HomeMy Public PortalAboutCity Council_Minutes_1989-06-06_Regular 19891
1
1
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
JUNE 6 1989
INITIATION:
1. CALL TO ORDER:
Pursuant to Agenda posted on June 2, 1989, Mayor Froehle called
the meeting of the City Council to order at 7:30 P.M. on Tues-
day, June 6, 1989.
2. The invocation was given by Reverend Paul Torres, Word of
Freedom Ministries, 5927 Cloverly.
3. The Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag was led by Mayor Froehle.
4. ROLL CALL:
Present:
Absent:
Also Present:
Councilmembers Atkins, Gillanders, Swain and
Froehle
Councilmember Breazeal
City Manager Koski, City Attorney Martin,
Public Works Coordinator Peterson, Parks &
Recreation Director Kobett, Temple City
Times Staff Writer Estrada, and Pacesetter
Staff Writer Holtzclaw.
Councilmember Gillanders moved to excuse Councilmember
Breazeal's absence, for cause, seconded by Councilmember Swain
and unanimously carried.
5. CONSENT CALENDAR:
Councilmember Atkins requested items G. and C. be removed from
the Consent Calendar; Councilmember Swain requested the removal
of items B.3., C., F. and H.; and Councilmember Gillanders
requested item I be removed. On motion by Councilmember
Atkins, seconded by Councilmember Swain, the remainder of the
Consent Calendar was approved as presented.
A. APPROVAL OF MINUTES -
(1) Regular Meeting of May 16, 1989
Council approved as written.
(2) Adjourned Meeting of May 30, 1989
Council approved as written.
City Council Minutes, June 6, 1989 - Page 2
B. RECOMMENDATIONS FROM THE PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION
MEETING OF MAY 17, 1989 -
(1) REQUEST FOR USE: LIVE OAK PARK BY TEMPLE CITY AYSO -
Council approved the request received from Temple City
AYSO for use of Live Oak Park on various dates as
outlined in staff's memo dated June 6, 1989, subject
to a valid Certificate of Insurance and the same
conditions as last year.
(2) REQUEST FOR USE: LIVE OAK PARK BY TEMPLE CITY YOUTH
FOOTBALL -
Council approved the use of certain turfed areas and
the concession stand at Live Oak Park by the Temple
City Youth Football from August 7, 1989 through Novem-
ber 15, 1989 from 5:30 -7:30 and other dates as out-
lined in staff's memo dated June 6, 1989, subject to
the required Certificate of Insurance.
D. MUNICIPAL CODE AMENDMENT: ORDINANCE NO. 89 -649 (2ND READ-
ING), RELATING TO COMPENSATION FOR COUNCIL MEMBERS -
Council waived further reading and adopted Ordinance No.
89 -649 relating to councilmanic compensation and amending
the Municipal Code.
E. RELEASE OF STREET TREE BOND, TRACT #44413, 5632 MC CULLOCH
AVENUE -
Council approved the street tree work completed; released
the street tree bond portion of Letter of Credit No. 160 in
the amount of $550.00; and instructed City Clerk to notify
the principal and surety of the Council's action.
J. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTIONS FROM THEIR REGULAR MEETING OF
MAY 23, 2989 -
Council received and filed.
K. RESOLUTION NO. 89 -2867: APPOINTMENT OF PERSONNEL -
Council adopted Resolution No. 89 -2867 approving the em-
ployment of budgeted personnel.
L. RESOLUTION NO. 89 -2869: APPROVAL OF PAYMENT OF BILLS -
Council adopted Resolution No. 89 -2869 approving warrants
and demands in the amount of $247,928.38.
1
1
1
1
1
1
City Council Minutes, June 6, 1989 - Page 3
C. OFFER OF DONATION FROM CAMELLIA LIONS CLUB OF TEMPLE CITY -
Councilmember Atkins commented that he just wanted to point
out to everyone the participation of this service club in
community affairs and expressed his regard for what they
are doing. He also verified that a letter of appreciation
would be sent to the Camellia Lions Club.
Councilmember Swain reiterated the importance of the serv-
ice clubs in the community and moved to accept the donation
from the Camellia Lions Club to co- sponsor refreshments for
the July 6th band concert, seconded by Councilmember
Gillanders and unanimously carried.
G. PROGRESS PAYMENT #1: RAYMOR ELECTRIC, INC., MISCELLANEOUS
CONCRETE REPAIR (PROJECT #88 -5) -
Councilmember Atkins noted from staff's report that the
inspector had cut back from 95% to 80% completion of the
contract. He asked if there was any feedback on the qual-
ity of the work and whether or not they made the time
limit.
City Manager Koski stated the work is acceptable; however,
there is cleanup to be done. Complaints were received
regarding extended open excavation, etc. but they did
complete the project within the time period.
