Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAboutCity Council_Minutes_1965-09-07_Regular 1965COUNC 1 L MINUTE S CITY CF TEMPLE CITY TEMPLE CITY CALIFORNIA SEPTEMBER 7, 1965 INITIATION: 1. Mayor Harker called the regular meeting of the City Council to 2. order at 7:30 P. M. Invocation was given by Elder Calkins of the Seventh Day Adventist Church, 9664 Broadway, Temple City. 3. The Mayor then led the Council in the Pledge of Allegiance to the flag. 4, ROLL CALL: Present: Councilmen - Dickason, Merritt, Nunamaker, Tyrell, Harker Absent; Councilmen -None Also Present: City Attorney Martin, Planning Director Cushman, Traffic Engineer Envall, Acting City Manager Koski 5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: a. Study session of August 2, 1965, b. Study session of August 16, 1965, and c. regular session of August 17, 1965. Acting City Manager Koski referred to page 3 of the August 17 minutes, item 7, the construction cost estimated to be should read $95,000., also the last paragraph page 5, item 18, should read "constructing an asphaltic concrete line ". Councilman Nunamaker moved to approve the minutes of Aug. 2 and Aug. 16, and the minutes of the regular meeting of Aug. 17 as corrected, Councilman Tyrell seconded, the motion was carried unanimously. UNFINISHED BUSINESS: 7. ORDINANCE NO. 65 -172: 2nd read. Re- Charitable Solicitations. Council action on this was deferred to conduct the public hear- ings due to the presence of a large number of people for this purpose. PUBLIC HEARING: 7:30 P. M. Re- Assessment curb & gutter, 10102 La Rosa Dr., in the sum of $80. Councilman Nunamaker moved to open the public hearing, Council- man Dickason seconded, and the motion carried unanimously. Acting City Manager Koski advised this was-the south side of La Rosa Dr, Glickman to Ryland, and the $80, cost for this property was based upon a cost of $2.50 per lineal foot. Mayor Harker asked if anyone wished to speak for or against this assessment and no one came forward to speak. Councilman Nunamaker moved to close the public hearing, Councilman Merritt seconded, and the motion was unanimously carried. Councilman Tyrell moved to approve the assessment and direct the property be so assessed, Councilman Nunamaker seconded, and the motion carried unanimous- ly. PUBLIC HEARING: 7:30 P. M. Amending Zoning Ordinance to enter numbers of Ordinance No, 65 -151 Regulating Mobile Homes, and Ordinance No, 65 -153 re Off - Street Parking, and Ordinance Fo, 65 -162 re- lating to Off - Street Parking Facilities. City Attorney Martin advised this was for two hearings, one to incorporate Ordinances No, 65 -151 and No, 65 -153 both previously adopted, into the Zoning Code, Councilman Nunamaker moved to open the !public hearing, Councilman Merritt seconded, and the motion carried unanimously, The Mayor asked if anyone in the audience wished to speak for or against this action. No one came forward to speak. Councilman Nunamaker moved to close the public hearing, Councilman Dickason seconded, and the motion carried unanimously. City Attorney Martin read title to Ordi- nance No. 65-175 AN ORDINANCE OF THE C ! aY OF TEMPLE CITY AMEND- ING THE ZONING CODE OF TIM S CITY BY INCORPORATION THEREIN BY REFERENCE ORDINANCES NO. 65 --151 AND NO. 65 -153 PREVIOUSLY ADOPT- ED. Councilman Merritt moved to waive further reading of Ordi- nance No. 65 -175, Councilman Tyrell seconded, and the motion was unanimously carried. No further action was taken on ti i s ordinance as this was the first reading. 794 Council Minutes, Sept. 7, 1965, page 2 City Attorney Martin the second hearing would be in reference to incorporation of Ordinance No. 65 -162 into the Zoning Code. The City Attorney read in full Ordinance No. 65 -162 titled AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF TEMPLE CITY AMENDING SECTION 1609 AND ADDING NE;! SECTION 1610 TO THE ZONING CODE, ARTICLE IX OF THE TEMPLE CITY MUNICIPAL CODE, RELATING TO COMPREHENSIVE PLANNED FACILITIES FOR PARKING. He advised this will amend parking re- quirements in part exempting from off - street parking requirementa when included in a parking district, which exemption would only be applicable to uses first permitted in a "C" or "M" zone and would not apply to heavy traffic promotinc uses such as cocktail lounges, bars, hospitals, drive in eating places, etc. covered in Section 1603 of the Zoning Code. Councilman Nunamaker moved to open the public hearing, Councilman Merritt seconded, the motion carried unanimously. The Mayor asked if anyone wished to speak for or against this ordinance and proposals, and no one came forward to speak. Councilman Nunamaker moved to close the public hearing, Councilman Dickason seconded, the motion way unanimously carried. Councilman Nunamaker