HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - February 28, 1955 - CCCITY HALL AZUSA, CALIFORNIA MONDAY, FEB. 28, 1955
The City Council of the City of Azusa met in adjourned
session at the above time and place.
Roll Call: Councilmen: Fawcett, Ortuno, Johnson,
Romero, Memmesheimer
City Attorney, City Engineer
City Clerk
Mayor Memmesheimer announced that this is the time
and place for hearing any objections to amending
Ordinance #409 reducing the 7,000 square foot lot
size minimum to 6,000 square foot lot size minimum
City Clerk presented the Affidavit of Publication
setting forth time and place of hearing. Mayor
Memmesheimer then asked if anyone in the audience
wished to, be heard in connection with the changing
of the lot sizes.
James Nicklin, Attorney at Law, 1060 Wilshire Blvd.
Los Angeles appeared before Council.
"I am appearing here on behalf of and at the request
of Lowell C. Johnson, property owner, voter, resident
and tax payer, residing at 154 S. Virginia Avenue,
Azusa. At his request I would register objection or
protest to the proposed amendments. Actually there
-is no provision in the law for a protest in the sense
that it is made in an Improvement Act, rather it is a
statement of reasons why such amendments should not
be made. This statement of reasons will be in two parts,
the first going to the merits of the proposed changes as
seen by Mr. Johnson. He objects to the amendments and
states the following reasons. The proposed new Section
5.4A.of Ordinance 409 reduces the minimum lot area from
7,000 square feet to 6,000 square feet, and also elimin-
ates requirements you have that each building site shall
have'a frontage on a public dedicated street of not less
than 60 feet and if this amendment is enacted it would
require no frontage on a public dedicated street at all.
This new Section 5.4A merely requires a width of 60 feet
at the front building line. As I review the Ordinance,
the term front building line is - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
A proposed new Section of 5.4B also eliminates the present
requirement that each building site shall have a frontage
on a'.public dedicated street of 60 feet, and if enacted
would require no frontage on a public dedicated street
at all. This new Section 5.4B merely requires a width
of 65 feet at the front building line, again the term
not being defined and hence again being rather meaning-
less.
The proposed amendment, Section 4.16 of Ordinance 409
delegates and surrenders to the County Regional Planning
Commission and ultimately to the Board of Supervisors
of Los Angeles County, all power Of the City Council of
the City of Azusa to determine for itself and for the
people of,the City of Azusa what is proper zoning, and
the use of any land that may be annexed to the City.
I might state that there has long been doubt among
attorneys•generally as to ,the propriety particularly
as to the legality of such predetermined provisions
because zoning contemplates the arriving at adequate
judicial determinations and there are processes for
arriving at such determinations when you reply solely
on a predetermination made by some other person. The
other agency's determinations are not made with reference
to what is best for the health, welfare, safety or
convenience of the inhabitants of the City of Azusa.
7:30 P.M.
Roll Call
Hearing for
proposed
Amendments to
Ordinance #409
390
n
CITY HALL AZUSA, CALIFORNIA MONDAY, FEBRUARY 28, 1955
In the past the Cities were in somewhat of a problem
because it was likewise very much in doubt as to what
'authority it had to place zoning immediately upon
annexation, so that if you have no - - - - - - - - -
mandatory provisions, property came ::into town without
any zoning at all, and as .you well know, it takes many
months - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
I point out to you that under the 1953 amendments,
Section 65806 of the Government Code, being a portion
of the new Planning and Conservation Act now provides
that Planning Commissions may recommend, and the Council
adopt', concurrent with annexation, interim emergency
zoning to take effect immediately and concurrently with
the annexation of the property so that Cities are no
longer faced with the delimma that were formerly faced
with, the Act now takes cognizance of what has been in
the past. I might state that it is being used very
effectively and satisfactorily in many Cities.
So much for the merits of the particular amendments that
have been proposed, and if I may speed up a little, a
copy of the following will be available for the records.
It is sincerely hoped that the foregoing presentation
on the merits has been sufficiently convincing that your
decision will be to refer the entire matter back to the
Planning Commission for a full study of the matter in
the light of the suggestions and comments made. If in
the exercise of your honest judgment, however, you decide
that., the merits of the case do not warrant such action,
no one can find fault with your decision so long as it
was based on your honest convictions and the record. In
such case, however, I must then point out jurisdictional
defects in the proceedings leading up to tonight's hearing,
as shown by the very records upon which your decision
must be based, which if well taken, will preclude you
from doing anything other than referring the entire matter
back -to the planning commission for reinstitution of
appropriate proceedings and a reconsideration of the
entire matter de novo.
