Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes-06-18-59-Regular MeetingMINUTES OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DOWNEY JUNE 18TH, 1959 The City Council of the City of Downey held a special meeting in the cafetorium of the Downey Elementary School at 7:30 P.M. on Thursday, June 18, 1959. Mayor Edwin W. Giddings presiding. PRESENT: Councilmen: Dunnum, Peavey, Stamps, Temple, Giddings ALSO PRESENT: Oren L. King, City Manager Royal M. Sorensen, City Attorney Dan McNutt, City Planner Della Doyle, City Clerk Alberta Pfeiffer, Deputy City Clerk Mayor Giddings announced that this is the time and place for the public hearing in the matter of Zone Exception Case #129 (A & P Market at Florence and Downey Avenues). Councilman Dunnum was presented by Mayor Giddings and made the statement that his intentions were to participate solely on the precedural aspects of the hearing and not participate in the merits of the case of Zone Exception #129. Councilman Dunnum stated that inasmuch as he had previously disqualified himself from voting, the City Attorney advised that in his considered opinion he should not participate in the hearing, even to the procedural aspects, thus his attendance would be merely a matter of courtesy to both sides in having a full Council body present. Councilman Dunnum retired from the Council table. Mayor Giddings commented on the way the hearing will be held. He stated the participants were to be very serious about the matter, that the meeting should be kept orderly at all times, all statements should be made in a con- structive manner, whether they be for or against the Zone Exception Case #129, that personalities or vindictiveness were to be left out, and that each speaker was to address the Council and not any other individual in the audience; that there is to be no undue noise or agitation, no applause, and no indication of approval or disapproval of anything said except by granted recognition by the Council. Mayor Giddings stated that it had appeared in print in one of the news- papers that "this is the way things are going to be held because of the actions of 'opponents' in a prior hearing." The Mayor stated it was meant to be both proponents and opponents and that he had been talking to both for's and against's. The Mayor informed the citizens that each side will be given 40 minutes to present their case. After that time, there will be 15 minutes allowed for proponents' rebuttal. Mayor Giddings stated that according to the Code the only items to be taken into consideration were that the proponents would (1) have to show the Council that the exception is necessary for the preservation of the owner of his property rights and (2) that the exception will not be detrimental to the public welfare nor to the property of owners in the vicinity thereof. The opponents will have to prove why a variance would be detrimental to their property or to the property of the other persons located in the vicinity. The matter is not to be decided as to the need of another market - -that is not the Council's prerogative. Also, the decision is not going to be determined by the number for or against, but determined on the merit of the items given previously, as stated above. The City Attorney instructed the Mayor to read Section 522, Grounds, of the Zoning Ordinance, which states as follows: L21t: SECTION 522. GROUNDS. An exception may also be granted where there are practical difficulties or unnecessary hardships in the way of carrying out the strict letter of the ordinance, and in the granting of such exception the spirit of the ordinance will be observed, public safety secured, and substantial justice done." The Mayor asked the City Clerk if she had any petitions or written correspondence relative to Zone Exception Case #129. The City Clerk stated she had a number of letters both from proponents and opponents and that the Council had copies of each and all correspondence and petitions. The Mayor requested all persons wishing to speak to stand, raise their right hands, and be sworn in. Ralph T. Whitman, Attorney for Mr. J. T. Brain, owner of the property, was the first speaker for the proponents. Mr. Whitman outlined the various uses permitted under the present zoning (R -A, residential or agricultural) and stated that the proposed use of the subject property would be that per- mitted under a Zone C -1 which is the lowest commercial classification in zoning or in use. Mr. Whitman stated his proponents propose to show that the property is no longer desirable for residential use or agricultural use of any kind, thereby depriving the owner of his property rights. They also propose to show that there would be no material detriment, in fact no detri- ment, to the owners of the property located in the vicinity. Mr. Whitman stated that as one of the main arteries in Downey, Florence Avenue is no longer desirable for any residential use and that the proposed use is consistent with the planning for Florence Avenue for the past 15 years or more to be developed as a main highway or artery. A recent traffic count in March, 1959, shows an average of 25,000 cars per 24 -hour period in front of this property on Florence Avenue. It has been generally accepted, accord - ing to Mr. Whitman, insofar as zoning is concerned, that when a street or highway reaches an average daily total of 14,000 cars for a 24 -hour period, it is no longer desirable for residence use and is almost automatically conceded that it must be used commercially in order that the owner might obtain the best use of his property. Mr. Whitman introduced Mr. Bernard