., San Gabriel Mr. Peter G. Fisher, 9157 Greenwood Ave., San Gabriel No one else desiring to be heard Councilman Butterworth MOVED that the hearing be closed. Councilman Phillips seconded the motion which was carried unanimously. In the discussion between the Councilmen that followed; the matter of the three foot setback was explained by Mr. L. Talley; the protestant of cars being permitted to remain on the street all night was advised that the City has an ordinance prohibiting this and that her complaint would be investigated; and general discussion was held regarding the proposed zoning, during which time Councilman Phillips stated in part that in his opinion the subject property should be zoned R-3 if it is annexed to Arcadia inasmuch as both R-3 and commercial zoning is within a short distance of the subject area. , Councilman Camphouse stated in part that the City has corrected R-3 zoning to alleviate the objections of some of the protestants as to appearance, size, parking facilities, etc. He also stated that Council would not be acting within its jurisdiction if it judged this matter on the basis of rental economics, which he felt were peculiar to the individual apartment house. 1 Councilman Phillips MOVED that if the annexation be granted by the Council that it be zoned R-3 and D Overlay, subject to the conditions of the Planning Commission, with the exception of the zoning restriction as to the two story apartment house as set forth in Section 2, subdivision a of Planning Commission Resolution No. 418, giving it a straight R-3 and D Overlay zoning. Councilman Camphouse seconded the motion which was carried on roll call vote as follows: AYES: Councilmen Camphouse, Reibold, Phillips, Balser NOES: Councilman Butterworth ABSENT: None Councilman Butterworth stated that he desired the record to show that his "No" vote is predicated on the refusal of the Council to follow the specific recommendations of the Planning Commission which he thought should be followed. 3. 10-17-61 I!EARING (Baxter) J- f?;f0 iINDEXED 14:5502 Mayor Balser stated that the Council would now hear protests by any person owning real property within the territory proposed to be annexed, with respect to protesting the annexation. Upon Mr. Hege stating that on behalf of Dr. J. Kendall McBane, owner of the subject property, said property owner did not desire to protest the proposed annexation, Councilman Reibold ~ that the hearing be closed. Councilman Butterworth seconded the motion which was carried unanimously. The City Attorney advised that he would present for introduction the zoning ordinance and ordinance of annexation later in the evening. Councilman Butterworth MOVED that Council direct the Planning Commission to give thought to the three foot side yard setback and report to the Council as to whether or not it should be changed. Councilman Phillips seconded the motion which was carried on roll call vote as follows: 1 AYES: Councilmen Butterworth, Camphouse, Reibold, Phillips, Balser NOES: None ABSENT: None Mayor Balser declared the hearing open on Planning Commission Resolution No, 420, approving the modification of front setback and yard requirements for real property located at 920 South Second Avenue, said matter having been heard before the Modification Committee and referred to the Planning Commission for further consideration and decision. It was explained that a variance was granted on the subject property by Council Resolution No. 3406 to allow the moving of two duplexes and garages on said property; that when the buildings were moved onto the property it was found that a miscalculation in dimensions had been made which required a change of front yard setback from the required 46 feet to 43 feet six inches from the present curb. The C~ty Clerk read the following letters: Mr, and Mrs. Jos. Lark, 1004 S. Second Avenue, stating in part that they opposed a variance on the basis that interested parties were not heard on the variance matter; that due to the small yardage area it would not be possible to landscape the lot, and that the lot area is not in accord with the zoning ordinance. Mr. and Mrs. Hugh W. Thorne, 1017 South Second Avenue, stating in part that they had not received notification of the hearing as they were on vacation; that they felt one hearing insufficient to enable study to be made of a problem; that the situation had been misrepresented in that the buildings were not up to standard and the land area inadequate. R, V, Senior and Mildred Senior Coates, 119 West Live Oak Avenue, stating in part that they favored the modification; that Dr. Baxter's small animall hospital is beautifully landscaped; that the duplexes when completed will enhance the area and will act as a buffer between commercial and residential zones; and that the subject buildings were moved on the lot after approval of property owners in the area and City officials. The Planning Director displayed a map of the area and pointed out the subject property, stating, among other things, that if the alley had not been immediately adjacent to the property the duplexes would have been automatically permitted. Mayor Balser then inquired if anyone in the audience desired to be heard on the matter of the modification. Mr. Paul T. Erskine, 317 West Main Street, Alhambra, an attorney represent- ing Dr. Baxter, addressed the Council, He stated in part that the only 4. 