The notice of the public hearing before the Azusa Planning
Commission on the matter now before you states in part
that the hearing is being held "for the purpose of giving
consideration to the recommendations made by the Planning
Commissibn of the City of Azusa .." with reference to
the matters thereafter referred to. I respectfully refer
you to the records of the Planning Commission and point
out to you that the first intimation of any such recom-
mendation of the Planning Commission, assumed by the
notice to be accomplished facts, are in the notice itself.
The Minutes of the Planning Commission states only the
following: "Mr. Tscharner and Mr. J. Miller, City Clerk,
brought up the matter of a resolution passed by Council
at its last meeting regarding reducing lot footage from
7,000 square feet to 6,000 square feet." The Commission
then moved that this resolution be advertised. The
resolution referred to is resolution No. 3136, with which
you are familiar, and which deals solely with the reduction
from 7,000 to 6,000 square feet of city lots. This resolu-
tion, I am informed was necer advertised. Instead, the
notice advertised was for the purpose of considering the
recommendations made by the Planning Commission (when,
where, by whom and how evidenced nowhere appears), includ-
ing among others the reduction from 7,000 to 6,0'60 sq, ft.,
but likewise an entirely new matter, namely, the amendment
of Secti6n.4.16 of Ordinance 409 providing for automatic
zoning of annexed territory in accordance with the county
zoning previously applicable. We submit that there were
7:30 P.M.
391
0
CITY HALL AZUSA, CALIFORNIA MONDAY, FEBRUARY 28, 1955
no recommendations to consider, and accordingly no one,
by any means whatsoever, could ascertain in advance and
prepare for the matters to be considered. Furthermore,
the notice states that the notice is pursuant to the
motion of the Azusa Planning Commission. This is in
direct variance from the minutes, which state that the
Council's resolution shall be advertised, and furthermore
the notice embraces matters not included in either the
Planning Commission's motion or minutes, or in the
Council's resolution and instructions.
On no less authority than the Supreme Court of the United
States, "The purpose of notice is to secure to the owner
the opportunity to protect his property . If
service ;Ls made only by publication, that publication must
be of such a character as to create a reasonable presumption
that the owner, if present and taking ordinary care of his
property, it will receive the information of what is proposed
(Bellingham Bay, etc, v. City of New Whatcom. 172 U.S. 314,
up. us, it is apparent that
neither the motion of the Planning Commission nor the
resolution of the City Council was followed in the notice
published. This inadvertence may have been in the minds
of the Planning Commissioners at their meetin§ of Jan. 19,
1955, for under the heading of "miscellaneous appears the
following.
"The petition from the City Council regarding lot reduction
from 7,000 to 6,000 square feet was next brought up. It
was recommended that the Planning Commission study the
advisability of changing Section 4.16, and that further
annexations to the city will come in at comparable zonings.
It was decided that Mr. Smith would advertise it, calling it
to the -people's attention regarding lot sizes, etc. Mr.
Tscharner said he would get together with the City Clerk
and Mr. Smith to advertise and make certain it would be
taken care of." The fact that the City AttErney, City
Clerk, and Mr. Smith "got together" does not constitute
action of the Planning Commission; not only did the
Planning Commission neither see nor decide upon the contents
of the notice, they never even voted on it.
Section 20.6 of your Ordinance No. 409 provides in part,
"Before recommending any amendment to this Ordinance or
Map, the Commission shall hold two (2) public hearings at
least ten (10) days apart." Then follow the provisions as
to notice. At this point, the Government Code enters the
scene, Most of you are aware of the 1953 amendments to
the Government Code regarding special, secret and executive
meetings. Section 54950 plainly declares the public policy,
as follows: "54950. In enacting this chapter, the Legis-
lature finds and declares that the sublic commissions,
boards and councils and the other public agencies in this
State exist to aid in the conduct of the people's business.
It is the intent of the law that their actions be taken
openly and that their deliberations be conducted openly.
The people of this State do not yield their sovereignty to
the agencies which serve them. The people, in delegating
authority do not give their public servants the right
to decide what is good for the people to know and what is
not good for them to know. The people insist on remaining
informed so that they may retain control over the instru-
ments they have created. (Added by Stats. 1953, Ch. 1588.)''
