Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAboutCity Council_Minutes_1966-07-07_Special 1966PUBLIC HEARING C O U N C I L M 1 N U T E 6 TEMPLE CITY CALIFORNIA JULY 7, 1966 Mayor Tyrell called the public hearing for protests to proposed Annexation No. 12 to the City of Temple City to order at 7 :40 P. M. and led the audience in the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag. ROLL CALL: PRESENT: Councilmen- Beckley, Clemson, Harker, Merritt, Tyrell ALSO PRESENT: City Manager Koski City Attorney Martin arrived at 7:50 P. M. Mayor Tyrell requested the City Manager to make a presenta- tion at this time insofar as procedure in this matter is concerned. City Manager Koski stated this was the time and place for the public hearing on Annexation #12. In accordance with the govern- ment code with the absence of any written protests filed by 7:30 P.M. the Council may determine the insufficiency of the protests and set an election date.for a final determination on proposed Annexation No. 12. Mayor Tyrell stated at this time the Council will entertain those in the audience wishing to make verbal statements. He read section 55120 which states written protests must be filed prior to th.: hour of the hearing, which was 7:30 P. M. in this case and as there were no written protests filed by that time further action may be continued until the next Council meeting. Pursuant to the same sec- tion of the government code the Council may hear any statements anyone present wishes to make. He advised ,the audience that the staff, end.the Councilmen will be available to meet with anyone, or group, and present the facts and authorities for these facts as they will effect them, to be informed when they go to the polls for the election. Statements must be made only by property owners in the are . and no person is entitled to speak for or against if not a property owner unless you have authority to speak from the owner of the prop- erty. He then invited any one who wished to do so to come forward and speak. Richard J. McKenzie, 9281 Huntington Dr., stated he was under the impression written protests could be filed after the openin . of the hearing. The Mayor quoted from the government code "at any time not later than the hour set for hearing objections to the elec- tion, any owner of property within the territory may make a written protest against the annexation." Mr. McKenzie stated he represented 26 home owners at 9182 Huntington Dr. in the condominium, that they felt this would create a narrow corridor with nothing in common with Temple City. They do their banking and business and shopping in Arcadia. The developers of the condominium applied for annexation to Arcadia but no action could be taken until this proposed annexation was completed. He had a protest and requested permission to present it to the Council. The Mayor advised it could be received only for the files as it was too late to be filed as a written protest. Virgil Hamanson, 9147 Arcadia Ave., said they did not feel written protests were necessary with the people in the area so over- whelmingly against the annexation. They want to remain as they are and felt an election would be a waste of taxpayers money because the proposal would be so overwhelmingly defeated. Forrest P. Johnson, 9164 Le Roy, asked to know specifically the boundaries proposed in Annexation 12 and the City Manager outlined the area on the posted map, stating there were some 3200 people livir; in the area. They now have all the advantages without the disadvan- tages by remaining unincorporated, and he was protesting the annexa- tion. Julius Gottlieb, 9151 Southview Rd., said he bought county property and wanted to stay that way. He asked who would vote in an election, and was advised all registered voters in the area would be eligible to vote, 921+ Council Minutes, July 7, 1966, page 2 Bill Howard, 9106 Duarte Rd., stated police and fire pro- tection for nearly twenty years, the time he has been in the area, had been satisfactory, and he cannot believe taxes are going to go down under incorporation. He was opposed to the annexation to Temple City. Clarence E. Ritter, 9047 Camino Real, compared some parts of Temple City to "Belvidere & Watts." He objected to the city regu- lations regarding parking on the street at night, and also felt the county fire and police protection was good. He also was concerned about the possibility of future taxes. H. B. Fisher, 9132 Arcadia Ave., stated he first came into the area 43 years ago and he had seen many a ruckus in Temple City, and cited the effort by the merchants to get public parking districts many years back which he fought and helped defeat 13 yrs. ago. He noted the City now has public parking districts which he did not approve, and he felt the businessmen who operate the businesses in Temple City, very few of whom own property in Temple City, would pri- marily control the city, and for this reason he objected to annexa- tion. Paul Cartier, 9078, 8082 -84 Huntington Dr., protested for the same reasons stated by Mr. McKenzie, and stated he was a resident of Arcadia and would be unable to vote. Robert Schlercher, 9164 Camino Real, stated he bought prop- erty with understanding he would have San Gabriel address and .paid $2000. to $5000. more to get that address and he does not want to lose it. There would be no advantage from Temple City. He just heard of the annexation proprosal and felt it very sneaky. He asked since protests had to be presented by 7 :30 this night, if they still have time to give the Council protests? The City Attorney advised the Code does provide all protest must be filed by 7:30 P. M. No written protest has been filed. Mr. Schlercher requested another chance to protest, and the Mayor advised he would have a chance to vote. He stated apartment dwellers should not be able to vote to deprive them of $2000. to $500 in their property values. Robert Henry, 9182 Huntington Dr., asked about the publicit, given on this, and that they did not know that written protests had to be in at 7 :30 P. M. No one was notified by mail of this meeting. He also questioned the improved pc.lice and fire protection. He next questioned if this was home rule? They do not shop here but on Huntington Dr., and they would not shop in Temple City. He requested answers to these questions. William T. Bradley, 9182 Huntington Dr., asked to whom pro- test petitions should be submitted prior to 7 :30 P. M. and was advis- ed to the City Clerk. City Attorney Martin explained this is Annexation No. 12 Temple City, and