Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutFEBRUARY 4,1958 :\ 1 INVOCATION PLEDGE . J ROLL CALL MINUTES HEARING (Improvement of Louise Avenue) :j ;2.5 (I..J 1 ....... RESOLUTION No. 2977 n:DI:~:=:J " J <1.1.12 M I NUT E S CITY COUNCIL' OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA REGULAR MEETING FEBRUARY 4, 1958 The City Council of the City of Arcadia met in regular session in the Council Chamber of the City Hall at 8:00 P.M. February 4, 1958. The invocation was offered by Rev. Clair Widerhoft, Pastor of Our Saviour Lutheran Church. Mayor Pro Tempore Phillips led in the pledge of allegiance to the flag. PRESENT: ABSENT: Councilmen Camphouse, Jacobi, Phillips and Reibold Mayor Dennis The minutes of the regular council meeting of January 2l and the adjourned regular meeting of January 28, 1958, not having been distributed to the Council in sufficient time, were not approved at this meeting. Improvement of Louise Avenue between LeRoy Avenue and Christina Street and LeRoy Avenue between Louise Avenue and Santa Anita Avenue. Mayor Pro Tempore Phillips announced that this is the time and place for hearing protests or objections against the improvement of Louise Avenue and LeRoy Avenue, as described in Resolution of Intention No. 2965. The City Clerk reported that she had ,the Affidavit of Posting and the Affidavit of Publication and the Affidavit of Mailing. Councilman Reibold moved that the Affidavits of Posting, at ion and Mailing be received into the record and filed. seconded by Councilman Camphouse and passed unanimously. Public- Motion Mayor Pro Tempore Phillips inquired of the City Clerk if she had received any written protests and she replied that she had received no protests. Mayor Pro Tempore Phillips declared the hearing open. He asked if anyone wished to be heard in opposition to the matter. No one appearing, Mayor Pro Tempore Phillips requested a motion to be made to close the hearing. Councilman Reibold moved that the hearing be closed. Councilman Camphouse seconded the motion and it was carried unanimously. The City Attorney then presented, discussed and read the title of Resolution No. 2977, entitled: "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA, ORDERING WORK TO BE DONE ON LOUISE AVENUE.AND LE ROY AVENUE, IN ACCORDANCE WITH RESOLUTION OF INTENTION NO. 2965." Motion was made by Councilman Reibold that the reading of the full body of Resolution No. 2977 be waived. Said motion was seconded by Councilman Jacobi and carried on roll call vote as follows: AYES: Councilmen Camphouse, Jacobi, Phillips and Reibold NOES: None ABSENT: Mayor Dennis 1. 2-4-58 ,'. ~113 Motion was made by Councilman Reibold that "Resolution No. 2977 be adopted. Said motion'was seconded by Councilman Jacobi and carried on roll call "vote as follows: AYES: Councilmen Camphouse, Jacobi, Phillips, Reibold NOES: None ABSENT: Mayor Dennis HEARING (Avon Products) -,} 31t Application of Avon Products, Inc. for a permit to solicit sales of cosmetic products. The City Clerk reported that she had a communication from Mrs. Beatrice Criss, Sales Manager of Avon Products, Inc., together with their application, giving an Arcadia address of l045 West Huntington Drive, and designating the hours that Arcadia will be served, namely, Monday through Friday, 8:30 to 5:00 P.M. and in the evening, on call. She also stated that Mrs. Criss, represent- ing Avon Products, was present. 1 Mayor Pro Tempore Phillips inquired of the applicant if she desired to add anything to the application, to which she replied that she did not but that she would answer any questions. He then inquired if anyone wished to speak in favor of the applicantion, or in opposition to the application. No one appearing, he stated he would then entertain a motion that the hearing be closed. Councilman Camphouse moved that the hearing be closed. Councilman Reibold seconded the motion and it was carried unanimously. Councilman Camphouse stated that several weeks ago similar applications for permits to solicit had been made and the applicants were informed that the City Council has under study currently an ordinance to cover this particular situation, and that in fairness to all concerned, no action would be taken on any permit, but would be taken under advisement until such time as an ordinance was adopted, which was assumed to be in a short period of time. On the basis of that and in fairness to others who have appeared before this Council, Councilman Camphouse moved that the application of Avon Products be taken under advisement. Council- man Reibold seconded the motion. Councilman Reibold questioned item 4 of the application, to wit: "Description of proposed location of business: l045 West Huntington Drive," an Arcadia address, relating to the sales tax. Mrs. Criss informed the Council that the Huntington Drive address is the headquarters of Avon Products for all representatives working out of this area. The City Attorney stated that the sales tax in all cities is paid under the Bradley-Burns tax law quarterly and then apportioned according to the sales; that one of two situations would apply; that is, if a license is issued to this individual or to this location as a fixed place of business in Arcadia, then all the 1 sales tax would be returnable without question to the City_of Arcadia. If they operate under a Sales and Use Tax permit, as does Avon Products in Pasadena, then all sales subject to sales tax, are reported as such to the State and then are returned to the various agencies of government in Los Angeles County in the same proportion as direct sales taxes are reported from fixed places of business in the respective agencies of government; Mr. David W. Mitchell of Avon Products in Pasadena addressed" the Council, stating that at the present time Avon Products is operat- ing under the Bradley-Burns tax law, in that it is collecting sales tax on sales made in all communities in all counties of California, and reporting.these sales and sales tax to the State of California; that if Council felt that another manner of tax collection would be more advantageous to Arcadia that Avon would be in position to collect sales tax in any manner Council deemed best. He added that there are counties in the State of ' California that are not currently under the Bradley-Burns tax law and sales tax is collected in those counties for the various communities and paid to those communities as indicated in the first example 2. 2-4-58 1 1 Hearing (Avon Continued) 13 {~I " :J-I oj' :' (! 