Loading...
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