Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAboutCity Council_Minutes_1972-05-02_Regular 1972 CITY OF TEMPLE CITY COUNCIL MINUTES MAY 2 , 1972 I N.i T I AT.I ON : .l . Mayor Briggs called the regular meeting of the City Council to order at 7 :30 p.m. 2 . The invocation was given by, the Reverend Roger Sawyer, - First United Methodist, Church , 5957 N . Golden West ,. Temple City . In the invocation ' Reverend- Sawyer paid recognition to J . Edgar Hoover, Director of the FBI for 48 years , who has died in his sleep this morning. 3 . The Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag was led by.-Mayor Briggs-. 4. ROLL CALL: PRESENT : Councilmen-Dennis , Gilbertson , Merritt , Tyrell , Briggs ABSENT: Councilmen-None ALSO PRESENT: City Manager Koski , City Attorney Martin , Planning Director Dragicevich , Planning Technician Burnham, Engineering Assi.stan.t Linares , Administrative Assistant Biel , Regional Engineer Kriegel , Special Counsel Eugene Jacobs and Tom Conrad . 5 . APPROVAL OF MINUTES : Councilman Gilbertson moved to approve the minutes of the April 18 , 19721, 'meeti-ng as mailed , seconded by Councilman Merritt and unanimously carried. UNFINISHED BUSINESS: 6. RESOLUTION. N0. 72- 1196 : Adopting a Rule of Parliamentary Procedure. , City Attorney Martin presented Resolution No. 72- 1196 entitled • A- RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMPLE CITY ADOPTING' A RULE OF PARLIAMENTARY ' PROCEDURE , whi-ch would authorize the new- Council to adopt motions by the "No Objection" method , Councilman Merritt moved to approve, seconded by Councilman G11bertson . The motion carried unanimou.sly . on roll call vote, and each Councilman affixed signature to official copies of the Resolution . 7 . RESOLUTION- NO. 72- 1198 - Appointment of City Selection Committee Member, Southern California Rapid Transit District . City- Manager Koski presented Resolution No . 72- 1198 entitled A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMPLE CITY , CAL,IFORN.IA, , APPOINT1NG X MEMBER OF SAID COUNCIL OF SAID CITY TO THE CITY SELECTION COMMITTEE PURSUANT TO PART . 3 OF DIVISION 10 OF THE PUBLIC UTILITIES CODE, Councilman Gilbertson. moved to adop ,9: ; seconded by Councilman Tyrell and carried unanimously . 8. RESOLUTION NO. 72- 1197 : Appointment of Alternate Representative to County Sanitation District . City Manager Koski presented Resolution No. 72- 1197 entitled . A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL - OF THE CITY OF TEMPLE CITY APPOINTING AN ALTERNATE DIRECTOR OF COUNTY " SANITAT,IOU DISTRICT NO. 15 , and stated that as provided by law Mayor Briggs would be a member of the Board of Directors and that it was necessary to appoint an alternate. Councilmen Gilbertson moved to adopt , seconded by- Councilman Merritt and carried • unanimously. Counci i;.Minutes , May 2 , 1972 - Page 2 9. RESOLUTIOK NO. 72- 1199: Opposing Proposition 9 on the June Primary Ballot . City Manager Koski presented Resolution No. 72- 1199 entitled A. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE C'iTY OF TEMPLE CITY OPPOSING PROPOSIT1ION NO. 9 ON THE JUNE 16th PRIMARY BALLOT, relating to pollution control and environmental hazards . Councilman Gilbertson moved to adopt , seconded by Councilman Tyrell and carried unanimously. 10. RESOLUTION NO. 72- 1200 : Granting a Conditional Use Permit in Case No. 72-365PC, Reversing Planning Commission Resolution No. 72-449PC (Wong, 6400 Block N . Rosemead) . City Attorney 'Martin presented Resolution No. 72-1200 entitled A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMPLE CITY GRANTING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT IN CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT CASE NO. 72-365 AND REVERSING RESOLUTION NO. 72-449PC OF THE PLANNING* COMMISSION . Councilman Tyrell moved to adopt , seconded by Councilman Merritt and carried by a roll: call vote with ' Councilman Dennis abstaining. 11 . ORDINANCE NO. 72-348,: 1st read. Distribution of -Advertising i Material . City Attorney Martin presented Ordinance No. 72-348 regarding Distribution of Advertising Material which supersedes urgency Ordinance No. 72-347 , entitled AN ORD'I.NANCE 'OF THE CITY OF TEMPLE CITY REPEALING SECTIONS 4268-4273 OF THE TEMPLE CITY MUNICIPAL CODE AND .ADOPTING NEW SECTIONS 4268-4268 . 7 IN PLACE THEREOF RELATING TO THE DISTRIBUTION OF ADVERTISING MATERIAL. Councilman Tyrell moved -to waive further reading as amended, seconded by Councilman Merritt and carried unanimously . 12 . ORDINANCE NO. 72-349 : lst read. Operation of Fireworks Stands . City Attorney Martin advised that as instructed at the previous meeting to prepare an ordinance relating to permits to sell fireworks , which would limit the sale of such fireworks to members of the organizations and/or their families , he introduced Ordinance No. 72-349 entitled AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY ' OF TEMPLE CITY AMENDING- SECTION 3117 (a)' OF THE TEMPLE CITY MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO FIREWORKS STANDS. Councilman Tyrell moved to waive further reading, seconded by Councilman Merritt and carried unanimously. NEW BUSINESS: 13 . EMERGENCY 'EMPLOYMENT ACT OF 1971 - P. E. P. PROGRAM: Re. Amendment to Program. City Manager Koski presented a request from the Manpower Programs D i v i s.i on of Los Angeles County d i recti ng all sub-agents to determine the exact amount of expenditures anticipated through the remainder