HomeMy Public PortalAboutCity Council_Minutes_1965-11-16_Regular 1965C O U N C I L M I NUT E S
CiTY OF TEMPLE CiTY
TEMPLE- CITY -- :- - CALI:F.ORN IA
NOVEMBER 16, 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 Father Burch of St.
3. Luke's Catholic Church of Temple City, followed by 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, City Manager Koski
5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Regular meeting of November 2., 1965. Approv
al of these minutes was held over until the next regular meeting
for additions.
PRESENTATION: At this time Mayor Harker requested Mr. Joseph
Ronstad to come forward. The Mayor advised that Mr.. Ronstad
served as Chairman of the observation of United Nations Day on
October 24, and presented him with a Certificate of Merit from
President Johnson and Mr. Robt. F. Benjamin, Pres. of the Com
mittee for United Nations Day. Mr. Ronstad accepted the certi-
ficate and advised the breakfast for the !':merican Field Service
held on United Nations Day had Cleared $169. Mr. Ronstad also
stated there is no community in the country that can match the
record of Temple City with the Sister City program, the Foreign
Educators program, and the American Field Service program.
U1JFENISHED BUSINESS:
6. RESOLUTION NO. 65 -540: Appointing Recreation Personnel.
City Manager Koski read title to Resolution No. 65 -540 A RESOLU-
TION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMPLE CITY APPOINTING
A PART -TIME AND TEMPORARY EMPLOYEE. Councilman Dickason moved to
adopt Resolution No. 65 -540, Councilman Nunamaker seconded, roll .
call vote to carry the motion as follows:
:YES: Councilmen - Dickason, Merritt, Nunamaker, Harker
NOES: Councilman-Tyrell
ABSENT: Councilmen -None
PUBLIC HEARING: 7:30 P. M. APPEAL FROM PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION
GRANTING ZONE VARIANCE CASE NO. 65 -167: i11iem E. Graham
The Mayor asked the Deputy City Clerk if parties concerned had
been properly notified and was advised they had been.
Councilman Merritt moved to open the public hearing, Councilman
Dickason seconded and the motion was unanimously carried.
Cit► Attorney Martin stated this appeal was on the variance grant
ed by Planning Commission Resolution No. 65- 167PC, which granted
three variances to the applicants, Mr. & Mrs. William E. Graham,
as follows: (1) reduced rear and side yard setbacks, (2) reduced
distance between accessory buildings, and (E) a non severance core
dition, or treated as one lot. This is a hearing de novo. The
record of the Planning Commission is before the City Council and
the minutes have been reviewed, and every Councilman has visited
the scene. The Variance and conditions are familiar to the City
Council. All matters have been reviewed by the City Council,
The City Planning Director, Ray Cushman, cave the history of the
Case No. 65 -167 before the = tanning Commission, as follows: the
request was for a second dwelling with a rumpus room above the
Garage, the lot contains approximately 15,13,E sq. ft:i and this
would be a non - severance development in R -1 7200 zone. The ex-
isting proposed dwelling is 5 ft. from the north property line,
b ft. from the rear property line, and 6 •F t. from the south prop -
erty line, on an 80 ft. wide lct. Presently there is a single
family dwelling and garage. The new garage does not off -set the
existing garage by about 22 ft. and lines up with the rear of the
Front garage, and there is a solid wood fence separating the new
building from the existing building,
829
Council Minutes, November 16, 1965, page 2
There is 17 ft. between the south fence and the south property
line which provides access to the rear property. The original
zone variance #64 -96 was approved July 6, 1964, under the old
ordinance and in May, 1965, a revised plot plan was submitted
and approved on a non severance basis. The building permits .
were issued and construction began. In August the permits for
building were suspended and investigated, and on Sept. 7 a
Public Hearing was held on the stop order of the building permit
The Grahams were required to submit a new variance request. On
Sept. 7, 1965, the City Council reviewed the case and lifted the
stop order. At the Sept. 21, 1965, meeting of the City Council
their decision of Sept. 7 was reversed and the matter referred
back to the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission held
a Public Hearing on the Variance Case #65 -167 at which time the
Planning Commission approved the zone variance with conditions.
