HomeMy Public PortalAboutCity Council_Minutes_1986-07-15_Regular 1986CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
CITY COUNCIL
MINUTES
JULY 15, 1986
INITIATION:
1. CALL TO ORDER:
Mayor Atkins called the regular meeting of the City Council to
order at 7:30 p.m. on Tuesday, July 15, 1986, in the Council
Chamber.
2. The invocation was given by Reverend Norlyn Brough of the Temple
City Church of the Nazarene, 9953 Las Tunas Drive.
3. The Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag was led by Mayor Atkins.
4. ROLL CALL:
Present: Councilmen- Dennis, Froehle, Gillanders, Swain, Atkins
Absent: Councilmen -none
Also Present: City Manager Koski, City Attorney Martin, Planning
Director Shaw, Parks and Recreation Director Kobett,
Public Works Coordinator Peterson and Julie Estrada
of the Temple City Times
PRESENTATION: Mrs. Bee Foxman of the Spiritual Assembly of the
Baha'is of Temple City made a formal presentation to the City
Council of the statement "The Promise of World Peace" as was pre-
sented to President Reagan.
COMMISSION APPOINTMENT AND SWEARING IN: Councilman Swain moved to
appoint Jerry Seibert to fill the vacancy on the Planning Commi-
ssion created by the resignation of Commissioner Robert Stacey,
seconded by Councilman Dennis and carried on a roll call vote.
ROLL CALL
AYES: Councilmen- Dennis, Froehle, Swain, Atkins
NOES: Councilmen - Gillanders
Councilman Gillanders expressed his opposition to the appointment,
stating that he did not favor Mr. Seibert's rigidly held posi-
tions.
Councilmen Dennis, Froehle and Swain as well as Mayor Atkins were
supportive of Mr. Seibert serving on the Planning Commission cit-
ing his experience as being a very positive attribute.
City Manager Koski administered the Oath of Office, and Jerry
Seibert was formally introduced to Councilmembers as a Planning
Commissioner.
5 CONSENT CALENDAR:
Mayor Atkins requested item D.(1) be removed from the Consent
Calendar; Councilman Gillanders requested items B. (2) and'(3)
be removed; and Councilman Froehle requested item F. be removed.
On motion by Councilman Swain, seconded by Councilman Gillanders,
the remaining items on the Consent Calendar were approved as
recommended with Councilmen Dennis and Froehle abstaining on
item A.
A. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - Study Session of June 30 and Regular
Council Meeting of July 1, 1986
Approved as written.
F
Council Minutes, July 15, 1986 - Page 2
B. RECOMMENDATIONS FROM TRAFFIC COMMISSION MEETING - JULY 2, 1986
(1) CLOVERLY AVENUE & PENTLAND STREET - PLACEMENT OF BOULEVARD
STOP
Council concurred with Traffic Commission's recommendation
that Pentland Street and Kennerly Street be stopped at
the east and west approaches to Cloverly Avenue to elimin-
ate a cross traffic conflict.
C. ACCEPTANCE OF WORK - WILSON & HAMPTON, STREET LIGHT POLE
PAINTING
Council accepted the work performed by Wilson & Hampton; author-
ized filing of Notice of Completion, payment of .$7,816.50, and
10% retention at the end of the 35 -day lien period.
D. RECOMMENDATIONS FROM PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF JULY 8,
1986
(2) PROPERTY NUISANCE CASE NO. 86 -146, 6211 ENCINITA AVENUE,
MICHAEL COLLIER — OWNER /NON- RESIDENT
As no appeal was received, Council adopted Resolution No
86 -2455, A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF TEMPLE CITY DECLARING CERTAIN PREMISES TO BE A PUBLIC
NUISANCE AND ORDERING ABATEMENT THEREOF.
(3) PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION
Council received and filed the Planning Commission's
memo relating to action taken at the Commission's meet-
ing of July 8, 1986.
E CLAIM FOR DAMAGES: WILLIAM H. MACK FOR KEVIN MACK, A MINOR
Council denied Claim for Damages and referred the matter
to Southern California Joint Powers Insurance Authority.
G RESOLUTION NO. 86 -2454: ADOPTING THE 1985 EDITION OF STANDARD
SPECIFICATIONS FOR PUBLIC WORKS AND THE 1986 SUPPLEMENT
Council adopted Resolution No. 86 -2454, A RESOLUTION OF THE
CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMPLE CITY ADOPTING THE 1985
EDITION OF THE STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS FOR PUBLIC WORKS CON-
STRUCTION AND THE 1986 SUPPLEMENT.