of the contract year, ending August 26, 1972 . Councilman Tyrell moved . to approve the amendment of funding for contract year ending August 26, 1972 , and to authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to sign the modified agreement on behalf of the City. Seconded by Councilman Gilbertson and carried unanimously. Counci li-:.Minutes , May 2 , 1972 - Page 3 14. REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL FUNDS - Special Counsel , Community Redevelopment Agency. City Manager Koski presented a request for additional funds in the amount of $2 ,200 to cover anticipated costs for legal services until the end of the fiscal year June 30, 1972 . This to cover additional reports regarding programming and relocation as well as consulting services with prospective developers. Councilman Gilbertson moved to approve additional funds for special counsel and to amend the agreement for action by the Community Redevelopment Agency at their next regular meeting. Seconded by Councilman Tyrell and carried unanimously . 15 . TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 30403 : Noe.11park, 39 unit condominium, 5540-5602 .Temple City' Boulevard. (This item taken as last item on agenda) . City Manager Koski advised that the Planning Commission had adopted Resolution No. 72-457PC, recommending approval of Tentative Tract Map No. 30403 , relating to the construction of a one- lot subdivision for a condominium project to be located at 5540-5602 Temple City Boulevard. He presented background information that subject property is zoned 11-3c, Multiple Residential , and that the proposed condominium would include 39 units which would be owned individually and owners would hold equal interest rights in the common and open space areas . The proposed units would be one and two-stories in height and 36 units would have two-bedrooms and three units would be one-bedroom apartments . According to the Regional Engineer ' s recommendations , additional sewer capacity will be required in order to have adequate sewer flow in this segment of the City ' s sewer system. . Councilman Tyrell moved to confirm the ' Planning Commission Resolution No. 72-45.7PC and instructed the City Attorney to prepare appropriate resolution with the conditions attached th re rto, together with modification of County Engineer letter to provide a charge to the subdivider of $125 per unit as a contribution to the City . The City Attorney was further instructed to prepare an appropriate sewer connection. ordinance for city-wide application . Seconded by Councilman Merritt and carried by a vote of four ''yes'' votes with, Counci 1man Dennis abstaining. t 16. 1972-73 TOPICS 'URBAN FUNDS - A.ssignment to County of Los Ange 1 es . i n exchange -for Highway Th rough C i t-i'es Funds . City Manager Koski ,stated that the State Director of Public Works had notified the City that its share of TOPICS funds for the fiscal 'year 1971 -72 is $14,853 , and for 1972-73 is $14,853. The Director' s letter indicated that Temple City must provide the Department of Public Works with a resolution of intent to obligate the apportionment within 60 days .of the date of his letter. City Manager Koski stated there were four options as listed in memorandum of April 25 , 1972 by which the City may accept - its TOPICS apportionment . Councilman Tyrell moved that the Council claim Federal TOPICS Funds apportioned by the Federal Aid Highways Acts and by Streets and Highways Code for fiscal years 1971 -72 and 1972-73 , and declare the City ' s intent to obligate said apportionment by assigning these funds to the County of Los Angeles , and requesting the Board of Supervisors to accept assignment, and that certified copies of Council action be sent to State .Department of Public Works and Los Angeles County Road Commissioner. Seconded by Councilman Gilbertson and carried unanimously. Council Minutes , May 2 , 1972 - Page 4 17 . SET PUBLIC HEARING : Re. Street improvments , Freer Street , .� north side McCulloch to Santa Anita Avenue. , and south f side, Farago to Santa Anita Ave. , (Curb , gutter and drive approaches pursuant to Chapter 27 , proceedings , Street and Highways Code) . Councilman Tyrell moved to set -public hearing on street improvements , Freer Street, north side, McCulloch to Santa Anita Avenue, and south side, Farago to Santa Anita Avenue , curb, gutter and drive approabhes , pursuant to Chapter 27 proceedings , Streets and Highways Code, for Mayl6, 1972 at 7 :30 p .m. in the Council Chambers . Seconded by Councilman Merritt and carried unanimously . 18. RESOLUTION. NO. 72- 1201 : Employment of Personnel - P. E . P. Program . It was moved by Councilman Tyrell , seconded by Councilman Gilbertson and carried unanimously to adopt Resolution No. 72- 1201 entitled A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY CO UNC.IL OF THE CITY OF TEMPLE CITY APPOINTING PERSONNEL UNDER EMERGENCY EMPLOYMENT ACT OF 1971 . 19. RESOLUTION. N0. 72- 1202 : WARRANTS & DEMANDS , Demand Nos . 5810. thru 5893 in the amount of $:130,860 . 15 . It was moved by Councilman Gil,bertson , seconded by Councilman Tyrell and carried unanimously to adopt Resolution No. 72- 1202 entitled A RESOLUTION. OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMPLE CITY ALLOWING CLAIMS AND DEMANDS IN THE SUM OF $130,860 . 15 , DEMAND NOS . 5810 THRU 5893 . The joint, pub l i c. hea ri ng, of the City Counci 1 and . the Community Redevelopment Agency . scheduled as Item 20 on the Agenda , was held at 8 :00 p.m. following the completion of the agenda. 