City Attorney Martin stated Zone Variance Case #65 -167 involves
three variances, (1) reduction of side and rear yards to dis-
tance shown on the plot plan, (2) less than required distance
between main and accessory building, and to be developed on a
non - severance basis and covenant and agreement to that effect
shall be executed and recorded with the County Recorder and
placed on file with the City Clerk. He advised only these
subjects are germane to the Hearing.
Mayor Harker stated the applicants may speak at this time.
i'!m. E. Graham, 9217 Garibaldi, stated they owned the property at
5434 Temple City Blvd. They have been held up since August 30,
and had been working on the construction 60 days previous to that
date. Permits were issued and the fees paid. He feels they
have been held up long enough.
Ernest Jalker, 5435 Temple City Blvd., had no objection whatso-
ever to this building.
R. Johnson, 5442 Temple City Blvd., stated he owns the property
north of the Graham property and had no objection and would like
to see it completed. His lot is split with a rental in the back
and one building in the front.
Mrsi Marian Thorson, 5426 Temple City Blvd., stated she owns the
property adjacent on the south, and would like to see the
Graham construction completed, and that it would improve her
property. Her lot is a split lot and has three units.
Ralph Phillips, 5416 Temple City Blvd., had no objection and
approved the building in the neighborhood,
City Attorney Martin asked if these were lot splits and Planning
Director Cushman advised under the county plot plans these could
be sold but at this time they are not split. He also advised
that under the first application it came under the old zoning
ordinance where the lot could be split or a building on 5000 sq.
ft. on non- severance basis.
Mrs. Ervina Graham, 9217 Garibaldi, stated from the first all
that was required was a plot plan and not a building plan. We
could have severance or non - severance as they had enough square
footage to put two houses on. They offered to put the old house
in the rear and put two new ones on the front which they did not
go for. She stated she came in and asked if they had to have
another set of plans. She brought in the house plans and a Few
things were required to be done which she did and brought the
plans back and they were approved.
Councilman Merritt said according to the Planning Commission
minutes on page 2 of June, 1964, quote, "applicant had submitted
new plot plans in accordance with their request. One with three
parcels on a non - severance basis or two on a lot split."
Mrs. Graham advised she asked if they had to take a lot split on
it and were advised they did not if they did not want to.
No one further came forward to speak in favor of the Zone Vari-
830
Council Minutes, November 16, 1965, page 3
ance request, and Mayor Harker stated those in opposition could
now speak. -
John Perovitch, Atty. with Rodiger & Kinkel, stated he represent-
ed Donaid Kincheloe and first requested Mrs. Vett be heard from
in reply to Mrs. Graham.
Mrs. Grace Vett, 5476 Temple City Blvd., stated she attended the
meetings on this zone variance request and she stated there was
not enough square footage For three homes or for two homes with
necessary ingress..and egress easement. The easement requirement
cannot be considered as part of the square footage of the lot
and in the new plan submitted there is not enough square footage
for two homes. Removing the easement from 15,000 sq. feet there
would not be 14,440 sq. ft.required for two houses. This is her
main argument. The garage is 520 sq. ft. She suggested the
Council ask Mrs. Thorsen how many houses she does have on her
lot as she had stated three. She stated she abided by all the
laws the Council made for all of us, and she first objected when
the excavating began about it weakening the wail. The plot plan
was 0.K'd by the Planning Director who had no authority to do sot,
The City has stated they were in error and I do not understand
why the permits were not cancelled immediately. It is no fault
of mine if the building continued as I first complained in June.
Kincheloes should not be penalized because of the error. One of
the Planners stated they are not policemen and they are there tc
make decisions whether they are following the ordinances or not.