Councilmember Atkins moved to approve progress payment #1
in the amount of $28,694.16 to Raymor Electric, Inc. for
work accomplished prior to May 24, 1989; seconded by
Councilmember Swain and unanimously carried.
B. (3) PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS TO LIVE OAK PARK USING ROBERTI-
Z'BERG- HARRIS URBAN OPEN SPACE AND RECREATION PROGRAM
- PROPOSITIONS 70 AND 99, STATE GRANT FUNDS -
Councilmember Swain commented that there is a group in
the City raising money to install :Lights for the
basketball court area at Live Oak Park, and they have
been very successful. She questioned if the subject
grant funds, with matching funds, would be enough to
go ahead and finish the project even if the group was
unable to raise the necessary amount.
City Manager Koski, in reply, stated that with the
subject funds and the funds collected by the citizens
group, there would be enough for the project.
Parks & Recreation Director Kobett, answering Mayor
Froehle's query, stated the funds would be available
late July or early August.
City Council Minutes, June 6, 1989 - Page 4
Councilmember Swain moved to approve the use of funds
available in the amount of $16,123.00, authorized
filing of application for State Grant Funds, author-
ized Mayor to sign said application and adopted Reso-
lution No. 89 -2868 approving and filing application
for Proposition 70 and Proposition 90 funds; seconded
by Councilmember Atkins and unanimously carried.
F. ACCEPTANCE OF PROPOSAL: CITY ENTRANCE SIGNS -
Councilmember Swain noted in staff's report that Central
Cities Sign Service uses a clear sealer coating on the
signs and she wondered if it was the same process used by
the other company, Vue -Way. If not, what is the difference
in the signs proposed?
Public Works Coordinator Peterson said both companies use a
protective coating on their signs, Cities Sign Service just
itemized it separately where Vue -Way included it in the
total price.
Councilmember Swain moved to authorize the purchase of 22
City entrance signs from Central Cities Sign Service at a
price of $104.77 each plus tax, for a total cost of
$1,454.76 to be included in the FY 1989 -90 Budget; seconded
by Councilmember Atkins and unanimously carried.
H. COMMUNITY DISPOSAL COMPANY REQUEST FOR RATE INCREASE -
Councilmember Swain stated they were all aware the increase
was coming. This increase is caused by a combination of a
cost of living increase and an increase in dumping fees. It
is a pass- through of expenses not just a random increase in
price and the City has documentation of these charges.
Temple City is one of the few cities left with two pickups
a week and she feels it is still a real bargain.
Councilmember Gillanders commented that if additional
landfill is not found, this will be considered a minor
increase.
Mayor Froehle remarked that Council takes a close look at
all such increases. Trash is sent to three landfills
-Azusa and BKK are the other two and have raised their fees
22% and 36 %, respectively. As mentioned, this is a pass -
through of costs.
Councilmember Atkins said the bills may seem to indicate a
larger increase, but they are for a two -month period.
1
1
1
1
1
1
City Council Minutes, June 6, 1989 - Page 5
Councilmember Swain moved to approve a monthly rate in-
crease of $.88 per month per single family residence ($9.55
to $10.45) and $.88 per multiple unit ($9.55 to $10.45) and
$.44 per month for each additional unit ($4.80 to $5.25)
effective July 1, 1989, and authorized Mayor to sign the
20th Amendment to the existing Agreement; seconded by
Councilmember Gillanders and unanimously carried.
I. CLAIM FOR DAMAGES: SUSAN VANATER -
Councilmember Gillanders commented that a variety of claims
are sent to Carl Warren & Co. from the City. They are
being asked to defend a very nebulous situation and re-
quested all the support and backup material be made avail-
able to them.
Councilmember Gillanders moved to deny subject claim and
refer to JPIA, seconded by Councilmember Atkins and unani-
mously carried.
6. UNFINISHED BUSINESS:
A. PUBLIC HEARING: LEVY OF FY 1989 -90, ASSESSMENTS FOR CITY-
WIDE LIGHTING DISTRICT -
Providing background information, City Manager Koski stated
Council at their regular meeting of May 16, 1989, accepted
the Engineer's Report for the City -Wide Lighting District,
FY 1989 -90 levy; adopted Resolution No. 89 -2862 declaring
intent to levy and collect FY 1989 -90 assessments; and set
public hearing for June 6, 1989. No change is proposed in
the assessment rates. Barbara Hall, P.E. of Dwight French
& Associates, City Engineer, indicates there are sufficient
funds to operate the district and provide regular street
light maintenance.
Council discussed the fact there is no change in the as-
sessment rate. City Manager Koski said the rate had not
changed since the district was formed; however, Council -
member Gillanders thought the rate was changed in 1979, but
the fact remains there has been no increase for at least
ten years.
Councilmember Atkins, in 1967 -68 served on a Citizens
Committee that set up this lighting district. He feels the
citizens have well lighted streets, the rate has been
constant and he is very proud he had a part in it.
