HomeMy Public PortalAboutCity Council_Minutes_1986-02-18_Regular 1986CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
CITY COUNCIL
MINUTES
FEBRUARY 18, 1936
IINITIATION:
1. CALL TO ORDER:
Mayor Dennis called the regular meeting of the City Council to
order at 7:35 p.m., Tuesday, February 18, 1986, in the Council
Chambers.
2. The invocation was given by Rabbi Alan Lachtman, Temple Beth
David, 9677 Longden Avenue.
3. The Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag was led by Mayor Dennis.
4. ROLL CALL:
Present:
Absent:
Also Present:
Councilmen- Atkins, Froehle, Gillanders, Swain,
Dennis
Councilmen -None
City Manager Koski, City Attorney Martin, Planning
Director Shaw, Parks and Recreation Director
Kobett and Julie Estrada of the Temple City Times
5. CONSENT CALENDAR:
Mayor Dennis requested that item C. Planning Commission Action -
Meeting of February 5, 1986 be withdrawn for discussion.
Councilman Gillanders moved to approve all items as recommended
on the Consent Calendar with the exception of item C., seconded by
Councilman Atkins and unanimously carried.
A. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - Regular Meeting of February 4, 1986
Approved as written with Councilman Swain abstaining.
B. RECONNENDATIONS FROM; TRAFFIC COITh1ISSION MEETING OF FEBRUARY 5,
1986
(1) LIVE OAK AVENUE - RED CURB REMOVAL
City Council approved of the removal of 25 feet of red
curb to allow parking for the resident who presently has
nD on- street parking on either side of his corner lot
located at 5702 Temple City Boulevard.
(2) 4943 ENCINITA AVENUE - RED CURB
City Council approved the placement of red curb 3 feet
south of the south curb line of La Rosa Drive and 15
feet south of the south curb line of the same street in
order to provide visibility and access to the property
located at 4943 Encinita Avenue.
D. ACCEPTANCE OF WORK - PAXIN ELECTRIC, INC. - STREET LIGHT CON-
VERSION, PHASE V
Council accepted the work performed on Phase V of the Street
Light Conversion; project located on portions of the City -
owned system bounded by Golden West, Garibaldi, Baldwin and
Live Oak and also' by El Monte Avenue, Freer, McCulloch and
Daneswood; and authorized filing Notice of Completion and
release of the 1O7 retention at the end of the 35 -day lien
period.
`` i 8
Council Minutes, February 18, 1986 - Page 2
1c
E. CLAIM FOR DAMAGES: CAROL RANKIN
Council denied claim and referred it to Southern California
Joint Powers Insurance Authority.
F. RESOLUTION NO. 86 -2414: WARRANTS AND DEMANDS
Council adopted Resolution to pay bills.
C. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION - MEETING OF FEBRUARY 11, 1986
Mayor Dennis recommended that the decision of the Planning
Commission approving a request for a Conditional Use Permit
to allow a 1,650 square foot take -out restaurant (Domino's
Pizza) in an existing building located at 9570 Las Tunas
Drive be appealed by the City Council. He felt that the
Downtown Revitalization Committee's study should be con-
sidered in this matter.
1
Councilman Atkins moved to appeal the decision of the Planning
Commission and called for a Public Hearing at the March 4
City Council meeting, seconded by Councilman Swain and unani-
mously carried.
6. UNFINISHED BUSINESS:
A. IMPROVED SERVICES AND FACILITIES- DIAL -A -RIDE SERVICE; AND
IMPROVEMENTS TO LIVE OAK PARK
City Manager Koski directed Council's attention to a staff
memo regarding a proposal presently being drain up by Com-
munity Transit Service, Inc. for a full Dial- abRide service
for Temple City including vehicles, personnel, facilities,
maintenance, fuel, supplies, training and instr•ance. Include
in the same memo is an up -date of how funds would be spent
should Temple City receive the $135,154 State Grant Fund
applied for.
Councilman Atkins moved to direct staff to obtain a formal
proposal for a Dial -a -Ride Service by the City Council's
March 4 meeting, seconded by Councilman Gillanders and unani-
mously carried.
Councilman Gillanders moved to receive and file the staff
memo regarding Dial -a -Ride Service, and. Improvements to Live
Oak Park dated February 18, 1986, seconded by Councilman
Froehle and unanimously carried.
