HomeMy WebLinkAboutOCTOBER 21,1958
I.ocm.
PLEDGE
ROLL CALL
MINUTES
HEARING
(Harvey)
~~
HEARING
(Treichler)
t
1~~
4~4
M I NUT E S
CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA
REGULAR MEETING
OCTOBER 21, 1958
The City Council of the City of Arcadia, California met in regular
session in the Council Chamber of the City Hall at 8:00 P.M.
October 21, 1958.
The Invocation was offered by Rev. Bennie C. Flint of the First
Baptist Church of Arcadia.
Mayor Phillips led in the pledge of allegiance to the flag.
PRESENT: Councilmen Balser, Jacobi, Reibold, Phillips
ABSENT: , Councilman Camphouse
Approval of the minutes of the regular Council meeting of October 7,
1958 was continued to the next regular Council meeting.
Mayor Phillips declared the hearing open on the request of
Mrs. Rose Marie Harvey, 8858 Camino Real, San Gabriel, California,
for a permit to conduct door to door solicitation for Real Silk
Company products. The City Clerk advised that there were no
communications received regarding this matter; the requested
solicitation hours were from 9:00 A.M. to 5:00 and evenings by
appointment.
Mayor Phillips then inquired if anyone in the audience desired to
~e heard in favor of or in opposition to the said application.
No one desiring to be heard Councilman Jacobi moved that the
hearing be closed, which motion was seconded by Councilman Reibold.
Councilman Jacobi further moved that the Council approve the request
of Mrs. Rose Marie Harvey and grant a permit to the applicant to
conduct the business therein outlined upon the conditions therein
contained. Councilman Reibold seconded the motion and it was
carried unanimously.
~
Mayor Phillips declared the hearing open on the request of Mr. Harvey
D. Treichler, 1036 S. First Avenue, Arcadia, for a permit to conduct
door to door solicitation for Fuller Brush Company products Mondays
through Saturdays, 8:00 A.M. to 5:00 P.M., and evenings by appointment.
The City Clerk advised that there were no communications received
regarding this matter.
The applicant being present, addressed the Council, stating that
he has been employed by the Fuller Brush Company since 1935; that
he is the district supervisor for said company and will have four
men working the Arcadia area; that as set forth in his application,
the salesmen work on an appointment plan including evenings.
To Councilman Balser's query as to whether he was familiar with
the ordinance prohibiting solicitation at dwellings posted with a
no solicitors sign he answered that he was so aware.
1.
10-21-58
A&.42G
(Hearing
Treichler
Continued)
- ,
t'i -t'_,
HEARING
(Zone
Change
Wise)
1 Lft/ 3
HEARING
( Zone
Change)
I ~:\ It
Whereupon Councilman Balser moved that the hearing be closed.
Councilman Jacobi seconded the motion and it was carried unanimously.
Councilman Balser further moved that Council approve the request of
Harvey D. Treichler, the applicant, and grant a permit to said
applicant to conduct the business therein outlined upon the
conditions therein contained. Councilman Reibold seconded the
motion and it was carried unanimously.
Hearing on Planning Commission Resolution No. 312, recommending the
granting of the application of Sherwood E. Wise for a change of
zone from Zone C-2 to Zone R-3 on certain property south of
Huntington Drive and west of Fourth Avenue.
I
The City Clerk read section 2 and section 3 of said Planning
Commission resolution which stated in part that the subject property
was once the southerly portion of a lot facing Huntington Drive
which was divided, leaving subject property with no access to a
street except through a lot facing Fourth Avenue; that said access
lot and subject property were both zoned R-3 until the adoption of
Ordinance No. 1000, when subject property was changed to Zone C-2.
That section 15.1 of Ordinance No. 760 states that no property in
a more restricted zone shall be used for ingress to or egress from
property in a less restricted zone, other than for purposes
permitted in such more restricted zone, thus leaving subject property
with no street access except through residential property.
Mayor Phillips then declared the hearing open and inquired if anyone
in the audience desired to speak in favor of the zone change.
Mr. Sherwood E. Wise, 17 South Fourth Avenue,addressed the Council,
stating that he was the applicant, and reiterated in substance the
information contained in said Planning Commission Resolution No. 312.
No one in the audience desiring to speak in opposition to said
recommended zone change, Councilman Reibold moved that the hearing
be closed. Councilman Jacobi seconded the motion and it was carried
unanimously.
Councilman Reibold further moved that the Council approve Planning
Commission Resolution No. 312 recommending the granting of the
application of Sherwood E. Wise for a change of zone from Zone
C-2 to Zone R-3 on certain property south of Huntington Drive and
west of Fourth Avenue. Councilman Jacobi seconded the motion and
it was carried unanimously.
Mayor Phillips declared the hearing open on Planning Commission
Resolution No. 310, recommending change of zone from Zones c-o and
D to Zone R-3 on the rear portion of property located at 728 West
Huntington Blvd.
The City Attorney commented that the proposed reclassification
concerns property included in a resubdivision, the balance of
which subdivision is already zoned R-3 and all of which subdivision
is proposed to be developed to R-3 uses; that in recommending the
approval of the subdivision the Planning Commission recommended the
institution of the within proceedings to insure the uniform
development and use of the entire tract.
I
Mayor Phillips inquired if any communications had been received
in the matter, to which the City Clerk replied that there had been
none received. He then inquired if anyone in the audience desired
to speak either in favor of or in opposition to the proposed zone
change.
2.
10-21-58
(Hearing
Zone
Change
Con t inc,ed)
1.) .}.?
I
HEARING
(Setback
Line) ,14
v,'1 .
1"1
Ij'J 1 f~.;'l.'"
. . _ :X"::.tI'WU
No one desiring to speak Councilman Reibold moved that the Hearing
be closed. Councilman Balser seconded the motion and it was
carried unanimously.
Councilman Reibold further moved that the recommendation of the
Planning Commission as embodied in their resolution No. 310 be
approved. Councilman Balser seconded the motion and it was carried
unanimously.
Mayor Phillips declared the hearing open on change of setback line on
a portion of the south side of Huntington Blvd. between Baldwin
Avenue and the west City limits from 50 feet to 35 feet.
The City Clerk advised that no communications had been received.
Councilman Reibold commented that approximately 95% of the property
owners had signed a petition requesting the setback and that he
concurred in the Planning Commission's recommendation to approve
the requested setback.