moved to waive furthe reading of Ordinance No. 65 -162, Councilman Tyrell seconded, the motion carried unanimously. No further action was taken as this was the first reading of Ordinance No. 65 -162. PUBLIC HEARING: 7:30 P. M. APPEAL FROM PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION ON ZONE VARIANCE CASE #65 -163, Marantha High School, applicant; Temple City Brethren Church, owner of 5537 Temple City Blvd. Appealed by John R. Gallagher, 9958 Wedeewood, City Attorney Martin advised this appeal was on a variance grant ed by the Planning Commission on a 2 to 1 vote allowing the Marantha School to place a High School at 5537 Temple City Blvd. This is a new hearing before the Council. The Council has re- ceived and read the report of the Planning Commission, reviewed the minutes and evidence given, have visited the site and are familiar with the property, and may use the Facts so gleaned to make a determination. Councilman Merritt moved to open the public hearing, Councilman Nunamaker seconded, the motion was unanimously carried. Planning Director Cushman advised the variance request was for a Christian High School with 100 students on less than a 15 acre site as required by the Ordinance, to be located at 5537 Temple City Blvd. in the Temple City Brethren Church property which is less than 15 acre requirement. There would be two class rooms in the main church building, 2 in a stucco building to the south and one class room in a frame building on the corner, with a paved area on the north side of the church building which would accommodate approximately 12 or 13 cars. The area surrounding is mainly R -1, single residence plus a condominium. Mr. Cushman advised the following conditions were imposed by the Planning Commission :(1) a six ft. masonry wall (in height) be erected on any boundary with "R" classified property, (2) the facility be limited to 100 students, (3) that there be no organ- iced outdoor athletic activity, other than calisthenics, (4) tht: use be conducted during daylight hours only except for not to exceed one evening per month that being a PTA type meeting, (5) Off- Street parking provided as follows: one space for each staff member and employee of the school facility, and one space for each 10 students or fraction thereof. The school would have a bus procedure which is included in their fees, and permits would be required of students before being allowed to park. Mayor Harker stated that at this time those in the audience wishing to speak in favor of the school request would be heard. Rev. Robert Firl, Pastor of the Temple City Brethren Church and a resident of Temple City, spoke in favor of the operation of the school. The church is not connected with the school which is interdenominational, primarily protestant, but they would be leasing the church property for the purpose non - profit Chris- tian High School. The Planning Commission conditions as imposed are acceptable to the church and they are in favor of the school,; Councilman Nunamaker asked Rev. Firl regarding toilet facilities available for the school and was advised in the main building there were two restroorns for girls and one for boys, 1 restroom in the little building in the back of the lot, and in the ether building one each for boys and girls. 795 C„.uncil Minutes, September 7, 1965, page 3 R. D. Oliver, Principal of Marantha High School, 5603 N. Earl St., San Gabriel, Calif. Mr. Oliver explained the structure of the school, it is a non - profit corporation chartered under Sec? retary of State of the State of California and is recognized by the Franchise Tax Board as a non - profit corporation, and has met every requirement of the state. He explained the operation and aims of a Christian High School and the need for it in this area, Temple City is the center of the area from which they would draw students, which would include Arcadia, Monrovia, San Gabriel, Alhambra, El Monte, Pasadena, etc. He also explained the limit- ed social activities that would occur at this location. City Attorney Martin advised the issue was the use of the prop- erty For a school. For a permitted use in the city the code requires 15 acres for a high school. This is the only variance they seek. The only matter before the Council is that they wish to have a school on less than 15 acres as this property is only 1.7 acres. Considerable discussion followed regarding the off - street park- ing and the noise involved in the operation of a school, as well as relationship of property values adjacent or near to a school, Herbert Hawkins Pres. of Hawkins Realty Co., Temple City, ad- vised that in his business he had found no decline in property values because they were located near a school, some people do not want to be so located, but