Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAUGUST 13,1970 I I CITY COUNCIL PROCEEDINGS ARE TAPE RECORDED AND ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE BALLOT MEASURE (Fashion Park) i41:J: 1 19,:7693 MINUTES CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA SPECIAL MEETING AUGUST 13, 1970 The City Council met in the Council Chamber at 7:00 P.M. This Special Meeting was called for the purpose of considering a matter in connection with a proposed Shopping Center. Mayor Edward L, Butterworth '1'/5"'- At the Council meeting of August 4, Resolution No. ~ was adopted requesting the County Board of Supervisors to place a Proposition on the Ballot consolidated with the Statewide General Election to be held November 3. The Proposition to be voted upon would be whether Or not to adopt an ordinance changing the zoning to permit a regional shopping center and two 12 story office buildings at the northeast corner of Huntington Drive and Baldwin Avenue, and to permit a 12 story 170' height limit in an 'H' Special Height Zone on a lot not less than 10 acres in size. 4'/53 At the time Resolution No. ~ was adopted, the deadline for filing such requests with the Board was August 7, however, this date was extended to August 14 and the document was not filed on August 7. During the interim the City Attorney redrafted the resolution into two Propositions, separating the 'H' Special Zone portion from the commercial complex and this Special Meeting was called in order for Council to consider the new adaptation. In discussing the contents of the new resolution it was noted that the Planning Commission is deliberating the issue at this very hour at another location (Longley Way School). The City Attorney noted that Council is bound by the procedural provision of the zoning ordinance which states it cannot adopt any zoning ordinance until the Commission has acted thereon, or should the Commission delay 35 days in taking action the matter could come before Council at that time. Under the Elections Code a legislative body may formulate the wording of a Proposition and submit it to the Board before an ordinance is adopted. The ordinance can then be considered and adopted and submitted in time for inclusion in the sample ballot mailing. If Council reaffirms its action of August 4 and adopts the new resolution, it would have to be filed with tIE Board by the new deadline August l4. Once the Board has accepted the measures for the consolidated election they cannot be Withdrawn, especially in view of the extended time granted by the Board. All material for the official Ballot is submitted to the printer immediately thereafter. In considering the schedule which would have to be met in order to hold public hearings, take action and prepare the final appropriate ordinance the Planning Commission would have to take formal action at its meeting being held this date. Councilman Arth stated in part that initially he had thought it was a good idea to place the matter on the forthcoming ballot, however, now that the deadline is forthwith he felt the Commission would be hard pressed,..He was willing to meet as often as necessary but thought it would be a mistake to push such a crucial issue. He referred to the full calendar facing Counci 1. 8-13-70 - 1 - 1-9:7694 / Mayor Butterworth stated in part that he did not like the time pressure either, but that is something over which Council has no control; that he was satisfied in his own mind that the matter will eventually ,go to referendum one way or another and that the most representative vote possible would be registered at a General Election, whereas the usual turnout at a Special Election is about 30 percent. He noted other major city issues presented to the electorate at a consolidated general election. He felt the request to consolidate should be filed with the Board at this 'time and the definitive ordinance could be worked o'ut and, adopted at ,;" later date. I :1. Some discussion held on the new format of the way the Propositions , . would appear on the Ballot and just prior; to the reading of'the tit le ' '1" of the subject resolution the following persons spoke. Emil Steck, 831 San Simeon Road, stat'ed in part ,that from the deliberations 'Council may be taking action contrary to the City Charter which contem- " plates ,the Planning Commission rendering opinions and recommendat ions to Council and the Council then exercises its independent judgment on those recommendations by either ,approving or disapproving; that ~he Charter also givei the citizens the right of referendum at ~heir ~ehest. 