Section 54951 defines a local agency as follows:
"54951. As used in this chapter, "local agency" means a
county, 6ity, city and county, town, school district,
7:30 P.M.
393
0
T
In
CITY -HALL AZUSA, CALIFORNIA
MONDAY, FEB. 28, 1955 7:30 P.M.
municipal corporation, district, political subdivision,
or any board, commission or agency :thereof, or other
local -public agency. (added by Stats. 1953, Ch. 1588)."
Section 54952 defines a legislative body as follows:
"54952. As used in this chapter. "legislative body"
means the governing board, commission, directors or body
of a local agency, or any board or commission thereof.
rAdded by Stats. 1953, Ch. 1588.)".
Section 54956 lays down the rules governing special
meetings:
"54956. A special meeting may be ordered at any time,
by the presiding officer of the legislative body of a
local agency, or by a majority of the members of the
legislative body, by delivering personally or by mail
written notice to each member of the legislative body
and to each local newspaper of general circulation,
radio, or television station requesting notice in writing.
Such notice must be delivered personally or by mail at
least 24 hours before the time of such meeting as speci-
fied in the notice. The order shall specify the time and
place of the special meeting and the business to be trans-
acted. No other business shall be considered at such
meetings by the legislative body.
(added by Stats. 1953, Ch. 1588.)"
The notice published January 27, 1955, sets the Planning
Commission hearing for February 2, 1955 ( a regular meeting
night), and February 14, 1955, which is not a regular meet-
ing night. The meeting of February 2, 1955 was adjourned
sine die. The minutes of the Planning Commission meeting
of February 14, 1955 start off as follows: "This special
meeting of the Planning Commission was called to order."
There is not even an intimation of compliance with Section
54956 and certainly absolutely nothing in the records to
show compliance with this section. The court decisions
hold that a meeting held without compliance with the
statutory provisions for calling the same is no meeting
at all, and even hold that actions purportedly taken at
such meetings cannot even be ratified at subsequent valid
meetings. Obviously no two hearings were held on this
matter before the City Planning Commission as required by
your -Ordinance, and the Planning Commission certainly has
no power to waive this requirement.
There is serious doubt as to the validity of the so-called
hearing on February 2, 1955. Keep in mind the hearing
was noticed for 7:30 P.M. The meeting adjourned at 10:30
P.M. The minutes of this meeting are nine pages long
and the "7:30 Hearing" doesn't commence until the last
line on page eight. As a matter of fact, it occurred
about 10:00 P.M., which probably accounts for the fact
that,,the only person that had anything to say about it
was Mr. Smith himself. He couldn't go home. Not only do
the minutes fail to disclose that the notice was published
as required by law and the affidavit of publication on
file with the Commission, but the hearing wasn't even
announced at 10:00. All the minutes say is, "Petition
Regarding Change of Minimum Lot Size OrdinanceT.-MI—sis
a matter pending and on which a special mee ng is to
be held on the 14th of February. There were no objectors
present." The foregoing must be presumed to be the
verbatim transcript required by Section 20.6 of Ordinance
409, Apparently you gentlemen have had some doubts as
to the Planning Commission's universal compliance with
statutory and ordinance procedures, and some reason to
believe that such irregularities could be important.
I
CITY HALL AZUSA, CALIFORNIA MONDAY, FEBRUARY 28, 1955
At least you considered them important enough to prompt
your adoption of Resolution 3157 on February 7, 1955,
in which your body unequivocally states that "It is
quite essential that . . all requirements of said
zoning ordinance be strictly complied with and complete
and full records made of all testimony . . ." The
record of the Planning Commission as to the proceedings
in the matter now before you not only shows non compliance
with your instructions, but non compliance with the zoning,
Ordinance and State law.
At the so-called special meeting February 14, 1955, we
find present Mr. Warren Teasley, Chairman, Mr. Cornelius
Smith, and Mrs. Louise Culver. Mr. LaVerne Rueter wasn't
even a member yet. Thus the meeting was called to order
without even a quorum. The first order of business was
to swear in Mr. Rueter as a member. Again there was no
announcement that this was the time and place for the
public hearing for which notice had been published.
Again the minutes fail to reflect the publication of the
notice or that an affidavit of publication was on file.