21 . COMMUNICATIONS : A. City Manager Koski presented a letter from Dave W. Steinmeier , President , Sister City Committee., requesting a representative of the Council accompany the Sister City Committee to Magdalena de Kino on May 27-29, 1972 , to. present to the City of Magdalena plaques for installation in .their new p:l.aza. Sister City representative, Councilman William Dennis , is considering the possibility of attending. B. City Manager Koski presented the Quarterly Report from the Chamber of Commerce for the period of January 1 , to March 31 , 1972 . Councilman Tyrell moved to receive and file the report . Seconded by ' Councilman Gilbertson .and carried unanimously. 22 . TIME FOR THOSE IN THE AUDIENCE WHO WISH TO SPEAK : Carl High , 5505 Ryland,; Temple City , advised that one of the first homes in Temple City, at 5317 Encinita , is about to be destroyed , and would be interested to see if something could be done to preserve it . He was advised that the City was not in a position to do this ., but that this concern would be relayed to the news media to see if interest could be stimulated in this regard. No one else came forward to speak. Council Minutes , May 2 , 1972 - Page 5 23 . MATTERS FROM. CITY OFFICIALS : A. Appointment to Planning Commission : Councilman Tyrell moved to confirm the appointment of Ralph Beckman to the Planning Commission , effective April 25 , 1972 , to fill the unexpired term of :William Dennis to June 30 , 197-2 . Seconded by Councilman Merritt and carried unanimously. B. Authorization for attendance at New Mayor' s and Councilmen ' s Institute . Councilman Merritt moved to approve Councilman Dennis ' attendance at the League of California Cities New. Mayor' s and Councilmen ' Inst.itute on May 17- 19, 1972y at San Diego, and authorize expenses . in the amount of $145 , , p.l.us. t rave l - costs .,` ' . Counc i 1 man G i l be its on seconded" the •motlon.:. which carried unanimously . C. Temple City Ped-Bicycle Safety Program. City Manager Koski presented a letter from the Temple City Unified School District from Project Director , Ed Aguirre, Pedestrian -Bicycle Safety Education and Enforcement Project, stating that the project will culminate June 30, 1972 , and that no funds from the Office of Traffic Safety will be available to Temple City after this date. Councilman Gilbertson moved to refer the Pedestrian- Bicycle Safety Program to a study session ,to be held on May 15 , 1972 and to i-nvite Ed Aguirre to be in attendance. Seconded by Councilman ' Tyrell and carried unanimously. D. Request for Encroachment Permit . City Manager Koski presented a request for an encroachment permit at 9520 Las Tunas Drive, Temple City , by Anita Dalton , Lessee, of the commercial property. The request is due to the contemplated facia improvement of the structure. The proposed Board and Batt Facia would =� encroach into the public right-of-way from 0"-3" . Councilman Merritt moved to approve encroachment permit subject to. conditions as outlined in the memorandum of April 21 , 1972 . Seconded by Councilman Dennis and car.ried by four "yes" votes with ' Councilman Tyrell abstaining. E. Resolution No. 72- 1204: St . Luke ' s 25th -Anniversary. Councilman Tyrell moved to adopt Resolution No. 72- 1204 -entitled A- RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMPLE CITY EXTENDING CONGRATULATIONS TO ST. LUKE' S CATHOLIC CHURCH ON ITS SILVER ANNIVERSARY, MAY 7 , 1972 . Seconded by Councilman Gilbertson and carried unanimously. Mayor Briggs to deliver the Resolution . F. C. U. P. Criteria for Massage Parlors : Councilman Tyrell moved to refer a draft of a proposed 'ordinance adding a new part to Article 4 relating to the operation of massage parlors to the Planning Commission for zoning consideration . Seconded by Councilman Gilbertson and carried unanimously . Council Minutes , May 2 , 1972 - Page 6 20. PUBL] C HEARING: 8:00 p .m. JOINT HEARING W1TH• COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY RE . ROSEMEAD BOULEVARD 'REDEVELOPMENT -4 PROJECT: It being the hour of 8 :00 p.m.. , the time having been. set and notice made, Mayor Briggs declared the Joint Pub.lic •Hearing of the City. Council and the Community Redevelopment Agency open , all members being present . Procedural rules for the , conduct of the meeting were outlined by -Mayor Briggs . Mayor Briggs advised that the record contained - the following documents : a. - The proposed -Redevelopment Plan for the Rosemead Boulevard Redevelopment Project. b. The Redevelopment Agency 'Report to the City Council on the proposed Redevelopment Plan . C. Rules Governing Participation and Preferences by Owners , Operators of Businesses and Tenants in the Rosemead Boulevard Redevelopment Project . d. The report and recommendation of the City Planning Commission approving- the proposed Redevelopment Plan �1 and recommending_ its adoption . . Mayor Briggs called for the presentation of testimony by the agency. The following CRA personnel were sworn - in by the Chief Deputy City Clerk prior to the presentation of testimony : Director Karl Koski , Assistant Director George Dragicevich , Special Counsel Eugene Jacobs , and City. Attorney.,Charles Martin . City Manager Koski presented background information , advising that the City Council by ordinance had established the Redevelopment Agency on July 20 , 1971 , in conformance