B. ESTATE OF GERALD FITZGERALD
City Attorney Martin stated that the estate oj Gerald Fitz-
Gerald was turned over to attorneys Francis 'Zelton and
David Lich to probate. Mr. FitzGerald left certain property
in trust with the City for the benefit of underprivileged
children in the community. The estate has new been completed
as to probate and Council is now being asked,to approve the
final accounting and distribution, and to e:t_ahlish the
guidlines and authorize the three 1:rustees ta pi :oceed.
Rabbi Lachtman, one of three administrators Df t`.ie estate,
advised that he and the other two .:.dministrEltors last year
had agreed that it would probably I.e wise to: use the interest
rather than invading the principal.
David Lich advised that the only stipulation Mr. FitzGerald
had made in his will was that the money be 'used for under-
privileged children in the communir:y regardless of race, color
or creed for education and a bettea life. It would be up to
the City Council to adopt the parameters within the restric-
tions by which the three clergymen as administrators will
admin F :r°r.i.ng the funds. The clergymei , Revp: rend Barry Vail of
B. thera rend Robert. Maechler of St.
Council Minutes, February 18, 1986 - Page 3
Luke's Catholic Church, and Rabbi Alan Lachtman of Temple.
Beth David, will carry out the instructions of the City
Council.
Councilman Froehle inquired if there were any administrative
costs involved.
Mr. Lich responded that he had recommended the retention of
an accountant as necessary and an attorney as necessary.
Other than that, there would not be any costs incurred by
the trust on an on -going basis.
Councilman Gillanders moved to approve the final account
and the parameters or guidelines as outlined by David Lich
in his letter dated February 3; to indicate to the Court
that it will adminster the trust in the fashion set forth;
and further that any disbursement of funds be approved by
the City Manager to insure compliance with the provisions
of the trust, seconded by Councilman Atkins and unanimously
carried.
C CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF A CHANGE
OF ZONE FROM C -1 TO C -1 -0 FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 5909 - 5927
CLOVERLY AVENUE (LUMBERYARD); APPLICANT /OWNER: HARRY SAGHEB
City Manager Koski stated that at their regular meeting of
January 14, 1986, the Planning Commission approved and recom-
mended that the City Council approve a request for change of
zone from C -1, limited commercial, to C -1 -0, limited commer-
cial and office zone, for property located at 5909 -5927
Cloverly Avenue. A change of zone to C -1 -0 would allow
business and professional office type uses in addition to
the retail sales uses already. allowed. The Commission found
the change of zone appropriate as the new zone maintained
the integrity of the existing C -1 zoned areas while providing
some flexibility to an area which has no frontage on Las Tunas
Drive. A Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact has
been filed. At the City Council meeting of February 4 the
item was continued so that the request could be acted upon by
a full Council.
Councilman Swain stated that she had familiarized herself
with all pertinent background information on the matter and
felt qualified to vote on the issue.
City, Attorney Martin inquired if any member of the audience
had any objection to allowing Councilman Swain to partici-
pate in the decision on this matter. Hearing no objections,
Councilman Swain was deemed rehabilitated and allowed to par-
ticipate in the decision on this matter.
Mayor Dennis declared the public hearing open and invited
anyone wishing to speak to come forward.
There being no one wishing to address Council, Councilman
Gill`anders moved to close the public hearing, seconded by
Councilman Atkins and unanimously carried.
Councilman Swain stated that the buildings in the area of
the Lumberyard do not receive visibility from the main thorough-
fare and are, therefore, not utilized well as totally retail,
walk -in type of businesses. They are also very small and well
adapted to office use. A C -2 zone, in Councilman Swain's
opinion, would be too broad.
Other Councilmembers' comments are on record in the City
Council Minutes of February 4.
City Attorney Martin introduced Ordinance No. 86 -582, AN
ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
APPROVING,A ZONE CHANGE FROM C -1 TO C -1 -0 IN CASE NO. 85 -766,
for first reading by title only.
F; 1.80
Council Minutes, February 18, 1986 - Page
Councilman Swain moved to certify the Negative Declaration
of Environmental Impact and to waive further reading of the
Ordinance, seconded by Councilman Froehle and carried on a
roll call vote.
ROLL CALL:
AYES: Councilmen - Froehle, Swain, Dennis
NOES: Councilmen- Atkins, Gillanders
There was no objection to waive reading of the Ordinance in
full.