Mayor Froehle opened the public hearing and invited anyone
wishing to address the City Council on the matter to come
forward at this time.
City Council Minutes, June 6, 1989 - Page 6
As there was no one who wished to address this item,
Councilmember Gillanders moved to close the public hearing,
seconded by Councilmember Swain and carried unanimously.
Councilmember Gillanders moved to adopted Resolution No.
89 -2866, A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
TEMPLE CITY ORDERING THE LEVY AND COLLECTION OF ASSESSMENTS
FOR FISCAL YEAR 1989 -90 WITHIN THE CITY -WIDE LIGHTING
MAINTENANCE DISTRICT PURSUANT TO THE LANDSCAPING AND LIGHT-
ING ACT OF 1972; seconded by Councilmember Swain and unani-
mously carried.
7. NEW BUSINESS:
A. APPEAL OF OVERNIGHT PARKING PERMIT DENIAL, CHARLOTTE PIETZ,
5922 PRIMROSE AVENUE -
Reviewing this case, City Manager Koski stated that on
February 23, 1989 Charlotte Pietz filed for an annual
overnight parking permit, indicating the landlord had not
provided a parking space. A temporary permit was issued
and her request was considered at the Traffic Commission
meeting on April 5, 1989. After staff investigation of
the conditions and verification from the landlord that each
tenant is allotted one garage space, the Traffic Commission
recommended denial. Ms. Pietz appealed this decision and
asked the Commission to re -hear her request, which they did
at their May 3, 1989 meeting and again denied the request.
Ms. Pietz is now appealing this decision and, as part of
her appeal, has included a letter stating she is now work-
ing a night shift job but will be switching to an early
morning shift that will require her to leave for work at
about 3:30 A.M. She is concerned for her safety if she
must be in the alley to open her garage door at that hour.
Public Works Coordinator Peterson showed a video of the
garage and the parking of a vehicle in said garage. Mr.
Peterson confirmed it is a narrow garage but will hold an
automobile.
Charlotte Pietz, 5922 Primrose, told Council she is con-
cerned with safety. Starting July 17th she will be on an
early morning shift that begins at 4:00 A.M. She must
enter her garage from an alley and she's worried because of
the adjacent bar.
Council discussed this appeal and inquired whether or not
there is a light in the alley in the vicinity of the garage
and if it remained on all night; they inquired as to
whether there are any police problems in the area.
1
1
1
1
1
1
City Council Minutes, June 6, 1989 - Page 7
Mr. Peterson stated there is a street light just north of
the garage in the alley that lights the area..
City Manager Koski did not recall any comments about police
problems in the area and was not aware of any unique prob-
lems. There were some difficulties with the bartender at
the Crest but these have been straightened out.
Lt. Bullington, Temple City liaison officer, stated he
would have to research this but was unaware of any problems
associated with the Bar.
Councilmember Atkins' opinion was the area is well lighted,
the bar patrons will be gone when Ms. Pietz leaves for work
and the bar seems to be well policed. Therefore, he did
not feel there would be a safety problem. In fact, he felt
it would be safer parking in the garage than on the dark
street in front.
Councilmember Gillanders was of the same mind. Most of the
bar patrons will be gone. Nothing is perfectly safe;
however, he did not see a problem.
Councilmember Swain agreed with Councilmembers Atkins and
Gillanders. She's not opposed to it but does not like to
see this type of thing. The one and only time she was
accosted was in front of the subject unit, in full day-
light. If Ms. Pietz feels insecure about using the alley,
and perhaps it's for a limited time, she would not be
opposed to it.
Mayor Froehle felt the Traffic Commission made a sound
objective decision. However, there are unique circum-
stances in that Ms. Pietz leaves for work at 3:00 A.M. and
must leave from an alley. Granting this permit will not
create a hardship for the City. He was in favor of grant-
ing the permit on verification of employment and working
hours.
Councilmember Atkins moved to deny the subject appeal and
sustain the Traffic Commission's denial of Charlotte Pietz'
application for overnight parking permit; seconded by
Councilmember Gillanders and carried on a roll call vote as
follows:
ROLL CALL:
AYES: Councilmembers Atkins, Gillanders, Swain
NOES: Mayor Froehle
ABSENT: Councilmember Breazeal
City Council Minutes, June 6, 1989 - Page 8
B. PUBLIC HEARING: APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION
DENYING ZONE VARIANCE 89 -980 IN THE R -2 ZONE AT 4816
HALLOWELL (LO PRESTO) -
City Manager Koski, providing background information,
stated this is one of three R -2 zoned lots on the east side
of Hallowell Avenue just north of Lower Azusa Road. Three
comparable lots on the west side of Hallowell are also
zoned R -2. The subject lot is 50' wide by 165' deep and is
currently improved with a single- story, 980 square foot
residence. The applicant proposes to construct a second,
single- story, 1,140 square foot residence toward the rear
of the lot. The proposed second dwelling complies with the
Zoning Code requirements with the exception of the driveway
width. The Zoning Code currently requires a 16 foot wide
driveway for parking areas accommodating 5 or more spaces.