with California Redevelopment Law, pursuant to Section 33100 et seq . of the H.ea 1 th and Safety Code of the State of California ; that by- ordinance the Planning Commission had been authorized to designate a survey area , which survey area was subsequently . approved by the Redevelopment Agency and the City Council . He described the boundaries of the survey a rea by use of Exhibit A, a copy of which had also been mailed to all persons ( noticed as to the hearing. ' City Manager Koski presented further background information on - the objectives of the Community, Redevelopment Agency and the proposed . redevelopment project , the zoning of- the area and future zoning under the project . He advised that all studies indicated the area designated as the most suitable for redevelopment . Special Counsel Eugene Jacobs advised that basically the redevelopment plan . is made up of legal limitations and' legal powers to carry out a revitalization of the •-a rea shown on the map (Exhibit "A") and that the plan is primarily a way to implement the general plan of the City . He advisedthat this redevelopment plan is set forth • in a 26- page report , plus a map, which sets forth legal powers . The legal powers involved the authority and power of th.e redevelopment agency- to buy all of the land by use of eminent domain if necessary, but does not allow the Agency to acquire o.il ri<ghts . The plan would place the City Council . 1n a position to acquire the land but not with the idea of mass acquisition . CounciliMinutes , May 2 , 1972 - Page 7 It would be the des.i re of the- City and as shown on the plan that A:Cea B of Exhibit "A" be developed as a neighborhood or community shopping center with department store, major drug store, - major grocery store and certain minor shops , which if developed . in . that way would add substan-tially - to the sales tax of the community to provide additional services not now available . Area A would be developed as offices or moderately high rise office structures , while Area C and E would - be more or less inthe area of normal highway commercial.development. Mr. Jacobs adv.ised . that certain kinds of restaurants and other shops existing in area B might be permitted to exist or come back-1:n as tenants under owner/tenant participation agreements . Mr. Jacobs further advised that this kind of project also has a very- high requirement of relocation assistance to people already in the area that would have to move--both - the tenants and occupants , plus the owners . In. the past when acquired by eminent domain , a.11 they obtained- was the fair market va 1 ue and no assistance was provided for mov.i ng. He advised that this would not be! financed by the Federal Government , that Federal projects have required rather substantial relocation payments , but that just this year a law went into effect which requires exactly the same k1nd of payments be made when not federally financed . These would be in effect here. In this law that just came into effect , it requi res the establ i s-h i ng of an appeals board so that anyone not treated fairly, or not given relocation payments , could appeal to the appeals board and . it would be determined what was fair.-.in the matter. There are very strong legal requirements with regard to how people can be moved from such a project . No one can be moved in the lower income categories unless it was proved that a comparable house would be available at comparable rents in proper locations . Even if the property was purchased , an appropriate place would have to. be found for them to move - to. These strengths and responsibilities now apply to all government categories , not just redevelopment . Mr. Jacobs stated that implementation would not begin-=immediately, but only when - there was a certainty of financing a project. In ,the past Federal money was ordinarily available in unlimited amounts . Cities were able to go in and buy property , and at later dates they ,tried .to find purchasers but many could not , and bonds were running out . This project would be totally financed from project monies generated by the project . No purchases would be made unless ready to -make a development--subject to control of the Agency and subject to financing. The City Council would supply nominal amounts of working capital to get it started which would be repaid. No City money would be spent other than original "seed" money unless there is absolute assurance that the project wi l l go forward. The Agency would figure the financing based on what the assessed valuations would be after the project was completed as compared . to the assessed valuation at this point in time. If it contained - 1 million dollars , and after development contained ,2 million dollars , the property -taxes on the first million would continue to go to the present taxing agencies and the second million would be paid to the Agency to take care of the Agency' s costs . The City would guarantee as a separate entity the appropriate -zoning changes that wcul d ..take place that wo.ul d bring it into Council Minutes , May 2, 1972 - Page 8 conformance with the general plan and with the rases set .f6rth on the map . Various other actions of street widening , street vacation, etc . , must be considered. E.g . , the Wedgewood].