Mr. Rueter was, of course, not a member of the Planning
Commission at the time of the first purported hearing of
this matter on February 2, 1955. The minutes do not reflect
that he familiarized himself at all with the proceedings
in this 'natter which occurred prior to February 14, 1955.
Under similar circumstances, the office of the Los Angeles
County Counsel, in an opinion dated July 22, 1952, ruled
that such a member "properly refrained from voting at
the time the various motions were made during the final
hearing, since he had not been present at all times and had
not heard all of the evidence presented" (citing cases),
At the -so-called special meeting of February 14, 1955,
at a point up to which nothing had been discussed except
the reduction of the 7,000 square foot requirement to
6,000 square feet, we suddenly find the following: "After
such informal discussion as to what areas would require
certain types of zoning, the advisability of a Master Plan
for Azusa, and other topics, a motion was made by Mr. Smith
as follows: " Then follows the bolt from the blue: a full
legal sized page, single spaced proposal for the amendment
of two sections of Ordinance 409, section 5.4 thereof to
be broken down into three sections, and section 4.16 simplyto
be amended. I will not bore you with the reading of the
more than 50 lines of text, but will state simply that only
one of the four categories embracing only 10 lines of the
50 was the subject of the Planning Commission's motion
and of the Council's Resolution No. 3136, The rest is
all news for which there 3s not one word of support in the
entire record. Not only is this the first time the public
ever heard of the matter, this is the first time according
to the record, that the Planning Commission ever heard of
it. The'•extent of the study, investigation and considera-
tion, -given to such important issues is reflected in two lines
of the minutes, "The above motion was seconded by Mrs. Culver,
and,all members present approved it for presentation to
City Council." Keep in mind that only four members were
present, and one of these was present for the first time.
Now we come to the hearing before this body. The published
notice specifies the four major categories of amendment
as specified in the February 14, 1955 minutes of the
Planning Commission. We will assume you have an affidavit
of publication on file of the notice for this hearing and
that the minutes will so reflect. However, I dare say that
you do not'have an affidavit of mailing of the same notice
or any similar notice to the owners of property in the
areas affected, as required'by law. There are three areas
in which specific properties are affected, and in each
area the specific properties are affected differently.
7:30 P.M.
397
aD
3
M
WI
• �i Gig... ..j ,, .,7 ,
, r
t
aD
3
M
WI
• �i Gig... ..j ,, .,7 ,
, r
999
CITY HALL AZUSA, CALIFORNIA MONDAY, FEB. 28, 1955 7:30 P.M.
One thing is certain, neither Lowell C. Johnson nor
Martha M. Johnson, his wife, received any such notice,
-although they are the owners of and reside upon the
north 60 feet of Lot 110, of Tract No. 13736, which
property lies within the area embraced within the proposed
amended section 5.4 (a), Ordinance #409. The tyyppe of
amendments proposed with reference to section 5.4 are
not mere amendments of test as to which notice by publica-
tion might be sufficient. By the very words specific
properTf-e—s therein described are reclassified and the
restrictions as to these specific properties are altered.
The specific properties thus affected are entitled to
written notice in addition to the general notice by
publication. This requirement I take to be jurisdictional
and has not been complied with either before the Planning
Commission or the City Council.
' I respectfully suggest that you gentlemen submit the
points raised by me to your own City Attorney for his
formal studied report upon the same, and that you do not
proceed further without receiving such formal report and
advice. I am instructed to advise you that your failure
to do so, and your proceeding further contrary to the
provisions of your own Ordinance and applicable State
-law will, for a certainty, be -tested by appropriate court
proceedings.
Respectfully submitted,"
City Attorney Tscharner then stated: "I confess I am some-
what at a disadvantage here. The Council has gone through
proceedings for a matter of months - - - - - - - - - - -
I cant hold these proceedings in my memory. Under the
Ordinance either the City Council or the City Planning
Commission can initiate proceedings, I don't care which
it is, both of them have the right to do so. There have
been two meetings before the Planning Commission and they
have been advertised. It is true that before the Planning
Commission, the advertisement was with reference to reduction
of lot size from 7,000 to 6,000 square feet, and in my
opinion those meetings and those advertisements were suf-
ficient and complied with every requirement of the Ordinance
and the law, I am not, however, so certain with reference
to this meeting tonight wherein it was attempted to change
the zoning,to 7,000 and 10,000 - - - - - - - - - - - - -
I confess that when that was brought to me I rather objected
to it at that time, and I should have stood by my objections.