represents the. 12th one we have had in the City, probably there are 1;00 o'r-500 ih Los Angeles County, and several thousand in the State of California, all processed by the particular state law handed down by the State Legislature which all annexations in the State of California have followed over the years. The cities had no choice but to follow it, it is the procedure set down by the State Legislature and must be followed by individual cities in the State of California. The law is designed to give people in proposed annexation areas three guarantees or three protections..The City that proposes an annexation or the people in the area that Is proposed for annexa- tion to the city, must first get the consent from the Stab, of Calif - ornia acting by and through the County of Los Angeles. There is an agency in the County of Los Angeles, that makes the determination whether a particular area should or should not, or may or may not be annexed to a particular city. This is called Local Agency Formation Commission and is the first guarantee which the people of an annexed area have as far as guarantee is concerned. The City must appear be- fore the L.A.F.Commission and convince the Commission 925 Council Minutes, July 7, 1966, page 3 and they are acting as the State of California, that this is a good annexation and will be a profit to the State of California as far as annexations are concerned. This was done in Annexation No. 12 of the City of Temple City and in all of the other thousands of annexa- tions in the State of California. The L.A.F.Commission did approve this particular annexation as being a worthwhile annexation and one which could be submitted to the electorate. The next step is for the property owners to have an oppor- tunity to short -cut or veto the election. This is a right the prop- erty owners have to declare that no election shall be held, that the people will not have a right to vote as electors but rather they as property owners will have a chance to veto an election in advance. This is the second guarantee and protection. It is published in a local paper that a hearing will be held at a time removed from the date set and that at that time property owners if they are sufficient in number and totaling more than 50% of the assessed value may cut the annexation proceeding and veto the right of election. This second hurdle provides that those protests by the property owners be more than 50% of the assessed valuation and must be in by date set for the hearing or a date set by the City Council in advance of 10 days from that original date that the protests were insufficient. If no protests are filed by the hearing date the Council then has the opportunity of presenting the third hurdle or third protection, that of the electorate itself and provides that an election date shall be set and the people, the electors, will have an opportunity to vote, and if again the majority of the electors are against the an- nexation the annexation will fail. Therefore the State Legislature has provided three guaran- tees to the City Council and to the people in the area proposed for annexation. The first has been accomplished. The second, as there were no protests as provided by state law at the hour set, and the next step is the election to be held by the people. Mr. McKenzie asked if there was a chance this could be post poned to a later date so the uninformed residents of this area may do something, and the Mayor advised an election will be set. Mr. Madzelewsky, 7205 N. Rosemead, 8971 Fairview, felt the procedures had been one sided and unfair, he asked what we had to offer, and stated he did not want Temple City. Ray Sturman, 9077 Southview, said they were under the im- pression a petition had been filed as 90% of the people in his area signed a petition saying they did not want to go to Temple City. He stated many of them are unaware. They shop in Arcadia and do not want to come into Temple City, we have nothing to offer them, and this will be defeated at the polls. Thos. R. Sinclair, 9183 Arcadia Ave., asked if as potential citizens they had any right or voice at our Council meetings when they are not residents of Temple City. The Mayor advised they had never turned anyone down that wanted an opportunity to speak. Mr. Gottlieb asked if this election is the cboice of the residents in the area. was advised that all registered voters within this area could vote at an election. The Mayor asked if anyone else wished to come forward and speak and no one came forward to speak. Councilman Merritt moved to close the public hearing, Coun- cilman Beckley seconded, and the motion was unanimously carried. City Attorney Martin advised the decision of the date of the election will be set at the next regular meeting of the City Council on July 19, at 7:30 P. M. Mayor Tyrell stated the Council had listened to them and some good issues have been raised, and he personally would welcome the opportunity of presenting the answers to them in a factual manner or any other form, and can give than facts from unimpeachable sources. Questions raised i nd i catEd there was doubt in their mi nds.0 i ty will : b:e happy to provide information from records and challenged them to meet with the City and discuss the facts. The Council did not rebut 926 Council, Minutes, July 7, 1966, page 4 and every word tonight is not the truth and if they would like more information the Council will be happy to give it to them. Public meetings or coffee hours can be set at a time convenient to all from time to time until election if they so desire. Call Mr. Recupero, Administrative Assistant, and he will arrange a meeting. The matter will be continued until July 19 at which time the Council will de- termine whether there will be an election. This will not be a public hearing. He also stated the City is not obligated to apprise them individually of the laws, and the City must presume that if they are interested that they will determine what the law is. Chas. Collins, 9055 Youngdale, stated he came down to get information, that he had attended a meeting and most of the people were for annexation. The Mayor did not push anything but gave us the simple facts. He favored coffee hours so each one can express themselves and obtain the facts. Mayor Tyrell thanked everyone for attending. It was moved and carried that the Council adjourn..... The next regular meeting of the City Council will be July 15, at 7 :30 P. M. in the Council Cham -. bers of the City Hall, 5938 Kauffman Ave. Council adjourned at 8:45 P. M. ATTEST: 1 927