H. •RESOLUTION NO. 86 -2452: EMPLOYMENT OF PERSONNEL
Council adopted Resolution No. 86 -2452, .a Resolution appoint -
ing budgeted personnel.
I. RESOLUTION NO. 86- 2453: WARRANTS AND DEMANDS
Council adopted Resolution No. 86 -2453, a Resolution approv-
ing the payment of bills.
B. (2). ARDEN DRIVE, LOWER AZUSA ROAD TO OLIVE STREET - TRAFFIC
AND SPEED STUDY
Councilman Gillanders requested that Councilmembers
consider lowering the speed on Arden Drive as he felt
that the speed was excessive for the area.
Councilman Gillanders moved to decreLse the speed on
that portion of Arden Drive presently posted with 35 MPH
to 30 MPH, seconded by Councilman "10thle and carried on
a roll call vote.
ROLL CALL:
AYES: Councilmen - Froehle, Gillanders, Swain
NOES: Councilmen- Dennis, Atkins
1 5 6, ;: d
Council Meeting, July 15, 1986 - Page 3
(3) HALIFAX ROAD, LOWER AZUSA ROAD TO LIVE OAK AVENUE -
TRAFFIC AND SPEED STUDY
Councilman Gillanders moved to approve the recommenda-
tion.of the Traffic Commission that no change in traffic
regulations be made, but that speed enforcement be in-
. creased, seconded by Councilman Swain and unanimously
carried. -
D. (1) PROPERTY NUISANCE CASE NO. 86 -144, 5738 KAUFFMAN AVENUE,
ARTHUR PFALZER - OTNER /RESIDENT
0
Mayor Atkins advised that the applicant has appealed the
Planning Commission decision to the City Council and the
matter is now set for public hearing August 5, 1986.
F. ACCEPTANCE OF PROPOSAL FOR PROFESSIONAL DESIGN SERVICES FOR
TEMPLE'CITY PARK - RECREATION SYSTEMS, INC.
Councilman Froehle concurred with the changes proposed for
Temple City Park, but was concerned about the cost of the
project.
Mayor Atkins advised Councilman Froehle that the cost given
was a preliminary estimate. The project will have to go
through the design process and then an accurate cost estimate
will be prepared by the architect.
Councilman Froehle moved to approve the proposal of Recre-
ation Systems, Inc. pe'r staff memo, seconded by Councilman
Gillanders and unanimously carried.
6. UNFINISHED BUSINESS:
A. PUBLIC HEARING: ORDINANCE NO. 86 -587 (SECOND FADING) RE:
ADOPTION OF THE 1986 LOS ANGELES COUNTY FIRE CODE (TITLE 32)
City Manager Koski stated that the City Council at their
regular meeting of June 17, 1986, introduced Ordinance No.
86 -587 for first reading by title only and set public hearing
for July 15. Notice of the public hearing was published, and
a copy Of the primary Los Angeles County Fire Code and the pro-
posed Ordinance being considered for adoption have been on
file with the City Clerk and available for public inspection.
•The fireworks provisions has been repealed and is not included.
Mayor Atkins declared.the public hearing open and invited
anyone wishing tb address the subject to come forward.
As no one.wished to address Council, Councilman Swain moved
to close the public hearing, seconded by Councilman Froehle
and unanimously carried.
Councilman Gillanders moved to waive further reading and
adopt Ordinance No. 86 -587, AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF
TEMPLE CITY AMENDING ORDINANCE 78 -465 BY ADOPTING BY REFERENCE
THE 1986 LOS ANGELES FIRE CODE WHICH ADOPTS THE 1985 EDITION
OF THE UNIFORM FIRE CODE WITH AMENDMENTS, seconded by Coug,-
.cilman Swain and unanimously carried.
B. PUBLIC HEARING: STREET IMPROVEMENTS - ALESSANDRO AVENUE
BETWEEN OLIVE AND BLACKLEY (Pursuant to Chapter 27, Improve-
ment Act of 1911, Streets and Highways Code)
City Manager Koski advised that Mr. and Mrs. Anthony Piscitelli,
9405 Blackley Street, petitioned neighbors for widening
Alessandro Avenue and installing curbs and gutters along the
east side of Alessandro. The petition requested that the
19 256
Council Minutes, July 15, 1986 - Page 6
Chris Kidd, 6308 North Clover1y Avenue, state he had diffi-
culty understanding the term 'single family dwellings" used
in the presentation delivered by City Manager Koski.
