Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAUGUST 24,1960 1 -I 5095 M I NUT E S CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING AUGUST 24, 1960 Pursuant to the order of adjournment of the regular adjourned meeting of the City Council of August 18, 1960, the City Council of toe'City of Arcadia met in regular adjourned session in the Council Chamber of the City Hall at 7:30 P.M., August 24, 1960. ROLL CALL PRESENT: ABSENT: Councilmen Balser, Butterworth, Reibold, Phillips, Camphouse None MASTER PLAN Mayor Camp house stated that at this adjourned meeting the question of whether or not to place on the November 8, 1960 General-Election ballot the matter of the City employing consultants at a cost estimate~ to be between $50,000.00 and $75,000.00 for the purpose of preparing a Master Plan for the City would be diseussed. Councilman Reibold then read in full the following prepared statement: "MASTER PLAN "At this point in time we find that there is a great deal of discussion about, and interest being shown in, a so called Master Plan for the City of Arcadia. "What is a Master Plan? Over simplified, the adoption of a Master Plan results in the regulation of land use so as to conform to the will of the people who reside in the city involved. "The creation of such a plan requires the detailed study of a number ~ of factors that are encompassed in the complex of community life. ~I\() \ Circulation of private and public transportation, present and future : \ thoroughfares for those passing through, the location of the many utility facilities; population density related with land use; INDEXEDrecreation, parking, educational and public building requirements; ways of meeting the city's financial needs and the citizen's buying habits and desires; are all involved. "In consideration of the costs involved, the question is, do we really need a Master Plan or is it only something that would be nice to have? "I believe that these kinds of things bear on the answer: What has our performance been to date, and are we adequately planning for the future? Are the people who are making the decisions or those who give advice, qualified and dedicated to their tasks? "I submit that our City as it stands today is not the end result of "helter skelter" planning. I submit that a pretty good job has been done through the peace and the war. I believe the things accomplished which will affect our city in the future are the kinds of things that evidenced foreSight, courage and unity in purpose. "We did not have to spend seventy-five thousand dollars to have someone tell us that the widening of Huntington, Duarte, Baldwin and Santa Anita was necessary for better circulation. 1. 8-2l>-60 5096 (Master plan - Continued) "We did not have to spend seventy-five thousand dollars. for advice that the annexation of the west side of Baldwin and the south side of Live Oak would be in the'interest of the city's future financial stability as well as providing for the uniform development of both sides of the street under one jurisdiction. "Nor did the creation of a City Water Board for the purpose of meticulously studying the city's future water needs require outside help. "The creation of the Wilderness area, the erection of an -addition to the city hall, a new police building, two new fire stations, ' and a new city library are all tangible evidenee of not only having provided for the present but also a good bite of the future. 1 "The rapid implementation of the Fire Underwriter's recommendation which will 'result in lower fire insurance rates for all Arcadians did not require outside assistance. "And lastly I submit that the citizens of our city can stand tall with pride in the knowledge that the people who serve on the city's boards, commissions and staff are not only well qualified for their particular assignments but also are people intelligent, honest, dedicated and willing to work in the interest of our eity's welfare. In this we are extremely blessed. "Then, what is to be gained in placing the matter of the Master plan on the November ballot? Starting with the last e1eetion there has been increasing interest in the procurement of a Master Plan for the city? Some candidates seeking election embodied it in their respective platforms. Property owners associations have formally asked the council to act, However, in talking with opinion forming residents one does not find universal agreement in this regard. "It seems to me that the common good can best be met and the cloud of uncertainty which hovers over many planning decisions can best be dispelled by placing this matter before the electorate for a decision." Councilman Reibold added that ~e had arrived at this conclusion after his attendance at the joint meeting of the City Council and the Planning Commission of August 17, 1960. The