1 thought they were made for the protection of all of us." (quotc .
from testimony of Mrs. Vett.)
Mayor Harker stated the Council wanted to be sure of the basic
points on which she was objecting. #1 the area because of the
easement, is that the basic objection? #2 the property is over-
built for size of lot?
Councilman Nunamaker asked what easement they are talking about
as this is not an easement and the Planning Director advised this
would be a point they are asking to allow this to be on a non -
severance basis.
Mrs. Vett said under section #1522 it states necessary driveway
areas for egress and ingress shall not be computed in the area.
City Attorney Martin advised #1522 relates exclusively to splits
or divisions of lots, and that an easement cannot exist under
one ownership or non - severance. An easement cannot be created
over your own property.
Mrs. Vett asked how many units are supposed to be built here? She
stated it has been verified the unit above the garage is a separ-
ate building and Mayor Harker stated this is supposition as this
is nothing the Council has seen. The City Attorney advised the
only variance granted was for a second dwelling unit, there was
no variance for 3, 4, 5 or 6.
Councilman Tyrell asked Mrs. Vett if she was including the play-
room over the garage and she advised Mr. Buchan of the Building
Dept, stated that this is a full unit. Councilman Tyrell stated
Mrs. Vett is saying it is stubbed in for future time. She is
anticipating it will be used as a separate dwelling. Mrs. Vett
stated the detached building is designed for occupancy for one
dwelling unit and the rear structure is for two dwelling units,
the plumbing is in for two separate units which can be done by
closing two doors, there are two forced air furnaces. Mayor
Harker stated this is rumor, supposition and hearsay and he would
not make the assumption the Grahams are going to violate the law.
Mrs. Vett stated she is objecting because it is over- built, not
the plan approved, and is in violation of every ordinance that
was ever made for protection of the people of Temple City. It is
not a single family residence.
Mr. Perovich, Atty. for Kincheloes, stated the basic objection
would be on the finding that the building is going up as opposed
to what it was originally planned to be. The original plot plan
831
Council Minutes, November 16, 1565, page L.
showed 1250 sq. ft. and now has 2590 sq. ft. Lot coverage ori-
ginally was approximately 32% and now is actually 61% covered.
He believesthis in violation of one ordinance which states a
maximum coverage of 40 %. He advised Mr. & Mrs. Kincheloe have
had their lot appraised by two independent appraisers and it was
the opinion of both that their land would be devalued $5000. by
these structures being put up as now planned. The main building
extending over the fence blocks out light and air to their lot.
He stated it should be pointed out that within six months after
the Grahams purchased the lot they began building with the idea
of it being income property which violates -1 zoning. Also if
this is approved he stated he would advise them to start develop
ing their own property. He stated according to the 1964 ordinary_
before any variances are granted the old violations in the ordi-
nance should be restored and taken out of context of these viola
tions.
Councilman Tyrell asked Mr. Perovich how he reconciled this
development as not consistent with the area concerned, the lot
to the north has two houses, the one to the south three or four,
and both are adjacent to this property, and asked him to observe
the map which shows how many units on each lot. Regarding their
being denied light and air, he asked the attorney how they can
claim this when there are bushes or shrubs 12' to 14' high which
deprives them of same light. He asked the Attorney if he had
seen the property and stated the garage immediately south of
them was built on the property line and only 3 ft. from the
southerly boundary of their property. They have lived there two
or three years and have not cut the bushes dcwnin that time.
They also say it is not developed in accordance with the propert;,
around it. The property to the north is built to the boundary
line and immediately to the south, the south line is within four
or five feet of that developed property. He asked the attorney
if when the property to the north is developed with two houses
and the one to the south with three or four units, is it not
good zoning practice and the one adopted to allow the property
in the middle like privileges? Mr. Perovich stated these uses
were not apparent on the map he had and based on the idea
zoning R -1 residential is the highest type and the general idea
is to discourage other development, but if the plan of the whole
area is two or three or more, all properties should be given the
same opportunity.