I am not saying that this is invalid, but I confess I have
my doubts about that feature of it, I would appreciate
your letting me go into it more definitely, and possibly
if I find that there was error in that respect, we would
have to go back and start over from the time it left the
Planning Commission and came here, not from the beginning
of the proceedings. Now with reference to the proper zoning
left to County. To me, Counsel's argument in that respect
isn't convincing at all. If there is some area bordering
upon the City that wants to come into the City, or that you
would like to have come into the City, and it is under a
zoning which you do not want, you do not have to bring it
into the City. If it is a single residence zone, the R
zone, then you don't have to let it come in where you don't
want to. That is a matter this Council can control. We
do not have to accept any zoning that it may be in by
virtue of the fact that it is in the County. As a matter
of fact the County limit is 6,000 sq. ft. Supposing, how-
ever, that instead of being a residential section that
wants to come in, it is a manufacturing section. If your
zoning stays as it is now, that manufacturing section
400
{
CITY HALL AZUSA, CALIFORNIA MONDAY, FEBRUARY 28, 1955
could never come into the City of Azusa because of
the fact that your present Ordinance requires that
when it does come in, it automatically is R-1, so
you could get nothing into the City except that which
is R-1 in the County territory, and in my opinion
that part of the Ordinance is illogical, is wrong
and is detrimental to the growth of the City of Azusa,
and I for one, would change the Ordinance as requested
here. So far as 60 foot front of building line - - -
I haven't any fear for that, I think it is
one of the illusions Counsel has dreamed up. When
a man comes in to your Building Inspector and asks
for a building permit he has got to come in and show
where it is going to be, and if it is not on the front
line or where it is proper for him to be, he doesn't
have to be given a permit. Those matters areregulated
by this Council. That phase of the matter I have
absolutely no fear for in the least. It is a point
to talk about but it is not one that has a great
deal of merit. As to whether you would want to
proceed tonight or not, I will say to you I am perfectly
willing to go on and stand on the proceedings as they
are. I am not going to guarantee this meeting here
because of :the fact that it is divided into 3 parts,
which was not in contemplation at the time these
proceedings were started, but further than that I am
willing to stand on the proceedings as they are."
Mr. Nicklin stated that it was not his practice or desire
to engage in arguments with Council's Attorney and that
he and Mr. Tscharner had worked together in the past, and
that he would be glad to give Mr. Tscharner any assistance
possible in this matter.
The Mayor asked Mr. Nicklin for clarification of reference,
in the documents read, to secret meetings. He stated
"you specifically read a section of the Government Code
that had to do with improperly conducted meetings or
meetings held without the benefit of having public
appearances there to protest a procedure -- that, of course,
as you may know, is an item that has-been stressed con-
siderably over the last few weeks, and why a particular
section of the Code was read this evening, I would like
to know just exactly what bearing you feel that has on
the case involved."
Mr..Tscharner then asked Mr. Nicklin "was it your intent
in any way in what you read or stated to infer there
had been secret meetings?" To this Mr. Nicklin answered
"No, certainly not. I merely read the preamble and then
this most important Section 54946 because I think it
complies with that section."
Councilman Johnson moved that this report be given to
the City Attorney for formal written report by him.
City Attorney stated he would be glad to examine the
statement.
The Mayor asked City Attorney if he felt that everything
had been complied with to make a legal hearing. City
Attorney stated that up to the point where the break-
down of Section 5.4 from 7,000 to 6,000 sq. ft. he was
satisfied with the proceedings, but for the matter of
the 7,000 and 10,000 sq, ft. lot sizes he should like
time to'look it over.
Mayor: "In other words, you maintain there is a possi-
bility of the legality being questioned because
of the fact that those particular lot sizes were
not discussed at the first meeting?"
401
7:30 P.M.
402
CITY,HALL AZUSA, CALIFORNIA MONDAY, FEBRUARY 28, 1955
City Attorney: "Yes, and because it was not advertised
from 7,000 and 10,000 right from the beginning."
The Mayor then asked for a second to the motion before
the Board. Motion was seconded by Councilman Fawcett,
Councilman Fawcett: "Could we go ahead with the 6,000
sq, ft. and start over and then advertise for
the 7,000 and 10,000 sq, ft.?"