10-17-61 14:5503 1 opposition presented at this meeting so far is in the nature of two communications; that he desired to call Council's attention to the fact that a zone variance has heretofore been granted and is now final; that the only matter before the Council at this time is the requested modifi- cation relative to the front and side yard setbacks. He explained the history of the proceedings, as set forth above, and that there is some question in his mind as to whether or not the footage should be counted from the bay window or the foundation, and cited the zoning ordinance that mentions cornices, eaves, etc. but not a bay window. He continued, stat- ing in part that the Planning Commission approved the modification with a vote of five to two; that when the buildings are taken off the temporary piers and the improvements are completed the property will enhance the area. The City Attorney explained that no appeal was filed on the zone variance recommendation and the variance by the Council became final; that it was when the houses were moved on the property and preparations for the foundation were started that it was discovered that the dimensions apparently were measured at the foundation instead of the eaves and the bay window. That work was stopped at that time and a request for a modification was filed with the Modification Committee, and said committee referred the matter to the Planning Commission without recommendation; that thereafter the Planning Gommission approved the modification by a five to two vote and property owners then filed an appeal from that decision. He added that it was pointed out at the Planning Commission hearing that some of the property owners either did not receive notice of or realize the significance of the variance application, ,and that some of them are actually attacking the variance with the only means they now have. The following persons addressed the Council, stating in substance that they were opposed to the modification for the following reasons: That the buildings are not in keeping with other property in the area; that they did not receive notice of the hearing; that they were led to believe the buildings were new; that the lot size is insufficient for satisfactory landscaping; and that the buildings are in violation of the Building Code and the garages are proposed to be located where access would be difficult; James Cunningham, 3319 Par Drive, La Mesa (Parents own adjoining property) Byron Covey, 1010 South 2nd Avenue Mrs. Ethel Thorne, 1017 South Second Avenue Mrs. Joseph Lark, 1004 South Second Avenue 1 Mr. Erskine again addressed the Council and displayed a copy of the rendering of the duplexes upon their completion. He stated in part that Dr. Baxter has several small animal hospitals, all beautifully landscaped and that he has won an award for such landscaping; that the rendering shows that the subject property will also be so landscaped. That with regard to the claim that notices of hearings were not received, inasmuch as the City Clerk complied with the law and mailed notices, that by law they are presumed to have been received and the fact that a person is away on vacation and left no forwarding address is not considered as not having received mail delivery. That everything legally required to be done was done and it is presumed that adequate and sufficient notice of hearing is received. He then reiterated the fact that the variance is not at issue, only the modification, and that in his opinion the appellants have failed to show that the Planning Commission erred in its decision. Dr. Baxter addressed the Council and explained the appearance of the build- ings after they are removed from the temporary foundation; that they are first class buildings and that it is his intention to paint and landscape as per the rendering. That he would even furnish a bond to further indicate his good intentions. That in his opinion there is ample room for landscaping. He commented that in this resper.t he thought he had more space for landscaping that had the person who had complained of his 5. 10-17-61 ~, HEARING (Guardalabene) J~1! ~NDEXED 14:5504 alleged lack of space. Also that he felt the buildings when completed would be an improvement to the neighborhood. Mr, F. E. McDonald, 215 West Las Tunas Drive, addressed the Council and spoke on behalf of Dr, Baxter's integrity. He mentioned the landscaping of Dr. Baxter's small animal hospitals, adding that the one on Live Oak Avenue had won an architectural award for landscaping. He added that in his opinion, after the buildings are set on their permanent foundation and all improvements made, he did not believe it would be noticeable to passers-by that there was a 57. variation. Mr. Cunningham presented' a copy of the notice of public hearing from the Planning Commission to'the City Clerk, stating that the property owners were not fully informed about the original variance and that nothing in the notice indicated that the buildings were either new or used. 1 Mayor Balser commented that the hearing seemed to be sidetracked to the question of the zone variance, which he repeated was not at issue at this hearing; that the hearing is on the appeal of the modification, No one else desiring to be heard, Councilman Camphouse MOVED that the hearing be closed. Councilman Butterworth seconded the motion which was carried unanimously. Councilman Phillips stated in part that he had been pres~nt at the Planning Commission hearing when the modification was under consideration, and that it had been his feeling that the consensus of the Planning Commission was that the matter is one of artistic aesthetics; that if Dr. Baxter were denied his requested modification he could, if he so desired, saw off the eaves, replace them by Cape Cod style eaves, remove the bay window, and proceed with the project. Councilman Phillips then MOVED that the Council accept the recommendation of the Planning Commission and approve the requested modification of the front setback line and side yard requirements to allow the bay window projection and eave overhang as requested and as set forth in Planning Commission Resolution No. 420. Councilman Butterworth seconded the motion which was carried on roll call vote as follows: AYES: Councilmen Butterworth, Reibold, Phillips, Balser NOES: Councilman Camphouse ABSENT: None Councilman Camphouse stated that he took issue with the attorney for Dr. Baxter because he felt the attorney had more or less maligned some of the protestants; that he had not gained the impression that they were evading the issue because they stated they had not had an opportunity to be heard; that they were referring to the general appearance of the neighborhood and how this would affect their homes; and that he did not think the people have been given proper consideration, and for that reason he had voted uNo". 