Councilman Swain replied saying that a planned `residential
development is a legal and common terminology of a Planning
Department and of City use. They are individual homes on
individual lots; each person will own their own lot, but
they will have an association and that association is required
by law under the CC.& R's for the maintenance of the streets
and for the maintenance of the front yards.
Sondra Swanson, 4840 Kauffman Avenue, advised that residents
on Kauffman are very concerned about the homes from the
development backing up to the Kauffman Avenue homes. The
residents feel that they've lost their privacy since many of
the homes in the development are less than 15 feet from the
property line. Mrs. Swanson asked that the developer be
requested to redesign the homes backing up to the Kauffman
homes to be single - story, houses.
Councilman Proehle asked Mrs. Swanson if she owned a single -
story home. She replied that she had a two -story home.
Jeretta Boothman, 5217 Golden West, voiced her concern re-
garding a comment made at the Planning .Commission meeting by
Mike Mangana regarding the drainage system on the Owen
property which "barely works ". She was also concerned about
the increased traffic on Golden West and the children playing
in the street.
Pete Weiss, 6119 North Oak Avenue, stated that he was under
the impression along with many residents of the community
that the results of the special election invalidated the
Owen project and was very disappointed to learn that was not
the case.
City. Attorney Martin restated his recollection of the events
which transpired some 20 'months. ago. 'Mrs. Bogle desired to
file a referendum on the Wiegand Development. Mr. Martin
said. he assisted Mrs. Bogle draft the referendum in about
September or October of .1984. .Before she could get her
petition. signed, the second development, that of Owen Con-
struction, came along and Mrs. Bogle returned to Mr. Martin
and asked.what she should do on the Owen development. Mr.
Martin advised Mrs. Bogie that she had three choices: (1)
tie the two together in her mind and hope that the City
Council will tie them together and, if there is & referendum
on one, it "might" be controlling as to the other; (2)
gear up for two referendums and circulate them around the
neighborhood at the same time; (3) still available to the •
residents is an initiative - - if they don't want the road
to go through; if .they don't want the RPD property; get an
initiative and get it back on the ballot. There's no time
limit - - it could have been done anytime in the past 20
months and can still be done. 'Mrs. Bogle proceeded on the
basis of tieing them together, asking Council not to make
the residents do two referendums at the same time causing
two separate elections each costing approximately $8,000.
The City .Council advised Mrs. Bogie that the Council was not
even. certain that she would get the required number of sigma
natures on the first referendum so why should they hold up
the' second development. Regarding the Owen property, Owen
puzchased the property from Wiegand and dedicated the street
themselves since Weigand's.tract was dead through the refer -
endum.
3
Council Minutes, July 15, 1986 - Page 5
Councilman Gillanders asked if the street names of Cotton-
wood Lane and.Briarwood Court could still be changed to
Windsor Lane and Richmond Court representing the principal
cities in Temple City's Sister City of Hawkesbury Shire in
Australia as this would recognize the work and dedication
of the Temple City Sister City Association and the Sister
City in Australia.
Mr. Mangana stated there would be no problem with any change
in street names.
Councilman Froehle asked if composition was to be used for
the roof.
Mr. Mangana advised that tile will be used for the roof.
Tricia Bogle, 5127 Golden Wester stated she was against the
proposed development based upon the density and incompati-
bility to the surrounding neighborhood and the variation
between the lot size and density of R -1 and RPD lots. Mrs.
Bogle expressed concern regarding the formation of the Home-
owners Association and how it would be run along with the
trash pick -up, mail delivery and the cost of the private
street maintenance. She went on to say that,in November of
1984 a referendum was submitted to the City by the voters
against an identical development across the street from the
proposed development and voters upheld the referendum to
maintain the R -1 zone. At the time the referendum was sub-
mitted, the Owen development was in the Tentative Tract Map
approval hearings. Mrs. Bogle stated it was her understand-
ing at that time that a second referendum on the Owen Tract
was not necessary and that she as well as other residents
are prepared to do whatever it takes to see that the will of
those who voted for the referendum is upheld.
David Manning, 5728 Golden West, stated he was against the
development based on the fact that it is over - developed.
