Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutJULY 11,1973 CITY COUNCIL PROCEEDINGS ARE TAPE RECORDED AND ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK loc, om ORDINANCE NO. 1485 (REPEALED) (See Page 4) BUTTERWORTH I HELMS 20:8342 MINUTES CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING JULY 1'1, 1973 The City Council of the City of Arcadia, California, met in an adjourned regular session on Wednesday, July 11, 1973 at 7:30 p.m. in the Council Chamber of the Arcadia City Hall for the purpose of considering the matter of Sunday Racing. PRESENT: ABSENT: Councilmen Scott, Hage, Butterworth, Helms, Arth None Counci Iman Hage MOVED to repea lOrd inance No. 1485, ent it led: "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA AMENDING THE Sol SPECIAL USE ZONE REGULATIONS TO PERMIT HORSE RACING DURING:DAYTlME HOURS MONDAYS THROUGH SATURDAYS ONLY," Councilman Scott seconded the motion. T RAN S C.R I P T (Insofar as 'decipherable) "I am not going to repeat what was said at the last meeting as to why Council enacted the ordinance prohibiting Sunday racing,.. We did this to preserve our status as best we could when proceedings were insti- tuted which would have the effect of preventing any municipality from having any. say in the zoning of Sunday racing. We agreed to undertake a postcard poll. Time was of the essence. At the same time we agreed to abide by the results of the poll. I have investigated the matter and there is no concrete evidence as far as I know that the poll was improperly taken.. I am sure many people voted against Sunday racing because they believed it was evil or voted against it because a spouse was for or against it... I just don't know the motives.. ... In my judgment at least I have no alternative but to sustain the poll and to vote to repeal the ordinance, but I want to conclude by saying this. "I am absolutely against Sunday racing and the more I thought about it the more I am absolutely satisfied in my mind that this is going to have a very adverse effect upon this community and particularly upon certain portions of this community. I feel that the attitude against Sunday racing is far more intense in my judgement than the attitude in favor of Sunday racing. . I think there is a large part of this community that is absolutely outraged at this situation, but we do not want this city to be torn apart on any issue. I do think we have an obligation to do whatever we can to see that this thing cools off as best it can and that it is made as least burdensome on the community as possible commensurate with respecting the will of a majority of the people as has been given to understand. This is my attitude, Mr, Mayor, and this is the way I wil Lvote." "I endorse the statements of Mr. Butterworth. It was my position in 1968 when I first ran for Council and again in 1972 when I ran for re- election, that I was of the opi~ion that night and Sunday racing are undesirable in the City of Arcadia. And from all m the material that has been presented to Council in the last few weeks I see nothing to " 7-11-73 - 1 - 20:8343 change my op1n10n. I think that in our community there is a wide- spread belief that if Santa Anita ceases to operate as a race track that some financial catastrophe will befall the City. I've. had five years experience on the budget, operating expenses and the sources of income to theCity. In my opinion that belief is utterly false. It is my opinion, after exam~hgall the facts, that if Santa Anita ceases to function in the next two or three years that you would not see any change in your city tax structure that would in any way be connected with the loss of Santa Anita's operation. "I believe, however, in the principle that government is here to function for the people and to carry out the will of the people. A very firm principle that I live by. I believe that the postcard poll I which we have taken indicates that the opinion of the citizens of Arcadia is that Sunday racing is desirable. While I personally disagree with that opinion I cannot substitute my judgment for their judgment and I think it would be very presumptious of me to even suggest that I would think of doing so. I was very distressed with the meeting we held a week ago when certain of the speakers seemed to indicate in their speeches that some members of the Council had abdicated this principle. I think perhaps they were misled by what they read in the press by the reporting of the meetings that had preceded it. It had never been ex- pressed by me or by any of the Councilmen that we would not abide by the will of the people. We merely wanted to give the 44 percent of the almost 7000 people who voted against it the right to be heard. They have presented their documentation to us. I have read it, I have con- sidered it. I feel very sympathetic toward them. I think their position is unsalable. I believe we have founded this City on the principle that it is a community of homes and a desirable place to live and raise our children... I believe it will tend to destroy. the concept of Arcadia as a desirable place to live, I think in the long run it will have an adverse effect on property values of homes here. Albeit- that is the vote of the people, and I will abide by it." SCOTT "I said to myself I was not going to make a comment, but one comment has been made that I feel I must indicate some disagreement with because I too, as all members of Council were against, was against Sunday racing as an individual.and it was my naive opinion that the community shared my feeling relative to Sunday racing but I