1 Mayor Balser stated that he had voted "Yes" because he felt it would be an unreasonable hardship on Dr. Baxter to deny this slight deviation, and that he felt confident that Dr, Baxter will improve this property as indicated on the rendering. Mayor Balser declared the hearing open on Planning Commission Resolution No, 421 recommending denial of the application of I. and Hazel M. Guardalabene for a zone variance to permit the erection of one additional dwelling unit on their property at 5l7-5l9~ South Third Avenue in Zone R-2, and inquired if anyone in the audience desired to be heard on the matter. 6. 10"17-61 " 1 1 14:5505 The City Clerk stated that a petition with 37 signatures of property owners had been received, which petition stated in substance that'said owners had received notice of the public hearing and favored Council granting the requested variance in the interest of orderly development of the subject property and as an improvement to their neighborhood. Mr, Guardalabene addressed the Council, submitted pictures and two additional plot plans of the proposed unit, stating in part that these plot plans showed the correction of the driveway which the Planning Commission had objected to as being too narrow, He then described the property, adding that it is presently improved with four living units with covered parking space for five cars and paved parking area for three additional cars, Mr. F. C. Bishop, 511 South Third Avenue, addressed the Council, stating that his property adjoins that of the applicant and that in his opinion the proposed ,additional dwelling unit would enhance the area. The Planning Director displayed a map of the general area and stated in part that in his opinion there is sufficient room for the additional dwelling and still conform with all yard requirements, There being no one else desiring to be heard Councilman Reibold MOVED that' the hearing be closed, Motion seconded by Councilman Camphouse and carried unanimously, Councilman Reibold stated that he had inspected the property personally; that in his opinion there is sufficient space for the desired building; that there were no protests at the Planning Commission hearings nor at this hearing, in fact a petition with 37 signatures were submitted in favor of the variance, He added that this is an older section of the City, at one time used rather heavily for poultry businesses; that a number of people in that vicinity enjoy a property right which a rigid adherance t:o the fact that there has not been shown that there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances applicable to the subject property or to the intended use thereof that do not apply generally to the property or class of use in the same zone or vicinity, or that the variance is necessary for the preservation of any property right of the applicant possessed by other property in the same zone or vicinity, would prohibit; that there will be no departure from the surrounding development, and that he knows the applicant well enough to believe his statement that he will build a structure that will be an asset to the neighborhood. Councilman Reibold then ~ that the Council overrule the recomendation of the Planning Commission as contained in its Resolution No. 421 and authorize the issuance of a zone variance to I. and Hazel M, Guardalabene to permit the erection of one additional dwelling unit on their property at 5l7-5l9~ South Third Avenue, Councilman Phillips seconded the motion. . Councilman Butterworth stated in part that he felt the applicant has brought up new material that the Planning Commission has not had the benefit of considering, to wit, the matter of increasing the size of the driveway, which was a matter of some concern to the Planning Commission because of the fire hazard; that he thought it would be appropriate at this time rather than to disapprove the recommendation of the Planning Commission, to refer the matter back to the Planning Commission for its further consideration in light of the offer of the applicant to alter the conditions. Councilman Reibold differed with Councilman Butterworth's opinion, stating in substance that this is not so stated in the resolution of the Planning Commission; that it states in said resolution that there is no provision in the zoning ordinance for the addition of a single family dwelling on less than the full 7500 square feet required for either a duplex or two single family residences. That he realized that Councilman Butterworth 7. 10-17-61 RECESS 14:5506 does not desire'to overrule the Planning Commission, with which he does not agree, because that is why there is the right of appeal. Councilman Butterworth then stated in part that in the process of orderly government Council should give some consideration to supporting the lower bodies or they will lose confidence in the Council; that he felt they should be given an opportunity to reconsider this matter inasmuch as he had been advised that they were concerned about the fire hazard, and that for that reason he would MOVE that the above motion be tabled and the matter referred back to the Planning Commission for further report in the light of additional information. CMotion died for lack of a second). Mayor Balser stated in part that he agreed with Councilman Butterworth 1 on the matter of the driveway and that he felt Councilman Reibold should amend his motion ,to_specify a 12-1/2 foot driveway. This being satisfact- ory to the Council, Councilman Reibold AMENDED his motion to include that the driveway be l2~1/2 feet wide as stated by the applicant at this hearing. Councilman Phillips agreed to second the amended motion, which was then carried on roll call vote as follows: AYES: Councilmen Butterworth, Camphouse, Reibold, Phillips, Balser NOES: None ABSENT: None Mayor Balser declared a recess at 10:25 P.M. The meeting reconvened at 10:30 P.M. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS: ZONE VARIANCES (Lutheran Church - Jewish Community / Center) j/ (Santa Anita Girl Scout / Council) Y Mayor Balser declared that since no action can be taken until time for appeal elapses the zone variance requests of the American Lutheran Church (Planning Commission Resolution No. 423) and the Foothill Jewish Community Center (Planning Commission Resolution No. 425) will be held over to the Council meeting of November 7, 1961. Planning Commission Resolution No. 424 recommending approval of the application of the Santa Anita Girl Scout Council for a zone variance for a covered patio on property at 590 South Third Avenue, subject to certain conditions. An appeal from said decision of the Planning Commission having been duly filed and said matter requiring a public hearing, Councilman Phillips MOVED that the hearing be scheduled for November 7, 1961. Motion seconded by Councilman Reibold and carried unanimously. MATTERS FROM THE OFFICE OF THE CITY MANAGER: BID AWARD (Widening Baldwin Ave.- Las Tunas & Workman) ~I - ~, 8' 9l?' INDEXED The following bids were received on October 16, 1961 for the widening of Baldwin Avenue, between Las Tunas Drive and Workman Avenue: Cox Bros. Construction Co. A. J. Beinschroth W. R. Wilkinson Co. Inc. Attwood & Pursel D & W Paving Contractor E. C. Construction Co. Engineer's Estimate $5042.95 - $3949.99 (correctel 4205.20 4475.45 4510.50 4720.72 5159.05 5505.95' The Director of Public Works advised that in checking the bids an error was found in the extension of item 1 of the bid from Cox Bros. Construction Co. and that said contractor requested that his bid be withdrawn from consideration. MOTION by Councilman Camphouse, seconded by Councilman Phillips and carried on roll call vote as follows that the Council accept the recommen- dation of the City Manager Pro Tempore and the Director of Public Works; 8. 10-17-61 1 BID AWARD (Peck No. 1 Well) J- 97'9 14:5507 that the request from Cox Brothers Construction Company that its bid be withdrawn be allowed for obvious error: that a contract for the widening of Baldwin Avenue between Las Tunas Drive and Workman Avenue be awarded to A. J. Beinschroth, Duarte, California, for the unit prices shown in his proposal in the amount of $4205.20: 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 Butterworth, Camphouse, Reibold, Phillips, Balser NOES: None ABSENT: None The following bids were received on October 16, 1961, for the furnishing of all material, labor, tools, appliances and equipment, including transportation, for drilling, casing, perforating, swabbing, developing, testing and sand pumping a plain well, to be known as Peck No. 1 Well: ITEM 1 - Furnish equipment, labor and material for drilling water well 600 feet deep. Roscoe Moss Co. Water Well Supply $18,848.00 19,450.00 TNDEXED ITEM 2 - Amount to be added for each foot in excess of 600 feet. 1 Roscoe Moss Co. Water Well Supply 27.83 28.00 ITEM 3 - Amount to be deducted for each foot less than 600 feet. Roscoe Moss Co. Water Well Supply 27.83 28.00 ITEM 4 - Amount to be deducted for each foot not cased. Roscoe Moss Co. Water Well Supply 13.83 13.83 ITEM 5 - Furnish equipment, labor and material for developing and testing for 60 hours. Roscoe Moss Co. Water Well Supply 2,200.00 1,985.00 ITEM 6 - Amount to be added per hour for over 60 hours developing and testing. Roscoe Moss Co. Water Well Supply 20.00 20.00 ITEM 7 - Completion of Item 1 in days. Roscoe Moss Co. Water Well Supply 60 days 60 days MOTION by Councilman Phillips, seconded by Councilman Camphouse and carried on roll call vote as follows that the Council accept the recommen- dation of the City Manager Pro Tempore and the Water Superintendent: that a contract for said material and labor in accordance with specifications for said Peck No.1 Well be awarded to the low bidder, Roscoe Moss Company: 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 9. 10-17-61 BID AWARD (Improvement of Valencia Way and Hillcrest) J. ,~~ t - t:J " ;! INDEXED 14:5508 the performance of the contract and in the amount specified, in form approved by the City Attorney: AYES: Councilmen Butterworth, Camphouse, Reibold, Phillips, Balser NOES: None ABSENT: None The following bids were received on October 16, 1961 for the improvement of Valencia Way and Hillcrest Boulevard: A. J. Beinschroth E. C. Construction Co. D & W Paving Contractor Cox Bros. Gonstruction Co. W. R. Wilkinson Co., Inc. Attwood and Pursel Engineer's Estimate $6,195.75 6,598.34 7,766.78 9,284.51 9,504.51 10,260.24 9,290.85 1 MOTION by Councilman Phillips, seconded by Councilman Reibold and carried on roll call vote as follows that Council accept the recommendation of the City Manager Pro Tempore and the Director of Public Works; that a contract for the improvement of Valencia Way and Hillcrest Boulevard be awarded to A. J. Beinschroth, Duarte, California, in the amount of $6,195.75; 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 Butterworth, Camphouse, Reibold, Phillips, Balser NOES: None ABSENT: None RESALE OF It was the consensus of the Council that the matter of the proposed resale EXCESS P. E. of excess P. E. property be given further study and held over to the PROPERTY Council meeting of November 7, 1961. .