La Rosa School, where children from the proposed development
would be going to school, is no longer taking applications
for students. Mr. Manning recommended that, if the develop-
ment is approved, the developer should be required to build
one additional school classroom at La Rosa School to accom-
modate the approximately 20+ children who will be attending
that school.
Mayor Atkins advised Mr, Manning that the rezoning has long
since been approved; the Tentative Map and provisional plan
has been granted and this public hearing now in progress is
for the approval of the Final Tract Map and Precise Plan.
The concerns expressed by Mr. Manning have been debated many
times before the Planning Commission and the City Council.
Councilman Dennis also attempted to clarify the purpose of
the-public hearing, stating that a determination is to be
made if the Final Tract Map and Precise Plan is in substan-
tial compliance with the original map and provisional plan.
The Council, is not considering whether the project is good or
bad since those hearings have already been held.
Rand Ha s, 4901 Golden West, stated that his main concern
was t at the four houses which do not face onto Golden West
do not represent the rest of the neighborhood. It was the
opinion of Mr. Hays that the houses should face Golden West
with the appropriate setbacks.
Council Minutes, July 15, 1986 - Page 6
Chris Kidd, 6308 North Cloverl Avenue, state he had diffi-
culty understanding the term 'single family dwellings" used
in the presentation delivered by City Manager Koski.
Councilman Swain replied saying that a planned residential
development is a legal and common terminology of a Planning
Department and of City use. They are individual homes on
individual lots; each person will own their own lot, but
they will have an association and that association is required
by law under the CC.& R's for the maintenance of the streets
and for the maintenance of the front yards.
Sondra Swanson, 4840 Kauffman Avenue, advised that residents
on Kauffman are very concerned about the homes from the
development backing up to the Kauffman Avenue homes. The
residents feel that they've lost their privacy since many of
the homes in the development are less than 15 feet from the
property line. Mrs. Swanson asked that the developer be
requested to redesign the homes backing up to the Kauffman
homes to be single - story houses.
Councilman Froehle asked Mrs. Swanson if she owned a single -
story home. She replied that she had a two -story home.
Jeretta Boothman, 5217 Golden West, voiced her concern re-
garding a comment made at the Planning Commission meeting by
Mike Mangana regarding the drainage system on the Owen
property which 'barely works ". She was also concerned about
the increased traffic on Golden West and the children playing
in . the street.
Pete Weiss, 6119 North Oak Avenue, stated that he was under
the impression along with many residents of the community
that the results of the special election invalidated the
Owen project and was very disappointed to learn that was not
the case.
City Attorney Martin restated his recollection of the events
which transpired some 20 months ago. Mrs. Bogle desired to
file a referendum on the Wiegand Development. Mr. Martin
said . he assisted Mrs. Bogle draft the referendum in about
September or October of 1984. Before she could get her
petition signed, the second development, that of Owen Con-
struction, came along and Mrs. Bogle returned to Mr. Martin
and asked what she should do on the Owen development. Mr.
Martin. advised Mrs. Bogle that she had three choices: (1)
tie the two together in her mind and hope that the City
Council, will tie them together and, if there is a referendum
on one, it "might" be controlling as to the other; (2)
gear up for two referendums and circulate them around the
neighborhood at the same time; (3) still available to the
residents is an initiative - - if they don't want the road
to go through; if they don't want the RPD property; get an
initiative and get it back on the ballot. There's no time
limit - it .could have been done anytime in the past 20
months and can still be done. Mrs. Bogle proceeded on the
basis of tieing them together, asking Council not to make
the residents do two referendums at the same time causing
two separate elections each costing approximately $8,000.
The City Council advised Mrs. Bogle that the Council was not
even certain that she would get the required number of sig-
natures on the first referendum so why should they hold up
the second development. • Regarding the Owen property, Owen
purchased the property from Wiegand and dedicated the street
themselves since Weigand's tract was dead through the refer-
endum.
1 x 253
Council Minutes, July 15, 1986 - Page 7
Trisha Bogle rebutted that issues # #2 and ! #3 were never
brought to her attention. She stated she was told that
the Council could stop the second development on its own.
It was the Council's choice to table the matter or place
it on the ballot; however, they chose to approve the
development. Mrs. Bogle insisted that she had asked City
Attorney Martin on three occasions and was told the City
Council would not make her "pound sand" - - Council would
either tie the two together or stop it.
City Attorney Martin said that Mrs. Bogle remembered only
one of the three alternatives given her because she heard
only what she wanted to hear because it was the easiest
to deal with.