in other areas property values have increased because of their proximity to a school. Maurice Benson, 9542 ;Wredoewood, stated his back yard was in area of the lunch area of the school. He was in favor of the school. John Hill, 9416 Olema, was in favor of the school. Mrs. Rummell, 9536 Wedgewood, whose home adjoins the church °rounds was in favor of the school. Mrs. John T. Hill, 9614 Olema, stated she Felt there was a great need for a Christian High School and would send two of her chil- dren there, but did not live in the area. No one else came forward at this time to speak in favor of the school. Mayor Harker stated at this time those opposinr: the school locat- ing in the church at 5537 Temple City Blvd. would now be given the opportunity to speak. John Gallagher, 9550 Wedgewood, stated his home was on the north side of the church property, with three bedroom windows four fee:. from the property line of the church. Also that the masonry wall condition imposed by the Planning Commission would be of no help for privacy for any of the homes adjacent to it as the church land is higher and the wall could be looked over very easily. He stressed the decreased property value of the homes surround- ing the school due to the noise, confusion and activities, and if the school had been there when he purchased his property he certainly would not have done so. He felt the ordinance should be enforced requiring 15 acres and that the area of 1.7 acres was entirely too small for the use that was being requested. He also was concerned with the traffic problem and off - street park- ing. D. T. Mason, 5603 Temple City Blvd., was also opposed to the school for the same reasons. Mrs. Thomas Schaub, 5526 Temple City Blvd., was opposed due to area of only 1.7 acres against ordinance requirement of 15 acres and the traffic problem. Dave Wilkins, 9546 Wedgewood, James Law, 9521 Wedgewood, Dick Rockford, 9566 Wedgewood, Don Zimmer, 9552 :Iedgewood, Thos. irwir. 9567 :rdedgewood, James C. Madden, 9526 'ledgewood, all spoke in opposition for the same reasons as listed above. Mayor Harker asked if anyone else wished to speak in apposition to this school. No one came forward and he stated the school proponents would have an opportunity for rebuttal. Mr. Oliver, came forward and confirmed his original presentation in behalf of the school. He was questioned by the Councilmen regarding the music activities of the school as far as a drill team and band were concerned. Councilman Nunamaker moved to close the public hearing and to have a 5 min. recess, Councilman Dickason seconded, the motion was carried. Council recessed at 9,42 for 5 minutes. 796 Council Minutes, September 7, 1965, page 4 City Attorney Martin summarized the proceedings as follows: "The Temple City Municipal Code provides R -1 areas may have High Schools. They are permitted and discussion as to whether or not should not be germane. The same ordinance provides for variance. The variance can be granted at the discretion of the City Council and Planning Commission before. The decision of the Council must be based on the evidence presented at the hear - ing and merits of the case not on the neighborhood or applicant In this case the applicant asked that he be excused from the 15 acre requirement for a High School. Also on buildings that ar not 30 ft. from the condominium building, and under variance prc cedure he asked to be excused from these two requirements, which is consistent with the law. If it is determined (1) that the property is unique, (2) and special concessions being given the property by granting the variance without detrimental effect to neighboring properties, the Council may grant the variance. The variance applicant states these are the Facts and due to the limitation of 100 students that the required area should be re- duced to 1.7 acres available which ratio should compare favor- able with student enrollment in a High School located on 15 acre The opponents to granting the variance state this property is not unique, and should meet the 15 acre code requirement, in re- ducing the size the noise would be intensified and the surround- ing properties would be depreciated. The City Council can grant and confirm the Planning Commission grant with more modified conditions, or return to the Planning Commission, can reverse their decision and kill the request, or delay their decision to consider the matter further. " At this time the City Attorney asked the applicant if conditions as im- posed are acceptable and was advised they were. Mayor Harker pointed out that because of the grade down the 6 -Ft wall would not contribute to the privacy of the condominium. He also questioned having these class rooms occupied that close to the wall and the surrounding