Burke, 260 Beverly, Beverly Hills, Calif., representing the A & P Market, who presented the proposed plan of development and operation of the proposed market. Mr. Burke stated that his main objective in appearing is that, if it is pertinent to the members of the Council, he wanted to relate the type of operation A & P would use should the Council see fit to grant this zoning ex- ception. He further stated that in a so- called residential area (and there are thousands of intersections throughout the State of California and in Los Angeles and Orange Counties) where there is a market at the busy inter- sections surrounding homes of every type and price range, he does not believe the disadvantages have been so that they have been set apart. Mr. Burke stated that the hours of operation of the market would be from 9:00 A.M. to 9:30 P.M.; deliveries would not be made earlier than 7:30 or 8:00, with none on Saturdays, holidays or Sundays; trash would be retained on the property within the premises proper; parking would be solved by locating the market at the extreme easterly end of the property. Mr. Burke added that the fact that children will be crossing at the intersection was another reason for locating the proposed market at the extreme easterly end, and that there would be very little difference from the present piece of property. Mr. Burke stated that prices of the A & P markets are the most competitive and lowest. He further stated that the City of Downey would profit financially by adding approximately a $400,000 payroll per year; real estate taxes for the City proper would run about $7,000 per year; advertising for newspapers would be a minimum of $25,000 per year; sales tax and other taxes would provide an additional $25,000 to $30,000 per year. Mr. Burke further stated that the A & P does not want to be in a locality where they might be starting out on the wrong foot. Mr. Burke reiterated that the proposed market would have approximately 19,500 square feet, which would not be of the super -super market type that usually has 40,000 to 50,000 square feet, and would be of a neighborhood type operation. The architectural design would appeal to the benefit of the area. It was brought out by Mr. Burke that in his understanding, within the next fiscal year, the City of Downey contemplates widening Downey Avenue at the expense of the City's obtaining rights of way to bring this intersection up to standard. By the owner of the property being granted this exception, he has offered to dedicate to the City, without cost, such land as would be necessary to the proposed widening of Downey Avenue, install sidewalks, curbs and sewers, and to erect a masonry brick wall along the north and east boundaries of any height at the expense of the owner; that the owner is also willing to install a low wall around the parking area on Florence and Downey Avenues. Mr. Burke stated that he feels this is an issue of preservation of standard property rights to the owner and shows a lack of material detriment to the property in the surrounding vicinity. Next to speak for the proponents in the matter was Mr. Lester Barnwell of 8130 Seville Avenue, South Gate, a real estate broker and qualified real estate appraiser. He stated he had been asked to give his opinion of the property's value or change in the value, assuming that the market is erected as planned; also to mention any deprivation of the property rights to be suffered by the present owner. Mr. Barnwell gave a description of the plot of the ground which amounts to a little more than 2 acres. He stated that to develop this land for agricultural purposes is not justified from the standpoint of the nuisance factor. He stated that also from a single dwelling standpoint, it would be inadvisable due to the noise and traffic along Florence, and that its use for apartments seems less desirable than other forms of commercial property due to a lack of uniformity gained by separate ownerships. The next possibility for general office spaces does not seem logical for, as long as that property has remained vacant, there has been no interest by anyone qualifying prior for this purpose. It appears that there is not a need exist- ing in the City for additional office space. Mr. Barnwell stated that the best test of utility of a piece of property is the interest of prospective buyers or long time lessee. Mr. Barnwell further stated that although on the surface it would appear that the improvement proposed (A & P market) at the location of Florence and Downey would materially affect the properties to the north, an investigation has not uncovered a material loss in other similar areas to properties that are abutting business developments. He stated if there is any disadvantages, as people think, it is more accurately described as never having the value to begin with. In his opinion, the properties abutting this proposed site of the A & P market along Florence Ave. have already suffered and the A & P would be an asset to them. Mr. Whitman requested that the file of the Planning Department on Zone Exception Case #129 be incorporated as evidence in the hearing along with all maps, petitions, to be considered by the Council and passed upon in making its decision in this case. Mr. Dan McNutt, City Planner, turned the file over to the Council. It was moved by Councilman Temple, seconded by Councilman Peavey and so ordered that the file of the Planning Commission in Zone Exception Case #129 be made a part of the record. Mr. Whitman closed his portion of the proceedings with the submission that the subject property has been shown