following diseussion then ensued: Councilman Butterworth stated in part that he felt it important for the community to know that Mr. John Commons, of the Los Angeles County Regional Planning Commission, who addressed the joint meeting of the Council and Planning Commission on August 17, 1960, had indicated that p1aeing the matter of a Master Plan on the November ballot would doom it to defeat because of the time element. That with respect to the cost of the plan ,Mr. Ralph Courtney, a consultant, had estimated that it would be between $50,000.00 and $75,000.00 but that Mr. Commons thought it would be approximately $1.00 to $1.25 per person, not taking into consideration the fact that the City already has a water study and sewers. I Councilman Butterworth continued in part that he did not question the expenditure of even $50,000.00 to plan the future of a community with an evaluation in excess of a third of a billion dollars; that during the course of his election he had said that major capital projects should be submitted to the public provided they did not involve matters of public safety, but that he had not meant to imply that this should include every major capital project or every expenditure of money; that such procedure would handicap the operation of the Council. 2. 8-24-60 1 1 (Master Plan - Continued) J 5097 He summarized in part that to place the matter of a Master Plan on the November ballot would in his opinion force the people to vote on a revenue matter without giving them an opportunity to understand it and that if defeated it would compromise Council's position in the future; that he favored the people voting on a Master Plan but that it should be placed on the ballot at the time of the school election this coming Spring or that a special election be called; that during the' interim an educational program could be carried on, with the help of the Press, community meetings, etc. Councilman Phillips stated in part that there are two ,questions involved on the matter of the Master Plan: ':' !>.re: the people going to vote on whether a certain amount of money is to be spent for seeuring a Master plan or are they going to vote on the Master Plan itself2 That Arcadia has' greatHareas of'land that planning wilf'never touch even with' a master plan, "and for that' reason he had requested' a' list of the zone' changes and zone variances granted the past five'years; that 'there have been a total of 34 zone changes and 11 zone variances; that'there have been practically no changes in 95% of the area of Arcadia in the last ten years. That in his opinion an economic survey to determine what will work in a given area, and proper consultation service' regarding the result of the freeway, would suffice; that a master plan would not solve all proplems and that the matter should be placed on the November ballot due to the large turnout for that election; that in the interim everything possible should be done to educate the public regarding the meaning of a master plan. Councilman Balser stated in part that he felt the Planning Commission needs some professional assistance on long range planning matters and that the Planning Commission budget should be augmented by $10,000.00 or $12,000.00 for professional assistance to help solve some of the problems that will arise when the freeway goes through Areadia and other planning matters. He added that he felt the Planning Commission has done an excellent job and that great strides have been taken, such as making provision for property owners as deed restrictions expire, etc. That a Master Plan would not prevent requests for zone changes or zone variances so that it would not actually solve that problem. He mentioned the significance of the five residential areas in Arcadia being dedicated to keeping Arcadia an outstanding city and felt that these organizations would inform the residents as, to the meaning of a Master Plan. That he principally questioned whether a Master plan is worth the estimated amount and that he thought this question should be answered by the people and that he favored plaeing the matter on the November ballot. Mayor Camphouse mentioned the fact that he was impressed with Mr. Commons, a resident of San Marino who played an important role in the city's zoning ordinance but had stated that San Marino had no master plan. He added that in his opinion a Master Plan would not solve the problem of zone ehange and varianee requests, That he did not agree with Council- man Butterworth's statement that if the matter is placed on the ballot and defeated it would handicap the Council; that he would feel duty- bound to work with the administration in producing economic factors that will be necessary for an area concerned by the freeway; that a master plan could not have foreseen the freeway problem ten years