The existing driveway width is approximately 10 feet. To
provide the minimum required 16 foot driveway, the existing
dwelling on the lot would need to be modified. Planning
Commission denied this request for a variance at their
meeting of April 25, 1989.
Community Development Director Dawson showed a video of the
site and surrounding area.
Council questioned staff regarding the actual width of the
driveway as the staff report indicated it was slightly less
than 10' wide, and were told it is 9' 10" wide.
Mayor Froehle declared the public hearing open and invited
anyone wishing to address Council on this matter to come
forward at this time.
Robert LoPresto, 4816 Hallowell, told Council he has been
trying to get this project underway since April 1986. When
his project was heard before the Planning Commission, two
Commissioners voted against it on the grounds the Code
should be changed. He urged Council to reconsider and
allow him to develop his property. Answering an inquiry
from Councilmember Gillanders, Mr. LoPresto said he and his
family would live in the proposed new structure and his
parents would live in the front dwelling.
Melud S. Khair, 4820 Hallowell, a next door neighbor,
explained to Council that Mr. LoPresto has two children and
wants to live in a larger house. His present house is very
small for four people. He asked Council to help him. These
are not apartment units so there would not be 5 cars
needed.
1
1
1
1
1
1
City Council Minutes, June 6, 1989 - Page 9
As there was no one else who wished to speak on this item,
Councilmember Gillanders moved to close the public hearing,
seconded by Councilmember Atkins and unanimously carried.
Councilmember Swain expressed concern over the narrow
driveway considering a rear house and block wall on the
side. The average car width is 7'6" so it does not leave
much distance if emergency vehicles need access. Requiring
16' driveway might be requiring too much, but she felt 10'
was too narrow.
Councilmember Atkins stated he wholeheartedly supports
Planning Commission on what they are doing. However, this
case is unique because the existing house does not make the
5' setback. The only use would be by the tenants of the
rear house and the applicant proposes to live there. A 10'
wide driveway is unusual but the situation is unusual in
that they provided the zoning to build another house and
then not allow it. He felt the width of the driveway for
one additional car is adequate and he could support it.
Councilmember Gillanders said the proposed new development
is single story, the driveway has been adequate since 1950,
the driveway and house are there and will exist whether the
additional structure is approved or not, this is not a
subdivision nor is it for commercial use - it is for fam-
ily. Additionally, it is better than what is there now.
There will be five parking spots, two in the existing
garage, two in the new garage and one guest. He felt
parking is adequate and could see no reason not to approve
the request.
Mayor Froehle felt this is a tough and close call. Right
now it is a family affair but such decisions sometimes
affect the City down the line. This is an unusual and
unique situation in that it is a 50' wide lot with an R -2
zoning. He could appreciate Councilmember Swain's concern
about the narrow driveway; however, to conform they would
have to take 6' off the house which would leave an 812
square foot residence. There are six lots„ three on both
sides of Hallowell, zoned R -2, and two of these lots cur-
rently have two units. He would be in favor of granting
this appeal.
Councilmember Atkins moved to overturn Planning Commis-
sion's decision and approve Zone Variance 89 -980 for the
above - stated reasons, seconded by Councilmember Gillanders
and unanimously carried.
City Council Minutes, June 6, 1989 - Page 10
Councilmember Swain moved to include the Minutes and mate-
rials from the Planning Commission, as well as staff's
recommendations, as part of the record of Council's public
hearing concerning this matter, seconded by Councilmember
Gillanders and unanimously carried.
C. PUBLIC HEARING: APPEAL OF A DECISION OF THE PLANNING
COMMISSION DENYING ZONE VARIANCE 89 -984 AT 9211 LAS TUNAS
(CHENG) -
City Manager Koski stated the applicant is requesting a
Zone Variance to convert existing non - conforming residen-
tially -used structures to a conforming commercial use in
the C -2 Zone with a total of 8 rather than the required 12
parking spaces. This case is an outgrowth of a code en-
forcement complaint as a 360 square foot garage and storage
structure were being constructed without building permits.
A "stop work" order was issued. It was also determined
that two existing one - bedroom residential units near the
rear of the lot had been converted for office use. The
previously existing one - bedroom units were non - conforming
in this Commercial Zone. In addition to these previously
existing units, a two - bedroom house exists on the site
immediately behind the V.I.P. Newsstand building. The
Zoning Code specifies that when a non - conforming use is
changed to a conforming use, the entire site shall be
brought into conformity with the Zoning Code. Based on the
square footage of the building, 12 parking spaces are
required and only 8 are being provided, thereby necessitat-
ing a variance for 4 parking spaces. The Planning Commis-
sion denied this request at their April 25, 1989 meeting.