114l: cited by the City Attorney. Councilman Reibold queried:' "When a sale is made, the person soliciting does not actually take the money, but the buyer is billed - is that correct?" to which Mr. . Mitchell replied that when a sale is made no money changes hands until the merchandise is delivered; that at the time the sale is made the price of the merchandise, plus the sales and Federal tax, is computed and when the customer pays for the merchandise the tax is paid. Councilman Phillips then stated that it was his understanding that if all sales for Arcadia are reported to l045 West Huntington Drive, and on Avon Product's reports, then whatever accrues to the benefit of the City would automatically come to Arcadia in its entirety. Councilman Camphouse suggested that in the interval that the matter is under advisement the staff and Mr. Mitchell work out the details so that a program can be presented which would be beneficial to Arcadia. The City Attorney stated that he had doubts as to whether they can get that 'type of permit; that if they could then Avon Products of Pasadena would have secured that kind of license; that where sales are in fact not made from a fixed place of business but only reported through a fixed place of business the sales tax collected is disbursed in accordance with the formula adopted by the State Board of Equalization under the provisions of the Revenue and Taxation Code and that formula is that percentage of sales tax reported from fixed places of business. Councilman Camphouse commented that Pasadena acquired its permit prior to the enactment of the Bradley-Burns Act arid that there might be a possibility of working it out with the State Board of Equalization in that it may not have revised its original setup since the enactment of the Bradley-Burns Act; to which the City Attorney stated that prior to the enactment of the Bradley-Burns Act the State did not collect any local retail sales tax or use 'tax. . Councilman Reibold inquired of Mr. Mitchell as to whether, if it were required, his company would take out a sales tax permit at its Arcadia business address, to which Mr. Mitchell replied that it would, reiterating his statement that in the counties that have not accepted the Bradley-Burns law Avon Products is doing just that and that it would be most happy to do that in Arcadia; that as he understood it, the State takes a percentage of the tax as its fee for collecting. Councilman Reibold said that when it is prorated back on the basis of total sales tax it may not be prorated back in the order of magnitude of the sales. The City Attorney queried if, at the time the merchandise is delivered, the sales price is then collected from the customer, to which Mr. Mitchell answered that it was; that no money is collected until the merchandise is delivered. Mr. Mitchell then inquired of the Council as to whether, during the time the matter is under advisement Avon is still to operate in a curtailed manner, as it had been during the time this "litigation" has been going on concerning soliciting, to which Councilman Phillips answered that unfortunately this is true, but that the City Attorney hoped to have something for Council to consider at this meeting. / .c,'. Mr. Mitchell then stated that Avon Products, as a company, appreciates the open-minded approach that the Council of Arcadia has taken in this matter and that it was certainly willing to bear with the Council until the matter is worked out. The City Attorney then stated that the matters of the City Attorney are next on the agenda and that although the Green River Ordinance is not listed on the agenda, that this is the first matter that he would propose to discuss before the Council at this meeting and that the Avon Products representatives might be interested in remaining to hear the comments. 3. 2-4-58 4115 Hearing ~ (Avon - Continued) y ~,~ Mayor Pro Tempore Phillips stated that there had been a motion made and seconded to take the application of Avon Products under advisement. He then asked for a voice vote to which he received the unanimous ayes of all the councilmen. The City Attorney then reviewed briefly the facts leading up to the enactment of Ordinance No. 823, its application and the need for more specific legislation in the field of solicitation generally; that Ordinance No. 823 amends Ordinance No.737, the City's business license ordinance, which was enacted primarily for revenue purposes and only facets of that ordinance have regulatory features. That some years ago a rather urgent situation arose that required the regulation of certain proposed businesses and Ordinance No. 823 was born at that time; that ordinance is purely regulatory and was never intended to be a prohibitive ordinance, and has been used successfully on many occasions. That it posed no problem as long as the ordinance was used for the purpose of regulation. That problems began to arise, however, when the original intent and purpose of the ordinance was somewhat twisted and actually used as a prohibitive device, which Was far beyond its original scope and intent, and finally in the charitable solicitation field, field of religious solicitation and particularly in the field of business solicit- ation. I That phases one and two have already been accomplished by the Council, to wit, in the enactment of an ordinance a few months ago, setting forth clearly and simply the provisions under which both religious and charitable solicitations can occur. That it constituted a step back in one sense from the announced policy of curtailing that type of solicitation and in another sense it was a step forward, in that the ordinance is legally enforcible; and that in his opinion it will, for the most part, be complied with to a much greater extent than Ordinance No. 823. That now the final step of the program is to be faced, and that is the dealing with business solicitation. That originally Council introduced the so~called "Green River Ordinance" which had some desirable effects; that it at least awoke an interest in people other than just the five members of the Council, in the problem generally; that it was never presented as an Utopian solution to the problem. The City Attorney further stated that he did not recommend the adoption of the "Green River Ordinance" by the City Council at this time. That from the standpoint of the Federal Constitution the "Green River Ordinance" has been upheld by the Supreme Court of the United States on numerous occasions, the most famous being Breard vs. Alexandria and the Green River cases from which the "Green River Ordinance" takes its name; but that the Supreme Court of the United States passed only on the question of whether or not any Federal question under the Federal Constitution was presented. That it did not purport to pass upon its validity under any particular state's own constitution. That to his knowledge, the "Green River" type ordinance has not been tellted in the higher courts of this state, and that it is conceivable that it would never get to the Supreme Court of the United States if the ordinance was enacted here; but that he could not so state with assurance because there is no close precedent of its kind in the State of California; that the -Green River Ordinance" in California would necessarily be upheld, and for the same reaaon he could not say that it would be thrown out. I He stated, however, that he thought it is the Council's desire to afford protection to the people that wish to be protected from the annoyance of solicitation and that he thought that could be accomplished under the ordinance to be presented. He added that as he had explained rather strongly, in cases of religious and particularly charitable solicitation, the answer to 4. 