Mrs. Janet Kincheloe, 9633 Nadine, advised the property on the
south was built 17ft. from their rear wall and on the north side
32 ft. from their wall, and this one is only 52 ft. from their
rear wall which is on their property.
No one else came forward to speak in opposition and Mayor Harker
stated this was the time when the Grahams' could present a re-
buttal.
Mr. Graham stated they have a single family dwelling with a
garage and a rumpus room over the garage, and everything they
have done is legal. City Attorney Martin asked Mr. Graham the
following questions, and his replies were as follows:
1. You stated you are goins to have only two dwelling units?
Answer; Yes.
2. There will not be three? Answer: No.
3. You are going to live in the rear one? Answer: Yes, we have
three boys, there are four bedrooms in the rear house and two
baths.
k. There are two meters? Answer: There is a meter on each side
and 1 can connect to only one.
5. You are anticipating a zone change? Answer :: Yes.
6. You understand you will get only one connected: Answer: Yes,
the same way with the gas.
The City Manager advised Edison Co. will only set one meter in
there, and Mr. Graham stated he was so advised by the Building
Department, and he hoped the Council would stick with the Plann-
ing Commission decision and not re- open.this.
832
Minutcs, November 16, 1965, page 5
City Attorney Martin questioned the Planning Director as follows:
1. Your field analysis indicated as Far as indicating whethen
this voriance is a grant of a special privilege not enjoyed
by others, you have found the property to the north of this
enjoys a non- severance dual unit, and the property to the
south enjoys a non - severance dual unit? Answer: Correct.
2. The side yards to the north are less or equal to those being
requested here? Answer: Correct.
3. The rear yard of that property to the back and south, you
had a south close set back? Answer: that is a detached garage
on the Kincheloe property.
4. As far as the rear yard here is concerned it is greater than
the first plot plan proposed as far as the garage is concern-
ed? Answer: correct.
Councilman Nunamaker moved to close the Public Hearing, Council-
man Merritt seconded, and the motion was unanimously carried.
Councilman Nunamaker stated a man cannot be condemned For lookin
into the future and cited the building occupied by Liebergs where
the store wishes to expand and the building structure will not
allow a second story. Also in building his building he had done
so in consideration of possibly putting on a second story in the
Future.
City Attorney Martin advised the Council they had three alterna-
tives as follows:
1. Instruct the City Attorney to drew a Resolution in conformanc
with the Planning Commission decision, or
2. Instruct the City Attorney to draw a Resolution reversing
the Planning Commission decision, or
3. To take the request under submission for further study.
Councilman Tyrell stated based on error of the City it is clearly
within the principles of estoppel, and is consistent with the
development surrounding it, and he moved to deny the appeal and
affirm the decision of the Planning Commission and to instruct
the City Attorney to draw the necessary Resolution, Councilman
Merritt seconded, and the motion was carried by the following
roll call vote:
AYES: Councilmen - Dickason, Merritt, Nunamaker, Tyrell, Harker
NOES: Councilmen -None
ABSENT: Councilmen -None
At this time Mayor Harker advised two students, Sherrill Miller
and Marie Kline from Rosemead High School were in the audience
as observers for a school class, and called upon them to stand
and welcomed them.
KW BUSINESS:
7. ACCEPTANCE OF STREET IMPROVEMENTS & RELEASE OF FAITHFUL PERFORM-
ANCE BOND: TACT #29569, Dnal Developers, Randwick & Degas
The City Manager presented a letter from the Road Dept. stating
this work has been satisfactorily completed and recommending
the City accept the work and authorize the release of the
Faithful Performance Bond No. 202617, issued by National Automo-
bile & Casualty Insurance Co. in the amount of $24,600.00. Coun-
cilman Tyrell so moved, Councilman Nunamaker seconded, and the
motion was carried unanimously.