homes. if considering approval he also felt a condition requiring sidewalk installation which would be the responsibility of the church or school. Councilman Nunamaker was concerned with the distance between th, . condominium and the school not meeting requirements of the ordi« nance. That this involves a $1,000,000, investment which is for older adults who would not want a school so close, and vhicF would effect the sale as well as price of these apartments. Thi is a high class development and should bring a fine class of people into the neighborhood according to the present plans. Councilman Merritt felt a 30 ft. distance as required should be imposed if this were approved. If the buildings were moved to meet the 30 ft. setback from the property lines he would be in favor of granting the variance. Councilman Tyrell agreed with the City Attorney that the questic is whether the lesser area is boing to create a disturbance suds, as will in any manner depreciate the use and function of the surrounding area. In his opinion by allowing the students to be in the lunch area and for students in classes within 5 ft. of borderinj surrounding properties, and have students looking into residential places would be a nuisance to the properties involv- ed. Based on these issues He thought it would be inadvisable under present conditions to allow it. Following further discussion Councilman Nunamaker moved referrir to the action of the Planning Commission to deny the variance requested on the basis of improper set back and small acreage for a school and to grant the appeal made by Mr. Gallagher, Councilman Tyrell seconded, the motion was carried by the follov Inc! roll call vote: AYES: Councilmen - Nunamaker, Tyrell, Harker NOES: Councilmen-Dickason, Merritt City Attorney Martin stated the variance as granted by the Planning Commission has been denied and the school may not be fw located at that .oi : " tit,, 797 Council Minutes, September 7, 1965, page 5 ^!m. Shaw, Atty., 2540 Huntington Dr., San Marino, spoke for the school and wondered if the Council would consider allowing the school to operate for one year on a probationary basis as it was so late for them to find another location and they already had students enrolled. ;'"m. E. Thomas, Atty., 6380 '.'li lshire Blvd., representing the op- ponents stated this would not assist the property owners in any way and they would have the previous conditions actually exist- For this period of time. City Attorney Martin stated fuied the only way this could be accomplished was for one of the Councilmen who voted affirmative ly to recommend this be considered for one year. No such mo- tion was made and this concluded this Council consideration. 7. APPROVAL OF TRUCK FOR PARK DEPARTMENT Acting City Manager Koski presented three bids for a truck for the Park Dept., the low bid from John Noyes in the amount of $3091.88, the other two $3210. and #3806. respectively. The funds are budgeted and he recommended approval of the low bid, Councilman Dickason moved to award to the lowest bidder, Coun- cilman Merritt seconded, and the motion carried unanimously. 8. ORDINANCE NO. 65 -174: 1st read. Adding sections to Municipal Code re building permits. City Attorney Martin read title to Ordinance No. 65 -174 AM ORDI- NANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMPLE CITY ADDING NEV! SECTIONS 8103, 8104, and 8105 TO THE TEMPLE CITY MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO BUILDING PERMITS. Councilman Tyrell moved to waive further reading, Councilman Nunamaker seconded, and the motion carried unanimously. No further action was taken as this was the first reading of the ordinance. 9. HEARING: REVIEW OF SUSPENDED BUILDING PERMITS AT 5434 TEMPLE CITY BLVD. City Attorney Martin advised this was a public hearing to deter- mine whether particular building permits issued to Wm. E.Graham should be reinstated, which are now under suspension. Planning Director Cushman explained this was for Zone Variance Case #64-96 approved by the Planning Commission for an addition al unit in May, 1964. In May, 1965, the applicants came in wits a revised plan asking if it could be substituted and he errone- ously believed the revised plan subject to his approval could be granted and these approved copies were sent to the building department and permits were issued. This building would not have qualified under the present ordinance requiring an 8 ft. side and rear set back. In accordance with the recommendation of the City Attorney he had the Grahams' file a Zone Variance request using this plot plan, setbacks being 6' - 6' - and 3' and a garage with a rumpus room above 20 x 25'. City Attorney Martin stated these permits should never have been issued and the second mistake was made