-to Live Oak area could be developed as a single three blocks=. * The desire is to get a mode.r-n type development , not fragmented- out - in single parcels of individual ownership, . but fully unified. The area is' not large enough to have a major regional center , and such would not be appropriate. In terms of time, f4f .. Jacobs explained that . i f tonight th&• Cit y Counc i,T,,i after public°-hearing, decided to act favorabl-y on the project , it would hold first reading on .an .ordinance .and sub- sequently a second reading . Thereafter the Council would .continue to work .with developers to see if they are .willing to develop and that when such a moment arrives they will start with appraisal and then contact property owners . He advised that more than adequate time for relocation would be given . The law requires at . least 90 days notice and most people would have considerably more than that . They would receive full market value as set forth by outside appraisals , plus relocation payments as may - be required. Mr . Jacobs stated that in his experience with redevelopment pro- jects , it is very rare that a redevelopment has gone .to eminent domain . The Redevelopment Agency is not attempting to buy at bargain prices , but the normal market price. He stated that there are also certain advantages for Internal Revenue purposes --that if people want to reinvest in similar kinds of properties , they. retain the same tax base as they . had before, which is an advantage over selling to a private buyer . Mr . Jacobs. concluded that there is not qoing to be any offer to buy unless there is an .a.bsolute"guar:an.tee from the developer that . he is ready to move ahead. Mayor Briggs invited those persons present . in the audience who wished to be heard, or who wished to indicate a position in regard to the redevelopment, to fill out a card, the cards to be collected and collated into groups of those who wished to speak against the redevelopment or in favor of the redevelopment, as well as those against or in favor who did not wish to speak. Mayor Briggs set .forth the order in .which communications and oral statements .would--be r-eceived. {. City Clerk :Koski presented written .communications objecting to the Redevelopment Plan -.as follows : 1 . Joseph Raffi-n, 8912- E'. Live Oak, Temple City 2. William E . Walker , 5565 N. Rosemead Blvd. , Temple City 3 . Denver D. Coleman , 248 S . San Rafael Ave . , Pasadena City Clerk Koski read the names of persons who completed cards objecting to the Redevelopment Plan , but not desiring�A o speak as follows : 1 . Harry Lawton, 8846 E . Wedgewood, Temple City 2. Mr . and Mr's . ,.;R.obert G . Avery, 8924 E. Wedgewood, Temple City 3 . K. H . Rozak, 2000 Wilson Avenue, Arcadia 4. George P . Rapp, 8946 E . Broadway, Temple City 5 . J . H . Blom, 8902 E . Wedgewood, Temple City all property owners in the area, and the following tenant : 6. D. Bellavia (Aamco Transmission ) , 5523 N . Rosemead Prior to the presentation of testimony, all persons desiring to speak were sworn in by .the City Clerk. ,�--� ,_i� �__� �,. Council Minutes , M.ay 2, 1972 - Pa.ge .9 City Clerk Koski read the names of persons .who completed cards objecting to the Redevelopment Plan who wished to speak, as follows : 1 . Danford M. Baker , 5527 N. Rosemead, Temple City 2. Wallace and Ila Mathews , 509 Avocado Crest Rd. , La Habra 3 . Joseph & Louisa Conti , 8919 Wedgewood St . , Temple City 4. Mrs . George W. Scott , 8910 E . Wedgewood St . , Temple City all property owners in the project area , and the following tenant : 5 . A . L . Partlow, 10225 Hopeland Avenue, Downey. One'-other wishing to speak against the plan, living near the project area was : 6. Mrs . Ruth C . Bettes , 5821 N . Reno Ave. , Temple City . Mayor Briggs , invited those speaking . in opposition to come forward : Danford Baker , 5527 Rosemead, Temple City, stated that he did not see -how anyone within the project area could speak in favor until such time as they would know what they were going to be paid for their property . Legal Counsel Jacobs advised that there would be full appraisals and that the matter before the Council and Agency this evening .was whether they wished to oppose -the project .because l their property may . be purchased. Mr . Baker stated that in addition to relocation. costs (whi:ch would be reimbursed) there -could be loss of business because of moving and that he still did not know -how he or anyone could give a yes or no answer . Ruth Bettes , 5821 N. Reno, Temple City, did not think Temple City could support another shopping center . She also felt that rents for shops in ,such a center would be higher than those already .pai.d by independent .shops . It -was pointed out by Legal Counsel Jacobs that the foot traffic generated by a large or major depart- ment store does stimulate business in .a center to warrant much .higher rents , and that .similarly a junior department center may charge rents higher than what has been previously paid by tenants , but again .would . be offset by increased business . It -was.-. pointed out that the type of department .store proposed for the center would be Woolco, K-Mart , Treasury, or similar type . Joseph Conti , 8919 Wedgewood, inquired as to the length of time Oeproperty owners of the area may be held to a •moratorium on building ,p-resen.ti.y imposed on the area if development does .not r—� occur . I t .