City Atty: "That was our plan in the beginning. It had
been our plan up to the last step, however, the
last step changes that."
Councilman Romero: "The only reason we went to 6,000
variance was to encourage the annexation of
property lying outside the City limits. If
City Attorney has to study this, it will prolong
this annexation proceedings, and our main purpose
is to bring these people and property in as
quickly as we can.
Mayor: "As far as having a written report of the pro-
ceedings to date given by the City Attorney,
I do not feel that this particular phase of it
is necessary. I feel it is up to this Council
to decide, and I think that if a decision is
made this evening, that the best thing to do
is to start over from the boint where the Attorney
feels that we should start, and continue from
there; any portion of the procedures so far
that can be salvaged to save any amount of time,
,I believe that step should be taken,"
City Attorney: "You either have to take this night as a
whole or go back to the beginning after the
last report of the Planning Commission."
Mr. -Warren Teasley, Chairman of the Planning Commission
stated that the 6,000, 7,000 and 10,000 sq, ft, was dis-
cussed.at both of the Planning Commission meetings.
City 'Attorney recommended that this matter be laid on the
table until he could bring the Council a report on the
last proceedings,
Councilman Fawcett desired to withdraw his second to the
motion, with the consent of the mover. Councilman Johnson
would -not give consent for the withdrawal of the second.
Motion failed by the following vote:
AYES: Councilmen: Johnson
NOES: Councilmen: Fawcett, Ortuno, Romero, Memmesheimer
ABSENT: None
Mayor Memmesheimer then asked if there were any others
in the audience who wished to appear, for or against,
the lot size changes. No one in the audience came
forward.,
Moved by Councilman Ortuno, seconded by Councilman
Romero, and unanimously carried that further considera-
tion of the report of the Planning Commission and of
the notice published with reference to the amendments
to Section 5.4 of Article 5, and 4,16 of Article 4 be
continued"until March 7th at the regular meeting of the
Council.
7:30 P.M.
403
404
" f
CITY HALL AZUSA, CALIFORNIA MONDAY,- FEBRUARY 28, 1955
Councilman Ortuno: "Any action taken between now and
the completion of this procedure here, would
that stop us from taking on any annexations of
say 6,000 sq. ft. variety?"
City Attorney: "Yes, you have now a 7,000 sq. ft.
limitation."
Councilman Ortuno: "Can't you take them in on a variance?"
City Attorney: "You can grant variances only on what is
in the City and not on what is not in the City, and
any of those new additions are not yet in the City."
Mayor: "Can the action be continued and taken at an
adjourned meeting prior to our regular meeting on
March 7th?"
City'Attorney: "Yes, you can continue this meeting until
March 7th to consider this matter".
Mayor: "Would we be penalized by any time lapse?"
City Attorney: "No"
Mr. Reggie M. Bolt, Coordinator Area D Civil Defense appeared
before Council to report on the operations of Civil Defense
and what it will mean to the City of Azusa. Mr. Bolt pre-
sented a large map of the City of Los Angeles and surround-
ing cities, to illustrate his report. He began by stating
that Civil Defense is a very frustrating thing because of
its many problems. He stated that he is a member of the
Council set up to define Civil Defense policies in Los
Angeles County and Orange County. At the meetings of this
Council, no newspaper people or reporters are allowed to
attend, and the members are given the straight facts of
the situation. They work under the assumption that if a
bomb attack is made on Los Angeles, the target would be the
most -heavily populated section, which would probably be
City Hall in downtown Los Angeles. As we are now past
th'e_.atomic age, and into the nuclear age, one 20 ton negaton
bomb would produce the greatest destruction, If such a
bomb'were dropped on City Hall in Los Angeles, from the
center of the bomb 11 miles in all directions, every living
soul would be killed. From 11 -miles outo a distance of
22 miles (reaching ?past the City of Azusa we would have
a different situation because the power of the bomb drops
off,very rapidly. In this area it may produce fire storms,
fires; some general destruction out as far as 40 miles.