2-4- 58 Hearing (Avon-Continued) 131{ 1 1 ~ ~ ,.'4.1:1L6 the effectiveness of regulations in these fields must necessarily come in the long run from the people that Council represents. That Council can ordain at the council table until it is "blue in the face," but if the people do not receive that legislation willingly, then what Council has done is an idle gesture; that the people must want it by a sizeable majority. He added further that the "Green River Ordinance" has one pitfall in that it does not prohibit solicitation. That it only prohibits solicitation unless the person has the consent, expressed or implied, from the person solicited. He stated: "And then you get into somewhat of a nebulous field. It can be a booby trap for both the solicitor and the solicited. I am submitting for your consideration a modification of the Ann Arbor type of ordinance. I might add that the Ann Arbor type ordinance has been on your books here many years and nobody knew about it - not to the extent of doing anything about it. The Ann Arbor Ordinance prohibits soliciting or peddling, or solicit- ing and peddling, at any premfses more clearly defined as apartment houses, etc. that are posted "No Peddlers - No Solicitors" or "No Peddlers and Solicitor~" and makes its violation a misdemeanor. Then it goes on to state that nothing in this ordinance shall prohibit solicitation even at a posted premises if it is done with the consent or invitation of the person residing in such premises. So far so good. I would add a modification to that and that's why I use the term 'Ann Arbor Modified', making it a misdemeanor for a person who is soliciting or peddling, to refuse to leave those premises when requested so to do by the person in lawful possession of those premises. It is my feeling that, if it.is your desire to protect the peace and quiet of those,who do not wish to be solicited, that you can effectively do this for those who wish to be so protected with- out curtailing those who do not wish to be so protected, and to protect even those who may have even posted their premises against the person that they h~ve invited, but who then becomes a nuisance because he will not leave because he was once invited. "It will add one more protection, making it a misdemeanor if he refuses to leave even after once invited there. After he has worn out his welcome he must then leave upon request of the person who originally asked him to come. "I would suggest your consideration of the foregoing as a first step. Later on you can take a still further step and enact the "Green River Ordinance" as you ultimately desire that it is necessary. There is one problem that I mentioned previously as the reason which held up the submission of this ordinance earlier, and that is the question of the bona fide solicitor who is requested to come and demonstrate his wares at a place that is posted "No solicitors or peddlers." The ordinance presently on the books states that anything in the ordinance to the contrary notwithstanding, the ordinance shal~ not apply to any peddler or solicitor who knocks at ~he door, rings the bell at the invitation and with the consent of some member of the house- hold at which he so applies for admission. A legitimate solicitor may be entrapped by being invited to posted premises and would find it difficult to defend himself if the householder complains against him. If this becomes a problem I will suggest that you write into the ordinance that ~he peddler or solicitor must have the written consent or request of the householder before operating at a posted premise. "I am equally concerned with both sides of the problem. I think the legitimate salesman who has been asked to come to a house should be protected against the double-cross, and I think that the householder who has posted his premise 'No peddlers or agents' should likewise be protected against the unscrupulous peddler or salesman who will use as an excuse the fact that he 5. 2-4-58 ,r 4117 RE!aring (Avon- Continued) -1 ~\~ got a phone call and they said that this was the address that he was to call. I think personally that it would not'be too' much to require that they have a written authorization to offset the posting of the premises. That's. a matter of judgment. I sould be willing to try it out as it' is presently written to see whether we develop a situation that needs further stringency in it. "The ordinance that I would present to you for your consideration is an amendment to Ordinance No. 392 that has been on the books since December, 1938. It very briefly prohibits any prson from peddling or soliciting at any residence, dwelling, flat or apartment that is posted 'No peddlers' or 'No Solicitors' or 'No Peddlers or Solicitors', then has the exception that it shall not 1 apply even in posted premises if the member of the household has asked or consented to a solicitor coming there. I would add to that then a new section l-a, which would merely state that it shall be unlawful for any person to offer for sale, demonstrate" attempt to sell, peddle, and all the other things that are prohibited....in such residence, dwelling, apartment, flat and , the like, after having been requested to leave such residence, etc. by the person or tenant in lawful possession of those premises then likewise it shall be unalwful for any peddler or solicitor to refuse or fail to leave the premises or any portion of,the premises under the control of the person who had asked him to leave. "I personally cannot see how any legitimate business can quarrel either with the legality, and certainly not with the philosophy of that type of regulation. I think, as a sounding board, it would be a desirable step to take. Certainly those that wish to, may protect themselves. Those that do not wish to be precluded from being solicited or peddled unto may then receive peddlers and solicitors as they wish and when they have had enough they can ask them to leave. "There will be some refinements of Ordinance No. 392 to be sug- gested at a later date. In rewriting the whole business license ordinance at a future date I will specify the type or the size of the lettering on the sign and more clearly define where it shall be posted. I think it should be posted at or near the entrance to a premise and should be of a sufficient size at least to be legible within a few feet. "Very shortly all of ordinance No. 737 will be rewritten. Over a period of years there