-was .pointed out the present moratorium .runs to Feb. l5, 1.973 , and that by .t•hat .time' it .s'houl'd .be evident whether a develop- ment can :be obtained. Ila Mathews , 509 Avocado Crest Road, La Habra, (G&M Electronics ) s.tated she was in agreement .with Mr . Baker . that there maybe loss of business due to relocation, which was impossible -to ascertain . She also felt that a new cen:ter . would take away business .from the heart of Temple City .as it had in Alh-am:bra . Legal Counsel Jacobs .stated that the Alhambra area was much declined in the down- town area prior to the development .of new centers ; that the trend of shoppers . is to patronize the newer centers , because they provide adequate parking and more -suitable entrance, not unsightly . back entrances as in the older shops facing on the street proper . Her inquiry -as to why this area was selected was responded to by City Manager Koski , that this was the area -in which developers .from .time to time have expressed interest , that a major freeway . is proposed nearby and would -provide ,a high volume of traffic as the entry to the community . Also that .the Pasadena Chapter of Architects in Action had conducted a study about three years .ago as a service to the City, which professional study was presented to the Planning Commission .and indicated the great .opportunity for development plan that could be put forth for this area . The General Plan .adopted by the City indicated the potential of this area . for commercial development . Further, developers who are interested .in putt:in.g together a commercial retail package have looked at other areas . but this area is the one in .which they have expressed .interest . There is no outside commercial interested in locating in the central area . Council Minutes , May 2, 1972 - Page 11 City Clerk Koski read the names of persons .who completed cards .favoring the Redevelopment Plan , but not desiring to speak, as follows : 1 . Mrs . John German , 8920 'E. Broadway, Temple City 2 . William F. Fleisher , 88722 E . Las Tunas , Temple City 3 . William Harkness , 8850 Wedgewood, Temple City 4. Mr . and Mrs . John C . Lopez ``1 5 . Marrietta DeMarzo, .`8904 Wedgewood, Temple City 6. Mary Ann Williams , 1334 Milam -Place, Monterey Park 7 . Kyle M. Stevens , Sr . 9434 E. Lemon Avenue, Temple City all property owners in the project , and 8. Robert A . Brisco, 5817 Oak, Temple City City. Clerk Koski - read the names of persons who completed cards favor- ' . ing the Redevelopment Plan , and desiring to speak, as .follows : 1 . Mrs . George L . Handy, 508 N . Second, Alhambra a property owner in the project area . Mayor Briggs invited those, speaking in. favor to come forward. Mrs . Handy stated from the floor that her questions had been answered .in .previous testimony . City Clerk Koski read the names of persons who completed cards , neither favoring 'the Redevelopment Plan or opposing it , and who did not wish to speak, as .follows : 1 . Edward L . Burroughs , 8912- 16 E . Broadway, Temple City 2. Shirley Schlotfeldt , 8911 E . Wedgewood, Temple City all property owners in the project area . City Clerk Koski read the names of persons who completed cards , neither favoring or opposing the Redevelopment Plan , and who wished to speak, as follows : 1. . Kyle .and Lola ,Stevens , 3845 Rosemead Boulevard, Temple City 2. Bruce M. Bibbee, 9665 E .. _.Sparklett , Temple City 3 . A . L . Nunamaker , 9820 Workman, Temple City 4. Dr . William Berck, Supt .' of Schools , San Gabriel School 'District.. 5.. William Rihn , Member of San Gabriel School District Governing Board 6. -Mr-s . Ann Brinko, 8922 E . Wedgewood, Temple City- Mayor Briggs invited those persons still wishing to speak to come forward, persons being previously sworn in by the City Clerk. Mrs. . Schlotfeldt , who previously indicated she did not wish to speak, stated that she now wished to speak and was -sworn in by the City Clerk. She inquired . if aid for relocation of her tenant would be available and was .advised ghat this would be so. In regard to purchase of her pro- perty, she -was advised that the special ruling of the Internal Revenue Service would not require her to pay a capital gains tax if she rein- vests .wi th i n the next two years when you -sel l to an Agency ,under threat of condemnation . Relocation of a home rental and an office would be treated as separate units for relocating . Mrs . Ann Brinko, 8922 Wedgewood, inquired if it would be possible to e relocated in the same general area so there would be less disruption as .to .school district, etc . , and if relocated would there be any guar- antee that property taxes will not be increased because of the Redevelop- ment Plan . Legal Counsel Jacobs advised that the project area would have no impact on the property tax bill , but that if relocation were .to take place in near proximity to the development, there may be an increase in the valuation of theproperty . Relocation would take place An the best interest as may be possible for the owner and/or tenant . Counc i 1 Kim,ute.s , May 2, 1972, - Page 12 Al 'Nu°namaker , 9820 Workman , discussed the most favorable features of the City and stated that he felt that it would be in the best interest of the City in general to proceed with the Redevelopment Plan as set forth . He stated that bringing more business to the community generally stimulates the business already there , and did not feel the central City businessmen would be hurt by the develop- ment , Dr . William Berck, Superintendent of Schools , San Gabriel School District, inquired as to the anticipated duration of the project in terms of revenues . Legal Counsel Jacobs advised that if parcels A, D, E and C did not particularly develop or change their property :values in .the forseeable future .and some kind of neighborhood shopping center 'be put in Area B in the forseeable future , the increase in property taxes might have to be held for 20 years, but .if there is a development in Areas E and C on their own and an increase in pro- perty taxes , it .might be brought down as low as five to ten years , depending on how :it came about . Dr . Berck was advised that informa- tion .as to assessed valuation for the project area would be mailed to him. In regard to Areas A, C, E and D, Mr . Jacobs , advised that if we assume a loss of $1 million had to be made up, and that amount of money had to be borrowed, it would take a considerable period of time, but if there could be immediate development that would increase the .assessed valuation then to take care of the $1 million, it would l .- - -not take -another million to pay it off, perhaps only 1 /2 million , and .. . that getting .the flow over a ten-year period would cut down the dollar outflow. Dr . Berck further inquired as to the effect of present efforts of tax reform. Mr . Jacobs advised that if the Watson initiative went into effect , on the average the best that could be taken out would be $7 . 50 per. hundred and there would be a much more difficult pro- blem as far as making Area B go on its own . If the Watson initiative became law, it could not be done on its own , butH4,- that happened, instead of paying off in 5 to 10 years , it may take 20 years . Other programs of impact to school districts , such as the Serrano decision , would take property taxes off residential , then basically there would be no residential and therefore no impact . There would still be some sort of property tax , and it would have to be readjusted and reprojected. He stated further that there is no question but that if these go into effect .and jeopardize the school funds, Sacramento wi l l have to reform taxes , that where bonds are jeopardized, . t.ax committees suggest the kind of trade- in bills to -allow them to come f_ i:n with appropriate subsidies ; and where the bonds have not yet been issued, or yet adopted, there would be a different -problem. William Rihn , Member and Acting President of the San Gabriel School District Governing Board, stated that assessed .valuations . tend to increase on .the average .year by year , and inquired that .when you hold the assessed valuation in this particular area at the same . level for 20 years , and the net revenue would then .be fixed for that particular area , is there any provision that the school district can tend to keep its revenues for this .area more in line with the rest of the school district? Legal Counsel Jacobs advised that most of the methods proposed would not jeopardize school districts . He suggested that a study be made of the area to determine the pupil load since the loss of residential would remove a -substantial number of pupils , and this number that would be taken off would more than offset the tax or assessment . That further , in most areas not . living up to the economic potential , the rate of decline increases , so there is no assurance that . inflation would cause an increase . He stated that he .was sure an economic study would show no jeopardy. Mrs . Lola Stevens , 3845 Rosemead Boulevard, inquired as to what plans were for development of the C area . She was advised that if the Redevelopment Plan were adopted it would have to go retail -- general commercial , and you could not go to multiple residential in the future . Council Minutes , May 2, 1972 - Page 13 Bruce Bibbee, 9665 E. Sparklett , inquired that if bonds were amort.i.zed over..-.a 20-year period of t i me, :.wi,l 1: they be generating this property tax over the 20-year period? Legal Counsel Jacobs advised that they would, and in addition the increased sales tax will not be committed to the -bonds . Kyle Stevens , 9434 E . Lemon , had not previously indicated he wished to speek, . stated that he now wished to do so, and was swoirn in by . the City Clerk, He stated that he had come to a definite conclusion from the testimony presented as favoring the project and commended the Council for the effort in helping the development in Temple City . ..Mrs . Stevens , 9434 E . Lemon, also wishing to speak and being sworn in by the City Clerk, inquired if the Redevelopment Project has any way .of knowing at this time as to what will go into the development as she was aware of a •store owner presently looking for a location . She was advised to have such person contact the staff so that this . information will be available when negotiations are being entered - into. Inquiries from the floor included a question as to how the future freeway would affect the development . Legal Counsel Jacobs advised that the proposed freeway would not go through the development , i but near , as it is proposed, and that once .a new development is in , it would not be taken for freeway purpose. Another inquiry included whether there :was any .way that the Agency could price itself right out of the market . Legal Counsel Jacobs advised, yes , that this was possible if the land cost too much , but on the other hand, there could be a great net loss if other areas .were developed sooner . The ques t:i on of relocation of the Sher i ff 's -.a_ tat,con was answered that there •was no