Although some casualties would result, the greater part
of -the population would be able to carry on with the
rescue of those who would be hurt. There is one other
dang6r - that the fall out from one bomb blast might cover
700=84uare miles and be lethal throughout that. The fall
out pattern is usually quite narrow, probably covering an
area from 15 miles in the narrowest area, to as much as
50 miles as a maximum, spreading out down -wind for as far
as 200 miles or 240 miles. If we were in the wind pattern
we might be able to move a short distance north or south
and get out of all effects of fall out whatsoever. After
After the first warning of an attack or after an attack
comes, the wind drift patterns will be studied and this
determines the fall out pattern. It takes 30 minutes for
the fall out and after that -it will be all over. ]Phe fall
out does not necessarily come down at once, it may linger
in the skyfbr a day or so, but when it does come down,
it will come straight down, This leaves the problem of
determining when thisfall out will occur and the problem
of getting away from it - and that'means transportation
out'of the City if it should occur here. To get out of
this wind pattern will require preparation, organization
and -doing things which we have not done up to date. Under
this situation he had been advised by the State Director
ANos
7:30 P.M.
Report of Mr.
R. Bolt, Co-
ordinator,
Area D,
Civil Defense
A
�;
4 .. 1 � r � .I _ � j �i � ,.
r � � �C' ?. v �� I l � r
� � � � 1 I " �
l: � t� r i
1 �
t � . 1' 1 I
� �
� ��
A
�;
4 .. 1 � r � .I _ � j �i � ,.
r � � �C' ?. v �� I l � r
� � � � 1 I " �
l: � t� r i
1 �
t � . 1' 1 I
� �
CITY HALL AZUSA, CALIFORNIA MONDAY, FEBRUARY 28,- 1955
of Civil Defense to set up alternate control centers,
so that if radiation becomes too bad in one City, to
evacuate .to another City, and the problems in connection
with this are tremendous. It is thought that a great
part of the population of Los Angeles would pour out
to the East and come this way. Studies have been made
and it is reported that if necessary 42 million people
could be evacuated to Pomona and kept there for 10 days.
He stated that Azusa and Claremont had been chosen as
alternate control centers. In this connection Azusa
should have a Director, a trained man, and also addi-
tional help to do the job right. It is a full time job
and should have a man who can devote all his time to
it, not one who has a full time job and this as a job
on his own time. One of the most important jobs of
this -,,man would be to arrange for transportation in case
of evacuation, this would mean a survey of all trucks,
cars, ana methods of transportation in the City, gasoline
supplies,etc., and all this must be kept current so that
he -knows he can have rolling vehicles when weeded. Among
other things he will need a survey made of where medical
assistance will be available, and when medical supplies
will be available, and also trained radiological teams
will be needed to determine when the air is safe after
bombing, also ham radio equipment will be needed. This
will require some expenditure of money, but if we are to
have.Civil Defense, we've got to pay for it. If money
is appropriated from Azusa, that money will be expended
for ham radio equipment, practice for evacuation, to pay
for a full-time man for Civil Defense. Mr. Eccles,
Director'of Civil Defense for Azusa, was in the audience.
Mayor Memmesheimer asked Mr. Eccles to prepare a budget
for the operation of Civil Defense to be presented to
Council at their meeting of March 7th. Mr. Eccles stated
that now that people are becoming more conscious of Civil
Defense, they would probably be more willing to help.
Mayor Memmesheimer stated that probably two years has been
,wasted in this work because of the people's lack of informa-
tion on the subject, and now that this information is
getting .to them we will get more cooperation.
Mayor Memmesheimer submitted to Council the recommenda-
tion of the Committee for the gasoline contract for
the -City of Azusa. The Committee suggested that the
award be,given to the Signal Oil Company, maximum price
181¢'per gallon for regular and $ .207 per gallon for
Ethyl, as the lowest and most qualified bid.
Moved by Councilman Fawcett, seconded by Councilman
Romero that the recommendation of the Committee be
accepted• and the bid for the gasoline be awarded to
Signal Oil Company.
r Councilman Johnson disqualified herself from voting
on'•the grounds of stock ownership.
Motion -.passed by the following vote:
AYES: Councilmen: Fawcett, Ortuno, Romero, Memmesheimer
NOES:-' None
ABSENT: None
The matter of the 1911 Act Assessment District petitions
was brought before Council. The City Engineer stated
that:it looked like we were going to have at least
two Districts.
Moved by Councilman Ortuno, seconded by Councilman
Fawcett and unanimously carried that City Attorney
prepare a Resolution authorizing the employment of
O'Melveny & Myers as special counsel in connection with
the 1911 Act petitions.