have been a number'of amendments to it and it gets a little bit cumbersome after a while. As a prelude to its being codified in the very near future, the entire ordinance will be rewritten not substantively but merely cor- relating the amendments a little more closely as you can do in a total rewrite and can never do by amendment of a particular section. In so doing I would appreciate your guidance in one 1 particular field. At the present time some forty or more businesses, occupations and avocations require a permit from the Council after a formal hearing before its body. I would suggest for your consideration, not indicating that you should or should not follow the suggestion, a relaxing of the procedures of obtain- ing a permit for some of the businesses that are enumerated under Ordinance No. 823. If you are interested in having an applic- ation be self-sufficient through administrative channels under certain sp~cified conditions, that can be accomplished in the total rewrite of ordinance No. 823. I am thinking for example of the business like the Electrolux salesman with whom you are familiar, and who has done business already in Arcadia. If you Wish to make the issuance of a permit for a business upon the disclosure of certain features and facts, and particularly his modus operandi, and the hours he will operate in, it might be that you would want to have those types of permits issued without 6. 2-4-58 Hearing (Avon- Continued) :{J11 1 -.. 1 1~11B the necessity of council hearing. I would appreciate such thoughts within the next thirty days so that they can be embodied in the rewrite of the total rewrite." Councilman Reibold: "I agree with what you are trying to do, and that is that we of the Council. get into too many things that are really basically administrative, where we should be more probably getting into terms of business or legislative, I suppose, in terms of government. Would it be possible to write such a provision with the right of appeal to Council? For example, if someone didn't like aid being given administratively; if someone wanted to protest it, then could that person have the right of appeal under such conditions?" .J City Attorney: "It is much easier to accord an appeal to a person denied a permit than it is to appeal from the granting of it. Now the granting of an appeal is simple, but upon what basis do you extend or revoke one which meets the administrative requirements? That is where you get into trouble. Now, getting down to Ordinance No. 823, since it is not a prohibitive ordinance . the record must sustain you in a denial. More often than not, the record has been scanty of material that would sustain you in a denial and it has been my unpleasant task to advise you of that on more than one occasion. If a person meets the administrative requirements for a permit then what is the basis for an appeal unless in his manner of operation he does not comply with those requirements that you set up in administrative formula for him to get a permit." Mayor Pro Tempore Phillips: only with business and those license, be it soliciting or "The proposed ordinance has to do people operating under a business peddling." Councilman Reibold: "This does not cover the person who calls on the stores?" City Attorney: "No, this only refers to residences, apartments, dwellings, etc." Councilman Camphouse: "I was just curious as to the reaction of the applicant that's here tonight." Mr. David W. Mitchell: "From our standpoint this answers one of the basic rights of the people and that is to buy merchandise where they want to buy it, either in a store or from someone that calls on them. As I see it, if I were a resident of Arcadia and didn't want people to be soliciting me at my door I would so post that and expect to be protected. As far as Avon is concerned, this would be a most workable and welcome arrangement to us and we would be most happy with something of that kind. I think you would be protecting your people and at the same time allowing the conduction of a legal and open and above-board business. That would be my reaction to it." Mayor Pro tempore Phillips: "the last time around on Green River when we had this same session we listened to Jim for some time and then we introduced the ordinance to start the machinery in process and then took it under advisement for the final adoption until we .were all sure that we had the text and the feel of the pulse of the people. I suggest we follow the same format tonight." u Councilman Camphouse: "In line with your suggestion, I would move that you present the ordinance and sunmtarize its contents." City Attorney: "I will present the ordinance with the title; you can waive the reading and then it becomes a matter of public record with copies available." He then outlined the ordinance, stating that later it would be rewritten as part of the business license ordinance. 7. 2-4-58 41~f) Hearing (Avon - Continued) 13\.\ (J (0 b.1. City Attorney: For the interest of those that have expressed concern, for examPle, insurance groups - last few weeks a Superior Court decision came down, holding that the sale of insurance is not goods, wares and merchandise, -but is primarily a service, and accordingly that does not come under the solicitation ordinance. Real property is not goods, wares or merchandise, so real estate people would not come under the ban. This type of ordinance would eliminate much of the complaint that was made by a number of groups, their complaint being based upon the assumption that it would have precluded them from operating. This would not apply to many of those groups". Councilman Reibold: "Would it apply to the Camp Fire Girls"? I City Attorney: "My hesitancy in answering was trying to recall the provisions of the ordinance relative to charitable solicit- ations to see if perchance they would not come under that ordinance. At the moment I do not recall the provisions of that sufficiently to state. That is something that can be worked out in the interim period. The ordinance is designed to refer to businesses and in the overall rewrite that type of loose ends will be picked up. It will become part of the business ordinance then. The City Attorney then read the title of Ordinance No. l006, entitled: "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 392 OF SAID CITY BY ADDING THERETO A NEW SECTION I-A". He stated that the l-A section is the one that makes it a mis- demeanor to refuse to leave the premises after having been invited there or the premises not being posted in the first place. Councilman Camphouse moved that the reading of the full body of Ordinance No. 1006 be waived. Motion seconded by Councilman Jacobi and carried on roll call vote as follows: AYES: Councilmen Camphouse, Jacobi, Phillips and Reibold NOES: None ABSENT: Mayor Dennis Councilman Camphouse moved that Ordinance No. l006 be introduced, adding that he realized that sufficient time will be given for interested persons to receive copies of this proposed ordinance. Councilman Reibold seconded the motion and it was carried on roll call vote as follows: AYES: Councilmen Camphouse, Jacobi, Phillips and Reibold NOES: None ABSEI.IT: Mayor Dennis Councilman Reibold stated that it was his recollection that the Council had promised the opposition in the first instance that they would be notified when action was to be taken by the Council. 