ago; and with the outlining of all the effects of a master plan, the people would have an opportunity of making a determination. The City Attorney stated in part that the proposed proposition as worded is not a revenue measure but an attempt to sound out the feeling of the community in that connection and for this reason even though the timing might seem short in this case, it would be his recommendation that whenever the matter is placed on a ballot it be so done at a time which will evoke a larger vote of the people than iS'customarily obtained in a special or strictly municipal election. He added that the proposition as proposed would state: "Shall the City of Arcadia employ consultants, at a cost estimated to be between $50,000 and $75,000 for the pur'pose' of preparing a Master Plan for the City," 3. 8-24-60 5098 (Master Plan " Continued) That the vote of-the people on that proposition would only be an expression of their desires; that it would not forecast'the-type' of master plan ultimately to be prepared and ~ubmitted for adoption. The City Attorney further'stated that the teennica1ities of the resolution were his draftsmanship, and that the wording of the proposition was suggested by Mr. Reibo1d. After further extensive general discussion, Mayor Camphouse heard from the following persons in the audience: Councilman Phlllips stated that to postpone this"matter until the next Municipal election would put too much pressure upon the Planning Commission and the Council because of matters pending Ln zoning and - that a general election would be a better way of dete~ining the feeling ,~- of a true cross-section of the people. - , RE~OLUTlON No, 3293 (Adopted) lNDEXEb j Councilman Butterworth then moved that the matter of the Master Plan be placed upon the ballot at the time of the Spring Sehoo1 Election in May of 1961. There being no second to the above motion, Councilman Butterworth moved that the matter of the Master Plan be placed upon' 'the ballot at' the Spring Election called on the sec'ond Tuesday bl:March of 1961. There being no second, the City Attorney presented, and re~d in its entirety Resolution No. 3293, entitled: "A RESOLUTION OF'THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA, REQUESTING 'THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES TO CONSOLIDATE THE CITY OF ARCADIA MASTER PLAN ELECTION TO BE HELD ON NOVEMBER' 8, 1960, WITH THE STATEWIDE GENERAL ELECTION TO BE HELD NOyEMBER 8, ~960." Motion by Councilman Re'ibo1d, seconded by Councilman Phillips and carried on roll call vote as follows that Resolution No. 3293 be adopted: AYES:' Councilmen Balser, Reibo1d, Phillips, Camphouse NOES: Councilman Butterworth ABSENT: None Councilman Butterworth added that his "No" vote is predicated upon the fact that there is not sufficient time for the electorate to be informed and that Resolution No. 3293 is a deviee to permanently bypass master planning in Arcadia. 1 The City Attorney presented,'exp1ained the content and read the title of Ordinanee No. 1099, entitled: "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA, ORDERING, CALLING, PROVIDING FOR AND GIVING NOTICE OF A SPECIAL ELECTION TO BE HELD IN THE CITY OF ARCADIA ON THE 8TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 1960, FOR THE PURPOSE OF SUBMITTING TO THE QUALIFIED . VOTERS OF SAID CITY A PROPOSITION TO EMPLOY CONSULTANTS TO PREPARE A llIDEXED MASTER PLAN, AND CONSOLIDATING SAID ELECTION WITH THE STATEWIDE GENERAL / ELECTION TO BE HELD ON SAID DATE." Motion by Councilman Phillips, seconded by Councilman Balser and carried on roll ea11'vote as ,follows that the reading of the full body of ORDINANCE No. 1099 (Introduce'd al1d Adopted) 4. 8-24-60 (Ord,l099 - Continued) 1 PERSONNEL BOARD (Reddington~ [1''' \ 5099 Ordinance No, 1099 be waived: AYES: Councilmen Balser, Butterworth, Reibold, Phillips, Camphouse NOES: None ABSENT: None Councilman Phillips further moved that Ordinance No, 1099 be introduced and adopted. Councilman Reibold seeonded the motion and it was carried on roll call vote as follows: AYES: Councilmen Balser, Reibold, Phillips, Camphouse NOES: Councilman Butterworth ABSENT: None The City Attorney advised that the decision of the Personnel Board in the matter of Wm, L. Reddington has been rendered and copies of such decision have been filed with the City Manager, the Chief of Police and the City Clerk on behalf of the City Council, and copies have also been served upon the appellant, Mr. Reddington, and upon his counsel. ANNEXATION Mayor Camphouse appointed Councilman Butterworth and the City Manager to COMMITTEE j'serve on a connnittee to study the matter of annexations to the City of Arcadia; said eonnnittee to be composed of a member of the Chamber of Commerce Connnunity Development Connnittee, to be appointed by 'the president, and a member of the