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