Laserfiche WebLink
<br />I <br /> <br />INVOCATION <br /> <br />PLEDGE OF <br />ALLEGIANCE <br /> <br />ROLL CALL <br /> <br />APPROVAL OF <br />MINUTES <br /> <br />HEARING <br /> <br />(Drag <br />Strip) <br /> <br />4-7q/ <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />16:6259 <br /> <br />MINUTES <br /> <br />CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA <br /> <br />JUNE 3, 1964 <br /> <br />The City Council of the City of Arcadia, California met in regular <br />session in the Council Chamber of the City Hall at 8:00 P.M., <br />June 3, 1964. <br /> <br />Rev. Dale F. Reynolds, Church of the Foursquare Gospel <br /> <br />Mayor Pro Tempore Reibold <br /> <br />PRESENT: <br />ABSENT: <br /> <br />Councilmen Balser, Considine, Forman, Reibold <br />Mayor Turner <br /> <br />The Minutes of the City Council Meeting of May 19, 1964 as <br />submitted in writing, were APPROVED on MOTION by Councilman <br />Considine, seconded by Councilman Forman and carried unanimously. <br /> <br />APPEAL - from Planning Commission Resolution No. 511 recommending <br />denial of the Special Use request of the Soland Corporation for <br />permission to construct and operate a drag strip on property <br />partially located within the City. <br /> <br />The City Clerk advised of the receipt of a petition containing <br />974 signatures from persons within the El Monte Postal area; also <br />communications for and against the request. She also read into the <br />record communications from 1) Los Angeles County Regional Planning <br />Commission objecting to the proposal due to the close proximity to <br />residential areas which would be materially detrimental to <br />residents, property owners and property values within such areas, <br />'and 2) City of El Monte City Council, stating in part that the <br />proposal was objected to due to the strenuous objections received <br />from area residents and property owners and also that the streets <br />are insufficient at this time to cope with the inevitable traffic <br />problems which would result. Reference was also made to a <br />communication from the attorney for the applicants, William N. <br />Bowie, Jr., in which a continuation of the matter was requested. <br /> <br />The Council did not object to the continuation of the Hearing other <br />than in the area of time, due to the forthcoming heavy agenda. <br /> <br />Mayor Pro Tempore Reibold declared the hearing open and discussed <br />procedure with Mr. Bowie who advised that he did have new evidence <br />which he would like to have sufficient time to prepare for presen- <br />tat ion. <br /> <br />Mayor Pro Tempore Reibold stated that if new evidence were to be <br />presented, the matter should go back to the Planning Commission for <br />further hearing after notice. The Planning Director indicated that <br />because of hearings already scheduled, it might well be the end of <br />August before the Commission could hold such a hearing. Mr. Bowie <br />then stated that he would present no new evidence but still wanted <br /> <br />1. <br /> <br />6-3-64 <br />