Whereupon Mayor Phillips inquired if anyone in the audience desired
to speak either in favor of or in opposition to the setback change.
No one desiring to speak Councilman Jacobi moved that the hearing
be closed. Councilman Balser seconded the motion and it was carried
unanimously.
Councilman Jacobi further moved that the Council approve the
recommendation of the Planning Commission and that the setback
on the south side of Huntington Blvd. between Baldwin Ave. and
the west City limits be changed from 50 feet to 35 feet. Councilman
Balser seconded the motion and it was carried unanimously.
MATTERS FROM THE CITY ATTORNEY
ORDINANCE
No. 1031
(Adopted)
I:~:'~::l!:D
I
The City Attorney presented for the second time, discussed and read
the title of Ordinance No. 1031, entitled: "AN ORDINANCE OF THE
CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING SECTION
8-C OF ORDINANCE NO. 726 OF SAID CITY."
He added that the sole effect of this amendment is to change the
wording with reference to the required setback of animals in
relation to streets, and changes the present wording of the
ordinance from "75 feet from any public street" to read: ".. .within
seventy-five (75) feet of the front lot line.....of any lot or
parcel of ground." so that the corner lots will be in the same
relative position as interior lots with reference to the keeping
of animals.
Councilman Balser moved that the reading of the full body of
Ordinance No. 1031 be waived. Said motion seconded by Councilman
Jacobi and carried on roll call vote as follows:
AYES: Councilmen Balser, Jacobi, Reibold, Phillips
NOES: None ,
ABSENT: Councilman Camphouse
Councilman Balser further moved that Ordinance No. 1031 be adopted.
Motion seconded by Councilman Reibold and carried on roll call vote
as follows:
AYES: Councilmen Balser, Jacobi, Reibold, Phillips
NOES: None
ABSENT: Councilman Camphouse
3.
10-21-58
11.;121
ORDINANCE
No. 1032
(Adopted)
IND~XED
1 "i:^':'
RESOLUTION
No. 3072
lllDL:;':;D
1- c
ORDINANCE
No. 1033
CDjl/1'O
The City Attorney presented for the second time, discussed and
read the title of Ordinance No. 1032, entitled: "AN ORDINANCE OF
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA, RECLASSIFYING
CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY IN SAID CITY AND ESTABLISHING THE SAME IN
ZONES C-2, P, R-3 AND D."
He added that this is the property at the southeast corner of
Baldwin and Las Tunas, commonly referred to as the Stogsdill
property; that it has been the subject of hearings before both
the Planning Commission and the Council; that Council's
determination was made in July as to the C-2 and PR-3 zoning; that
Council had requested the Planning Commission to institute proceed- I
ings to likewise place it in Zone D. That the hearing was
completed at the Council meeting of October 7, 1958 and the above
ordinance introduced in accordance with Council's determination.
Councilman Reibold moved that the reading of the full body of
Ordinance No. 1032 be waived. Said motion seconded by Councilman
Jacobi and carried on roll call vote as follows:
AYES: Councilmen Balser, Jacobi, Reibold, Phillips
NOES: None
ABSENT: Councilman Camphouse
Councilman Reibold further moved that Ordinance No. 1032 be adopted.
Motion seconded by Councilman Jacobi and carried on roll call vote
as follows:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT :
Councilmen Jacobi, Reibold,
Councilman Balser
Councilman Camphouse
Phillips
The City Attorney then presented, discussed and read the title of
Resolution No. 3072, entitled: "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA, DETERMINING AND ESTABLISHING
REGULATIONS APPLICABLE TO CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY AT THE CORNER OF BALDWIN
AVENUE AND LAS TUNAS DRIVE IN SAID CITY IN ZONE D (ARCHITECTURAL OVERLAY)
IN ADDITION TO THE BASIC C-2, R-3 AND P (PARKING) ZONING APPLICABLE
THERETO. "
He added that this is a companion to Ordinance No. 1032 and imposes
the architectural restrictions under the D Overlay just adopted with
respect to the property.
Councilman Jacobi moved that the reading of the full body of Resolution
No. 3072 be waived. Motion seconded by Councilman Reibold and carried
on roll call vote as follows:
AYES: Councilmen Balser, Jacobi, Reibold, Phillips
NOES: None
ABSENT: Councilman Camphouse
I
Councilman Jacobi further moved that Resolution No. 3072 be adopted.
Said motion seconded by Mayor Phillips and carried on roll call vote
as follows:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Councilmen Jacobi, Reibold,
Councilman Balser
Councilman Camphouse
Phillips
The City Attorney suggested that action on the next item on the
agenda, Ordinance No. 1033, be held until the tender of the deed
upon which the zoning was predicated.
4.
10- 21- 58
ORDINANCE
No. 1034
(Adopted)
lNn:C:XED
I
RESOLUTION
No. 3071
lNDEX3D
I
" 441:2.8
The City Attorney presented for the second time, discussed and read
the title of Ordinance No. 1034, entitled: "AN ORDINANCE OF THE
CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA, RECLASSIFYING
CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF DUARTE ROAD FROM R-l
TO R-2."
He added that this is the property owned by and immediately adjacent
to the Church of the Good Shepherd; that this was one of many
parcels under consideration by the Planning Commission upon which
a report was made, a hearing held and the entire subject taken
under advisement; that this is a single area as to which there
were no conditions imposed except the dedication of the property
required for the widening of Duarte Road, and the deed therefor
now having been tendered, that it would be in order to adopt
said ordinance.
Councilman Jacobi moved that the reading of the full body of
Ordinance No. 1034 be waived. Motion seconded by Councilman
Balser and carried on roll call vote as follows:
AYES: Councilmen Balser, Jacobi, Reibold, Phillips
NOES: None
ABSENT: Counc ilman Camphouse
Councilman Jacobi further moved that Ordinance No. 1034 be adopted.
Motion seconded by Councilman Balser and carried on roll call vote
as fo llows :
AYES: Councilmen Balser, Jacobi, Reibold, Phillips
NOES: None
ABSENT: Councilman Camphouse
The City Attorney presented and read the title of Resolution No. 3071,
entitled: "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA,
CALIFORNIA, GRANTING A ZONE VARIANCE TO PERMIT THE CONSTRUCTION OF
AN ADDITIONAL DWELLING Kr 1208 SOUTH SIXTH AVENUE."