8. PARKING DIST. #2: Final acceptance of work and authorization of
final payment to Sully- Miller Co., for construction.
City Manager Koski requested this be tabled until the next regu-
lar meeting. Councilman Tyrell so moved, Councilman Nunamaker
seconded, and the motion was unanimously carried.
9. PARKING DISTRICT NO. 3: SET ASSESSMENT HEARING
Councilman Tyrell moved to set the Assessment Hearing for Parkinc
District #3 For 7 :30 P. M. on January 4, 1966, Councilman Nuna-
maker seconded and the motion was unanimously carried.
833
Council Minutes, November 16, 1965, page 6
10. TRAFFIC COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS:
Item 5. placement of red curb markings adjacent to fire hydrants
at following locations:
a. west side of Rosemead Blvd. 30 ft. in front of #5313 & #5315
b. west side Rosemead Blvd. 17 ft. in front of #5343
c. east side Rosemead Blvd. 27 ft. in front of #5630
d. east side Rosemead Blvd. 15 ft. immediately south of Elm Ave.
in front of #5770
e. east side Rosemead Blvd. immediately south of 2nd drive north
of Longden adjacent to Market Basket for 30 ft.
Traffic Engineer presented and explained the above recommendati-
on. Councilman Dickason moved to approve, Councilman Merritt
seconded, and the motion carried unanimously.
Item 6. redesign of Library Parking Lot: recommend approval of
design for revamping & requesting County Librarian be
contacted for permission to implement plan, and also
approval of proper signing to prohibit loitering.
Traffic Engineer Envall presented the above recommendations.
He advised there are now 29 stalls, and the new plan there would
be 26 stalls, and he located the bumps and panels on the propos-
ed map and placement of signs. Discussion followed and the City
Attorney advised we have no loitering law as such, we do have a
curfew. Loitering laws are ineffective in general. Councilman
Nunamaker recommended a discussion regarding loitering be held
by the Council. Following further discussion Councilman Nunamak-
er moved to approve the proposed plan and to submit the proposal
to the County Librarian for approval to implement the plan, Coun-
cilman Dickason seconded, and the motion unanimously carried. ,
Item 9. Las Tunas & Hart Ave.: parking revision -- recommend
placement of 18 ft. parking stall and addition of 8 ft.
red curb markings immediately west of first parking
stall.
Following discussion Councilman Tyrell moved to approve, Council-
man Nunamaker seconded, and the motion was carried unanimously.
Item 11. Business Alleys, adding controls: installation of white
centerline striping on all east -west alleys in business
district.
F61lowing a lengthy discussion Councilman Tyrell moved
to approve installation of white centerline striping only for one
lot to divide north and south half of alley behind the First
Western Bank entering from Camellia, Councilman Merritt seconded,
and the motion carried unanimously.
Mr. Francis Stack, Clerk of Court of El Monte, spoke to the Coun-
cil against center striping on any one way alley.
Item 12. 'Wedgewood Ave. & Rosemead Blvd, -- parking restrictions:
installation of 31 ft. red curb markings on north side
of :ledgewood Ave. westerly of Rosemead Blvd. and 18 ft.
on the south side.
Following discussion Councilman Merritt moved to approve
Councilman Tyrell-seconded, and the motion carried unanimously.
11. RESOLUTION NO. 65 -541: Warrants & Demands
City Manager Koski presented Resolution No. 65 -541, warrants and
demands, Nos. 7280 - NO.7325, in the sure of $20,922.91. Council-
man Tyrell moved to adopt Resolution No. 65 -541, Councilman
Dickason seconded, and the motion carried unanimously.
12. RESOLUTION NO. 65 -542: Temple City P rking Dist. #1 Improvement
Fund, warrant #108 in the sum of $250.50
City Manager Koski presented Resolution No. 65 -542 in the amount
of $$250.50 as shown above Councilman Tyrell moved to adopt Reso-
lution No. 65 -542, Councilman Merritt seconded, and the motion
was unanimously carried.