1 The City Attorney then stated: "One problem that arises in enacting an ordinance of this kind by the amendment of an exist- ing ordinance that is not part of Ordinance No. 737 is that it does raise questions such as you have raised. When the entire subject matter, which will include charitable and religious solicitation, this one and all the rest of No. 737 and its many amendments are put into one ordinance, with the changes that are necessary, then the questions of the type that you raise are fully answered in the ordinance itself, because you have then inserted the various provisions in sequence so that it is quite clear then what they apply to and what they do not. 8. 2-4-58 1 1 RESOLUTION No. 2976 IND:;}=~ 1/d RESOLUTION No. 2978 IND:;;::::~ l~/Y 4120 Mayor Pro Tempore Phillips then inquired of the City Attorney as to whether Council should do anything about the Green River Ordinance that had been introduced previously, to which the City Attorney answered that there was no action mequired to be taken on that matter. The City Attorney presented, discussed and read the title of Resolution No. 2976, entitled: "A RESOLUTION OF TIlE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA, GIVING NOTICE OF THE PROPoSED ANNEXATION OF CERTAIN TERRITORY ADJAcENT TO AND CONTIGUOUS WITH THE PRESENT CITY LIMITS OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA, THE SAME BEING SITUATED NEAR TIlE NORTHEASTERLY PORTION OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA AND DESIGNATED AS NORTHEAST ARCADIA ANNEXATION NO.. l6 UNINHABITED". He stated that this is the so-called Wilderness Area, and that the City has previously received the consent of all the property owners, which are the County Flood Control District and the City of Arcadia; that the City has since received the consent of the City of Monrovia by resolution to the detachment from the City of the property; that this is the formal institution of proceedings, the date of the hearing being set for March l8, 1958 at 8:00 P.M.; that this is a formality as there are only the two owners; and that at the conclusion of that hearing the ordinance will be introduced, adopted at the following meeting, filed with the Secretary of State 30 days thereafter, and then it will be within the City of Arcadia. Councilman Reibold moved that the reading of the full body of Resolution No. 2976 be waived. Said motion seconded by Council- man Jacobi and carried on roll call vote as follows: AYES: Councilmen Camphouse, Jacobi, Phillips and Reibold NOES: None . ABSENT: Mayor Dennis Motion was made by Councilman Reibold that Resolution No. 2976 be adopted. Motion seconded by Councilman Jacobi and carried on roll call vote as follows: AYES: Councilmen Camphouse, Jacobi, Phillips and Reibold NOES: None ABSENT: Mayor Dennis, . The City Attorney presented, discussed and read the title of Resolution No. 2978, 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 PERMIT THE REGISTRAR OF VOTERS OF SAID COUNTY TO RENDER SPECIFIED SERVICES TO THE 'CITY OF ARCADIA RELATING TO TIlE OONDUCT OF A GENERAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION TO BE HELD IN SAID CITY ON APRIL 8, 1958". He explained that this action is authorized under an amendment to the Elections Code, and permits the City to request the Registrar of Voters to furnish, as they can do so effectively, sample ballots and polling place cards, and at a tremendous saving to the City. That the estimated cost is $llO.OO. That this requests the deposit of $l21.00, lO% override, to defray the cost. Councilman Jacobi moved that the reading of the full body of Resolutioh No. 2978 be waived. Said motion seconded by Council- man Camphouse and carried on roll call vote as follows: AYES: Councilmen Camphouse, Jacobi, Phillips and Reibold NOES: None ABSENT: Mayor Dennis Motion was made by Councilman Jacobi that Resolution No. 2978 be 9. 2-4-58 '4 ., <"1>j "' . "^'" LOT SPLIT No. 192 . :;36 LOT SPLIT No. 193 (Tentative) 1311.0 TRACT No. 20463 (Revised "'enaative Map) '2 13\ ) adopted. Motion seconded by Councilman Camphouse and carried on roll call vote as follows: AYES: Councilmen Camphouse, Jacobi, Phillips and Reibold NOES: None ABSENT: Mayor Dennis Planning Commission recommendation for denial of Lot Split No. 192 - Edna M. Perkinson, l30l South Mayflower Avenue, because of below standard lot dimensions. Councilman Jacobi moved that the City Council accept the recommendation of the Planning Commission and deny the application of Edna M. Perkinson for Lot Split No. 192. Motion seconded by Councilman Reibold and carried unanimously. I Recommendation of the Planning Commission that Lot Split No. 193 - Fred L. Tingley, 29 West Camino Real Avenue, be approved subject to the following conditions: 1. File a final map with the City Engineer 2. Record a covenant to provide that parcel 2 shall be used with Lot lO, Tract No. 2403l. Motion was made by Councilman Reibold that the recommendation of the Planning Commission be accepted and that Lot Split No. 193 be given tentative approval, subject to specified 'conditions. Said motion seconded by Councilman Jacobi and carried unanimous ly . Revised tentative map of property located on Louise Avenue, south of Longden Avenue, consisting of 5 lots. Recommended for DENIAL WITHOUT PREJUDICE by Planning Commission. The City Clerk read a communication from Mr. Walter Lockwood and Mr. George Footitt, wherein they submitted to Council for . its consideration, copies of a subdivision map that was rejected by the Planning Commission on January 28, 1958, together with map as a substitute for the rejected map. They stated in substance that their contemplated subdivision calls for de~per lots than shown on the Planning Commission map; also that the Planning Commission map creates a blind cul de sac. The City Engineer then read a letter from the Planning Commission wherein they submitted a revised map of said tract No. 20463 wherein the Planning Commission recommended that the tract as submitted be denied without prejudice due to the fact that the Planning Commission made a study of the area; that two lots to the west of the proposed subdivision are deeper than the adjacent lots and if not developed in this tract, will have no other way to divide, and that to date the owners of the additional land have not agreed to sell. I Mr. Walter Lockwood, 44 East Longden Avenue. addressed the Council. stating that he had attempted several times to contact Mrs. Eupemia M. Aulenbrock of 22 East Longden Avenue; that she procrastinated on selling her lot and then said she would sell for $lO,OOO which, in his opinion, was far above the market value of the lot, and that she would not put into writing the fact that she would sell. 10. 