The City Attorney explained that this Resolution is the result of
hearings held before the Planning Commission and the City Council
on application of W. H. and F. G. Seimer for construction of an
additional dwelling on the front portion of the property. The
relief requested is that which had been granted by modification which
expired by non-usage at the end of six months; that the resolution as
drawn follows the wording of the minutes of the last regular Council
meeting.
Councilman Reibold moved that the reading of the full body of
Resolution No. 3071 be waived. Said motion seconded by Councilman
Jacobi and carried on roll call vote as follows:
AYES: Councilmen Balser, Jacobi, Reibold, Phillips
NOES: None
ABSENT: Councilman Camphouse
Councilman Reibold stated that with reference to Section 5 of said
Resolution, clarification is indicated. As it reads "and upon the
further condition that the applicant offer to dedicate for street
purposes in the form and manner approved by the City Attorney the
easterly 30 feet of the above described property for the opening and
extension of Encino Avenue upon the same terms and conditions as have
been or are imposed upon other owners of property similarly situated."
That he interprets this section to mean that in essence the applicants
are being asked to give 30 feet of their property without cost which
in due course would be used as a part of the street; that if he is
correct he would be opposed to that particular section.
5.
10-21-58
....
, '?'i1~,!j:.(lo
"'X~,.,.,v
(Resolution
No. 3071
Continued)
1 !"l~
The City Attorney stated that this is not only what the Resolution
says but is also the effect of the wording; however, it is not a
present dedication but an offer to dedicate at the time tn~ rest of
the property required for the southerly extension of EnciAo Avenue
is either already dedicated or made available in the same manner as
suggested here; that under this proposal or wording of the resolution
not only would the applicants not be paid for their 30 feet but they
would be required to deposit a sizeabJp. sum of money for the improve-
ment of Encino Avenue and the opening, extension and imp~ovement of
Camino Grove Avenue.
Mayo~ Phillips stated that he did not want to penalize the applicants I
or anyone else; that he would not object to some change in the word-
ing as long as there is assurance that the street can and will go
through in an orderly development of Encino Avenue and its correllary,
Camino Grove Avenue, off Sixth Avenue.
Councilman Reibold stated that if the applicants were agreeable to
selling at a figure, one that is not completely unreasonable, would
it not be possible to exempt them from the setback requirements which
would automatically come with a street going through, the consensus
bei,n~ t.hat there was no reason for monev being deposited at this time.
Councilman Jacooi made reference to property being presently sold off
at between 18 and 20~ a square foot. Councilman Reibold stated that
in his opinion there are two considerations: a valuation of the 30
feet, and the other is what could be called severance damage to their
existing business which is completely at the rear line of their
property; that if the applicants were agreeable to selling the
30 feet for that amount at such time as the orderly processes require,
and then whatever legal steps are necessary could be taken to permit
them to continue their poultry operation until 1961.
Councilman Balser agreed and stated that he was desirous of seeing the
the $treet go through; that he had never felt the applicants should
dedicate at this time because in his opinion they should have the
oppo~tunity to derive income from it the same as the other people who
would be part of the subdivision.
The City Attorney pointed out that if the Seimers dedicate the property
and a street does go through and if no further condition be attached,
then there would be no basis for requiring them to contribute to the
cost of the Camino Grove Extension for the simple reason that their
property would abut a public dedicated street; that if the proposal
made by Councilman Reibold is pursued further that he would recommend
a condition that in any application for a lot split in the future
that they should comply with the same conditions as are made applicable
to anyone else in the event the area develops by lot splits as
distinguished from the development by subdivision.
I
In answer to Councilman Reibold's query regarding a subdivision, the
City Attorney explained that a subdivision is actually a matter of
agreement; the price must be right before the subdivider receives
the property that is required; the Planning Commission and Council
have already indicated that there shall be no further subdivision
or lot splits in that area, unless the street goes all the way to
the present westerly terminus of Camino Grove Avenue and Camino Grove
be extended westerly to the next north and south street; that by past
declarations of the Council and Planning Commission, Camino Grove
would have to be part of the subdivision in order to obtain approval,
if the area develops by way of subdivision; that technically every
subdivision is a series of lot splits, but all at one time, and the
cont~ibution toward the opening of Camino Grove Avenue when done by
a subdivision is a matter of computation; that the division of property
by subdivision is more orderly only because you have the recorded map
in the recorder's office and all deeds thereafter are by reference to
lots in the recorded tract as distinguished from metes and bounds
desc~iptions of portions of former subdivisions.
6.
10-21-58
(Seimer
Continued)
t) III
I
RESOLUTION
No. 3073
CO/lJ'rID
RESOLUTION
No. 3074
-1 "
.
I
iJ ~'T<<~ ,"}
~:-:J.(uu
.,
Mr. and Mrs. W. H. Seimer, the applicants, addressed the Council.
Councilman Reibold asked the applicants if they would be willing to
sell the 30 feet on the rear property line providing they would not
be required to set back the rear property line until January, 1961.
They replied that they would be most willing. Councilman Reibold
suggested the possibility of the applicants placing a value on the
land in question.
The City Attorney stated that the chicken equipment could not be
relocated on the balance of the property under the present ordinance.
Councilman Reibold suggested that the applicants give the matter
some thought and discuss it with the City Attorney after they have
decided on a figure for adequate compensation.
Mayor Phillips was of the opinion also that this is the way for this
matter to be resolved, with Councilman Balser in accord; therefore
same will be held over until the next regular meeting affording time
for the City Attorney and the Seimers to work out the details.
The City Attorney stated that Resolution No. 3073, next on the agenda,
being a companion to Ordinance No. 1033, he suggested that it likewise
be held for the same reason.
The City Attorney presented, discussed and read the title of
Resolution No. 3074, entitled: "RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA, CALLING FOR SEALED BIDS ON BONDS
TO BE ISSUED TO REPRESENT UNPAID ASSESSMENTS UPON LANDS IN VEHICLE
PARKING DISTRICT NO. 1 OF SAID CITY."
He added that slightly less than 50% of the various assessments in
parking District No. 1 were paid in cash; that the next step is
to call for bids for the purchase of the bonds representing the
balance of the unpaid assessments; that that is the purpose and
effect of Resolution No. 3074; that upon the sale of said bonds
the City will then have been totally reimbursed for the moneys
advanced in the completion of Parking District No.1.