when this was not caught until the permittee had gone to great expense, The hearing is to determine whether the laws shall be observed or whether the equities give this person the legal right to continue non- conforming and violation, or the matter deferred and the per- mits be held in suspension until the Planning Commission has processed this particular Variance request. Councilman Tyrell asked the City Attorney what the rights of the Council were, to allow to proceed or refer back. The City At- torney advised the Building Superintendent has no authority to deviate from the laws of Temple City. The plan imposed by the Planning Commission is the only variance granted and no one has the right for any deviation. The Council action should be to revoke, and permantly revoke, the building permits on the basis of the error, (€b) to rule as a matter of law that the equities prevail over the legal issues involved or (3) 'defer because this matter has not exhausted its administrative remedy until the Planning Commission has ruled on the Variance application. Holc ing in suspense is costing him time and money. Mayor Harker ask- ed if building percentage to lot area was in requirement and 798 Council Minutes, September 7, 1965, page 6 Mr. Cushman advised as a whole they were on the lot total built ing area would be 6055 sq. ft. total, and buildings existing anc proposed under construction total 4500 sq. ft. He advised the former set back for side yards was 5 ft., and rear yard varied the most recent one being 15 ft. Councilman Tyrell advised in the rear lot adjoining the garage is almost to the property line with high foliage adjoining. There are some units below with back line 5 or 6 ft. from bound- ary line. The next lot up has a carport that goes two or three ft. from the boundary line on the north side, and on the south a structure 5 or 6 ft. from the line. He stated there is more room on the present construction than on the north, south or rear. Mr. Cushman advised this plot plan was prepared last year under the old ordinance. The subject lot is 80' wide, one to the south is 90 ft, and the one to the north is 60 ft. wide. The City Attorney advised the Grahams would speak first and stet . why the city should be estopped from revoking or suspending then permits. Mrs. Ervina Graham, 9217 Garibaldi, stated they owned the proper ty at 5434 Temple City Blvd., and advised that before getting a plan she asked if they had to adhere to the plot plan and were told they could submit a new one and that there was only a mini- mum and no building maximum as far as square footage goes. They have come and asked permission before having anything done. They have not hidden anything and have good intentions. As far as they are concerned they have nothing to fight. Mayor Harker state the plot plan (original) had been brought be- fore the Planning Commission and they granted them a variance based upon conditions. Mrs. Grham advised this was only a plot plan and did not include any house plan. This was all they told us was required. Mayor Harker advised the plot plan is supposed to show where you are going to split a lot, the location of the buildings and set backs. Mrs. Graham advised when they wanted to make plans for a house she came and asked if they had to ad- here to that plot plan or if we could make our own plan and thee; submit it and whe was told as long as they were within the built: ing rights we could have another plot plan so this is what they did. Nothing was ever said as far as 10% goes. This was new to them and they only learned of it last week. Councilman Merritt asked if setbacks for side and rear yards arc: not checked when foundation Forms are inspected. Mr. Cushman advised the approved plan with his writing on, a copy of which goes to the building department, and they accept what is shown thereon as having been approved, and since he failed to strike out the 5s and 6s and put in 8s they accepted the plan, and they inspect for adherance to that plan. Mrs. Graham advised they have worked exactly as the plan shows, the sewer is in, the gas is in, the foundation in and all were inspected. Mayor Harker asked when she refers to they told you" you are referring to people in the CIty Hall? Mrs. Graham stated that was right and they had done nothing without asking permission first. Mayor Harker asked if anyone else wished to speak for the.GrahamE: No one else came forward to speak. He then asked if anyone wished to speak for the opposition. Mrs. Mary Grace Vett, 5476 Temple City Blvd., stated ~iwhen she first noticed the foundation she knew it was not in accordance with the approved plot plan. She wanted to know why the approver plot plan was not used. She stated to other plans had been sub- mitted and not