2-4-58 I 1 Tract No. 20463 (Continued) 1313 , ,,. \' 4122 Mr. Wade Williams, of Wade Williams Realty Co.,ll4 South First Street, addressed the Council, stating that he had contacted Mr. C. F. Petersen, Jr., owner of the lot at 2230 South Santa Anita Avenue. He then submitted for the record a communication he had received from Mr. Petersen which the City Clerk read, wherein Mr. Petersen stated that he was agreeable to the sale of the referred to portion of property; that the price would be $5,000 net to the seller, in cash, and that the proposal must be consummated by February 28, 1958; otherwise the offer is withdrawn. . .. Council!llllIl Reibold stated that he had been present at the Planning Commission meeting of January 28, 1958. He then questioned Mr. Talley as to whether he had heard from Mrs. Aulenbrock, to which Mr. Talley replied that he had spoken to her that morning and that she had advised him that.she would sell at a fair and reasonable price and was .willing to take the advice of an appraiser as to such price. Council~n ?hillips expressed concern on the part of the Council and the Planning Commission in leaving two such large land-locked areas that are absolutely unreachable, after this is finished. The City Attorney stated that .there is a provision in the Subdivision Map Act that provides that failure to act upon tentative maps within forty days after its filing is deemed to have been approved, and that the reason.the Planning Commission recommended denial without prejudice to its being reconsidered at a future date was to have taken action within the for~y days and still not preclude further consideration if the applicants so desired. Council~n Phillips brought out that unlimited conditions may be p~aced and one might be a written determination as to the .availability of these two parcels. Coun~il!llllIl Camphouse felt that the property was unavailable as to price and stated that he would like to attach some condition along this line. The City Attorney felt that the basic decision to be made by Council is whether or not this subdivision as originally presented provides for the orderly development and use of the land under all applicable conditions, adding that the Planning Commission and Council both have attempted to stay out of the field of economics. Council!llllIl Camphouse moved that the Council not accept the recommendation of the Planning Commission, realizing that they too are in the same position as to the orderly development of the property and realizing also that subsequent conversations, letters and events which are part of the testimony here . recorded, would give us ample reason to approve the revised tentative map of Tract No. 20463 subject to the conditions as set forth in the recommendation of the Planning Commission and also subject to the conditions reflected as part of the testimony of this Council meeting. Said motion seconded by Councilman Reibold and carried on roll call vote as follows: AYES: Councilmen Camphouse, Jacobi, Phillips and Reibold NOES: None ABSENT: Mayor Dennis 11. 2-4-58 4-123 TRACT No. 23948 c 11U. .J TRACT No. 24311 11 q5 ORDINANCE No. 760 (Zone M-l) IN::lZ;C:D p,,~"~ Recommendation of the City Engineer that approval 'be given final map of Tract No. 23948 located on Lorena Avenue, subject to the following conditions: l. Install all street improvements, including drainage structures, as required by the subdivision ordinance. 2. pay'all fees and deposits required by the subdivision ordinance, including street lights, street trees, street name signs and recreation fees. 3.. Provide all necessary rear line easements for utilities. Motion was made b~Councilman Jacobi that final map approval be given Tract No. 23948, subject to the conditions recommended by the Planning Commission and the City Engineer, and that the City Clerk be and she is hereby authorized and directed to endorse in due form such approval and acceptance on said map and affix the corporate seal of the City of Arcadia thereon. Said motion seconded by Councilman Reibold and carried unanimously. 1 Tract No. 243ll, located south of Duarte Road, east of Eighth Avenue, adjacent to the Santa Anita Wash and containing 27 lots in Arcadia and l4 lots in Monrovia. The tentative map of said tract waS approved by Council, subject to specified conditions, at its regular meeting of December l7, 1957. Among such conditions, condition No. 1 required a five foot planting and sidewalk easement along the south line of "A" Street. Mrs. Ruth L. Brockstedt, 926 South 8th Avenue, owner of a portion of the land on which easement is required, refused to grant such easement, for the reason that it might jeopardize the ~plitting of her l50 foot wide lot into two 75 foot lots. The Planning Commission advised, however, that such a split when requested, could be approved even though the easement was granted, and for that reason it recommends that the No. 1 condition be amended to require only the easement on lot 29 of said Tract. Attached to the Planning Commission's report was a letter from Mrs. Brockstedt and same was presented to Council. Council had also been presented with copies of a communication from Mrs. Brockstedt under date of January 30, 1958, in which it was suggested, in part, that Council have new maps drawn. All cOlllDUnications are on file in the office of the City Clerk. Councilman Reibold moved that Council accept the recommendation of the planning Commission and that the prior condition imposed in the approval of the tentative map of Tract No. 24311 be modified to require the easement for planting and sidewalk purposes only on the "A" Street side of Lot 29 of the subdivision; that the Engineer's office be instructed to make proper notations on its maps so that consideration will be given to the requiring of a similar easement along the "A" Street side of the lot situated on the southeast corner of Eighth Avenue and the proposed "A" Street, if, as, and when a division of that property be considered. 1 Councilman Jacobi seconded the motion and it was carried unanimouflly. Recommendation of Planning Commission (Resolution No. 272) that the business of wholesale automobile engine rebuilding be classified as a use permissible in Zone M-l under Ordinance No. 760. The City Attorney suggested that although engine rebuilding performed in a public garage is part of general garage work, which is a C-2 use, the question is, can it be performed on a wholesale basis in C-2 when that is the only thing done; that the wholesale rebuilding of automobile engines, as distinguished from general garage work where no other work is performed, l2. 