'He stated further in part that in taking' such action' Council 'would be depriving the people of the benefit of Council's judgment; that the subject matter has attracted such wide community interest that he thought it was beyond the realm of reason to propose that any resulting election would bring out only about 30 percent of the voters. He appealed to Council not to adopt the resolution without contemplating because one effect of it ~ould be to deprive the citizens of an independent referendum on that action. Mayor Butterworth responded in part that if a referendum ever had any meaning it ,certainly has a meaning in a situation where there is some action that must be taken - as the residents of the Village and the Rancho area have indicated - it may very well change the lifestyle of ,that area and whether ,it is agreed with or not it is a legitimate position for the people of that area to express and certainly falls within the meaning and spirit of a referendum. He stated further' in part that the matter will not appear on the ballot with any' i~di- cation of it having been approved or, disapproved' by Council and could not see how the people would be deprived by having an election consoli- dated with a ,Statewide General' Election;' 'that he felt it would be a grievou~ mistake to vote 'against the subject resolution at,this time. Mrs. Joseph Culverwell, 843 Monte Verde Road, stated in substance, that her family lived in the city' because of its churches, 'schools and good government and felt that Council should make its own deter- mination for the benefit of the people and could not see how a consolidated election would attract more voters than at a speciai I election in view of the interest in the subject matt"er; , she said 'those opposed to the development would have only two mo~ths in which, ' to wage a campaign and asked that the resolution not be adopted at' this 't ime. Jack Saelid, 821 Balboa Drive, also asked that the opportunity ~e afforded the people to have the careful consideration of,both the Planning Commission and the Council in the matter;' that to vote at' this meeting would deprive the residents of its just dues as ~axpayers. He said he felt it would be an impossible task to attempt to. counter the advertising which has already gone throughout the city and preferred to have the considered opinion of the legislative body and then go to referendum which he said would probably happen Jf,ii Were approved. 8-13-70 - 2 - I I RESOLUTION NO. &e:s;3- <;//s3 (Not Adopted) j/~7? 18 :7695 I The City Attorney then read the title of Resolution No. 5055, entitled:"A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA REQUESTING THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES TO CONSOLIDATE THE CITY OF ARCADIA SPECIAL ELECTION TO BE HELD ON NOVEMBER 3, 1970, WITH THE STATEWIDE GENERAL ELECTION TO BE HELD NOVEMBER 3, 1970, AND REPEALING RESOLUTION NO 5-lt5S" . v,~. It was MOVED by Councilman Arth, seconded by Councilman Considine that the reading of the full body of Resolution No. ~~ be WAIVED. ~,~,. In the ensuing discussion Council agreed that even if the matter were consolidated with the General Election that it would proceed to consider and come to a decision on its own so the public would have the thinking of Council; that Council was very interested in what the people have to say and very concerned about the detail which must be the basis of the subsequent ordinance. Councilmen Arth and Helms felt however that undue pressure would be placed on the Commission in that it would have to come to a decision at its meeting tonight. Council reviewed the deadlines in noticing the public hearing which would have to be held August 26, the determination for the definitive conditions to be outlined in the ordinance which would have to go to the printer in time to have the document in the hands of the County Registrar of Voters by September 23. Councilmen Considine and Hage concluded that it would be futile to try to meet the deadlines as it would hasten and perhaps eliminate meaningful discussions and decisions on the part of Council. Mayor Butterworth was still of the opinion that by adopting the resolution Council could still meet its every obligation by the date of the election. Mayor Butterworth then called for the roll call vote on the adoption of Resolution No, ~. "'7/5S- Mayor Butterworth Councilmen Arth, Considine, Hage, Helms None AYES: NOES: ABSENT: J RESOLUTION It being then in order to repeal Resolution No. 5053, the City Attorney NO. ~ $//.;6 read the title of Resolution No. 5056, "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL : OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA REPEALING RESOLUTION NO. 5053." .,' I I ~ ADOPTED !-11)1 r 1." ~.. ," , , It was MOVED by Councilman Helms, seconded by Councilman Considine and carried on roll call vote as follows, that the reading of the full body of Resolution No. 5056 be WAIVED and that same be ADOPTED. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Councilmen Arth, Considine, Hage, Helms, Butterworth None None Mayor Butterworth asked that the Planning Commission be notified forthwith of the Council action. A' "" '.M. '0' m,,"., w" ""~""~""'G:f:l A l!wwf cl ( ,Je~k ~~~$~ City Clerk ADJOURNMENT 8-13-70 - 3 -