Councilman Jacobi inquired as to whether the money that has
been collected has gone back into an account of the City; to which
the City Attorney replied that under the Vehicle Parking District Act
of 1943 all moneys first received must be used to reimburse all
advances of the City; that in this particular proceeding all moneys
received both by voluntary cash payments and the proceeds of the bonds,
which are the subject of Resolution No. 3074, will go forward toward
the reimbursement of all moneys advanced. That this is automatic
under the Ac t .
Whereupon Councilman Jacobi moved that the reading of the full body
of Resolution No. 3074 be waived. Motion seconded by Councilman
Reibold and carried on roll call vote as follows:
AYES:' Councilmen Balser, Jacobi, Reibold, Phillips
NOES: None
ABSENT: Councilman Camphouse
Councilman Jacobi further moved that Resolution No. 3074 be adopted.
Said motion seconded by Councilman Reibold and carried on roll call
vote as follows:
AYES: Councilmen Balser, Jacobi, Reibold, Phillips
NOES: None
ABSENT: Councilman Camphouse
7.
10-21-58
Ji"'"\3.o\l
-:u.-:.L .,a..
(Resolution
No. 3074
Continued)
I!:~:. -:
ORDINANCE
No. 1036
CO/J,'Q
ORDINANCE
No. 1035
(Introduced)
Ill:JL~._;)
7 'If '-I
The City Attorney then stated that upon the sale of the bonds, the
issuance of the bonds and the receipt of the money therefor, the
proceedings for the formation and improvement of the property with-
in Parking District No. 1 will be completed. Thereafter, the lots
will be operated by the Board of Parking Place Commissioners of
Vehicle Parking District No.1, at least until such time as the
Council may care to consolidate the two districts already formed
and any other districts that may be formed. That the Council
can make one Board of Parking Place Commissioners to operate all
the lots, but that it is not his recommendation that Council consider
such an amalgamation at this time because the interests in the two
districts are not sufficiently similar at the present time to
warrant that type of action. That in the future it may be deemed
necessary or advisable to cause revenue to be produced within the
district to handle such maintenance charges as will in the future
arise; that that can be done by either charging for the use of the
facilities or the levying of whatever tax within the district is
necessary to pay for the cost of operation and maintenance. That
experience indicates that such a revenue producing action is not
necessary in the early years of the district because all of the
facilities are new and there is no appreciable cost of upkeep. He
also pointed out that the same final proceedings with respect to
Parking District No. 2 are in the course of preparation by the Staff
and Assessment Engineers and they will follow in the same sequence
as has occurred in District No.1.
I
Ordinance No. 1036 will be re-introduced at the November 5, 1958
Council meeting.
The City Attorney explained that when it is possible for him to do so,
in proceedings where there has been no opposition expressed at any
stage, he attempts to have prepared in advance the ordinance required
therefor; that although this might be construed as a prejudgment of
the issues, it must be remembered that zoning proceedings can take
as long as five months, and he feels that it helps to have an
ordinance ready on those issues as to which there have been no
controversy whatsoever. That for that reason he had prepared in
advance the ordinance changing the setback on Huntington Drive
inasmuch as there has been absolutely no opposition and almost 100%
request for such change. He thereupon presented, discussed and read
the title of Ordinance No. 1035, entitled: "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY
COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 257
OF SAID CITY BY ADDING SECTION 1-Q THERETO."
Councilman Balser moved that the reading of the full body of Ordinance
No. 1035 be waived. Motion seconded by Councilman Reibo1d and carried
on roll call vote as follows:
AYES: Councilmen Balser, Jacobi, Reibo1d, Phillips
NOES: None
ABSENT: Councilman camphouse
I
Councilman Balser further moved that Ordinance No. 1035 be introduced.
Motion seconded by Councilman Jacobi and carried on roll call vote
as follows: '
AYES: Councilman Balser, Jacobi, Reibo1d, Phillips
NOES: None
ABSENT: Councilman Camphouse
8.
10- 21- 58
LOT SPLIT
No. 217
(Tentative
and Final)
.44b
,
I
ZONE
VARIANCE
(Kovenan)
,^
-.-f~"j
BID RESULTS
(Telephone
Alarm System)
,.-'1.1
COUNCIUIAN
CAMPHOUSE
2
1
I
", '" '" r..-:)
~~0t1w
>-"\.:',;r
Planning Commission recommendation for tentative approval of lot
split No. 217 requested by the Camden-Wilshire Company, 320 Topaz
place, subject to the filing of a final map by a registered engineer.
Councilman Balser moved that the Council accept the recommendation
of the Planning Commission and grant tentative approval of Lot Split
No. 217 subject to the specified condition as stated above. Council-
man Reibold seconded the motion and it was carried unanimously.
The Director of Public Works advised that the condition specified for
said lot split No. 217, to wit, filing a final map by a registered
engineer, had been complied with and recommended that final approval
be granted.
Whereupon Councilman Balser moved that the recommendation of the
Director of Public Works be accepted and that Lot Split No. 217 be
given final approval. Said motion seconded by Councilman Reibold
and carried unanimously.
Planning Commission Resolution No. 313 recommending granting zone
variance to permit the installation and use of mechanical equipment
in an existing hand-operated auto laundry at 1414 South Baldwin Ave.
Inasmuch as time for appeal has not elapsed, Mayor Phillips ordered
the matter placed on the agenda for the next regular Council Meeting
of November 5, 1958.
The following bids were received for the installation of conduit and
pede, cals for a telephone fire alarm system:
Steiny & Mitchell
Allen Engineering Co.
Sherwin Electric Service
$ 9,553.00
15,832.00
16,705.00
Engineer1s estimate
15,500.00
Recommendation of the Director of Public Works that the City Council
award the contract for the installation of the fire alarm system
to Steiny and Mitchell, Incorporated, Los Angeles, in the amount
of $9,553.00.
Councilman Camphouse arrived at the Council meeting at 9:01 P.M.,
having attended a Library Board meeting.
Councilman Jacobi moved that the Council approve the recommendation
of the Director of Public Works and that the contract for the
installation of conduit and pedestals for a telephone fire alarm
system be awarded to low bidder Steiny & Mitchell in the amount of
$9,553.00; that the Mayor and City Clerk be authorized to execute
a contract in accordance therewith in form approved by the,City
Attorney; that all other bid deposits be returned, and that the
Council appropriate from the unappropriated surplus of the General
Fund to a Capital Outlay Project the amount of $9,553.00 to finance
this construction. Councilman Camphouse seconded the motion and it
was carried on roll call vote as follows:
AYES: Councilmen Balser, Camphouse, Jacobi, Reibold, Phillips
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
9.