approved before the plan which was approved as a variance and they had been granted a variance on 80 by 63 ft. lot to use the rear of their lot. Question is this property unique. On either side they have construction. Past these there are 6 lots to the north with nothing on and 2 deep lots to the south that have nothing. Next, does it create a hardship to the people. This is a self imposed hardship as they knew what they had when they bought the lot. Requesting a variance, does it effect neighboring properties adversely. It certainly does and where there is an expense to the Grahams in not having this held 799 Council Minutes, September 7, 1965, page 7 up there is a greater expense to the people that put up the 6 Ft, wall and windows of this property would look into their windows and family rcoms. That is not fair. She stated they have sub- mitted a plan for four units, the first two floor units are be- ing built now which will be used as single residence. They plan to build two units above that if property goes R -3. In the rumpus room they have already started plumbing in for a kitchen. In auxiliary buildings the only plumbing Facilities allowed area for a toilet and air conditioning. They are contrary to the re gulations of Temple City. Mrs. Vett advised she was speaking for her daughter who owns the property to the rear of the prop- erty in question. She feels she has a very firm basis for havir: that complete foundation removed. The plan being used is not tip: plan that was originally (granted by the variance. The property, she is defending is 9633 Nadine. She stated the present con- struction would devaluate that property$5000 to $6000. Councilman Tyrell stated this is to be a single story at the present time, and it is to be two units with second floor to be placed when zoned R -3, at which time it would be legal. Mr. Cushman advised that the plumbing in the rumpus room was for a bathroom and a wet bar which is permissable. Mr. Koski advis- ed the building department says as long as no plumbing fixtures are set that you can stud in for future use. Jeanette Kinchelo, 9633 Nadine, stated she was the owner of the property directly behind this property. Her home is 72 yrs. old as the others are on the street, all nice homes and well kept. Her living room and dining room are on the back. She stated their plan shows 6 ft. from the wall, and that it is 6 ft. from the roof line with 3 ft. overhand, making it 3 Ft. from the wall,, A builder checked the foundation and said it was definitely for a two story building. They are building a three car garage and a second story above it. Also there is a 10 ft. easement by Edison on each side of the wall and they are building on that easement and she had been told you cannot build on that easement Cushman advised the city has no record of an easement on thc back of these lots. Councilman Tyrell stated this is not the city's problem but the property owners to find out regarding these easements. He advised the Planning Commission on occasion when running these matters then subject to a revised plan,only allowed a revised plan subject to his approval. He erroneously in reading the conditions of grant assumed this to be the case, and on this basis he approved the revised plan, and he was not assuming he was granting a new case. He failed to read correct- ly the conditions of grant and assumed that a revision was per- mitted. He also advised the roof overhang allowed is 30 inches from the property line so that is in order. Councilman Nunamaker moved to close the public hearing, Council- man Merritt seconded, and the motion carried unanimously. Councilman Tyrell moved to grant the parties the right to con - tinue the construction on the basis that no substantial differ- ence in the surrounding area exists, and also the plot plan isnot substantially different that the one granted here, moreover the area covered by the buildings looking to the west is approx- imately the same that it is within the square footage of allowed covered ground, and that a substantial detriment would be realiz- ed by the owners if it were terminated and no appreciable advan- tage by opposing parties in as much as we are talking about two or three feet, and further based on estoppel against the city, Councilman Merritt seconded the motion. Councilman Nunaraker asked if there could be a stipulation to have one of the two kitchen setups in the back house inspected out and do away with one of them and the City Attorney advised all other building cod requirements will be met. The Acting City Manager advised that at this time there is no illegality with that, and that they are building on a future gamble, and that this is allowable as long as the fixtures are not set putting the plumbing into