Mr. Weiss said that the voters should have the opportunity
to decide on this second project since most were under the
impression that the defeat of the second project was
contingent on the first project's defeat. He also felt the
development was too dense and different in character from
its surroundings. Mr. Weiss asked. Council why this develop-
ment could not be held up until the General Plan is approved.
Councilman Swain advised Mr. Weiss that, should a moratorium
be placed into effect, the moratorium would not affect those
developments that are already in progress. Those cannot be
stopped because permission has already been given.
Mike Slemmon, 4929 Golden West Avenue, stated that City
Attorney Martin advised Mrs. Bogle and himself that the
Owen Tentative Tract Map was contingent upon the Weigand
Project.
Mr. Hays contended that due to the purchase by Owen Construc-
tion from Komai of the 30 feet required to dedicate the
street, the meeting presently underway is illegal. He
further stated that Mr. Komai is not allowed to sell part
of his property without first receiving permission.
City Attorney Martin stated Mr. Hays' statement would be
correct if two lots were being created due to the sale;
however, the property purchased is now a street and anyone
can dedicate, the front of their property for a street and
the sale was made on condition of dedication.
Wanda Needham, 4819 Kauffman, asked Council if there is
anything at this time the residents could do in order to
stop this. development.
City Attorney Martin replied that, depending upon what happens
this evening, if the Council approves this development, the
residents would have a very short time to do anything
because Owen Construction would acquire a vested right as
soon as they do anything on the property. Assuming that
the residents could get the Council to continue the matter,
then an initiative to change the General Plan could be taken
out to say that Golden West would not go through. The
referendum at the special election, was not on the General Plan;
nor on Golden West; it was on the Weigand Development rezoning.
Bob Higgins, 5112 Golden West, asked that, since there.seems
to be a discrepancy as to what was said and what was not
said, the tapes be made available to the residents and the
matter continued until tapes are heard.
Council Minutes, July 15, 1986 - Page 8
City Manager Koski advised Mr. Higgins that the Council meet-
ing tapes were available in the City Clerk's Office and would
assist anyone interested in hearing them.
Mayor Atkins advised Mr. Higgins that the conversations
referred to did not take place in the Council Chamber, but
were meetings outside and would not have been taped.
Steven Sefton, 6008 Camellia Avenue, stated that he is
not a resident of the Golden West area, but in his neighbor-
hood they have a similar problem and has found in his
dealings with the City that the Planning Commission and
City Council appear to be combative to the will of the people.
Councilman Gillanders explained to Mr. Sefton that Mayor Atkins
made clear to all that the purpose of the public hearing was to
ascertain that the Tentative Tract Map and the Precise Plan
were the same. He also pointed out that the members of the
Council do not hold one opinion and each votes as his conscience
dictates. The issues brought up this evening during the public
hearing are issues which have been discussed at great length
at previous meetings and had nothing whatsoever to do with the
matter before the Council at the present time.
Councilman Dennis added that the Council is restricted in
the proceedings underway by State law. There are certain
rules and regulations Council is obligated to follow and the
public hearing concerning a Precise Plan and Final Tract Map
is governed by State law.
Mr. Sefton inquired if there were some discrepancies,
ambiguities, and misunderstandings of what was said at the
onset of the project, would it make this final tract map
meeting also have those same problems?
Councilman Dennis asked City Attorney Martin if there is
any impropriety or any possibility that the City has not
followed the procedures that are outlined by State law and
City ordinances.
City Attorney Martin responded saying that we have followed
State law. On the other hand, there's no legal reason why
the decision has to be made tonight. But what good is a
continuance going to do? This tentative map and provisional
plan (rezoning) was approved some 20 months ago, and for
20 months anyone has had the right to bring in a final map
on the tentative map. Nobody has filed an initiative;
nobody has filed a lawsuit. Owen has expended money,
taken out his financing and drawn up his plans and has now
come to the City for approval of his Final Tract Map. On
the face of it, it does comport to the original plan.
Mr. Sefton stated since the City Attorney indicates that
he sees no reason why the matter cannot be delayed, that
Council delay their decision for 60 days to allow the
residents to come up with a solution.
Mr. Martin responded, saying that was not what he said. He
had said the matter can be extended, but saw nothing to be
gained by the delay.
Mr. Sefton stated that there were quite a few people in the
Council Chamber who felt that there was quite a bit to be
gained by a continuance; and, if the will of the people
means something to the Council, then why not give the 60 -day
continuance asked for.