~ U',/":/IliDEXEn COMPLETION ~OTION by Councilman Camphouse, seconded by Councilman Phillips and carried OF WORK on roll call vote as follows that the City Council approve the recommen- (Aman Bros. dation of the City Manager Pro Tempore and the Director of Public Works & D and Wand accept the work of: Paving) ~L)I' ~Aman Brothers, Contractors for the extension of Arcadia Avenue; 7,,~ ~ D and W Paving Contractor for the improvement of Second and Sycamore ;; 1".t!.. ;/-, Avenues; and D and W Paving Contractor for the improvement of the first alley east ~.: ,,,,q/[ ~ '" I of Santa Anita Avenue, between Wheeler and Santa Clara Streets; CfliDEXED FOOTHILL FREEWAY (Pub lic Hearing) !J '! JI ,~JIDEXET) and authorize payment to be made in accordance with the contracts with said firms for the above specified work, and the bonds released after the expiration of the required 35 days: 1 AYES: Councilmen Butterworth, Camphouse, Reibold, Phillips, Balser NOES: None ABSENT: None Discussion was held on the information of the City Manager Pro Tempore that the California Highway Commission is now considering the route adoption for the Foothill Freeway from Lincoln Avenue in Pasadena to 1500 feet east of Michillinda Avenue in Arcadia and whether the Council feels a public hearing is necessary on that portion of the route in Arcadia. The City Manager Pro Tempore displayed a map of the proposed route and stated that he thought Pasadena will request a hearing and that such hearings are occasionally combined. He added that the matter of depressing or elevating the freeway or of interchanges will not, how- ever, be heard at such time. 10. 10-17-61 :t '\ ?i .:T "'> ff/ 14:5509 Mr. Robert Arth, 1017 Catalpa Road, President of Rancho Santa Anita Residents' Association, addressed the Council, and stated that as his association has gone on record as desiring the freeway depressed as much as possible as it approaches and comes into Arcadia he felt that the Council should request either a joint or separate hearing on this matter. The City Attorney explained that the Highway Commission has adopted a policy of holding public hearings when a public agency or a representa- !ND]J(gD tive group requests one; that it does not necessarily confine itself to local jurisdictions or boundaries in the selection of a segment for consideration; that the selection of a route in the final analysis is a matter of State concern and that at the subject hearing, if held, details of route, such as elevations, are not at issue except to the limited extent that they might affect route selection; that such details come into the matter when discussions commence on the freeway agreement with each local agency. It being the consensus of the Council that permission be granted the Kiwanis Club of Arcadia to construct a youth hut at Bonita Park School on City property adjoining the school, Councilman Reibold MOVED that the Mayor and City Clerk be authorized to execute such amendment to agreement ,4 with the Arcadia Unified School District,as may be necessary to permlt ~~)lit construction of a Youth Hut on the City portion of Bonita Park, the ~ J' scheduling of the use of the Hut after completion to be under supervision of the School District the same as if it were on school property, the School District to assume all liability for the premises after completion of the Hut; that the plans for and location of the proposed Youth Hut be approved; that the Arcadia Kiwanis Foundation construct a Youth Hut 1 GASOLINE (Central Purchase Through Los Angeles County) 1 BONITA PARK YOUTH HUT INDEXED Mrs. Robert Arth requested permission to look more closely at the map, stating that inasmuch as she lived in the first 1500 feet of the westerly border of Arcadia she has a vital interest in the freeway. After further discussion and it being the consensus of the Council that a hearing would be beneficial, Councilman Butterworth MOVED that the Council request the City Attorney to prepare the necessary resolution to indicate that the City of Arcadia desires a public hearing to be held on the location of a freeway between Lincoln Avenue in the City of Pasadena and a point 1500 feet east of Michillinda Avenue in the City of Arcadia, its principal interest in the aforesaid matter being in the easterly portion of the State Highway above described, commencing at a point westerly of Rosemead Boulevard and extending easterly to the point 1500 feet east of Michillinda Avenue. Councilman Reibold seconded the motion which was carried unanimously. The Administrative Assistant to the City Manager submitted a report regard- ing proposed central purchasing of gasoline through Los Angeles County. He stated that the City, however, will not be in position to take advantage of the savings in such centralized purchasing until the expiration of the City's present contract, but that it is recommended by the City Manager that authorization be granted by the Council to enter into such cooperative agreement with the Los Angeles County at the expiration of such contract. Councilman Butterworth ~ that Council grant the requested authorization. There was no second to the above motion inasmuch as discussion ensued on the question of whether it would benefit the City to enter into such co- operative agreement or whether the City could negotiate a contract to receive the same price advantage on an independent basis. It being the consensus of the Council that the matter receive further study, Councilman Camphouse MOVED that the matter be deferred until the Council meeting of November 7, 1961. Councilman Phillips seconded the motion which was carried unanimously. 11. 10-17-61 ORDINANCE NO. 1145 (Adopted) 1/ ORDINANCE NO. 1147 (Adopted) LIBRARY (Additional Staff) a',~I3J, tINDEXED 14:5510 at Bonita Park in accordance therewith upon the execution of an agreement to complete the same if commenced and to hold the City free and harmless from all claims and liens for labor, material or public liability result- ing from such construction; and that title to the Hut pass to the City upon completion for use in accordance with the City's agreement with the School District; that ail permit fees therefor be waived and license fees be waived as to persons or companies working thereon if that be the only business conducted in town by them. Councilman Phillips 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. 