2-4-58 1 VARIANCE (Sugar" s) , 1,3/7 AMENDMENT (Ordinance No. 760) 13/f 1 EMERGENCY ALARM SYSTEM .1U7 , : '4;124 / could be classified as M-l rather than C-2 use and thus avoid an ambiguity concerning the appropriate classification of a particular use. ~ Councilman Jacobi moved that the Council accept the recommen- dation of the Planning Commission, as contained in, their Resolution No. 272, and that the business of rebuiiding and manufacturing engines for distribution to retail ,dealers be classified as wholesale automobile engine rebuilding, and that it be further classified as a use permdssible in Zone M-l under Ordinance No. 760, and that Council instruct the City Attorney to prepare a resolution accordingly. Councilman Camphouse seconded the motion and it was carried unanimously. Planning Commission Resolution No. 273 recommending that the application of Carl Sugar for a zone variance to permit the erection of a neon roof sign at 600 West Las Tunas Drive, in Zone C-l, be denied, for the reasons set out in Sections 1 to 3 of the resolution. The City Attorney advised that any person aggrieved by the decision of the Planning Commission has ten days within which to file an appeal with the City Council,. Councilman Camphouse stated that he felt the requested zone variance required further discussion, since this type of sign was precluded from C-l use, and moved that a public hearing be set for the next Council meeting February 18, 1958 at 8:00 P.M. and that the City Clerk be instructed to schedule such public hearing and notify interested parties in writing. Councilman Reibold seconded the motion and it was carried unanimously. Planning Commission Resolution No. 274 recommending that Sections II and l7 of Ordinance No. 760 be amended by eliminating veterinary hospitals as a use permdssible in Zone M-l, and including veterinary hospitals and veterinary clinics, each without outside runs, as a use permissible in Zones C-l, C-2, C-3, C-M, M-l and M-2 after having first been granted a special use permit. This matter requiring a public hearing, Councilman Jacobi moved that a hearing on the matter be set for February l8, 1958, at 8:00 P.M. and that the City Clerk be instructed to publish said 'notice. Said motion seconded by Councilman .Camphouse and carried unanimously. The City Manager stated that the City's last fire insurance rating was graded 480 deficiency points for lack of a fire alarm system. Since that time there has been under discussion the installation of such a system and it was felt that at such time as the new fire stations were built such an alarm system could be built into the stations. That a number of systems were studied and surveyed but that no formal action was taken; :'that the City had received a proposal from the Pacific Telephone . and Telegraph Company which seemed to be the most economical and efficient and that he submitted it, together with his communi- cation, to the Council. He added that this proposal covers everything except the conduit and the standards for the boxes and that the City Engineer's office, at the time of the writing of the said communication, was in the process of determining costs of estimating the laying of conduit, etc. 'He then recommended that he be authorized to communicate with the Pacific Telephone and Telegraph Company regarding the 13. 2-4-58 4:.125 Emergency Alarm System Continued ;q,/' COUNTY BOUNDARY COMMISSION INDEX:;::;n f; 6,.1~" COMMUNICATIONS 1.1 II installation' of equipment for an emergency reporting system, consisting of telephone boxes located at strategic points, whereby persons could call through the system to report a fire or any other type of an emergency. He also stated that at present the entire cost of the instal- lation cannot be given; his estimate being approximately $20,000. The installation charge is estimated at $3,63l, with a monthly charge of $399.50; that the City will provide all necessary standards and conduits for the fire reporting boxes. Due to the fact that the equipment supplied by the telephone company is made to order and will require seven or eight months, he recommended that Council approve the plans at this meeting, anticipating that the equipment should be ready and installed within the next nine months. 1 He advised that the telephone company does not require a contract or any agreement on the part of the City but dc;>es require official notification that the City desires the service and that they may proceed with their plans and preparations for instal- ling the recommended service. , He stated that this was not '8 request for any appropriation of money for this installation; that that would come later; that this was merely his recommendation that the Council authorize him to contact the telephone company and advise them to proceed with the installation of their equipment as proposed as expeditiously as possible. Councilman Camphouse moved that the Council accept the reco~ mendation of the City Manager and that it authorize him to contact the Pacific Telephone and Telegraph Company and advise them to proceed with plans and preparations for the installation of their equipment as proposed. Councilman Jacobi seconded the motion and it was carried on roll call vote as follows: AYES: Councilmen Camphouse, Jacobi, Phillips and Reibold NOES: None ABSENT: Mayor Dennis Notice from the County Boundary Commission that in accordance with section 35002 of the Government Code, the City of Industry has filed a proposal with it for the annexation of certain territory lying south and east of El Monte, to be known as Annexation No. l7. Recommendation of the City Manager that this notice be noted and filed as the annexation has no effect upon the City of Arcadia. Mayor Pro Tempore Phillips announced that he had a communication from Mr. J. H. Hoeppel, 35 E. Floral, regarding the route of the proposed freeway and the possibility of dirt fills, etc., and stated that actually nothing is done by the State Highway Commission until such time as a route is actually determined, and then alignments through the cities are arranged with each jurisdiction that the freeway crosses, and each City Council at that time approves the cutting of streets and the alignment of the freeway; that the City Engineer is being advised on the situation. 1 The City Clerk read a communication from the Santa Anita Village Community Association regarding the proposed freeway, urging that. such a freeway be routed to the north of Colorado Boulevard. Mayor Pro Tempore Phillips ordered the l~tter filed. 14. 2-4-58 Communications (Condnued) -M~ ,-.... It'D::'.-. .' 3 : f',,^-r~ " '1. 