use. City Attorney Martin advised the Council in voting on-.the motion he had to remind them they are moving on very thin ice as far as 800 Council Minutes, September 7, 1965, page 8 the motion is concerned. It really Is a motion in anticipation of what the maker feels would be a result of the court action in the fields of equity and estoppel. Mr. Cushman has asked thet it be made very candid as Far as he is concerned that the error is his. The Grahams suffered because of it and so has Mrs. Vett and her neighbors in their opinion. The maker of the motion feels apparently that this would be the result of a court test in the matter. Regarding the considera- tion that this be referred back to the Planning Commission for variance consideration, and then a possible appeal, might invol% two to three months. if validated it would come out well but if the variance was denied the Council would be richt where it is now. Councilman Tyrell stated there is a problem of loan lender costs, and problem of weather for continuing construction. The City Attorney advised there is no satisfactory answer to the problem. Alen mistakes occur people suffer and consequences have to fall where they fall and the damages fall where they fall. This is a motion made, the maker of the motion is an attorney who feels this would be the result of a court action. Mayor Harker called for a foli call vote which carried the mo- tion as follows: Councilmen - Dickason, Merritt, Nunamaker, Tyrell, Harker NOES: Councilmen -None ABSENT: Councilmen -None 10. SET PUBLIC HEARINGS: CURB & GUTTER a. Lower Azusa, south side, Temple City Blvd, to Ellis Lane b. Temple City Blvd. east side, Broadway to Live Oak c. Pentland Ave. north side, Alessandro to Encini.ta;. Curb, Gutter & Sidewalk: d. Broadway, north side, Temple City Blvd. to Cloverly Councilman Tyrell moved to set a public hearing for a, b, c, and d for Sept. 21, 1965, at 7:30 P. M., Councilman Nunamaker seconded and the motion carried unanimously. 11. APPOINTMENTS TO COMMISSIONS: Acting City Manager Koski stated Mr. Kenneth Briggs and Mr. C. Ray Johnston had been considered at a personnel session and re- appointed at a regular meeting for inclusion in the minutes, and that Mr. Henry Stegman, Traffic Commissioner, had completed his term on August 1, 1965. Councilman Merritt moved to re- appoint these three Commissioners for a term of four years from the date of expiration of their terms, Councilman Nunamaker se- conded, and the motion carried unanimously. 12, PARKS & RECREATION COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS: a. request for Co- sponsorhip by Temple City United Soccer Club for one year. b. request for Co- sponsorship by T. C. Chiefs Lacrosse Club for one year. c. request for use of bleachers, Pop garner Football, Inc., Sept, le through November, 1965. d. request for L. 0. Park building from L. A. County Health Dept, For meeting room, kitchen and restrooms on Mondays from 8 A.M,. to 12 noon, effective Dec. 7, 1965, for one year for child health conferences. e, request for L. 0. Park building from American Field Service T. C. Chapter, for reception for exchange students on Sunday, Sept. 12. The 4Ccting City Manager presented the above recommendations of the Commission. Councilman Dickason moved to approve a, b, c, d and e, Councilman Tyrell seconded, and the motion was unani- mously carried. 13. TRAFFIC COMMISSiON RECOMMENDATIONS: Traffic Engineer Envall presented the recommendation for install ation of a Stop Sign and pavement markings on the north -south alley between Temple City Blvd. and Camellia at the south inter- section with the eatt west alley. Councilman Nunamaker moved to approve, Councilman Tyrell seconded and the motion was unani- mously carried. 801 Council Minutes, September 7, 1965, page 9 14. RESOLUTION NO. 65 -518: garrants & Demands. !Acting City Manager Koski presented Resolution No. 65 -518, in the sum of $20,613.74, Nos. 6982 through No. 7061, Councilman Merritt moved to adopt Resolution No. o5 -513, Councilman Tyrell seconded, and the motion carried unanimously. 15. ESOLUTION NO. 65 -519: P. D. #2 Improvement Fund. Acting City Manager Koski presented Resolution No. 65 -519, in the sum of $97. warrant No. 110, T. C. Park. Dist. No. 2 Improve Tent Fund. Councilman Nunamaker moved to adopt Resolution No. 65 -519, Councilman Tyrell seconded, the motion was unanimously carried. 16. COMMUNICATIONS: a. request for proclamation of Union Label ':�'eek, Sept. 6 -12. dith Council approval Mayor Harker so proclaimed. b. L. A. Co. Boundary Commission, proposed annexations #2 and #3 Irwindale detachment from Baldwin Park, and #16 Baldwin Park detachment from Irwindale. Councilman Dickason moved to re- ceive and file, Councilman Tyrell seconded, motion carried unanimously. 