D. PUBLIC HEARING: APPEAL OF THE DECISION OF THE PLANNING COM-
MISSION DENYING REQUEST FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW
A 15 -UNIT RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUM AT 9547 -9549 GARIBALDI;
APPELLANT: LOUIS AND JOSEPHINE PIEROTTI
1... „1, 7.9
City Manager Koski stated that on October 1, 1985, City
Council opened public hearing, heard testimony and continued
the public hearing so that a supplemental Environmental Impact
Report addressing issues of traffic, water supply, and impact
on value of adjacent properties could be prepared.
Councilman Atkins moved to include and make a part of the
records of the public hearing all items identified as Exhibit
"E" which include the Minutes of a Neighborhood Meeting held
regarding the proposed Pierotti condos; letter regarding the
appeal of CUP denial signed by Christopher Kidd, Rafael Sus -
nowitz, Pete Weiss and Ron Waggner; letter of opposition
from Mr. and Mrs. Maddox; and another letter of opposition
from Mr. and Mrs. Hollinger, seconded by Councilman Gillanders
and unanimously carried.
James Helms, 150 North Santa Anita Avenue, Arcadia 91006,
stated that the new Environmental Impact Report indicates a
negative impact on the traffic flow in the area and the water
supply system, two items of concern by the Council at the last
public hearing. The third item of concern, that of the finan-
cial impact on the surrounding area, was addressed as having
both a positive and a negative effect in the EIR. The EIR
also indicated that if certain changes are made in the pro-
posed development, the negative impact could be lessened sub-
stantially and could even be turned into a favorable impact.
After discussions with the owners and their architect, it was
their desire to have a continuance of 90 days in which to
make major changes in the design of the development.
Mayor Dennis advised Mr. Helms that, should major changes be
made in the proposed development, the new design would have
to go back to the Planning Commission for review.
Mr. Helms did not feel that the changes proposed would be to
the extent that would require going through the Planning
Commission.
Councilman Swain inquired of Mr. Helms if the major change he
referred to was a substantial decrease in the number of units
or a substantial decrease in height.
Mr. Helms responded that stair - stepping the property back
from the street was being considered and a reduction of units
per acre, although it had not yet been determined how much of
a reduction in units would be made.
City Attorney Martin addressed Mr. Helms in order to clarify
the situation and the position of the appellant as it presently
exists. Mr. Helms is not willing to state any definite changes
in the development; the application as it presently stands is
for a 15 -unit development; substantial changes in any develop-
ment must go back to the Planning Commission pursuant to City
policy; if the changes are not substantial, then there is no
need to go hack to the Planning Commission nor is it necessary
Council Minutes, February 18, 1986 - Page 5
to ask for a 90 -day continuance; and the word "substantial"
is ambiguous and needs clarification. If Mr. Helms is not
willing at this time to define what changes will be made in
the development, City Attorney Martin stated that he would
counsel City Council to then make a decision on the proposed
15 -unit condominium presently before them.
Mayor Dennis stated he would like to hear those who came this
evening to speak to the issue and make a decision on the pro-
posal as it presently stands, and at this time called upon
those in the audience who wished to address the Council.
Ed Drown, 6108 North Loma, inquired if the developer had any
recourse to legally force the City to allow the development
since it appeared that Mr. Helms had conveyed that impression.
City Attorney Martin responded that Mr. Helms had implied
that; but, as with any lawsuit, the concept of the rights
differ. Mr. Helms' concept may differ with the concept of
rights of the City.
Pete Weiss, 6119 North Oak, quoted from the City's require-
ments for a Conditional Use Permit, "the proposed use will
not have an adverse effect on the use, enjoyment or valuation
of adjacent property ". According to the EIR, 11 properties
to the north and west, which are R -1, will be negatively
impacted by the development as it is presently designed.
It was Mr. Weiss' opinion that it is the obligation of the
appellant to prove that the development will not invade the
rights of the property owners.