1 AUDIENCE PARTICIPATION INDEXED j\I~f .INDZX':;.fJ IVsf LOT SPLIT No. l88 (Final Approval) 1 ,] 05" 1 i .:41126 The .City Clerk read a'communication from'Mrs. R. E. Wood, l040 Monte Verde Drive, 'complaining of the time restrictions placed on parking in the business areas of Arcadia. A general discus- sion ensued, wherein it was brought forth that the primary reason'for the time limitation on the streets is to create a turn-over; also that parking lots are provided for shoppers with longer parking time than on the streets. Mayor Pro Tempore Phillips read a letter from The Methodist Hospital of Southern California in which the City Council is thanked for the emergency ordinance regarding the prohibiting of parking of vehicles on private driveways. Mrs. Warren Woodall, 812 E. Norman Avenue, addressed the Council and stated that the Board of the League of Women Voters of Arcadia had directed her to present a copy of the revised edition of the "California Voters Handbook" to each Councilman, to the City Clerk and to the City Manager. She was thanked by Mayor Pro Tempore Phillips. - Mr. Frank Sheriff, 802 North First Avenue, complained to the Council that the firm of P.A.P. in Arcadia, who does printing and advertising, had written to the Council, inquiring as to why they had not been made aware of request for bid, if any there was, on the work involved in the brochure entitled "Report to the People" that had been recently distributed. He said that the letter had not been answered and he was there in person to request information as to whether it was not the City's usual procedure to advertise for bids on projects of this nature, where the cost involved was substantial. He was informed by the City Manager that inadvertently the letter had not yet been answered; that the work on the brochure had been in process for quite some time and that it had been put out to bid, and that the bid ac- cepted had been a very low figure for the work involved, and that he would personally discuss the matter with Mr. Sheriff. Mr. B. 1. Parry, 342 Palm Drive, addressed Council, stating. in substance that he was dissatisfied with the manner in which the City's Street Department pruned City trees, particularly two"' Carob trees in front of his property, and that he desired to be informed in the future when pruning was contemplated; that he would prefer to prune his own trees. He was informed that although he could not be personally informed as to the date when future pruning wouid be done, that the trees complained of would be checked. At the regular Council meeting of January 2l, 1958, tentative approval was given to Lot Split No. 188 - Rancho Santa Anita, 25l Colorado Place, subject to specified conditions; No. 3 condition being as follows: "Construct a concrete curb and gutter along the frontage on both Colorado Place and Colorado Boulevard." The City Manager reported that the intent of this condition seemed nebulous and that a communication had been received from both the Santa Anita Church of Religious Science declaring its intention to construct curbs and gutters along with the construction of their building, and Rancho Santa Anita Inc., indicating its will- ingness to construct curbs and gutters concurrently with the construction of curbs and gutters on the property to the immediate south on Colorado Place. He therefore recommended that Council modify its action of January 2l, 1958 and give final approval to the lot split, all conditions having been met, with recreation fee having been paid under protest. Mr. F. Wesley Davies, representing Rancho Santa Anita, Inc. addressed the Council, reiterating the information set forth by the City Manager; also stating that the conditions had not been made clear at the council meeting. The City Engineer agreed that said conditions had not been read at either the Planning Commission or Council meetings. l5. 2-4-58 4.12'7 Lot Spli~ No'. l88 (Continued) -:}3r5 WILDERNESS AREA 1,1 'I CHAIR FOR COUNCIL CHAMBER INDEXED Iv S P A general discussion then ensued and the City Attorney suggested that 'since the original ,condition was that curbs be consi~cted prior to the completion of the' split, the Council could modify' the condition to the effect that no certificate of occupancy shall be' issued until the curbs are constructed as originally required. Councilman Camphouse moved that the City Council modify condition No. 3 of Lot Split No. l88 to the effect that no certificate of occupancy shall be issued until the curbs are constructed as originally required. Councilman Jacobi seconded the motion and it was carried unanimously. Whereupon the ,City Engineer recommended that said Lot Split No. l88 be given final approval as all conditions imposed have been met. 1 Motion by Councilman Camphouse, seconded by Councilman Jacobi and carried unanimously that' recommendation of the City Engineer be accepted and that Lot Split No. l88 be given final approval. The City Manager submitted a schedule of work for the Wilderness Area that had been suggested by The Community Facilities Planners, to wit: March l5 March 21 Grubbing and spraying of poison oak Completion of drawings and specifications Submit to Council for approval Bidding Period Opening of bids Council awarding of contracts Completion of first phase, except rest rooms April 1 April-May Mayl May 6 June l5 The City of Arcadia complete by June l, Highland Oaks Drive Anita Wash. Public Works and Water Departments will 1958, the access road and water lines from to the bridge at the bottom of the Santa Councilman Camphouse questioned the poison oak item, stating that he was of the opinion that it took approximately a year to get rid of poison oak and requested the City Manager to check into this phase of the work. The City Manager remarked that he wished to call the attention of the Council to the services of a Herbotologist which was not on the above schedule. Councilman Camphouse stated that he would like to recommend the purchase of one additional arm chair to be used in the Council Chamber, and moved that the City Manager secure a matching arm chair, same to be charged to Account No. 103.20, and if insufficient money in that account, to charge same to the Council Contingency Fund. 1 Councilman Jacobi seconded the motion and it was carried on roll call vote as follows: AYES: Councilmen Camphouse, Jacobi, Phillips, Reibold NOES: None ABSENT: Mayor Dennis COMMUNICATIONS Mayor Pro Tempore Phillips read a letter from The Methodist INDEXED Hospital of Southern California commending the Arcadia Fire ,.-1. ~J...~..~tk;L.thDepartment on the fire prevention and safety course given its 11. employees. l6. 2-4-58 1 1 CAPITAL PROJECTS REPORT LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS ADJOURNMENT \ 4;128 Mayor Pro Tempore Phillips called the ,attention of the Council to the January Capital Projects Report and requested that Council read it ~arefully. Mayor Pro Tempore acknowledged the presence of Mrs. Marsh and Mrs. Waddell of the League of Women Voters. Councilman Camphouse moved that the meeting adjourn. Councilman Jacobi seconded the motion and it was carried unanimously. ~~U'b~ Mayor ATTEST: ~'Ib.' ~~ (. 0 p, ~~ C ty Clerk l7. 2-4-58