HomeMy Public PortalAboutResolution 84-2247RESOLUTION NO. 84 -2247
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
TEMPLE CITY DENYING AN APPEAL FROM, AND CONFIRM-
ING THE DECISION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION IN
THE MATTER OF MODIFICATION OF CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT 71 -358 AND VARIANCE 83 -703
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMPLE CITY RESOLVES:
SECTION 1. Town & Country (applicant) has filed for modification
of CUP 71 -358 to permit the parking or storage of trucks on R -4 property
in conjunction with an adjacent C -3 use and zone; and, for a variance to
enclose such truck use with a fence in excess of tpermitted six feet
(said fence has been constructed without a permit or variance to a
height of more than 12 feet at its highest point).
SECTION 2. The Planning Commission denied such requests after
a Public Hearing as set forth in Resolution 84 -1100 P.C.
SECTION 3. The applicant duly appealed such denial to this City
Council; a Public Hearing has been held, evidence submitted, testimony
taken, an E.I.R. presented, the files, records and Minutes of the Plan-
ning Commission considered, and each member of the City Council having
personally visited the site.
SECTION 4. NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council finds and determines
as follows:
A. Matters relating to law:
1) It is found that the truck parking or storage
is not regular or routine; that a truck may be parked or
stored for one to three days.
2) That such parking or storage is for the purpose
of conducting refrigeration storage in that the trucks are
loaded with perishables, then parked or stored for no fixed
period of time with refrigeration.
3) That the area used for such refrigeration is
an R -4 zone.
4) That Section 9361(1) (d) limits truck parking
or storage for more than 30 minutes. See also Section
9366(1) (a) .
Accordingly, the City Council finds that the truck use
requested is storage rather than parking, and, thus, prohibited
in an R -4 zone; even if considered parking, it would be in ex-
cess of 30 minutes and, therefore, involves a use variance.
Accordingly, the City Council concludes that it may not
grant such use in an R -4 zone.
B. Matters relating to the E.I.R.
1) The E.I.R. makes no mention of noise or mitigation
thereof.
2) There was substantial evidence (testimony of neigh-
bors and decibel measurement) that the noise from the refrigera-
tion units was and is excessive, especially at night.
3) The E.I.R. was silent as to mitigation of light.
4) There was substantial testimony and observation
that the lights are excessive.
5) There is no mention in the E.I.R. of fire risk.
Resolution No. 84 -2247 - Page 2
6) The Fire Chief represented that the fence and
"squeezed" truck use could increase fire risk and loss.
Accordingly, the City Council finds that the E.I.R. is
inadequate.
C. Matters relating to equity:
1) Applicant sets forth in his appeal, several
grounds of estoppel based on alleged misrepresentation of
City officials.
2) Each of the officials charged denies any such
involvement.
3) The testimony of the City officials is more
credible, and the City Council does not believe such mis-
representations took place.
4) Even if such events did occur, they do not,
under current case law, rise to the level of estoppel.
Accordingly, the City Council finds no equitable
matters involved.
D. Matters relating to the standards and merits:
1) There was substantial evidence that the truck
use was divisive and disrupted peace and enjoyment of
neighboring properties as a sight nuisance.
2) The testimony concerning noise and lighting
was overwhelming at present, and this proposal would move
the nuisance 50 feet closer.
3) There was indication that there was an alternate
site available to the applicant.
4) There was evidence that the site was too small
resulting in overcrowding; that the access to the streets
was impaired, and that the use would cause harm to the
enjoyment of neighboring properties.
Accordingly, the Council finds that applicant has not
proved or carried the burden of proof with regard to the
standards set forth in Sections 9201 and 9202 of the Temple
City Municipal Code.
SECTION 5. For the reasons, findings and conclusions set
forth herein, said CUP modification is denied.
SECTION 6. With regard to the Variance for an over height
fence, the Council finds that no grounds have been given for such
height - in fact, applicant agrees it may be lowered.
Accordingly, for the reasons set forth in Resolution No.
84 -1100 P.C. said Variance is denied.
SECTION 7. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of
this Resolution.
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED this 20th day of March, 1984.
1
Resolution No. 84 -2247 - Page 3
ATTEST:
I hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was adopted
by the City Council of the City of Temple City at a regular meet-
ing held on the 20th day of March 1984, by the following vote:
AYES: Councilmen- Atkins, Dennis, Swain, Tyrell, Gillanders
NOES: Councilmen -None
ABSENT: Councilmen -None