Ron Waggner, 6128 Primrose Avenue, read a letter from Virgil
Graf opposing the development,. and then Mr. Waggner submitted
it to the Council for their records. He then went on to address
the issue of traffic, stating that neither EIR foretells what
specifically will happen to traffic on Garibaldi Avenue. In
1984 a traffic survey indicated that the average daily traffic
on Garibaldi was 1,660 vehicles, whereas a 1976 survey showed
2,000 vehicles. The number of vehicles travelling Garibaldi
during the morning peak hour, from 8:00 - 9:00 a.m., is 121,
and the afternoon peak hour, 5:00 - 6:00 p.m. is 146. The
video Mr. Waggner took of the same street traffic between
8:00 - 9:00 a.m. for 20 minutes showed 105 vehicles. Based on
increased traffic, flow patterns and increased density, it
was Mr. Waggner's opinion that Garibaldi would be adversely
affected. In light of the two new higher density condomini-
ums on Primrose between Woodruff and Garibaldi, in addition
to the proposed 15 -unit condominium, traffic would definitely
be impacted. Since the proposed project is under a Condi-
tional Use Permit, the Council has the authority and the
responsibility to enact limitations to prevent adverse impact
from occurring.
Jerry Carroll, 6109 North Primrose Avenue, expressed concern
about the East Pasadena Water Company supplying sufficient
water pressure for fire protection. He quoted from page 6 -18,
item #14 in Findings of Fact from the report for the Homeowners
for Water Rights by Brown & Caldwell, indicating that the water
company was unable to supply sufficient water for fire flow
and is unable to up -grade their facilities to a currently
acceptable level in a reasonable period of time. Mr. Carroll also
requested clarification of "potential fire access conflict ".
Planning Director Shaw indicated that a fire hydrant was
installed in 1979 across the street from the proposed devel-
opment when an 18 -unit subdivision had been approved at that
location. This hydrant is not - serviced by East Pasadena, but
rather the Sunnyslope Water Company and in 1979 met fire flow
requirements.
. '1.78
Council Minutes, February 18_, 1986 - Page 6
Councilman Swain directed a question to Planning Director
Shaw, inquiring if the company who prepared the EIR was aware
of the City's requirement for fire sprinklers in garages and
if that issue was addressed when preparing the EIR.
John Bassman, D.G. King Associates * Planners, 10722 Arrow
Route, Suite 616, Rancho Cucamonga, stated that the correspon-
dence from the East Pasadena Water Company, which Council is
in possession of, is in response to whether the water compan
could provide water for the project as it now stands with 15
condominiums and does not include provision for fire sprink-
lers. Mr. Bassman did, however, receive a verbal confirma-
tion that the water company could also provide the water pres-
sure requirement for fire flow. In response to clarifying
reference to fire access conflict, it was explained that in
the rear of the property there was not adequate clearance for
the double pumper required by the Fire Department due to the
design of the complex.
Councilman Froehle asked if it was customary when preparing
an EIR to accept the word of the water company without any
written verification or testing.
Donald G. King, principal of D.G. King Associates ;, Planners,
responded to Council that it is customary when preparing an
EIR to take the word of the technical staff of a service -
providing agency when it is in writing.
Chris Kidd, 6038 North Cloverly Avenue, stated that he, along
with most of his neighbors in attendance, would prefer to see
Mr. Pierotti revise his design of the condominiums and be re-
quired to take the changes back to the Planning Commission.
Carla Carroll, 6109 North Primrose Avenue, stated that it was
important that Council be aware that, since the installation
of the traffic signal at Temple City Boulevard and Woodruff,
Garibaldi is being used a great deal to avoid excess stopping
since between Temple City Boulevard and Rosemead there is only
one stop sign, which is located at Oak Avenue. With increased
use of Garibaldi since the street light installation coupled
with the proposed 15 -unit condominium, traffic will become
even greater and more of a hazard.
In rebuttal, Mr. Helms said that the appellant shares the same
concerns as the neighbors expressed in that development of the
property should be something that is compatible with the neigh-
borhood and compatible with the uses that the City perceives
for that particular property, which is zoned for the type of
use proposed by the Periotti's. The City has approved a simi-
lar project in the past. It was the appellant's desire that
the City Council, would grant a 90 -day continuance in order to
allow sufficient time to make significant changes.
Mayor Dennis asked for a short recess in order for him to re-
view some questions with City Attorney Martin. There being no
objections, Mayor Dennis recessed the hearing at 8:55 p.m.
At 9:05 p.m. Mayor Dennis reconvened the hearing.
Councilman Gillanders moved to close the public hearing,
seconded by Councilman Atkins and unanimously carried.
Mayor Dennis advised that three choices were available to the
Council: one would be to approve the project as submitted;
second to deny the project as submitted; and the third choice
would be to continue the matter for 90 days.