13. COMMUNICATIONS:
a. City Manager Koski presented a charitable solicitation request
for St. Lukes School, Nov. 19 and 20 to sell Christmas cards
in Stoppels Boys Store. Council man Tyrell moved to grant,
Councilman Nunamaker seconded and the motion carried unanimously.
834
Council Minutes, November 16, 1965, page. 7
b. L. A. County Heart Assn, for fund raising campaign month of
February, 1966.
City Manager Koski presented the above request. Councilman
Nunamaker moved to approve, Councilman Tyrell seconded, and the
motion carried unanimously.
c, American Cancer Society: City Manager Koski presented'a re-
quest for their annual fund appeal for the month of April, 1966.
Councilman Nunamaker moved to approve, Councilman Tyrell second-
ed, and the motion carried unanimously.
14. TIME FOR THOSE I N THE AUDIENCE WHO d I SH TO SPEAK:
Richard Manners, 6253 Temple City Blvd., Chairman of Pacific
Ackworth School and Religious Society of Friends, requested
approval to hold a Fair Carnival at the School, November 20th
at the school for their benefit. Councilman Nunamaker moved to
grant, Councilman Tyrell seconded, and the motion carried unani-
mously.
Mr. Manners also requested allocated time on the next agenda to
make a presentation on behalf of the School and Friends Society
concerning the City's acquisition of their property. This was
approved by the Council and Mr. Manners will furnish the City
Manager the title of their recommendation in time to be included
when the Agenda is prepared.
15. MATTERS FROM CITY OFFICIALS:
Councilman Tyrell requested on Council Meeting nights that five
parking places behind the City Hall be reserved for the Council-
men.
City Attorney Martin advised he had read the Cukier lease in full
and that it was adopted bythe City Council on April 13, 1964. It
is a binding lease which the City must recognize and perform
under unless the City Council would seek to invalidate ft at this
time. The City by means of the lease is protecting public park-
ing on the lot for 10 years. The Council in 1964 decided pre-
servation of that for 10 years was worthwhile to the City and it
does provide public interest to be served. There is no reason
to find the public interest does not exist. He stated his re-
commendation to the Council has no choice at this point but to
activate the lease and to so acknowledge by payment of rental.
Councilman Nunamaker moved.to activate the lease and that a
warrant be drawn from July 1, 1965, in the amount of $85. per mox
Councilman Merritt seconded. Councilman Tyrell stated he was
opposed as the lease is for 10 yrs. and only for the use of that
market, and the Improvement District is for 20 yrs., and he
thinks it a foolish thing for the City to do. He stated that at
that time he objected and his vote was against it. Following
discussion by the Councilmen, the motion was carried by the
following roll call vote:
AYES: Councilmen - Dickason, Merritt, Nunamaker, Harker
NOES: Councilman - Tyrell
ABSENT: Councilmen -None
The City Manager requested authorization of the advance of $50.
to the Sister City representative for costs up to that amount
on the trip to Magdalena. Councilman Dickason so moved, Council-
man Merritt seconded, and the motion was carried unanimously.
The City Manager presented a charitable solicitation request from
the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of the Latter Day Saints
to hold a Christmas bazaar and bake sale on Dec. 3 and k, at
9627 Las Tunas Dr., the American Savings Building. Councilman
Merritt moved to approve, Councilman Dickason seconded, roll call
vote all Ayes, with Councilman Nunamaker abstaining.
16. ADJOURNMENT: Councilman Nunamaker moved to adjourn, seconded and
unanimously carried. Council adjourned at 9 :45 P. M. The next
regular meeting of the City Council on December 7, 1565, at 7:30
P. M. in the Council Chambers of the City Hall, 5936 Kauffman Ave.
ATTEST:
`- c
City Clerk
835