Mr. Dawson showed a video of the site and surrounding area
and circulated photographs of the units in question for
Council's review.
Mayor Froehle declared the public hearing open and invited
anyone wishing to address the City Council on the matter to
come forward at this time.
Eric Hunt, 963 N. Calmgrove Ave., Covina, speaking for the
applicant, gave Council a brief history of the site and
what has taken place at this location. Prior to Mr.
Cheng's ownership, it was in disrepair and a fire hazard.
After working with the Code Enforcement Officer, it was
suggested it be converted back to commercial use. However,
they discovered when a non - conforming use is brought into
conformity with the Zoning Code, the entire site shall be
brought into conformity. This would require 12 parking
spaces and they had only 8. They could not go back to the
non - conforming use, residential, they could not use it as
1
1
1
1
1
City Council Minutes, June 6, 1989 - Page 11
commercial because of parking requirements and they could
not use it for storage. Total use of the property was
taken away from Mr. Cheng.
Mayor Froehle called to Mr. Hunt's attention that in all
fairness he left out the fact that Mr. Cheng started adding
a 360' garage and storage without benefit of permits and
that is why the present predicament exists. There are two
sides to this story.
Joy Carruthers, 5503 Halifax, owner of adjacent property,
stated she is neither for nor against this case. She just
wanted Council to be aware that the property in questions
was a constant problem, from a parking standpoint, until
purchased by Mr. Cheng. There are no problems now and she
does not care what he has done to improve the property.
Answering questions from Council, Ms. Carruthers stated she
did not know if the structures were presently occupied. She
also did not feel they would experience the same problems
if the structures were occupied by offices with employees
and people coming and going. Regardless of what is done,
parking will be a problem. The applicant has improved the
property. If converted back to residential use, Ms.
Carruthers said it will be a problem again.
As there was no one else who wished to speak on this item,
Councilmember Gillanders moved to close the public hearing,
seconded by Councilmember Atkins and unanimously carried.
Mr. Dawson explained the Code requirements in bringing the
entire site into conformity. Answering questions from
Council, Mr. Dawson stated the number of parking spaces is
governed by the square footage of the business.
Councilmember Gillanders said parking in the area is a
problem already. You add four businesses and it will be
worse. Parking stalls are substandard in width and the
three offices if used by separate businesses are substand-
ard in size. Everything is substandard. He supports the
Planning Commission's suggestion to go for fewer units and
make them larger all on separate services. The parking
stalls should be made standard width.
Councilmember Atkins reiterated that this legal, non -con-
forming property was a borderline property nuisance and the
fire insurance underwriter wouldn't touch it. The applicant
is asking for variances, but as Councilmember Gillanders
pointed out, everything is substandard. The bottom line is
he supports the Planning Commission, and the property
should be brought up to Code.
City Council Minutes, June 6, 1989 - Page 12
Councilmember Swain agreed with both Councilmembers. It
has been non - conforming and a problem for many years and
they have received many complaints over the last couple
years. Council passed an ordinance regarding the creation
of new offices by chopping up existing buildings. The
offices would be approachable only from the alley as there
is no access from Las Tunas and this will compound the
parking problem.
Mayor Froehle concurred with the other Councilmembers and
briefly reiterated what had been said regarding parking
problems, cutting up buildings and not meeting minimum
square footage requirements, and the fact this came about
because of not having obtained building permits. He agreed
the solution would be larger units that would require fewer
parking spaces. He felt the Planning Commission made a
sound decision.
Councilmember Gillanders moved to include the Minutes and
materials from the Planning Commission as part of the
record of Council's public hearing concerning this matter,
seconded by Councilmember Swain.
Councilmember Gillanders moved to sustain the Planning
Commission's decision and denied Zone Variance 89 -984 for
reasons stated above; seconded by Councilmember Atkins and
unanimously carried.
D. PUBLIC HEARING: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 89 -971, ZONE
VARIANCE 89 -981 AND TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 47219 AT 5308 MC
CULLOCH (MUR -SOL, INC.) -
The applicant proposes to develop seven detached condo-
minium units on an R -2 zoned site previously occupied by
Lexington Manor Convalescent Home. The overall density for
this project is 8 dwelling units per acre rather than the
permitted density of 12 units per acre. The proposal
complies with all of the development standards for condo-
miniums in the R -2 Zone with the exception of 3 guest
parking spaces. The three dwellings proposed to front and
take access directly from Freer Street would provide two
guest parking spaces on the driveway area in tandem behind
the two car garages. Although each dwelling would provide
four parking spaces, only two spaces would be independently
accessible. Therefore, a variance is required for the
three guest parking spaces which are not independently
accessible. Overall, the project proposes 24 parking
spaces, of which 6 would be in tandem. The Code requires
21 spaces; none in tandem.