Council Minutes, February 18, 1986 - Page 7
Councilman. Atkins commended the EIR for its fairness in point-
ing out both the good and bad aspects of the proposed develop-
ment. He did not feel that the traffic would be greatly
affected adversely; was concerned about the water company
being able to supply the building adequately and meet the
fire standards; and was deeply concerned about the impact of
such a large development on the surrounding residents. IIe
would vote against the development of a 15 -unit condominium
in that particular area, and would recommend that the appli-
cant change the proposed design to a lesser density and return
to the Planning Commission for approval.
Councilman Froehle reiterated Councilman Atkins' concerns and
was especially concerned about the impact of the development
on the surrounding properties. Due to the fact that the
development is located mid- block, it will impact a great num-
ber of properties adversely. He also suggested that the
developer consider a different plan.
Councilman Swain stated that there is a need for condominiums;
however, a 15 -unit condominium which butts up to an R -1 zone
is vastly too great as voiced by the residents of the City
on numerous occasions. Those items of concern indicated in
the EIR were concerns raised by the residents.
Councilman Gillanders felt the water was of great concern to
a development of this size in the area where it is located;
and the fire access in the rear of the complex raised a definite
hazard to the safety of the residents.
Mayor Dennis expressed his concern for the property rights of
individuals - - both the rights of the developer and the neigh-
bors to the proposed development. The design of the develop-
ment as it presently exists would adversely affect the resi-
dents. A significant change in design would need to be made
in order for the development to be acceptable; and a signifi-
cant change would require that the proposal go back to the
Planning Commission for approval.
Councilman Gillanders moved to deny the Conditional Use Permit
as applied for, namely 15 units, on the basis as set forth
in the Planning Commission Resolution No. 85- 1201PC and for
further reasons developed during the public hearing and recitals
of each of the individual Councilmen, and as suggested in the
supplemental EIR as follows:
1. Traffic - The cumulative impact of increased traffic flow
generated by approvals of other condominiums already in
the area and the fact that there are no stops on Gari-
baldi for a substantial distance resulting in not only
increased flow of traffic, but increased speed.
2. Water - Due to the many problems experienced with water
pressure in this area, the danger of inadequate water flow
and pressure to ensure adequate fire safety with regard to
hydrant and sprinkler flow has not been proven at this
point.
3. Fire Access - Inadequate fire access on page 11 of the
supplemental EIR indicates there could be a problem for
access of fire vehicles to the rear of the property.
4. Aesthetics - There would be visual clutter which would be
overwhelming to the residential area by reason of bulk,
height and massive fascade interfering with the enjoyment,
sight, sound and valuation of the surrounding properties
in the midst of an R -1 zone.
15 1.7g
Council Minutes, February 18, 1986 - Page 8
This denial is made without prejudice to any other application
which may be filed with a lesser number or less impact to the
neighborhood and in order to exhaust his administrative remedy,
those should be applied for, and adjudged by the Planning Com-
mission. The motion made by Councilman Gillanders was secon-
ded by Councilman Atkins and unanimously carried.
7. NEW BUSINESS:
A. APPROVAL OF FINAL MAP, TRACT NO. 43790, TO ALLOW DEVELOPMENT
OF FIVE -UNIT RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUM LOCATED AT 9626 LONGDEN
AVENUE; APPLICANT: DR. ADEL MOUFARREJ
City Manager Koski advised that the City has been advised by
the County of Los Angeles Department of Public Works that the
map for Tract 43790 has been checked by the City Engineer and
is ready for your approval and acceptance of the Dedication
shown thereon. The Conditions, Covenants and Restrictions
(CC & R's) have been reviewed by the Planning staff and
City Attorney Martin, and they were found to be acceptable.
Councilman Atkins moved to approve the CC.& R's and Final Map
of Tract No. 43790; make findings as enumerated in staff memo
dated February 10, 1986; and instruct the City Clerk to endorse
on the face of the Map of Tract No.. 43790 the certificate
which embodies the approval of said Map, seconded by Council-
man Swain and unanimously carried.