1145, entitled: "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING SECTIONS 1 3130,1 AND 3130.2 OF THE ARCADIA MUNICIPAL CODE." MOTION by Councilman Phillips, seconded by Councilman Reibold and carried on roll call vote as follows that the reading of the full body of Ordinance No. 1145 be waived: AYES: Councilmen Butterworth, Camphouse, Reibold, Phillips, Balser NOES: None ABSENT: None . Councilman Phillips further MOVED that Ordinance No. 1145 be adopted. Councilman Reibold seconded the motion which was carried on roll call vote as follows: AYES: Councilmen Butterworth, Camphouse, Reibold, Phillips, Balser NOES: None ABSENT: None The City Attorney presented for the second time, explained the content and read the title of Ordinance No. 1147, entitled: "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING THE ARCAD.IA MUNICIPAL CODE BY ADDING THERETO A NEW PART 2 TO CHAPTER 8 OF ARTICLE VIII." MOTION by Councilman Butterworth, seconded by Councilman Camphouse and carried on roll call vote as follows that the reading of the full body of Ordinance No, 1147 be waived: AYES: Councilmen Butterworth, Camphouse, Reibold, Phillips, Balser NOES: None ABSENT:' None Councilman Butterworth further MOVED that Ordinance No. 1147 be adopted. Motion seconded by Councilman Camphouse and carried on roll call vote as follows: AYES: Councilmen Butterworth, Camphouse, Reibold, Phillips, Balser NOES: None ABSENT: None 1 MOTION by Councilman Camphouse, seconded by Councilman Butterworth and carried on roll call vote as follows that Council accept the recommen- dation of the Library Board and authorize additional funds in the amount of $15,010 to be appropriated from Council Contingency Fund for the purpose of augmenting the additional staff necessary at the new City Library due to gain in services: AYES: Councilmen Butterworth, Camphouse,Reibold, Phillips, Balser NOES: None ABSENT: None A member of the Library Board expressed appreciation for Council's cooperation. 12. 10-17-61 CITY OF SIERRA MADRE (Water) 14: 5511 A letter was read from the City of Sierra Madre, dated October 4, 1961, wherein in substance it commended the City of Arcadia on its resume of the problems faced by the water suppliers in this area, and that it would support any effort to bring about unanimity in regard to cooperative ~: . studies for transmission facilities between governmental entities; also ~that the City of Sierra Madre and other water suppliers in this area will continue to look to Arcadia for leadership in the cooperative effort. lNDEXED At the suggestion of Councilman Reibold, Mayor Balser requested the City Manager to reply to the subject letter and that a copy of said letter and his reply be submitted to the Water Board. 1 WABA (Band Review) a: ;t);R.; tyfr13A MOTION by Councilman Reibold, seconded by Councilman Phillips and carried unanimously that the Council grant the request of the West Arcadia Business Association to hold its Annual Invitational Band Review on Saturday, November 18, 1961 at 10:00 A.M., the parade,to start in the Santa Anita Race Track parking lot at Huntington Drive and Baldwin Avenue and proceed south on Baldwin Avenue to Camino Real and disperse along Lovell Avenue, with awards to be made at Arcadia High School stadium. Councilman Camp house then MOVED that Council grant permission to said West lNDEXED Arcadia Business Association to display for a week or ten days before the above mentioned date, one overhead street banner announcing the event. Councilman Phillips seconded the motion which was carried unanimously. AUDIENGE PARTICIPATION: (Richards - Solicitation) ~ p,tJ!f' ..' J:ND.EJ:EIl 1 (Landvogt - Chicken Equipment) ;vq,f' (Colvin - Birds) /Y5 P Mr. Michael L. Richards addressed the Council, requesting reconsideration of its denial of his application to solicit door to door for the sale and/or service of Electrolux equipment. He was advised that the denial had been based on the fact that the City presently is adequately covered by solicitation with respect to this particular operation; however, that this does not prohibit the repairing or selling of machines by any person who requests such service by telephone or mail. The City Attorney explained that the City requires a permit from the Council for a number of types of businesses, one being solicitation of orders. That if one has a business license in the City for which no permit is required he may respond to any call or letter for repair service or sale; that a permit is required only for soliciting door to dooro Mr. Richards was then advised that the Council, after reconsideration, did not feel it could reverse its decision to deny the application. Mr. Landvogt, 222 East Magna Vista Avenue inquired of the Council as to the status of the report of the City Attorney regarding methods the City could pursue to expedite the removal of remaining chicken equipment in the City, which the Council had requested that he submit at this meeting, and was advised that the Council had received such report but desired to give it further study and that the matter would appear on the agenda for the next Council meeting. The City Attorney suggested that the Council analyze said report inasmuch as in his opinion the subjects that deal with the situation are not adequate to immediately affect the removal of all obsolete equipment and make suggestions as to implementation. Mr. John Colvin, 503 West Wistaria Avenue, requested the Council to define the word "bird" and to advise whether Ordinance No. 952 covers such definition. He added that he did not expect an answer at this meeting, the hour being late. He referred to Council meetings in 1956 13. 