17. TIME FOR THOSE IN THE AUDIENCE WHO WISH TO SPEAK: No one came forward to speak at this time. 18, MATTERS FROM CITY OFFICIALS: Councilman Tyrell stated re appointments to Commissions that Council should be notified in ample time For a personnel session to consider all appointments. Also getting all things from CitN, Hall in one packet rather than several different ones at a time. Councilman Nunamaker referred to all the papers the Councilmen receive and felt many could be eliminated. This will be decid- ed at a later date with the Councilmen to check out what they want eliminated. Mayor Harker at this time appointed Jos. Ronstad as chairman of Temple City United Nations Day, October 2L... The City Attorney advised that Ordinance No. 65 -172, the Chari- table solicitation ordinance, would be held over for second reading until the next Council meeting. At this time the City Attorney presented Ordinance No. 65 -177 for first reading and read title AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF TEMPLE CITY AMENDING SECTION 2609 OF THE TE1PLE CITY MUNICIPAL CODE. Councilman Tyrell moved to waive Further reading of Ordinance No. 65 -177, Councilman Nunamaker seconded the motion and the motion was carried unanimously. Referring to item 9 held for action following,the hearing the ity'Attornpy advisdd re Ordinance No. 65 -172 that most cities have now adopted some control for charitable and religious solicitations, and the one recommended here is copied from the City of Downey whose ordi- nance has been upheld by court decision. Acting City Manager Koski presented a bill of $250. for apprais- al fee on Baldwin Ave. Councilman Tyrell moved to approve, Cour cilman Nunamaker seconded, and the motion carried unanimously. Mr. Koski presented appraisals for Parking District #3 acquisi- tion of two properties involved, on parcel second from the alley a figure of $26,250, and the one next to the alley $30,392. Based on court costs he recommended these be acquired at these prices. He advised the city could advance the funds from the general fund which would be repaid when the money was available, or payment could wait until the assessment money comes in. On the higher parcel he recommended the City advance the funds. The City Attorney advised on the higher property acceptance of this price was contingent upon the city advanceing the funds, and to be paid within 30 days. Councilman Nunamaker moved to accept the prices and advance the money and pay them. City Treasurer Buchan advised he could make Funds available about Sept. 12. He stated it will cost the city 4 to kZ% he is now earning on that money. Also we heve several other large capital outlays planned such as Baldwin Ave. and re- surfacing 802 Council Minutes, September 7, 1565, page 10 which will be due before the end of the year. This will pull down the reserve funds considerably. Councilman Nunamaker stated you have a tenant who you can lease back to. The Acting City Manager stated we are trying to coordinate the under- ground facilities as well as expediting improvements. The pre- vious motion not having, a second, Councilman Tyrell moved to offer these people to be paid out of proceeds of bonds when approved, Councilman Dickason seconded. Councilman Merritt dis qualified himself for the vote. Roll call vote to carry the motion as follows: AYES: Councilmen- Dickason, Tyrell, Harker NOES: Councilman - Nunamaker ABSENT: Councilmen -None ABSTAINING: Councilman- Merritt Acting City Manager Koski proposed a concrete patio in the pic- nic area of Temple City Park costing $210. Councilman Nunamak- er moved to authorize, Mayor Harker seconded, and the motion carried unanimously. Mr. Koski requested the Council to authorize payment of wages to Chris Jensen for -two days uncredited sick leave. Councilman - Tyrell so moved, Councilman Dickason seconded, motion unanimous- ly carried. Mr. Koski presented a request from the Red Cross to string a banner across Las Tunas Dr, at Camellia for one week commencing Sept. 9_, Councilman Tyrell moved to approve subject to the insurance requirements, Councilman Nunamaker seconded, the motion carried unanimously. The Acting City Manager advised the Council of a need for a bulletin board for the front and rear of +r!-e City Hall for notices, etc. He recommended one 20 "x 30" with glass front and aluminum case for the front costing $101, and one 18 "x18" for the rear door costing $05, and stated there were funds avail- able in the budget. Mayor Harker moved to approve, seconded and carried unanimously. 19. ADJOURNMENT: Councilman Nunamaker moved to adjourn to a study session at the City Hall on Sept. 13, 1965, at 7 :30 P. M., seconded and carried. Council adjourned at 12 :05 A. M. ATTEST: Mayor 803