consideration of that at this time . Matt English , Manager of the Temple City Chamber of Commerce, asked to speak and was sworn in by the City Clerk. He stated that the rr meeting had been very enlightening , and that the Chamber of Commerce . has traditionally worked with the City for the betterment of the community. No one else desired to speak on the Redevelopment Plan . Councilman Merritt moved to close the Public Hearing , seconded by Councilman Gilbertson and unanimously carried. Councilman ,Gilbertson inquired as . to the reference to sale of personal property i nd i Gated -i n .the report . He was_ advised that this . statement. was . included to allow for the consideration of fixtures , etc . , .where there is a question of whether property . is . real or personal , but that there was no power of eminent domain on personal property, as such . Councilman Gilbertson stated that in the previous year he had held 2.8 separate :sessions with developers , bonding agencies , and the like, reviewing this particular area . He stated that this area -ha.d .been considered vital to the future development of the City . One of the major factors that has .had to be considered is that .no matter how much we m:ight �like development somewhere else, if there is going to be a development it has to go where the developer wishes it, since .he is dictated by the people who will put in the stores and finance the project . He stated that there is really no way -to compensate people who have to give up their homes , that it cannot : be put . in dollars and cents. ; however that the Council has the obligation to do those things .which they consider necessary for the best :interest of the City . Legal Council Jacobs discussed the contents of the letter that h.ad been received from Dr . William Walker , in that it set forth concisely the things about which the Agency must concern itself . He stated that the issues set forth are all reasonable things and would be looked at , that . it was a rather lengthy and well -written letter . l f i Council Minutes , May 2, 1972 - Page 14 Councilman Gilbertson moved that the Community Redevelopment Agency approve the plan , and that Ordinance No. 72-350, entitled AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF TEMPLE CITY , CALIFORNIA, APPROVING AND ADOPTING THE ' ! REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE ROSEMEAD BOULEVARD REDEVELOPMENT .P'ROJECT be placed on �first reading by title only. The motion was .seconded by Councilman Tyrell , In discussion , Councilman Tyrell' Stated that this project is not a panacea to all the problems that we have in the City, but is .a step "foward the solution . He stated further that the consideration we are attempting to give to those people who -in one manner or another may ,be displaced is no panacea to them either, that they will suffer personal pain and some . hardship . Howev.er it is hoped that we can .resolve these matters and every attempt be made to be fair . He stated that he felt this was the best decision that could be made A n the best Interest as a whole for the City, not .any one section ; and the result will be a much .better , more functional City . Councilman Merritt con- curred .with Councilman Tyrel 1 's remarks and stated further ghat he did not feel the development will be a problem for the present owners since every consideration will . be given . Councilman Dennis stated that in the Council ' s concern with both the business community and the residents , special emphas°is would be given to the problem of relocation to make sure that everyone is treated fairly and equitably. Mayor Briggs .stated that he too was in total agreement with the remarks of the other Councilmen, that many hours an.d serious consideration ,had been given .to the Redevelopment Plan . He stated that the problems that Mill be faced .by future Councils and residents of this community hope- fully "will be less troublesome because of this effort , and that he could see n.o other way to move ahead in a development project , except the development of this .-area . Councilman Merritt stated that he would like to express his appreciation for the fine way in which the audience had participated throughout .the long evening . On call for . the question, City Attorney Martin restated the motion for first reading of Ordinance No. 72-350, and to waive further reading . A roll call vote .was taken and the motion carried unanimously . The Community Redevelopment Agency, by informal agreement , amended the agreement with the City Council dated December 7, 1971 , to ask for , receive and reimburse the City for additional loan .of $2, 200, tofund the agreement with Special Counsel Eugene Jacobs , all payable .as set forth in the original agreement . TENTAT IV_t' -TRACT MA.P No. 30403 : While this item was .the last item considered .for -the evening , it is reported in full in its proper sequence .. . 24. ADJOURNME-NT : Following the last item of business , the time being 12 : 06 ,a .m. , Wednesday, May 3 , 1972, on motion of Councilman Tyrell , seconded. by Counc.-iilman Merritt , and,:�dnanrbously carried, the meeting was ,adjour-ned'. Next regular meeting of the Council wi l l be held on Tues - day May 16, 1972, at .7 : 30 p .m. in the Council Chambers of the City Hall . - MAYOR' . ell�- A TEST i e Deputy'-',City C"Lerk � �� _ � A 1 {. � r__ ;l � - �,,.. , ., a, _ .r ` Jr ..J , f `..+� „� � � i ���^' ,� ',J ` r .. � �r , nr _ A:'