Planning Connnission. Mayor Camphouse requested the City Manager to connnunicate with the Chamber of Connnerce and Mr. Acker, Chairman of the Planning Commission ,requesting said appointments be made, STAFF (Master Planning) The City Manager suggested that Council give some consideration to establish- ing a policy as to staff participation in the matter of master planning. Councilman Phillips connnented that there was still to be heard a technical planner on the subject and that there should be another joint meeting early in September to talk to other specialists on the subject of master planning. C\ fyf\O ~:~~ro;::~~~~~~o~ei~e~~:dc~~; ;~~rs~~;a~~~mt~f~~:ed:~i:~:nP~~s~~:n~~U~~il '1 to put the matter of master planning before the electorate and invite them INDEXE~o attend a meeting to be arranged by the City Manager in the near future, RENTAL OF OLD LIBRAil.Y BY SCHOOL DISTRICT Councilman Butterworth summarized developments of a joint meeting held on August 22, 1960 between a connnittee composed of Councilmen Reibold and Butterworth, the City Manager representing the City, Mr, Harold C, Lietz, Dr. Antone W. Nisson and Dr, Burtis E. Taylor representing the school district, for the purpose of discussing the possible leasing of the old library building to the school board for use as an administration building. Councilman Butterworth stated in substance that discussion involved the time of the lease, the amount of the rental to be paid to the City for the use of the property, maintenance of the improvements, insurance consider- ations including a "hold-harmless" agreement, the termination of the lease ~ and a guarantee from the school to the City that they would make every oj effort to plan for the construction of their own facilities. ,A.r\ Councilman Butterworth continued that principally the discussion revolved v/\ around the matter of the rental to be paid; that Councilman Reibold's crND~XE~osition was that $12,000 per year would be equitable considering the fair ~ market value of the building. That it was generally agreed that if other matters could be resolved, a lease period of five years would be satis- r^l) factory in view of the amortization of the money the school would have to expend on the building and the amount of time necessary to raise funds to build a~ administration building located on school land, That the school district was prepared to maintain the property at school expense; that the school has a blanket policy of insurance and would enter into a "hold- harmless" agreement to indemnify the City against any public' liability or damage that might result during their use of the property; and that with respect to the property being returned to the City within a reasonable 1 5. 8-24-60 5100 (Library Rental - Cccntinued) period of time, there being no contract that could be entered into between the two bodies which could bind a later councilor school board under the circumstances, the adoption of a joint resolution of intent was reeommended indicating that in good faith there was a five year period involved unless voluntarily extended by the City. Regarding the matter of rental, Councilman Butterworth eontinued, it was , the position of the school that inasmuch as they would have to spend approximately $30,000 to equip the library which, amortized over a five year period would result in a cost to the district of about $6000 per year, that they would not be willing to pay an additional sum of $12,000 per year as rent. 1 Councilman Butterworth added that his position in the matter was that the present use of the school administration building is a discredit to the community and a waste of taxpayers' money, and that in his opinion, and possibly the school's, the difference between the school district and the city was a question of dominimus; that a dangerous precedent would be established if the city and school district charge each other for their joint ventures; that the school district had indicated that if the City will consent to the use of the library for a maximum period of five years they would in good faith execute a resolution indicating that they will levy an advalorum tax of five cents per year, including the present year, which money would be set aside for a permanent administration building and that the school district respectfully requests a five year lease at $1.00 per year whieh would also be his recommendation, Extensive discussion ensued and in substance the following opinions and suggestions were made by the Council: Councilman Balser agreed that the present administration building used by the school district is in a deplorable condition and not in keeping with the school system in Arcadia; that he did not believe $12,000 a year to be a nominal figure although it might be economically sound, but that neither did he believe $1.00 a