10-17-61 NS P (Co 11 ins - Extension Baldwin Ave.) J-.t-1/ INDEXED (Arth,., Extension Baldwin Ave.) 1- :;,7 I INDEXED (Allen ~ Freeway map) 14:5512 at which this subject had been discussed and stated that tape recordings of such meetings were on file in the office of the City Clerk. The City Attorney advised that he had on November 21, 1960 submitted to the City Manager his opinion on the subject and had also discussed it briefly with some of the Councilmen. That there were two ordinances adopted at approximately the same time, one being an amendment to the zoning ordinance, which was broader in its scope in that it eliminated from uses permissible in the residential zones the keeping of birds or animals of any size, shape or description in excess of ten, except homing pigeons; that Ordinance No. 952 pertains to poultry, rabbits and fowl. That although it refers to "birds, not' to,;exceed ten" the prohibition 1 goes to "poultry, rabbits and fowl not to exceed ten animals or birds" so the prohibition is to fowl, not to birds generally, and fowl would include edible pigeons, other than homing pigeons, geese, chickens, pheasants, turkeys, etc., but does not in his opinion limit canaries and parakeets. The City Attorney continued, that there might be some disagreement with his interpretation but that the zoning ordinance is prospective in its application and does not of itself abate valid, lawful, nonconforming uses; that Ordinance No. 952 actually terminated uses that were lawful. That it would be proper to consider additional legislation, if Council feels the problem is such that it would be warranted, but that in his opinion, a complaint based on Ordinance No. 952, which is now translated in other sections of the Arcadia Municipal Code, would not be held sufficient as to parakeets. Mr. Colvin spoke again and stated that the City Attorney's information explained the subject to a point but that he still desired the Council to review the particular minutes that were instrumental in adopting Ordinance No. 952, to wit: February 21, 1956 and March 20, 1956; that in said minutes of March 20, 1956 it is stated that the City Attorney submitted to each councilman three ordinances, one amending the business license ordinance to specifically include the business of raising birds, poultry, rabbits, etc. Mr. E. G. Collins, 491 Harvard Drive, addressed the Council and requested that a public hearing be arranged on the matter of the proposed extension of Baldwin Avenue prior to any further adoption of the freeway route. He mentioned that many citizens of Arcadia ,did not favor the proposed extension and that several years ago by mandate of the citizens of Arcadia this matter had been defeated. He added that he was a member of the Rancho Santa Anita Residents Association. Mr. Robert Arth, President of the Rancho Santa Anita Residents Association, explained that the Association is primarily concerned with an opportunity to discuss how far east or west Baldwin Avenue goes, and whether it will take in all or a portion of the 40 foot County strip lying east of Baldwin Avenue, and whether it would,be possible to move Baldwin Avenue in a 1 westerly direction far enough to keep this segment as a buffer between the homes in the Colorado Oaks area and the Baldwin Avenue area. The Director of Public Works explained the status of the proposed Baldwin Avenue extension to date, and added that at this time it could not be stated with any assurance as to whether or not the 40 foot County strip or any part thereof will be needed. Mayor Balser advised that the Council and staff are aware of the concern of the residents; and that the Director of Public Works will advise the Association of the time when it could participate in the discussion of the preliminary layout of the interchanges, elevations, etc. Mr.' Frank M. Allen, 489 Oxford Drive, was advised that his request for a preliminary map of the proposed freeway would be handled by the Engineering Department. " 14. 10-17-61 ORDINANCE NO. 1151 (Introduced) 14:5513 The City Attorney presented for the first time, explained the content and read the title of Ordinance No. 1151, entitled: "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING THE ANNEXATION TO SAID CITY OF THAT CERTAIN UNINHABITED TERRITORY CONTIGUOUS TO SAID CITY DESCRIBED IN RESOLUTION NO. 3410 ADOPTED BY SAID CITY COUNCIL ON SEPTEMBER 5, 1961 AND DESIGNATED THEREIN AS ~ANNEXATION NO. 26, WEST ARCADIA " '.'....r,',UNINHABITED'." 1 : r !.. ORDINANCE NO. 1152 (Introduced) RESOLUTION NO. 3423 1 . i -1/-7/ INDEXED MOTION by Councilman Phillips, seconded by Councilman Reibold and carried on roll call vote as follows that the reading of the full body of Ordinance No. 1151 be waived: AYES: Councilmen Butterworth, Camphouse, Reibold, Phillips, Balser NOES: None ABSENT: None Councilman Reibold further MOVED that Ordinance No. 1151 be introduced. Motion seconded by Councilman Phillips and carried on roll call vote as follows: AYES: Councilmen Butterworth, Camphouse, Reibold, Phillips, Balser NOES: None ABSENT: None The City Attorney presented for the first time, explained the content and read the title of Ordinance No. 1152, entitled: "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA, ESTABLISHING THE REAL PROPERTY WITHIN THE LIMITS OF PROPOSED 'ANNEXATION NO. 26, WEST ARCADIA UNINHABITED I IN ZONES R-3 AND D (ARCHITECTURAL OVERLAY), AMENDING THE ARCADIA MUNICIPAL CODE ACCORDINGLY." MOTION by Councilman Phillips, seconded by Councilman Reibold and carried on roll call vote as follows that the reading of the full body of ", Ordinance No, 1152 be waived: AYES: Councilmen Butterworth, Camphouse, Reibold, Phillips, Balser NOES: None ABSENT: None Councilman Phillips further MOVED that Ordinance No. 1152 be introduced, Motion seconded by Councilman Camphouse and carried on roll call vote