10-21-58
~
~~33
EASEMENT
(L. A.
County)
lHDE;~ED )
f'~~~
,
TRAFFIC
SIGNALS
(Request
for
Extension
of Time)
J:l'IDEXED ~ "'-<
f',~'t-'- '
LOT SPLIT
No. 155
(Final)
1 ,.\\
The Director of Public Works advised that a request had been received
from the County of Los Angeles, Department of Real Estate and Property
Management, for an easement for riding and hiking trail purposes ~'.n~
a portion of City-owned property lying on each side of Live Oak Avenue
at the Santa Anita Wash; that the strip of land over which the easement
is requested lies entirely within the present Flood Control right of way.
He continued that the County has contracted with the Corps of Engineers
and the contractor for construction of an equestrian underpass
at this location, and it will be constructed in conjunction with the
present Flood Control contract.
Recommendation of the Director of Public Works that the City Council
authorize the execution of the easement document for the County
of Los Angeles for the purposes above mentioned.
I
Councilman Camphouse moved that the Council accept the recommendation
of the Director of Public Works and that the Mayor and City Clerk
be authorized to execute an easement to the County of Los Angeles,
in form approved by the City Attorney, for a riding and hiking trail
over a portion of City owned property lying on each side of Live Oak
Avenue at the Santa Anita Wash, said strip of land lying within the
present Flood Control right of way. Councilman Jacobi seconded the
motion and it was carried unanimously.
The Director of Public Works advised that Fischbach and Moore,
Contractors for the traffic signals on Huntington Drive, have
requested a time extension on their contract to revise the completion
date to November 28, 1958; that this will give them adequate time
to complete the project and to make the ten day test period as required
by the specifications. He added that the reasons for the time delay
were due to the long distance truck strike which delayed the delivery
of the luminaire poles, and some delay in the wiring of the controllers
for Holly and Baldwin Avenues; that these controllers were quite
complicated and a very detailed check had to be made before they could
be delivered. That it was therefore his recommendation that the Council
allow the extension in time to complete this project to November 28, 1958.
Councilman Balser moved that the Council accept the recommendation of
the Director of Public Works and that Fischbach and Moore, contractors
for the traffic signals on Huntington Drive, be granted a time
extension on their contract to revise the completion date to November
28, 1958 in order to complete said project. Councilman Reibold seconded
the motion and it was carried unanimously.
The Director of Public Works advised that on May 21, 1957 Council
granted tentative approval for the division of property at 23 West
Norman Avenue, owned by Dell Marie Dodge; that the conditions of
approval included the removal of certain buildings, and the
construction of a new driveway and garage for the existing dwelling;
'that all of the conditions have been met except the construction of
the new driveway and the garage; that the applicant now has a sale
for both lots; that the purchaser of the improved lot has taken
permits for the driveway and garage, and has filed a letter with the
Department agreeing to complete the construction within 90 days; and
that the applicant requests final approval of the lot split be given
so that the escrow with the purchaser can be completed.
I
Councilman Reibold moved that Council grant final approval to Lot
'Split No. 155 - Dell Marie Dodge, 23 West Norman Avenue. Councilman
Jacobi seconded the motion and it was carried unanimously.
10.
10- 21- 58
j"
REFUND
REQUEST ,
(Jones ~ \-\' :;
I
iil "r. 1
r '".l2"~c)'"
Request for authorization to refund the unused portion of investigation
fee deposited by Marvin C. Jones in the amount of $18.00.
Councilman camphouse moved that the Mayor and City Clerk be
authorized to refund the sum of $18.00 to Marvin C. Jones, 14575
Valley Vista Boulevard, Sherman Oaks, being the unused portion of his
investigation fee of $25.00 deposited with the City in connection with
his application for a business permit to install five skill game
machines in the Santa Anita Bowling Alley. Said motion seconded by
Councilman Balser and carried on roll call vote as follows:
/
AYES: Councilmen Balser, Camphouse, Jacobi, Reibold, Phillips
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
AUDIENCE PARTICIPATION
(Stogsdill)
'>j'}
J
(City
Attorney) (,J
ti
(Superior
Court)
(L. A. County
Flood Control
District)
I
r~8
~
~
Mr. Ralph D. Stogsdill addressed the Council, stating that as he
had arrived late at the meeting, after Ordinance No. 1032 and
Resolution No. 3073 appearing on the agenda had been passed, he
would appreciate being informed as to Council's action on these
two matters. He was informed by Mayor Phillips that both the
Resolution and the Ordinance had been adopted.
The City Attorney reported that he had attended a meeting in Pasadena
regarding the proposal to create seven Superior Court Judicial Districts.
He explained that Arcadia is involved only to the extent that it woula
"
remain under the same Court that it now has located in Pasadena;"that
the City, however, is not entirely within the district and thaf he
took the liberty of stating that he felt certain that the Council
would not oppose the proposed plan but would request that all of the
City if possible be included within the one district. He further
explained the proposed program of creating Superior Court Judicial
Districts each having full jurisdiction, and for a more even
distribution of judges and the case load.
Whereupon Councilman Balser moved that the Council instruct the
City Attorney to advise the Administrative Officer of Los Angeles
County that it is the opinion of the City Council that their proposal
has merit and that to the extent po~sible and feasible all of the City
of Arcadia be included within one judicial district. Councilman Jacobi
seconded the motion and it was carried unanimously.
The City Attorney stated that two requests from the Los Angeles
County Flood Control District should be presented to the Council in
order that the Staff might be guided in further negotiations involving
matters of policy. The first matter was the September 12, 1958
request of the Flood Control District for acquisition of a portion
of the City-owned property presently under lease for the golf course
involving a portion of the property designated as future parking space
in the lease. A map of the area was demonstrated to the Council,
Engineer Lortz explaining that it was not certain for what purpose
or reason the Flood Control District desired the property. The Mayor
asked the Staff to ascertain the purpose and reason of the acquisition
and report back to the Council at its forthcoming meeting.
The City Attorney likewise presented the October 9, 1958 request of
Los Angeles County seeking use of the 50-foot berm around the southerly
and southeasterly portions of the gravel pit on the city-owned property
west of Peck Road. It was pointed out that the proposed trail would
come extremely close to the houses immediately south of the proposed
trail and would interfere with the intended use of the easterly
portion of the property for vehicular parking and access. The Mayor
requested the Staff to apprise the County of Los Angeles of the
foregoing objections and to suggest a realignment of the trail along
the westerly and northerly portions of the city-owned property.
