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