Council Minutes, July 15, 1986 - Page 9
Trisha Bogle advised that she has received several inquiries
from residents wanting to know just what can be done at this
point. She -also mentioned that the petitioners were taken
to court and are willing to go that far again.
Jeretta Boothman stated that the City Council has given the
residents no choices and that the Council has been
representing Owen Construction Company and not the residents
who elected the Councilmembers.
Carla Carroll, 6109 North Primrose Avenue, also requested
that the decision regarding the development be postponed
and inquired as to why it has taken so long for Owen
Construction to dedicate the street; she wanted to know
if it had taken this long for them to find a loophole in
the referendum.
Councilman Swain responded saying that the referendum did
not address the street at all.
Carla Carroll stated that the residents were told that the
referendum as it was written was the only way to fight the
opening of the street and wondered if they were advised
in this manner in order to, allow a loophole for the
developer. She also felt that residents should have been
advised through the newspaper that the City Council at the
public hearing was going to consider the opening of Golden
West.
Mayor Atkins advised Mrs. Carroll that the General Plan
adopted by the City in 1972 showed Golden West as continuing
through to Lower Azusa; therefore, this has been anticipated
for 14 years and is not something that's new.
Sandy Kidd, 6308 Cloverly Avenue, inquired of City Attorney
Martin that, if the City Council approves the Final Tract
Map this evening, what can the residents do.
Mr. Martin responded saying that the time frame in which to
work would have shrunk substantially because, once Owen
Construction breaks ground they will have a vested right
and then there's nothing anyone can do to stop him.
Mike Mangana 'as a rebuttal said that it was unfortunate
that the people are against the development, but that Owen
Construction has done everything required by law. Owen
Construction is of the opinion that this development is in
the best interests of Temple City and would not do anything
that would not be complimentary to the City as the Owens
family have lived in Temple City for so many years, and this
is their City also.
Councilmembers requested Mike Mangana to respond to the
residents inquires regarding the homeowners Association,
mail delivery, drainage problem and street. maintenance.
Mr. Mangana advised that the developer is responsible to
pay the Association dues for the unsold units until the
last unit is sold, at which time the Homeowners. Association
takes over. The money paid by the.developer is placed in
the Association account for the benefit of the homeowners.
A centralized delivery system will be utilized pursuant'to
the new Postal regulations. Mr. Mangana further advised
that presently the drainage is inadequate and that Owen is
putting in a very expensive and effective system which is
designed for a 25 year flood and will not only service the
development but the block of Golden West as well.
Ir
0
Council Minutes, July 15, 1986 - Page 10
As there were no further questions from Council or the
audience, Councilman Gillanders moved to close the public
hearing, seconded by Councilman Froehle and unanimously
carried.
Councilman Dennis asked City Attorney Martin that, if the
City Council were to continue the matter, what options
would the residents have.
Mr. Martin responded saying they could either file a lawsuit
or an initiative to change the General Plan so that Golden
West would, not go through, and these are the same options
they've had for 20 months.
City Manager Koski interjected that this may not stop the
development, as the developer could file a new tract map
with streets off of Lower Azusa Road. The street is not
the issue whether the development goes in or not. He
further went on to say that this development was approved by
the Planning Commission at a noticed hearing a month ago,
and so residents have been aware of the development for
some time. Council has acted in good faith and must now
abide by the law.
Councilman Froehle requested a recess at this time. As
there was no objection voiced, Mayor Atkins recessed the
meeting for five minutes.
At 9:55 p.m. Mayor Atkins reconvened the meeting.
Councilman Gillanders stated that he could see no deviation
in the Final Map from the Tentative Tract Map and, therefore,
would be in favor of approving the Final Map and Precise Plan.
Councilman Froehle stated that the City Council has followed
the procedures required and the matter before the Council
this evening is a Precise Plan and Final Map to allow develop-
ment of a 22 -unit single family residential planned development
and can see no reason why it should not be approved.
Councilman Dennis said he would be in favor of approving
the Precise Plan and Final Tract Map.
Councilman Swain said that she could find no inconsistencies
when comparing the Final Map with the Tentative Tract Map
and the CC & R's contain 75 pages of restrictions by which
the developer must build as well as the many articles that
will govern the development by which the residents will
live. The rules and regulations are tied to the deed and
so any future owners will also be governed.
Mayor Atkins concurred with the other Councilmembers.