11.
10- 21- 58
~
!l '~:35
~~.
CONFERENCE
ATTENDANCE
(Region I
Workshop)
II:D:"~G:;D
CONFERENCE
ATTENDANCE
(CS&IWA)
Ill;:;:;.;..::...D
COMPLETION
OF WORK
(Traffic
Signals at
Baldwin &
Live Oak)
~IJD~XLD
Request of the City Manager Pro Tempore that Captain Jim Hayes, of
the Police Department, and Assistant Director of Civil Defense for
the City of Arcadia, be authorized to attend the Region I Workshop
at Bakersfield on October 22, 1958; that this will entail the use of
a city vehicle (Police Unit #71); that the purpose of this Workshop
is discussion of Surplus Property and Matching Funds.
Councilman Reibold moved that Captain Jim Hayes of the Arcadia
Police Department be authorized to attend the Region I Workshop
at Bakersfield on October 22, 1958; expenditures to be substantiated
by an itemized expense account upon his return. Said motion seconded
by Councilman Jacobi and carried on roll call vote as follows:
AYES: Councilmen Balser, Camphouse, Jacobi, Reibold, Phillips
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
I
Request of the Director of Public Works for ratification of the
attendance by Roy N. Miller, Bernard Brumley and Leonard Bellin,
of the California Sewage and Industrial Waste Association meeting
October 18, 1958 in San Diego; that funds for this purpose were
appropriated in the 1958-59 Division Budget.
Councilman Camphouse moved that the attendance by Roy N. Miller,
Bernard Brumley and Leonard Bellin of the California Sewage and
Industrial Waste Association meeting October 18, 1958 in San Diego
be ratified; that they be commended for their willingness to go on
a Saturday, and that they be reimbursed their necessary expenses,
within the budgetary category, upon filing of itemized expense
accounts approved by the Manager. Councilman Jacobi seconded the
motion and it was carried on roll call vote as follows:
AYES: Councilmen Balser, camphouse, Jacobi, Reibold, Phillips
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
The City Attorney commented that if attendance at certain conferences
are specifically mentioned in the budget councilmanic action is not
required; that the approval of the City ~Ianager and Department Head
suffices; that as a matter of policy, however, it is a good idea
that the Council at least be informed of this type of expenditure
so that the people will know the purposes for which the money is
expended and the benefits they derive therefrom.
The City Manager Pro Tempore advised that the Traffic Signal
installation at the Baldwin and Live Oak Avenue intersection has
been completed for quite some time and that under date of October 23,
1957 the County of Los Angeles invoiced the City for its share of
the construction costs in the amount of $1326.08,representing 25%
of the total cost of the installation; that this was in accordance
with an agreement dated August 16, 1956 between the County of Los
Angeles and the City of Arcadia. He continued that a review of the
records does not indicate that the City has appropriated the necessary
funds for payment of said invoice.
I
That based on the above it is his recommendation that the City
'Council appropriate the sum of $1326,08 from the Council Contingency
Account and authorize payment of said invoice.
Mayor Phillips stated that before Council moves to authorize
payment of said invoice from Council Contingency Fund that the
matter be held over and a report made to the Council at its next
meeting as to the status of the Traffic Safety Fund Account.
12.
10-21-58
~\
ARCADIA
DEMOCRATIC
CLUB
~sf
IHD:;::XED
I
WATER
RATES
'79;J"
1?
I
.'
tt.. :
n,A'tr~
~"'::..:.uh.J
The City Manager Pro Tempore advised that permission had been
requested by Mr. Edward J. Christy, 1801 7th Place, Arcadia, on
behalf of the Arcadia Democratic Club 25th Congressional District,
for a motorcade to travel through the City on Saturday, November 1,
1958 approximately between the hours of 6:00 and 8:00 P.M.
Councilman Jacobi moved that the Council grant permission to the
Arcadia Democratic Club 25th Congressional District for a motorcade
through the City of Arcadia on November 1, 1958, at the approximate
hours of bet~een 6:00 and 8:00 P.M.; said permission, however, being
subject to the approval of the Arcadia Police Chief and the City
Manager as to itinerary and such other conditions as are necessary.
Motion seconded by Councilman Balser and carried unanimously.
The City Clerk read a letter from Mr. Wade Williams, 114 South
First Avenue, Arcadia (on file in the office of the City Clerk)
protesting increased water rates, his personal water bill and
Telephone Franchise.
Mayor Phillips inquired of the City Clerk as to whether a copy of
Mr. Williams' letter had been sent to the newspapers, as he had read
it in an evening newspaper. The City Clerk replied that it had not
been released through her office. Miss Martha Coutant, a represent-
ative of the Monrovia News Post, being present in the audience,
addressed the Council and stated that a copy was sent to her paper
by Mr. Williams.
Councilman Reibold stated as follows:
"I think this is the second time we have had the opportunity of
helping Mr. Williams with one of his problems. As I recall, the
last time he appealed to this Body for assistance was one time
when he was having some difficulty with one of his subdivisions and
I believe we were successful then in working out a satisfactory
solution, and I would hope that maybe I could in a small way answer
some of the questions that he raises with respect to his water bill
and maybe comment a few words on some of the other questions that
he raises.
"I investigated his water bill, and it is true, as he says, his
bill for the last period was $28.86. It so happens that that
covers a 70 day period by virtue of the billing dates involved.
,However, I think the important figure to compare it with is not
his, if I remember correctly, the bill that he compared it with
was $13.26 which he says was his last bill, and I guess he was just
so busy he overlooked the one that really was the last one and
that was the one for June and July, which was $17.10. The bill
that he referred to was actually his April-May bill.
"In 1957 his usage was 21,000 cubic feet and in 1958 it was 21,500
cubic feet. He has a lot which is 123 x 198 and it is rather interest-
ing to note that this water which he used is equivalent to about
10~" over his entire lot. On the old basis I calculated out his
water bill and it turned out to be $19.42 which, if my arithmetic
is correct, is a 48.5% increase. The bill that he compared it with
or could have compared it with is actually for a shorter period,
of only 51 days.