407
7:30 P.M.
Awarding of gaso-
line contract to
Signal 011 Co.
1911 Act Assess-
ment District
Petitions.
0
BILLS AND REQUISITIONS
MEETING OF FEBRUARY 28, 1955
LIGHT FUND
I -V5834 City Employees Payroll Account
AT
ER FUND
15624 City Employees Payroll Account
GENERAL FUND
jP
'l 8715 S. E. Skidmore
4r$ 8716 General Telephone Company
8717 Evelyn Lake, Personnel Clerk
8718 Bill Pacifico
.8719 City Employees Payroll Account
$ 3,002.29
2,561.58
409
,CITY HALL AZUSA, CALIFORNIA MONDAY, FEB. 28, 1955
7:30'P.M.
Mayor Memmesheimer announced a League of California
League of Calif,
Cities Director's Meeting to be held at the Huntington
Cities Directors
on Thursday, March.3, 1955, and asked who would like
Meeting - 3/3/55
to attend. Councilman Fawcett stated he would attend,
The California Bench Company requested permission to
install four additional benches at the following
Additional benches
locations:
to be installed in
'
City,
S.W. corner of Foothill & Virginia
Weed abatement
N E. area of Foothill & Virginia
program,
N,E, corner of Foothill & Pasadena
N.W. corner of Azusa and Fifth St,
Signed permission for locating benches was granted by
property holders immediately concerned.
Moved by'Councilman Johnson, seconded by Councilman
Fawcett and duly carried that this matter be referred
to the Police Department for report.
,. Moved by Councilman Johnson, seconded by Councilman
Bills & Requisition
Ortuno that the following Bills 0-3026 - LW -3028)
and Requisitions be paid. Motion carried unanimously.
City Clerk announced that he had received a check in
Check recd, for
the amount of $60,900 from the Sanitation District
sewage disposal
for purchase by them of the City sewage disposal plant,
plant,
City Clerk announced that the Southern Counties Gas
Check reed for
Company had submitted to him a check in the amount of
franchise granted
$4,945,62 in payment for the use, operation and posses-
So. Counties Gas
sion of the franchise granted to the company.
This
Company
payment for the year ending Dec. 31, 1954.
City Clerk announced that the payment of the 1954 Check reed from
Franchise Tax by the General Telephone Company had Telephone Co.
been received in the amount of $9,158.35.
The City Engineer requested authorization to advertise
for bids for the construction of sewers on Mason St, City to adv, for
and other streets in that section of Cerritos Park bids for sewers
Tractr.to-be known as Project #121, on Project #121
Moved by Councilman Fawcett, seconded by Councilman
Ortuno that the Engineer and City Clerk be authorized
to advertise for bids for the sewer construction
on Mason St, and other streets known as project #121,
bids to be opened March 21, 1955. Motion carried
unanimously.
Mayor Memmesheimer suggested the possibility that
Possibility of
some sewer work might be done with City forces and
City forces to do
the feasibility of the City Department submitting a
sewer work,
bid. Engineer Williamson stated that the Engineer's
estimates are based generally on what the cost -should
be, and if the bids submitted are too much in excess
they can be -rejected.
City, Engineer Williamson stated that if a weed abate-
ment program is to be inaugurated this coming year,
Weed abatement
it should be started now so as to enable billings to
program,
be made on the tax bills.
Moved by Councilman Johnson, seconded by Counailman
Romero and unanimously carried, that the City Attorney
be instructed to prepare the necessary Resolutions to
have the weed abatement program enforced and charges
.put on the tax roll,
City Engineer recommended a title search be made of Title search on old
the old reservoir property in view of the possibility reservoir property,
of land exchange,
440
CITY HALL -AZUSA, CALIFORNIA t MONDAY, FEBRUARY 28, 1955 7:30 P.M,
Moved by Councilman Fawcett, seconded by Councilman
Romero and unanimously carried that the Engineer
and City Attorney be authorized to have a title
search made of the old reservoir site as recommended.
Engineer Williamson submitted various color combina- Painting for
tions for painting the auditorium for Council's Auditorium
inspection. This was referred to the Committee for
redecorating the auditorium.
Moved by Councilman Romero, seconded by Councilman .
Johnson and unanimously carried that this meeting Adjournment
adjourn. Time of adjournment 9:50 P.M.
y Clerk or Azusa