Councilman Gillanders moved to make the findings per staff
memo dated July 10, 1986; approve the Conditions, Covenants,
and Restrictions and Final Map; and accept street dedication
and right -of -way, with the change of street names, and
approve the Final Map and Precise Plan; seconded by
Councilman Dennis and unanimously carried.
7. NEW BUSINESS:
A. FORMATION OF UNDERGROUND UTILITY DISTRICT #6 (LIVE OAK PARK)
City Manager Koski stated that the City is proposing an
Underground Utility District #6 to encompass the perimeter
of Live Oak Park an Gracewood and Daines.
Council Minutes, July 15, 1986 - Page 11
Councilman Gillanders moved to accept the City Engineer's
report regarding Underground Utility District No. 6; set
public hearing for August 19; and directed the City Clerk
to cause legal notices to be mailed to property owners in
the affected area and to publish such notice in the newspaper,
seconded by Councilman Swain and unanimously carried.
B. PROPOSED TRAFFIC SIGNAL IMPROVEMENTS RE: TRAFFIC SIGNAL
CONTROL STUDY - WILLDAN ASSOCIATES
City Manager Koski stated that the Traffic Commission at
their July 2 meeting discussed the recommendations for
improvements of the City's traffic signal system as proposed
by Willdan Associates and prioritized the improvements and /or
changes as noted in the staff, memo dated. July 3.
Councilman Gillanders moved to accept the Traffic Signal
Control Study by Willdan Associates and the priority list as
submitted by the Traffic Commission; directed staff to pro-
ceed with implementation of changes in accordance with the
priorities; and authorized staff to investigate various
sources of funding to cover costs of major signal system
improvements, seconded by Councilman Froehle and unanimously
carried.
C. 1986 -87 FAU STREET RESURFACING PROJECT
City Manager Koski advised that the City Council has been
requested to approve an agreement with the County trans-
ferring jurisdiction over certain City streets and assign-
ing available Federal Aid Urban Funds to the County and
requesting the County to design and manage the project for
the City.
Councilman Gillanders moved to make the findings per staff
memo dated July 7 and set public hearing for August 5 re-
garding the removal of street trees, seconded by Councilman
Swain and unanimously carried.
8. COMMUNICATIONS:
None
9. TIME FOR THOSE IN THE AUDIENCE WHO WISH TO SPEAK:
Lucinda Grant, 5434 North El Monte Avenue, Temple City, advised
the City Council that the group of young boys who used to cause
her many problems have now moved, but again she's having prob-
lems getting in and out of the alley near her home.
Judy Burns, 5926 North Hart, Temple City, raised the question
of placing a moratorium on building multiple - family residential
developments.
Councilman Gillanders advised Ms. Burns that the subject will
be coming up later in the meeting.
David Manning, 5728 Golden West, asked Councilman Gillanders
what his view of RPD zoning was.
Councilman Gillanders stated that he was basically against RPD
zoning and that the only one he voted in favor of was the Owen
Development because he felt it was an excellent development
insofar as there was good space utilization, reasonable planning
and the development appears will be an asset to the neighborhood.
1
8
Council Minutes, July 15, 1986 - Page 12
Mr. Manning inquired as to the procedure to be followed in pre-
senting the proposed General Plan to the residents of Temple
City.
Mayor Atkins responded that it is anticipated to take approxi-
mately six to nine months before final approval by the City
Council. The City will be divided into approximately five seg-
ments and each segment will have their own public forum to discuss
the General Plan as it affects their property. Following the
informal meetings, the planning consultant will compile the input
received and make a presentation to the Planning Commission at
which time formal public hearings will take place to fine tune
the information received from residents, City staff and the
planning consultant. What is adopted at the Planning Commission
level is then presented to the City Council for adoption.
Mr. Manning said that he was under the impression that there
would have to be public hearings before the Traffic Commission,
Planning Commission and the City Council before any development
on a particular parcel of land in the City could occur, and he
has discovered that this is not the case.
City Attorney Martin explained to Mr. Manning that, when speak-
ing about the General Plan, before the General Plan can be
changed there does have to be a hearing before the Planning Com-
mission and a hearing before the City Council. Concerning devel-
opment of individual parcels of land, that development may or may
not require a public hearing.
The reason for Mr. Manning asking this particular question, he
stated, was because he was told that nothing more could happen
on the Owen Development without public hearings and, for some
reason, did not feel these public hearings were actually held.