think this just shows us how inaccurate we sometimes can be in assessing what the actual feeling of the community is... But I'm going to predict that Santa Anita.. the Santa Anita organization... is not going to permit Sunday racing to become an undue burden upon the City.. that it would not do anything intentionally that would do other than upgrade this community, and as a City Councilman and as a resident in this community, I not only intend to get cooperation, I'm going to expect it from the Santa Anita organization and I'm going to expect them to cooperate to this end completely. Whenever we do not get it then I think perhaps its time for Council to take another look.. "I realize that all of us on this Council are not in favor of Sunday I racing. This I know to be a truth because we discussed it before we went into the poll -- when we authorized the money to be spent to fight the actual legislative body that was putting this into effect. The poll, in my opinion, was to be used to back up what was my con- tention that Sunday racing was not desired but as I said before, the poll in my opinion was valid, It was done as well as we could in the short amount of time that we had. I made it my intention to follow this poll. I can see no alternative but to abide by the results.... and go along with what I feel is the will of the majority of the people." RAGE ARTH "I've given a great deal of thought to this matter, lying awake nights wondering about it and about my own personal integrity in the matter. 7-11-73 - 2 - ARTH (continued) I I 20:8344 I thoroughly recognize... Santa Anita's right to attempt to influence citizens in getting a favorable vote on the poll. This is to their self-interest and I mean this in the best sense.. .as I told Mr. Strub in a personal meeting with him what my position was and that I would expect that we would be on opposite sides of the matter. I also think though that I feel quite strongly that Santa Anita has an obligation as a responsible corporation to be honest and not to overstate the tax benefits Arcadia derives from Santa Anita which I believe were, in my mind, the over-riding issue that the people made their decisions on... what I consider to be misstatements in their letter and advertise~ ments..... just a few of them briefly.. ... one statement,.I quote "school and local taxes are 1.4 million dollars annually. If we move the loss to Arcadia would require an increase in your taxes." According to an analysis by our Director of Finance on June 12 and 13th the total from Santa Anita to the City and local schools for the 72-D year was not 1.4 million dollars but $866,000. This figure even included $398,000 in property taxes which the Schools and the City would receive anyway. Going a step further...there were statements published during the period preceding a vote on Fashion Park - two or three years ago - were that the City and Schools would get 1.1 million dollars in ad- ditional revenue. Yet there is no evidence balancing these two of any drop in revenue or increase in the tax rate even if we made the assumption,which I know Mr. Strub was not willing to accept that racing would be phased off. "Mr. Strub further stated that Sunday racing would bring additional revenue to Arcadia - more than $100,000 annually. ... If our attendance is increased by 14 percent which is the figure that Hollywood Park is running ahead of last year at this time, the gain would have been without admission ta~, 19 cents net per person - about $51,000 - not $100,000. As a matter of fact I can't follow the sense of this, but for the first 65 days Hollywood Park is now up only 11.2 percent and only 7.4 percent for the second 30 days of the season after the novelty and all has worn off. Golden Gate track in the San Francisco area completed their full season with Sunday racing with an increase in attendance of only 6.7 percent. I think if Santa Anita experienced a realistic gain of 10 percent in attendance that gain to the City would be about $40,000 not the $100,000 as claimed. "they also stated that if Santa Anita is the only race track in this State which is not allowed to race on Sunday they would not be able to compete under the economic strain and the economic health of its operation. This in my opinion is completely untrue. Santa Anita is 'protected from competition by action of the State Horse Racing Board which regulates racing dates, with an exception of minor quarter- 'horse racing meets at Los Alamitos. They have no competition with other tracks during the time they are running. Competition with other sporting and with other recreational activities is the only competition.., Also quite a point was made that it would be discrimination against Santa Anita, I think it should be noted that Santa Anita has virtually the status of s public utility or s franchise transportation company through State legislation that protects one track from another track operating nearby on these same dates. I'm reasonably certain they would not give up this monopoly status and the regulations that go with it if they were given an opportunity. "I think the main point of the Santa Anita letter and advertisement is the threat of leaving Arcadia and its dire consequences. In my discussion with Mr. Strub in late Mayor early June he indicated no intent of leaving if he didn't have Sunday racing. He also conceded that if the Labor Unions had not settled for double time on Sunday instead of the triple time, as I understand they have held out for in he past, they certainly had every intent of continuing to race in Arcadia in 1974 and