Mr. Dawson showed a transparency and explained the physical
setup of this proposed development.
1
1
1
1
1
1
City Council Minutes, June 6, 1989 - Page 13
Council questioned staff regarding the distance between the
units, if the first and second story setbacks were to Code,
whether or not sidewalks were to be installed, and they
questioned the the fact that property to the east is shown
on the map as extending beyond the property line
Answering Council's questions, Mr. Dawson said the develop-
ment meets Code requirements for setbacks and sidewalks and
curbs are part of the requirements.
Councilmember Gillanders noted that the three units facing
Freer do not have a separate guest parking space. He asked
what would be wrong with adding paving and putting them
next to the first two. Councilmember Gillanders also
mentioned there is no access to the rear of the property on
the three units facing Freer nor is their access to the
others from the rear.
Mr. Dawson said the Code states in the R -1 Zone you cannot
have open parking between the house and. street. If they
allowed this, many people would pave their front yard.
Mayor Froehle opened the public hearing and invited anyone
wishing to address Council on this matter to come forward
at this time.
Daniel Grohs, 132 LaPorte, Arcadia, representing the devel-
opers, Mur -Sol, Inc., said he was available to answer
questions from Council. They planned this development to
resemble single family residences in keeping with the
neighborhood. They worked with staff and instead of the
units facing a driveway down the middle, it was suggested
this would present a better development.
As there was no one else who wished to address this matter,
Councilmember Gillanders moved to close the public hearing,
seconded by Councilmember Swain and unanimously carried.
Councilmember Gillanders remarked there is substantial
on- street parking available as this is not a high density
area. Anytime a guest is there, the street would be acces-
sible and overnight the owner would have the car in the
garage then there would be available onsite parking. The
general tendency is to build large homes. This one has
appreciable greenery and is an improvement to what is
there. It is not an unreasonable project considering the
location.
City Council Minutes, June 6, 1989 - Page 14
Councilmember Atkins agreed with Councilmember Gillanders
and the Planning Commission. This is not one of his favor-
ites but is acceptable. It definitely has the appearance
of density. There is parking for three units on Freer and
guest parking would be available at the curb. The other
units have adequate parking. He could support the Planning
Commission's decision.
Councilmember Swain agreed with previous statements by
Councilmembers Gillanders and Atkins. The density is heavy
but it does meet all requirements. It has more of the look
of single family residential units in keeping with the
neighborhood and there is green and open areas between the
homes. She had no objection to tandem parking but re-
quested the garages are required to have automatic doors.
Mayor Froehle had nothing to add.
Councilmember Gillanders moved to include the Minutes and
materials from the Planning Commission as part of the
record of Council's public hearing on this matter; approve
Conditional Use Permit No. 89 -971, Zone Variance No. 89 -981
and Tentative Tract No. 47219 and approve Negative Declara-
tion; seconded by Councilmember Swain and unanimously
carried.
Mayor Froehle called a short recess at 8:50 P.M.
Mayor Froehle reconvened the meeting at 9:00 P.M.
E. ORDINANCE NO. 89 -651U: AN URGENCY ORDINANCE PLACING A
MORATORIUM ON CERTAIN TYPES OF DEVELOPMENT WITHIN THE R -1,
R -2 AND R -3 ZONES -
City Manager Koski, providing background information,
stated that in recent years there has been a trend to
construct larger sized dwelling units in all residential
zones throughout the City. These units are often out of
scale with existing residences. To combat this trend and
preserve the existing character of neighborhoods in the
community, the City has adopted more stringent development
standards; nonetheless, the trend toward "over building" on
residential lots continues.
The Planning Commissioners at their meeting of May 23, 1989
expressed a desire to study methods of controlling bulk and
scale in the City's residential zones. City Council, at
the special meeting of May 30, 1989, also expressed a
desire to consider establishing a floor area. ratio (F.A.R.)
as well as other requirements to control the bulk and scale
of new construction. The concept of regulating new devel-
opment by establishing a F.A.R. is new and is set forth in
1
1
1
1
1
City Council Minutes, June 6, 1989 - Page 15
some detail in staff's memo dated June 6, 1989. The ordi-
nance before Council this evening would place a 45 -day
moratorium on single family dwellings in the R -1, R -2 and
R -3 Zones to allow adequate time for staff to research and
investigate studies relative to controlling the bulk and
scale of residential structures. Mr. Koski then asked Mr.
Dawson for a more comprehensive explanation of the F.A.R.
concept.
Mr. Dawson explained different approaches to regulate bulk
and scale and explained F.A.R., a means used by some neigh-
boring cities. Mr. Dawson then reviewed some of the de-
tails contained in staff's memo dated June 6, 1989.
Councilmember Gillanders stated he would like to see a
difference in the F.A.R. between single story and second
story in an effort to promote single story rather than
second story.