B. PUBLIC HEARING: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT FUNDS
FY 1986 -87 GOALS AND OBJECTIVES, AND PROPOSED USE OF FUNDS
City Manager Koski stated that the Los Angeles County Com-
munity Development Commission has informed the City that the
estimated grant for Temple City for fiscal year 1986 -37 is
$151,138. The proposed CDBG budget provides $145,138 for
commercial redevelopment in the Rosemead Boulevard Redevelop-
ment Project, and $6,000 for planning and administration of
the CDBG Program. In addition, funds not expended from this
year will be reallocated to assist in the completion of these
projects.
Mayor Dennis declared the public hearing open and invited
anyone wishing to speak to the issue to come forward.
There being no one wishing to address Council, Councilman
Gillanders moved to close the public hearing, seconded by
Councilman Atkins and unanimously carried.
Councilman Atkins moved to adopt the goals and objectives of
the Community Development Block Grant Program and the uses of
the CDBG funds as proposed in staff memo dated February 12,
1986, seconded by Councilman Gillanders and unanimously car-
ried.
8. COMMUNICATIONS:
None
9 TIME FOR THOSE IN THE AUDIENCE WHO WISH TO SPEAK:
Bill Mabb, 6213 North Cloverly Avenue stated that tonight was his
first Council meeting and, he enjoyed—it. very much. 'Mr. Mabb in-
quired about the permanent "No Parking" signs on the north side ,of
Wendon Way during school, hours which were approved at the Council's
December 17 meeting. He had a suggestion of instituting one -way
traffic in the area of Longden School in order to eleviate traffic
conjestion during the time children are picked up or dropped off
at school. Another suggestion Mr. Mabb, had was that sidewalks in
that same area would keep the children off the road.
1.5 l
Council Minutes, February 18, 1986 - Page 9
RECESS TO CRA:
At this time Council recessed to meet as the Temple City Com-
munity Redevelopment Agency; approved the Minutes of the regular
meeting of February 4, 1986; adopted amended Resolution CRA 253;
approved signage and awning for C.& R Clothiers; approved signage
for Exxon Corporation; adopted Resolution CRA 263; and approved
employing the services of Port and Flor for relocation services
within Block "A ".
10. ACTION ON REQUEST BY CRA:
None
11. MATTERS FROM CITY OFFICIALS:
A. CAMELLIA FESTIVAL "BEST WISHES" - HAWKESBURY SHIRE
City Manager Koski read a telegram sent to the community
of Temple City conveying Hawkesbury Shire's best wishes
for the Camellia Festival. •
B. TRAFFIC SIGNAL STUDY
City Manager Koski advised Council that staff has received
two traffic signal proposals, one from Willdan Associates
and one from Barton- Aschman Associates, which was provided
each Councilman this evening.
Council concurred that this item should appear on the next
Council Agenda for the March 4 meeting.
C. PERSONNEL RECOMMENDATION RECLASSIFICATION OF FINANCE CLERK
POSITION TO ACCOUNTANT
Councilman Gillanders moved to reclassify the position of
Finance Clerk to Accountant and establish a salary range
for the position at Range No. 54 ($2,224 - $2,347 - $2,475/
month), seconded by Councilman Froehle and unanimously
carried.
D. CITY COUNCIL CHAMBER'S PA SYSTEM
Councilmembers further discussed the needs for modifying
the Council sound system, and requested that staff provide
estimated costs for a sound system comparing the traditional
mike and lapel mike by the March 4 Council meeting.
E. ORDINANCE NO. 85 -579 ORDINANCE AMENDMENT REQUIRING CONDITIONAL
USE PERMIT FOR PROJECTS WITH THREE OR MORE RESIDENTIAL UNITS
PER LOT IN THE R -2, R -3 AND R-4 ZONES
City Attorney Martin advised Council that the fourth clause
of this Ordinance was omitted by the newspaper when it was
recently published. In order to remedy the error, the
Ordinance should at this time be readopted by the Council
and republished by the Temple City Times.
Councilman Gillanders moved to readopt and republish Ordin-
ance No. 85 -579, AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY AMENDING THE ZONING CODE TO REQUIRE A
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR CERTAIN RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENTS,
seconded by Councilman Atkins and unanimously carried.
1.74
Council Minutes, February 13, 1986 - Page 10
12. ADJOURNMENT:
On motion by Councilman Froehle, seconded by Councilman Gil -
landers, the meeting adjourned at 10:35 p.m. Next meeting
of the City Council will be held on Tuesday, March 4, 1986, at
7:30 p.m.
ATTEST:
Chief Dep'tity City lerk