not suited for development in any way or manner whatever under the existing zone and, accordingly, the owner has been deprived of a property right. He requested of the Council that a use be granted to the property owner, based not on what might be zoned under a contem- plated zoning or Master Plan, but on the lowest possible commercial use under the existing ordinance. Furthermore, Mr. Whitman stated, he does not feel that it can be argued that there is any material detriment to the public wel- fare nor to the property of other persons located in the vicinity as shown by the testimony of a qualified expert appraiser who has examined sales in some instances in comparable locations where similar cases have occurred. do Mr. Wendell Wiser, 9300k Firestone Blvd., Downey, realtor, then spoke in favor of Zone Exception #129 stating he wished a decision to be made that will encourage the growth of Downey and thkt he feels the matter has become the crux of the attitude of the City of Downey on its future. He based his arguments for granting the zone exception on the premise that the A & P would establish the highest type of architecture, merchandising and service; that there would be no depreciation in value of surrounding properties; that there is little comparison between the safety factor of a well lit, clearly marked area with sidewalks and curbs to an unimproved corner; and that neither Mr. Brain nor the A & P should be penalized by taking 2nd, 3rd or 4th choice locations. The following persons also spoke in favor of the market: Odine Johnson, 8409 E. Florence Ave. (resident since 1951) Louis P. Folk, 8429 Florence Ave. Paul Norwood, 8347 Florence Ave. (8 years) Charlie E. Peterson, 8314 E. Florence (directly across from the proposed site for the A & P Market Ed Reinke, 8411 Florence (since 1921) After a 10- minute recess called by Mayor Giddings, he announced that now is the time for the opponents to come forward with their testimony. Dr. James J. Rue, 9923 S. Downey Avenue, Downey, representing the opponents for granting a zone exception for establishing an A & P Market, stated that this particular issue that is being considered is rather crucial to them because it represents more than just a group of genuine property owners opposed to an encroachment and a zone variance for an undesirable commercial tenant. Their side, he stated, feels it is more crucial to the City of Downey because it will be an indication of what one of the most beautiful streets of the City will look like in the future. He enumerated their reasons for opposing this zone exception as follows: It would destroy the residential characteristics of 0—ft Downey Avenue which, from 7th Street to the Freeway, has only residential use, churches and one school; it would endanger the safety of children going to and from school, and the parents would object to a liquor department going into the market; there is no need for an additional market in this area; it would devaluate the surrounding residential property; that there are sufficient loca- tions in downtown Downey to locate this type of business; that another market in this area would add to the already cumbersome traffic which Florence Avenue has. Mr. Rue introduced a new petition and a map which gives a visual picture of what this petition contains - -the new petition has 165 signatures of property owners who live within 500 feet of the periphic area. It was moved by Councilman Temple, seconded by Councilman Stamps and so ordered that the petition and map showing those who protest the exception being granted, be accepted. Mr. Rue read excerpts from his letter to the Council, copies of which he gave to the members of the Council. This letter, giving a rundown of the signatures on two petitions obtained by the proponents, requested that their entire petitions be declared invalid and illegal. Mr. Rue presented photographs taken of the rear of several A & P market establishments which were taken by Mr. Joseph A. Street, 8336 E. Dinsdale, Downey, and requested that these photographs be accepted by the Council as '—' evidence. It was moved by Councilman Temple, seconded by Councilman Stamps and so ordered that the photographs taken by Mr. Joseph A. Street, 8336 E. Dinsdale, Downey, be accepted as evidence. Mr. Rue wished to submit another document in evidence. Mayor Giddings informed Mr. Rue that in order for this document to be submitted as evidence in the case, it would have to be read to the Council in full. The letter was read by Mr. Rue, as follows: 10318 Tristan Drive Downey, California June 18, 1959 City Council 8425 East Second Street Downey, California Gentlemen: ski "I am a property owner and resident of Downey at 10318 Tristan Drive in close proximity to the Alpha Beta Market which is on the corner of Lakewood and Florence. I would like to tell you about some of the things that my family and I have found so hard to live with since the market was built. "We object strenuously to the bright lights, both on the market and in the parking lots. When the lot behind us was being used for parking our bedrooms were impossible to darken enough to convince the children that it was time for sleep. Even though we ourselves do not now have this particular problem, those who live directly adjacent to the market still suffer from it. "The noise, especially from the delivery trucks that arrive in the morning before the alarm goes off, with the men calling back and forth to each other, and doors slamming, and motors growling, is cause for black thoughts every morning. "My back yard is a depository for empty beer cans, soft drink