"I am glad that he brought this to our attention because I think'
maybe we have not, from the Council level, gone far enough in re-
stating what we are attempting to do in our Water Department. It
costs money to do these things. I think other cities have already
found this out and just as a matter of comparison I took his
$28.86, bill and I found out that had he lived in Whittier that his
bill would have been $53.75; if he had lived in San Marino it
would have been $43.20; in Pasadena it would have been $39.54;
in Alhambra $34.45, in Duarte $32.55, in South Pasadena $30.58,
13.
.
10-21-58
1>1 ':3""
'::u.;.""J.C ~
and it looks as if he has two places to go to save a 'buck' - one,
Sierra Madre for $27.10 and the other Monrovia for $26.96.
"It is true that we have raised the water rates a significant
amount. We have raised them on the average that they will
produce between 40% and 50% more revenue, and, as you men know, our
receipts for water sales last year were in the order of $500,000.00.
We were barely breaking even.
"The Montgomery report calls upon us to spend in the next twelve years
$2,700,000.00 in new capital expenditures. These expenditures are
for additional reservoirs, additional pipelines and additional wells,
and for an additional pressure zone. This rate increase produces
$211,000.00 more revenue per year which we expect to use to finance I
this program. To give you some idea of the magnitude of these
expenditures, our current assets, (gross assets not depreciated
assets) in the Water Department are $3,900,000.00. We are adding
to that $2,700,000.00, and I might point out in passing that this
does not provide for a source for outside water, only facilities
with which to distribute the water that we now have available to
us from the San Gabriel Basin and the Raymond Basin.
"Now some people will argue that maybe what we should have done is
not raise the rates of the water but we should have gone to a bond
or we should have put it in the tax rate. Personally I believe that
it is fundamental that the person who uses the water should pay for
it, and I think it would be poor financing to shred that $2,700,000.00
expenditure back upon our tax base. There are several reasons.
For example, the largest water user that we have in the City of
Arcadia is the Los Angeles County Park which, in 1957 used 12,701,000
cubic feet of water for which they paid us $10,306.00. Another large
user, (the Los Angeles Turf Club is the next largest user but since
they are not in this consideration I will omit that amount) the
Arboretum, used 6,335,100 cubic feet of water. When you add those
together you find that out of a total production, or total sales I
should say, out of the total sales in 1957, which amounted to
485,976,300 cubic feet, that 19,036,800 went to the Los Angeles
County and for that they paid a total of $15,488.00. Now had we
spread these additions back upon the tax base they would not have
had to pay one single cent of the increased capital facilities,
and yet they used 3.92% of the total water sold in the City of Arcadia.
"I think we are on sound ground. The rates are high but I dare say
that had the mains been emptied, like they were in some of our
memories, Mr. Williams would have had not time to write in prose,
but would have simply stuck to the facts and complained bitterly
about the lack of water, because a lot of people did it when we were
up against that and we are trying to produce a continuing water
supply and I think we are doing it at a very reasonable cost.
"I cannot let go by unmentioned the matter of the franchise. There
seems to be a growing misunderstanding in probably what may have been I
the result of an examination of the book which the League of Women
Voters put out, which showed that the gas and electric companies
paid franchises while the telephone companies were not paying such
franchise. If I may, I would like to read a little statement that
I prepared here because I think it is important that this is clearly
understood:
'In 1905 the State Legislature enacted a statute which
had the effect of offering the telephone companies the
right to use the public streets and highways for telephone
lines. The purpose of the statute was to encourage the
development of statewide communications. Arly telephone
14.
10-21-58
4438
company that accepted the franchise obtained the right
to use the streets and, at the same time, assumed the
obligation to render communications services. This right
has been held by the courts to be effective throughout the
State of California except in certain cities which had
freehold charters in 1905, such as Los Angeles, Pasadena
and San Diego in our area here.
"Therefore, the company does not need local franchises
in other cities and does not have them in Arcadia,
or Alhambra, Glendale, Burbank, San Gabriel, etc. since
these cities did not hold freehold charters in 1905.
I
'The question has sometimes been asked why gas and power
companies are required to obtain local franchises, while
telephone and telegraph companies are exempt. The answer
to this question is that historically the state has been
interested in encouraging the growth and development of
statewide communications because their value to the state's
development is determined by their scope. Power and gas
facilities need not be statewide to make their valuable
contribution. But less someone think that the telephone
companies, and I use the word plural because within the
city limits of Arcadia there are two telephone companies
(California Water and Tel., and Pacific Tel), and together
they have a combined assessed valuation of $2,121,000.00,
and they pay taxes for their properties held within the
city limits of Arcadia in the amount of $153,331.00, an
amount which, when compared to the total taxes paid by the
gas and power companies who also use the city streets,
together with their franchise payments, is a greater amount,
that other amount being $146,000.00.'
"t think just one other point which is of interest and is not generally
known, the assessed valuation of public utility property, and this is
all public utility property, is equal to 50% of the market value as
determined by the State Board of Equalization. The assessed valuation
of common properties, that is other than utility property, is 23.7%
of the market value as found by the County Assessors, and that is
a statewide average. I think actually our own County is a little
higher than that. What that says in simple English is that dollar
for dollar of cost the utilities are being taxed actually a little
higher rate because of the relationship of the market value.
"Well, I hope Mr. Mayor, that maybe this will be of some value in
putting Mr. Williams' mind at rest, maybe we have helped him again."
I
Mayor Phillips stated: "I might add that as recently as 1954, under
the old Alderman report, the County Water Department was not paying
its own way and capital outlay was being made at the expense of
the advalorem tax rate and none of the reserves refunded. These
have all been accomplished within our memory. So it isn't all a
one way street. Also the papers carried here the other day the
news which we have all been expecting for years, that the lower
basins are going to sue now for adjudication of the upper San
Gabriel and Raymond Valley Basins. This will determine the exact
amount of water that we will be allowed to pump and we may be faced
quicker than we think with finding another source for water in order
to supply our own needs. It's a tremendous problem, this water,
problem, that you just don't toss around lightly. It takes a lot
of thought and a lot of doing."
Councilman Reibold added: "Those of us who attended the water
meeting, learned some months ago that our basin is in pretty
heavy overdraft, in spite of this exceedingly heavy rain. It
15.
10-21-58
,~ '3,;11
-:ii:"::1: tV
PETITION
1~;J:j. '-""D
.......t......
p;&I>l..,.
RECREATION
COMMISSION
r/se
FIRE
STATIONS
(Dedication
Program)
~S~
is interesting to note that this year when we had just about twice as
much rain as we had last year we have actually produced less water even
though the year before we had some 200 or 300 more meters."