Mr. Dawson said they could add limitations to the second
story, such as the second story cannot exceed 75% of the
first story in the R -1 Zone.
City Attorney Martin inquired of staff if they planned to
repeal the 50% coverage requirement at this time and Mr.
Dawson's reply was not at this time.
Councilmember Swain said they needed to set in place an
ordinance placing a moratorium on any projects that would
exceed the .35, .50 and .70 plus the 75% limitation for the
second story. They were not placing a moratorium on all
building.
Mr. Dawson stated they were also including in this ordi-
nance a requirement for one additional parking space if
more than four bedrooms. A fifth bedroom or convertible
den would require one additional enclosed parking space.
Councilmember Atkins remarked that equating these figures
to his size house, using an F.A.R. of .35 in the R -1 Zone
with a lot size of 7200 square feet as an example, it would
allow a 68% addition to his house. This seems very gener-
ous and will still help cut down on the extreme situations.
Mayor Froehle reiterated that they are proposing to pass an
urgency ordinance that will hold everyone to these stan-
dards for the next 45 days to give Planning staff and the
Planning Commission time for further review.
Mayor Froehle stated this is not a public hearing but in
fairness would hear public testimony as requested from the
audience.
City Council Minutes, June 6, 1989 - Page 16
John Wilde, 4905 Baldwin, Contractor for 9837 Miloann,
asked what happens to those plans already approved by the
Planning Department and have been sent to Plan Check before
this came up? Is there a "Grandfather Clause" for those
cases? He briefly gave the background and dates for his
project. He asked if the City would reimburse the funds,
with interest, does it pay for lost time, stress and the
time to develop the plans? His plans complied with all
City requirements at the time it was approved.
Councilmember Gillanders stated a claim must be turned in
to the City. They must do something about this problem
post haste. These "over- built" projects are impinging
into others' living space and causing more density in the
City. It is necessary to respond to the demands of the
community.
City Manager Koski stated that Mr. Dawson had indicated
there are 35 projects in plan check. He suggested Council
go ahead with the moratorium and let staff come back after
checking to see how many of these cases would exceed the
proposed F.A.R.
City Attorney Martin said it seems no one is objecting to
the Ordinance itself. The only objection is who should be
exempted from it and that can be handled on an ad hoc
basis.
Ronnie and Linda Brown, 9837 Miloann, stated they started
planning their house back in September. Mr. Brown then
reviewed the process of getting his approval, how they pre-
sented it in March and were told of a Zoning Code change in
February, they went before the Planning Commission for a
variance and their request was denied, how they immedi-
ately changed direction and conformed to the Code and
re- submitted their plans. It was approved by Temple City
and is in Plan Check, and now this. Their F.A.R. is 35.8
and they do not have the extra garage.
Mayor Froehle, replying to Mr. Brown, said his circum-
stances are unique and the City will try to work with him.
As the City Manager stated, there are 35 such cases. The
criteria normally is when the building permits are drawn
and, unfortunately, your building permits were not yet
drawn. Council has suggested that staff come back in two
weeks with some guidelines so they can work with people
like the Browns who are affected by the Urgency Ordinance
more than anyone else. They cannot rule on that this
evening. They must wait for some guidelines.
1
1
1
1
1
City Council Minutes, June 6, 1989 - Page 17
Council discussed the matter of looking at each of the
cases and different ways of approaching this problem of
trying to help the 35 people most seriously affected by
this urgency ordinance. Staff will present to Council some
guidelines; however, they would not be prepared in two
weeks to reply to each individual case.
City Attorney Martin introduced by title only Ordinance No.
89 -651U, AN INTERIM ZONING ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF TEMPLE CITY ESTABLISHING A MORATORIUM ON CER-
TAIN TYPES OF DEVELOPMENT WITHIN THE R -1, R -1 AND R -3 ZONES
OF THE CITY.
Councilmember Gillanders moved to waive further reading and
adopt Ordinance No. 89 -651U, seconded by Councilmember
Atkins and carried on a roll call vote as follows:
AYES: Councilmembers Atkins, Gillanders, Swain, Froehle
NOES: None
ABSENT: Councilmember Breazeal
Councilmember Gillanders moved to direct staff to bring
back guidelines for exceptions, if any, seconded by
Councilmember Atkins and unanimously carried.
F. PROPOSED BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR 1989 -90 -
As background, the proposed budget for FY 1989 -90 and
supporting documents were presented to the Council on May
22, 1989. Estimated revenue and proposed expenditures have
been summarized in the letter of transmittal, which is part
of the proposed budget document. A public hearing and
adoption of the proposed annual budget must be accomplished
prior to the end of the current fiscal year.
Councilmember Swain moved to set a Study Session for Budget
for June 12, 1989, and a public hearing for the 1989 -90
Budget for June 20, 1989; seconded by Councilmember Atkins
and unanimously carried.