as follows: AYES: Councilmen Butterworth, Camphouse, Reibold, Phillips, Balser NOES: None ABSENT: None The City Attorney presented, explained the content and read'the1title of Resolution No, 3423, entitled: "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA, REQUESTING THE CALIFORNIA HIGHWAY COMMISSION TO HOLD A PUBLIC HEARING ON THE ROUTE OF THE PROPOSED FOOTHILL FREEWAY FROM LINCOLN AVENUE IN PASADENA TO A POINT 1500 FEET EAST OF MICHILLINDA AVENUE IN THE CITY OF ARCADIA." ~OTIONby Councilman Camphouse, seconded by Councilman Phillips and carried on roll call vote as follows that the reading of the full body of Resolution No. 3423 be waived: AYES: Councilmen Butterworth, Camphouse, Reibold, Phillips, Balser NOES: None ABSENT: None Councilman Camphouse further MOVED that Resolution No, 3423 be adopted, Motion seconded by Councilman Phillips and carried on roll call vote as follows: AYES: Councilmen Butterworth, Camphouse, Reibold, Phillips, Balser NOES: None ABSENT: None 15. 10-17-61 WATER y. f ?~-? INDEXED ZONE VARIANCE (Greer) :!" I I) llIDEXED ROTARY CLUB Nr;:, P STORM DRAINS /vs p AUD IT 0 IV So I HEARINGS ;vsF 14:5514 The Administrative Assistant to the City Manager requested and received permission for the general distribution among the Upper San Gabriel Valley Water District and Association of the report prepared by the City Manager's office with the cooperation of Councilman Reibold, entitled: "OBLIGATIONS OF THE UPPER SAN GABRIEL VALLEY WATER DISTRICT AS A MEMBER OF THE METROPOLITAN WATER DISTRICT." Councilman Reibold commented that the article that appeared in the Arcadia Tribune October 16, 1961 was not factual in that it stated that the obligation of Arcadia property owners would be $5,885,000 over the next thirty years; that it is impossible to state at this time or to calculate that figure in that the obligation is one of the total district, and distributed back upon the assessed valuation of the total district. That the figure as presented would be correct if there was never a change in the ratio of. the assessed valuation to the balance of the district; that such will not be true inasmuch as Arcadia is fairly heavily develope and a large part of the district is not yet developed, and that it appeared to him that it would be reasonable to expect that the assessed valuation would increase at a more rapid rate in other parts of the district than it would in Arcadia. Mayor Balser commended the City Manager's office and Councilman Reibold on the report. The Gity Glerk advised that with reference to the application of James C. and Ora Reed Greer for a zone variance on their corner of Golden West and Duarte Road (Lot 133, Tract 2731), which has been set for an appeal hearing on November 7, 1961, that Fred N. Howser, the applicants' attorney, has requested a continuance to some time after January 1, 1962 due to various facts pertaining to the use of this property and develop- ments in the general area which may have a bearing after the 1st of January on matters which will then come before the Council. It being the consensus of the Council that this request be granted, Councilman Camphouse ~ that said hearing be set for January 16, 1962. Councilman Phillips seconded the motion which was carried unanimously. Councilman Gamphouse read a letter from the Rotary Club explaining its recent adoption of a sister-to-sister Rotary Club arrangement with a Rotary Club in Mexico and suggested that Mayor Balser participate in that part of the program regarding international municipal cooperation at the League of California Cities Conference in San Francisco. Mayor Balser stated that he would be happy to so do. Councilman Camphouse commended the Director of Public Works and the staff on resolving the problem of the disruption of business facing downtown Arcadia with regard to the construction of storm drains. Mayor Balser distributed to the Councilmen copies of the 1960-61 audit. To Mayor Balser's query as to whether the presentation of hearings on applications for business permits could be held up until information is received from the F.B.I" C,I,I" and L,A,SO, the City Attorney stated that the ordinance regarding hearings authorizes the Council to refer an such matter to any board or commission for further report; that Council may hold up decision until every aVenue of investigation has been completed, but that it does require that hearings be set at the next regular Council meeting next succeeding ten days after the application. However, that it would be possible to amend the ordinance to make the hearings appreciably later than that presently set, although frequently for certain reasons the Coancil would not wish to make an applicant wait 30 or 40 days. Mayor Bals~r suggested that the subject be given consideration. 16. 10-17-61 ", 1 1 CIVIL, DEFENSE BOARD J$J'~I lJ.TDEAED ADJOURNMENT 14:5515 Councilman Phillips MOVED that Dr. Burtis E. Taylor be appointed as the seventh member of the Civil Defense Board, he being the representative from the School District. Councilman Butterworth seconded the motion which was carried unanimously, Mayor Balser then stated that inasmuch as the Civil Defense Board is now complete, consisting of: -.'- :. ',:;'! Jo~eph C, Boggio', Ke~neth R. Mergen ,Edward E. Simpkins Robert W. Dow ,James Parker James R, Lee cD,r, Burtis E. Taylor , .';', the, Board 8:00 P.M. , " will hold an organ~zational in the Council Chamber. .< '. , meet~ng on November 8, 1961 at At 11:59 P,M. Councilman Ca~p'house MOVED that the meeting adjourn, Councilman Phillips seconde4;~he 'motion which was carried unanimously. " ' At 12:01 A,M. the Council me~ting reconvened and Mayor Balser ordered the date of the organization~} meeting of the Civil Defense Board changed to 8:00 P.M., October 31, l~~t in the Council Chamber, ' ;,\,; " ~/1 {J~~/J~ May r Balser ATTEST: .' .. ". i: J~ (fJ/~~~) ~ City Clerk , q .:. 17. 10-17-61