City Attorney Martin advised Mr. Manning that what was told him
did occur in that there was a public hearing before the Planning
Commission and a public hearing before the City Council.
Councilman Gillanders assured Mr. Manning that the City Council
is very much interested in the views of the residents and respect
their suggestions. The City must, however, consider all residents'
views and not just a particular group. All must benefit from
the revised General Plan.
RECESS TO CRA:
At this time Council recessed to meet as the Temple City Community
Redevelopment.Agency; approved the Minutes of the July 1 meeting;
set public hearing for August 5 regarding the existing obligations,
projects, programs and activities of the Rosemead Boulevard Rede-
velopment Project; and adopted Resolution CRA 277: Warrants and
.Demands.
10. ACTION ON REQUEST BY CRA:.
None
11. MATTERS FROM CITY OFFICIALS:
A. LEAVE OF ABSENCE RE: PARKS AND RECREATION SUPERVISOR CATHY
BURROUGHS
City Manager Koski provided background information stating
that Cathy Burroughs has agreed to cancel her leave of absence
due to extenuating circumstances causing her early leave and
subsequent absence from employment that exceeds . her original
request. Cathy will be eligible for Disability Compensation
for a period of six weeks following childbirth. Cathy has
elected to utilize vacation time for which she will receive
full pay. and benefits prior to receiving Disability Compensation.
1 5 ^ .�► "? Cc,, • ^; i Landers . 1
C 3.` • second
rPsci-nd the leave of absence of
!Ilan Swain and unanimously
Council Minutes, July 15, 1986 - Page 13
B. INTERIM ZONING ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING A MORATORIUM ON CERTAIN
MULTIPLE - FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS IN TI-IE R-2,
R -3 OR R -4 ZONES
City Manager Koski advised Council that the proposed interim
zoning Ordinance before the Council establishes a moratorium
on residential buildings consisting of three or more dwelling
units on any R -2, R -3 or R -4 zoned property in the City except
as specified in Section 3 of the Ordinance. Subsection 3b
provides that a building permit may be issued for any develop-
ment which has received a CUP and /or Tentative Tract Map,
if applicable, prior to the effective date of the Ordinance.
City Attorney Martin introduced interim urgency Ordinance
No. 86 -588, AN INTERIM ZONING ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF TEMPLE CITY ESTABLISHING A MORATORIUM OF CER-
TAIN MULTIPLE- FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS IN THE
R -2, R -3 OR R -4 ZONES OF THE CITY, for first reading by
title only.
Councilman Swain moved to waive further reading and adopt
Interim Urgency Ordinance No. 86 -588, which takes effect
immediately, seconded by Councilman Froehle, and carried on .
a roll call vote.
ROLL CALL:
AYES: Councilmen- Dennis, Froehle, Gillanders, Swain, Atkins
NOES: Councilmen -None
ABSENT: Councilmen -None
C. EXCHANGE OF PROPOSITION "A" FUNDS
City Manager Koski advised Council that the annual revenues
from Proposition A exceed the normal annual expenditures
and the City is at risk of losing excess Prop A funds. The
recently completed Traffic Signal Study recommended the instal
lation of approximately $320,000 'worth of improvements.
Although Proposition A funds cannot be spent on these improve-
ments directly, Los Angeles County Transit Commission does
permit the exchange of Proposition A funds with another juris-
diction provided the other jurisdiction uses the funds for
approved purposes. The City of Commerce is able and willing
to exchange some of their General Fund money for our excess
Proposition A funds. In this transaction, the City of Temple
City would receive 65 cents of unrestricted General Fund money
for each dollar of Proposition A money. Commerce has advised
that they are able to take $500,000 of Temple City's Prop A
funds thereby providing Temple City with $325,000 General Fund
money.
Councilman Froehle moved to approve the concept of exchanging
Proposition A funds to unencumbered General Funds at an ex-
change rate of 65 cents on the dollar; and authorized staff
to proceed with negotiations and preparations for Council
Resolution to approve actual exchange with the City of Com-
merce, seconded by Councilman Dennis and unanimously carried.
6
Council Minutes, July 15, 1986 - Page 14
12. ADJOURNMENT:
On motion by Councilman Swain, seconded by Councilman Dennis,
the meeting of the City Council adjourned at 10:35 p.m. Next
regular meeting of the City Council will be held on Tuesday,
August 5, 1986.
ATTEST:
Chief Depy City Cl
'rk