into the indefinite future. "Council agreed that the question of Santa Anita leaving Arcadia was 7-11-73 - 3 - MOTION ORDINANCE NO. 1487 INTRODUCED (Repealing Ord. No. 1485) 20:8345 in no way intended to be a part of the poll. We agreed that if this became a real possibility we would reexamine the whole question. In a letter I distributed to the newspapers I stated "This was not a vote for or against racing in Arcadia~ We agreed that this matter would have to be reexamined.... We received a good study on Santa Anita from a Dr. Reeder from UCLA. I thought this was quite interesting. The only error I found in it is his conclusion that if Santa Anita hadn't put out their letter and their full page advertisement that this would have been a completely one sided issue from the people's standpoint. That they were in a vacuum so far as the other side. I just don't think this is true. There was so much publicity at the time Hollywood Park was getting their racing days and this was carried in all the major and local papers. Much of the comment was favorable on sporting pages and general news pages. I think people were already aware and I had had an opportunity to size this up one way or another..... The Council stayed away purposely from any kind of a statement... throughout the period ... issued no statements to the papers... ' "After I have said all this I want to come back to the integrity of the Council. I certainly think there are enough factors here that a reasonable person could say that they had unduly influenced'the poll and thrown it out. I also think that along this line and in response to letters from the people in the Gardens and Village areas that further weight certainly should be given to those who live closest to a property. Such as in zoning matters - you give first consideration to the people within a 300" radius.. I think this is the foundation of law and about four years when I was Mayor there was deep concern about what was going to be a quality restaurant in Sierra Madre which would overlook the Highland Oaks area. I contacted and attended both the City Council and Planning Commission meetings of that City and I think in some measure had some influence in the killing of this proposal.. not because the restaurant would not have been good for most of the people of Arcadia... I would love to have had a Castaway Restaurant up on that hill, however I took the position, that I have always tried to take, that those living closest to a project are the ones who should be most considered. "... I sent out a letter to citizens on June 14.. that if the pre- liminary results of the poll were confirmed as more cards were returned Council had agreed to abide by its decision and repeal the ordinance prohibiting Sunday racing. I have been through a wringer on this matter for the last two weeks. I was talking to another Councilman at three o'clock today and honestly had not made up my mind at that time. I feel that regardless of the statements that Santa Anita made, which I consider to be unsubstantiated in each case, the results in my opinion would not have been changed. I forced myself to this conclusion. I think that once we have embarked along this line ... if we decide on a poll as in this case ... there are misgivings ... I think that once we have committed ourselves to abide by the results, I as an individual and a Councilman have an obligation to the people.. I'm duty bound to respect my commitment and take the action I pledged I would." I Councilman Helms suggested an expanded motion and Councilman Hage, with the consent of his second, Councilman Scott, withdrew his motion made at the start of this meeting. Councilman Helms then MOVED that Ordinance No. 1487 be INTRODUCED; that all communications received in connection with the subject matter become part and parcel of the official record. He then read the ordinance in,full: ,"AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA REPEALING ORDINANCE NO. 1485 RELATING TO SUNDAY RACING. THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: "SECTION 1. Ordinance No. .148~ entitled "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA' AMENDING THE S-l SPECIAL USE ZONE REGULATIONS TO PERMIT HORSE RACING DURING DAYTIME HOURS MONDAYS THROUGH 7-11-73 - 4 - I ADJOURNMENT I 20:8346 SATURDAYS ONLY" is hereby repealed. "SECTION 2. The City Council finds that the registered voters of the City of Arcadia, upon a postcard poll on the question, voted 53.7 per cent in favor of Sunday racing and 44.6 per cent opposed. "SECTION 3. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this ordinance." Motion seconded by Councilman Scott, who stated in substance that he seconded the motion with misgivings - that he could see no reason for the inclusion of Section 2 which was just added; that he did not think that was the way things should get in~o ordinances. Councilman Helms submitted that he had asked theCity Attorney to include it but that it had been overlooked. That it should be in because he did not want the people to think Council had taken this action because it felt this was the right thing to do, but that due to the decision of the people it was done. That in hi% opinion it should be memorblized within the ordinance so there could be no mistake, misuse or misinterpretation of the action. Roll call was then taken: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Councilmen Scott, Arth, Butterworth, Helms, Arth None None At 8:35 p.m. the meeting adjourned to 7 p.m. JULY 17, 1973 in the Conference Room. {J, /rtJ-~ Mayor ATTEST: ~~~-R~~ - City Clerk 7-11-i3 - 5 -