Councilman Camphouse stated: "I wish to conunent on the part of the
letter that refers to franchises; the inference is 'so this was the
law in the State of California, that these telephone companies do
not pay a franchise, and the inference would be then that well, change
the law!' but I think all, even Councilman Reibold, will respect the
ability and the knowledge of the City Attorney of Los Angeles, who is
probably one of the experts in the matter of rates, and certainly
saved the taxpayers of Los Angeles a lot of money on rates. Cases vs.
gas company vs. telephone company have been pursuing this subject for a I
long time attempting to get more franchises from the telephone
company, and he has probably sustained the only legal defeat that I
can recall in recent years even to such extent that I think he was
reprimanded by the Supreme Court of the State of California, so I
don't think that we are dilitory in our efforts."
The City Clerk advised that a petition had been presented to her
office late that evening, signed by seven property owners at
addresses set forth in said petition, which stated in part that
they would like the Council to reconsider the placing of "planned
residence on the property located at the northeast corner of Third and
Longden". That the planned residence caused the middle lot being
improved for Mr. Van Buskirk to become a key lot from both sides,
placing him between two garages. The Director of Public Works explained
the situation, after which Mayor Phillips ordered the matter referred
to Staff to investigate.
Councilman Camphouse referred to the Minutes of the Recreation
Conunission wherein it was reflected that an agreement of negotiations
had been entered into with the Conununity Facility Planners relative
to the second state of development of the Wilderness Area; that he
had noticed many items had been set forth. The City Attorney commented
that each stage must progress under a separate contract. Councilman
Camphouse further stated that he has heard many conunents on the
wonderful development thus far; that he is bringing it up at this
time so that it will not be overdeveloped; that he has asked the
Director of Public Works to duplicate the reconunendation of the
Conunission and submit copies to all of the Councilmen for their
study; that permanent rest rooms should be made available and
possibly some grading relating to the ball field, but that he is
of the opinion that they should move slowly.
Mayor Phillips conunented that the Recreation Conunission does not have
Ithe right to direct the Conununity Facility Planners to go ahead on
any particular phase; that the reconunendation is directed to the
Council and they in turn so advise the Community Facility Planners.
Councilman Camphouse emphasized that it is not his desire to
curtail the necessary requirements, but wants to be kept' apprised
of developments before conunitments are made.
I
Councilman Camphouse suggested that since the new Baldwin Avenue
Fire Station is now occupied the time has come for the Staff to
consider a dedication program encompassing both the Baldwin Avenue
Fire Station and the Central Fire Station soon to be completed;
said program to include those people who had actively participated
in the attainment of said fire stations, such as former councilmen,
former Fire Chief Nellis, and the like. Mayor Phillips agreed
that this was a timely suggestion. Councilman Reibold added that
it might be well to have such a program include open house at both
stations. Councilman camphouse also suggested that the Council
would welcome suggestions and recommendations from the Staff as to
16.
10-21-58
(Resolution
No. 3068)
"
. ~J,
I
4-4~')
the disposition of the old Baldwin Avenue Fire Station property.
The Director of Public Works advised that the Fire Chief is now
working on such an event.
Councilman Camphouse inquired as to the status of Resolution No. 3068
relating to the protested traffic lines on Huntington Drive in the
area east of Second Avenue to Fifth Avenue, and was informed by the
City Attorney that a fully executed copy of said resolution, which
was adopted by the Council October 7, 1958, had been transmitted to
the State Division of Highways by the City Clerk on October 14, 1958,
and that it was too early to anticipate any reaction by said Division,
but that if a contact has not been made within the next week or ten
days he will pursue the matter further.
The City Manager Pro Tempore added that at a meeting of the Chamber of
Commerce on October 16, 1958 several members of the Division had been
present and the above matter had been discussed at some length, and
that a communication was to be sent from the Chamber of Commerce to
the Division of Highways in support of said Resolution No. 3068.
Whereupon Councilman Camphouse commented again on the hardship imposed
on the businessmen in the said area due to the intermittent barrier'
safety zone divisions on Huntington Drive and stressed the importance
of keeping the matter alive.
(L. A. County Councilman Camphouse suggested that the Staff contact the Los Angeles
Humane Society)County Humane Department at Baldwin Park to alert them to the fact that
there seems to be a great number of dogs running loose on 'Arcadia
INDEXED streets.
(Sound
System)
INDEXED
(Mayor
Phillips)
INDEXED
(Rezoning on
Duarte Road)
I
INDEXED
/IS P
'.
ADJOURNMENT
Councilman Camphouse recommended that a microphone be purchased that
can be used by anyone explaining maps and the like posted on the bulletin
board in the Council Chamber. He suggested that it be one that can be
worn around the neck to enable the free use of the hands~ and added
that this recommendation stemmed from the fact that he had heard'many
protests regarding the inability of the audience to hear the person
standing at the bulletin board.
Mayor Phillips stated that he had received letters from Mr. Herb
Herzenberg, Chairman of the City Liaison Committee, commending the
City Manager, Fire Department and other citizens for their help
during the recent disaster, and from the Los Angeles County Board of
Supervisors also commending the City for its help during the
Monrovia fire.
Mayor Phillips stated that he thought it would be well for the City
to be represented at the dedication of the Los Angeles County
Courthouse at 10:30 A.M. Friday, October 31, 1958, and added that he
had received an invitation for a seat reservation to said dedication
and would give it to the City Clerk for anyone who might 'wish to use it.
Mayor Phillips stated that at the meeting (October 17, 1958) with
the Planning Commission the matter of the rezoning of Duarte Road
on the north and south sides was discussed; that the zoning of the
church property has already been handled; that there is another
area that is relatively close to a solution which has been pending
for a 'number of years, being the property on the north side of Duarte
Road that backs up to the property abutting Fairview Avenue. That
the general consensus is that an Arcadia street be cut through the
back, but that it was a case of equity that it not be entirely
charged to the property fronting on Duarte Road; and that he would
like the Staff and the planners to talk with Mr. Pearson, Mr. Zorg
and others of the original application to see if something can be
worked out and a report made at the next Council meeting.
Councilman Reibold moved that the meeting adjourn. Councilman Jacobi
seconded the motion and it was carrie~unanimously.
~&f}Lur
~~~
~~
. -7;4 ; -i /
-
City Clerk
17
10- 21- 58