8. COMMUNICATIONS:
A. LOS ANGELES COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION ACTIVITIES RE:
1/2 CENT SALES TAX AUTHORIZATION -
Councilmember Gillanders said he attended a meeting in Los
Angeles where they discussed this 1/2 cent sales tax.
Explaining, Councilmember Gillanders said about 5 years ago
Council took the position that the downtown subway was a
losing position. At that time they opposed the 1/2 cent to
6% sales tax. Now the Los Angeles Transportation Commis-
sion, together with RTD wants to raise sales tax to 7 %.
City Council Minutes, June 6, 1989 - Page 18
Allegedly the money will be spent for roads, highways and
the subway. Mr. Gillanders quoted a statement at the
meeting.... "we will tax more, spend more and prosper more."
Councilmember Swain quoted a statement showing LACTC ra-
tionale to the effect that if the State were to raise the
gasoline tax in 1989, it would make it more difficult to
win voter approval for a sales tax increase to fund the
project. They are, therefore, recommending no increase in
the gas tax so they can raise the sales tax. When the
sales tax was increased before people voted in favor be-
cause they thought it would give them rapid transit. A
great deal of the money has been wasted.
Councilmember Gillanders moved to oppose the extra 1/2 cent
increase in the sales tax, seconded by Councilmember Atkins
and unanimously carried.
9. TIME FOR THOSE IN THE AUDIENCE WHO WISH TO SPEAK::
Doug Wiley, 6303 N. Golden West, brought Council up to date on
his efforts to collect funds for lighting of the basketball
court at Live Oak Park. Mr. Wiley showed a graph indicating
they had reached and exceeded their goal. The total collected
was $15,953. Mr. Wiley said he had received contributions from
over 350 residents, over 100 businesses and six service organi-
zations. He was touched by everyone's response and he wanted
to thank them all for their help.
Council unanimously thanked Mr. Wiley and expressed their
appreciation for all the time and work he has put into this
project. He has been an inspiration and has touched many
people in the community. They also expressed their apprecia-
tion for all those in the community who participated in the
project.
RECESS TO CRA
At 9:35 P.M. the City Council met as the Temple City Community
Redevelopment Agency; approved the Minutes of the May 16, 1989
meeting and Special Meeting of May 30, 1989; and adopted Reso-
lution No. 89 -364 approving warrants and demands in the amount
of $5,705.75. The Minutes of the Agency are set forth in full
in the Agency's records.
RECONVENE AS CITY COUNCIL
1
1
1
City Council Minutes, June 6, 1989 - Page 19
10. ACTION ON REQUEST BY CRA: None
11. MATTERS FROM CITY OFFICIALS:
Councilmember Gillanders again discussed the meeting with the
Los Angeles Transportation Commission he attended. He ex-
pressed disapproval of this Commission. He also mentioned that
they got Senator Robbins to come up with a Bill called Senate
Bill #1. Their specific argument is against the San Gabriel
Valley for creating their own rapid transit district and the
fact that it works. Theirs doesn't. This Bill would eliminate
any input from the small cities and proposes a combination of
chosen members on the Los Angeles Transportation Commission and
others chosen from the RTD to take over this entire mess and
spend the extra 1/2 cent sales tax money they hope to get.
Councilmember Gillanders stated he opposes any support of SB #1
and proposed notifying State Senators of this opposition.
Councilmember Atkins stated that in the packet of information
from LACTC there was included a survey on whether the public
would buy Proposition A. They asked the question...do you
support a 1/2 cent sales tax increase for the anti - gridlock
ballot measure.
Councilmember Swain added some levity to the meeting by refer-
ring to a memo inadvertently included in her packet. The sub-
ject of this memo was "Wellness Brown Bag Discussion and Eating
Disorders" and she wondered if someone was trying to tell her
something.
Mayor Froehle reminded everyone of the upcoming Miss Temple
City contest on Thursday night. Also, on Saturday, June 17,
1989, there is an Open House at the Sheriff's Station. Regard-
ing the item of Prop. A Funds and bus shelters that came up
this evening. Originally the City contracted to keep these
clean but he has seen a lot of graffiti and is not happy with
it. It's his understanding there is someone in -house keeping
these shelters clean.
City Manager Koski said the City still uses the contractor.
Mayor Froehle and the other Councilmembers felt the contractor
was doing a better job now than previously.
City Council Minutes, June 6, 1989 - Page 20
12. ADJOURNMENT:
On motion by Councilman Gillanders, seconded by Councilmember
Atkins , the meeting was adjourned at 9:45 to a Budget Session
on Monday June 12, 1989 at 7:30 P.M. The next regular meeting
of the City Council will be held on Tuesday, June 20, 1989 at
7:30 P.M. in the Council Chambers, 5938 North Kauffman, Temple
City.
ATTEcT:
Chief Deputy
1
1
1