year a nominal figure, and that he would suggest as a compromise figure the sum of $6000.00 per year. Councilman Phillips stated that the future of downtown Arcadia may well hinge on the use of the property in question and that leasing it to the school district is not the best and highest use to be made of said property; how- ever, that in view of the aforementioned proposed resolution of intent, he would agree to a five year period, although he had previously favored a maximum of three years. Mayor Camphouse agreed with Councilman Phillips regarding the lease period and the future value of the property to the doWntown Arcadia area. Councilman Butterworth believed the school district would reject the suggested compromise rental of $6000.00 a year in view of the amount to be expended by the school district in remodeling the library building and . mentioned again the dangerous precedent that might be set by eharging for joint use of property by the City or the school district. He then requeste that Couneil consider as an alternative an amount mentioned by Couneilman Reibold in his presentation at the meeting, to wit, the. equivalent of the loss in advalorum taxes of approximately $1450,00 per year as rental instead of $1.00 per year, and then at Councilman Reibold's statement that the advalorum tax would be only $430.00 instead of $1450.00, he suggested that Council consider a nominal rental of $500.00 per year. The discussion continued and in substance the following further comments and suggestions were made by the Council: Mayor Camphouse commented that regarding joint use of property by the City and school, that this has been property that is not available for sale or rent to another user and is not comparable. 6. 8-24-60 (Library Rental - Continued) 1 too""''' 5101 The City Manager pointed out that the potential use of the library had been discussed with the school board last January, and at that time it was thought that rental of the library would not totally solve the school board's problem, but that if they were to develpp a program for ultimately insuring their having funds available for the construction of an administration building the matter would be placed in a different light, That the possible potential of benefits to be derived from this property to the community as a whole is well recognized, but that he believed the proposed resolution of intent would solve that problem. Councilman Phillips commented upon the co-use of city-school property and believed that it is more beneficial to all concerned to handle such matters on an arms-length, businesslike basis. He then suggested that instead of the school district investing $30,000 in remodeling the old library build- ing and'still ultimately having to build a new administration building, that if possible the City lend the school district the necessary amount of 'money out of the City's cash basis fund, as the City did for the parking Districts, so that the School District might build the new administration building at today's construction cost, and thus have $30,000 to add to the new building in addition to saving eonstruction cost. Co~ncilman Butterworth thought Councilman Phillips' suggestion good but did not believe the school district was permitted to borrow money; that he believed the Code prohibits them from incurring any indebtedness unless authorized by the electorate. Councilman Reibold mentioned the fact that the school boundaries of Arcadia are not coterminus and that Arcadia residents might object to Arcadia in essence subsidizing the school because they could feel it 'was taxation "without representation. He added that he would agree to a rental ~f $6000 per year. It was then suggested, that Councilmen Reibold and Butterworth again consult with the school district committee, advising them' of the substance of Council'~ discussion, to wit, that the points the joint committee resoived were generally approved by the Council providing the rental figure could be adjusted, and that the figure of $6000 per year had been s~ggested by the Council. Councilman Butterworth stated that although he did not agree with the $6000 figure as being a nominal rent, he would convey the thinking 'of the majority of the Council to the school district committee., 'Whereupon Councilman Balser moved that the committee representing the city, composed of Councilmen Reibold and Butterworth anq the City Manager meet again with the school district committee in an attempt to amicably resolve' the matter and to report back to the Council after September 20, 1960. Councilman ?hillips seconded the motion which was carried unanimously. "Motion by Councilman Phillips, seconded by Councilman Reibold and carried "unanimously that the meeting adjourn at 10:20 P.M. ;Pfit~u// ~~~./~ Mayor ' ATTEST: rof~~L4(~ City Clerk.- 7. 8-24-60