bottles, candy wrappings, and even the garbage which is left out at the market for pickup by a trash service, but is found instead by youngsters looking for a means of mischief. Also, isn't this uncovered rotten fruit and vegetables an open invita- tion to rats and other vermin? "Children who are complete strangers to me use my yard as a short cut to the market, climb my fence and go through the parking lot, or come over the fence from the market, stop to investigate any toys in the yard, and even stand and look over the garage and its contents. We have had malicious mischief done in the garage, at our front door, and to our driveway; and only one of these acts was committed when we were home to protect our property. The other experiences occurred when we were away for only minutes. I can't help but blame it on these young people whom I do not know, and who do not know me. I had a prowler one night, called the Sheriff's Department, and was told by them when they arrived that it was to be expected when we live so close to the market -as the man had only to jump the fence and lose himself in the market or on its busy corner. "I have had to clean up paper and uneaten food from my lawn and from the street and gutter in front of us constantly, because of the hamburger stand on the same corner. I resent this chore mightily. "All of us in this area take great pride in our homes and all of these things go toward making us unhappy with our neighboring market. When we bought these lots and built, we did so because it was such a fine residential street. All this has changed for us, but must it change for others? We were once a town known for its beautiful residential areas, but we are on our way to being known as a city with a chain store on every corner - -which is hardly what the home buyers wanted when they moved to Downey." Sincerely, /S/ Mrs. Gerald J. Becker Mr. Rue stated that some of the local newspapers have seen fit to point out their side in this zone exception matter as "mob action." Others to speak in opposition to Zone Exception #129 were as follows: Mrs. Joseph H. Street, 8336 Dinsdale Mr. Russell Hodge, 8331 Dinsdale Mr. Leonard Reseck, 10002 Downey Mr. David Hatfield, 8038 Dinsdale Mr. Paul Lordie, 8358 Florence Mr. A. R. Ireland, 9930 Downey These others speaking in opposition stated that a market on this site would increase traffic in the area and that if a market would come, it would be more a detriment to the neighborhood, acting as a wedge for many more unde- sirable types of business; persons oftentimes, after carting their purchases to their cars, leave shopping carts along drives and in driveways; and that they had heard no new evidence presented since the case was originally presented. Mayor Giddings then asked those present wishing to have their names in the records as opposing the zone exception, #129, to stand and state his or her name and address. Opposed: Mr. A. L. Hicks, 8346 Dacosta, James R. Cooper, 8352 Dacosta, Mrs. James Rue, 9923 S. Downey, C. W. Keath, 8358 Dinsdale, Mrs. Chas. Keath, 8358 Dinsdale, Barbara L. Hoaghkirk, 8362 Dinsdale, Margaret E. Freeman, 8368 E. Dinsdale, Joseph A. Street, 8336 E. Dinsdale, Marguerite Bess, 8340 E. Dinsdale, Roberta Whitesides, 8336 E. Dacosta, Lorena Reseck, 10002 Downey, Mrs. Loraine Sarell, 10015 S. Downey, Wm. B. Sarell, 10015 S. Downey, Almeda Wells, 10023 S. Downey, Nelle Everheart, 8332 Florence, Ann Bennett, 8334 Florence, Marian Rasmussen, 8352 Dinsdale, Alfred W. Rasmussen, 8352 Dinsdale, Leona M. Ireland, 9930 Downey, W. F. Allrich, 8136 E. Florence, L. S. Hood, 8124 Florence, Matilda Hood, 8124 Florence, Gertrude Ullrich, 8136 Florence, Leroy Moody, 8412 Florence, Mrs. L. C. .� Moody, 8440 E. Florence, Mrs. Betty Hodge, 8331 Dinsdale, Dorothy Koneene, 8346 Dinsdale, Mr. Dean Koneene, 8346 Dinsdale, Mrs. Dorothy Hatfield, 8038 Dinsdale, Fred Theriot, 8307 Lexington - Gallatin Rd., Bessie Theriot, 8307 LexingtonoGallatin Rd., Frank J. Ruggerio, 8338 E. Florence, Dora Ruggerio, 8338 E. Florence, R. S. Strand, 10230 La Reina, Armand Roles, 10224 La Reina, Valerie Roles, 10224 La Reina, Frances Quackenbush, 8330 E. Dinsdale, Dorothy Quackenbush, 8330 Dinsdale, Richard McIntyre, 8308 Dinsdale, Mrs. Richard McIntyre, 8308 Dinsdale, Jean Waters, 8312 Dinsdale, Opal Heydendahl, 8325 Dinsdale, Geo. G. Greenhalgh, 8014 Lubec, Mrs. Frank Mezzatesta, 8402 E. Florence, Ella Brannies, 9831 Downey, Kenneth B. Yost, 9220 Downey Avenue, Mrs. Ann Levchick, 9730 Downey, Mrs. P. B. Lordie, 8358 Florence, Eugene Sedel, 8540 Otto, Lloyd L. Stromberg, 9315 Lexington - Gallatin Rd., Norman Otto, 8511 Otto, W. W. Boggs, 8125 Valinda Dr., John T. Murphy, 10017 Dolan, Mrs. John T. Murphy, 10017 Dolan, Dorothy Zechiel, 9418 Stamps Ave. Mayor Giddings then advised Mr. Whitman, attorney representing the property owner, Mr. J. E. Brain, that he had 20 minutes for his rebuttal. In his rebuttal Mr. Whitman stated that they have seen no evidence in opposition showing that this property owner is not being deprived of a substantial property right. Under the zoning ordinance they are required to show that the exception will not materially be detrimental to the public welfare nor to the property of other persons located in the vicinity thereof. None of the issues raised by the opposition establishes any material detriment either to the public welfare or to the property located in the vicinity of this corner. Mr. Whitman stated that the issue was raised that this would be spot zoning, and wished to stated it is not. He stated that if they had filed application for a zone change, they would be asking for spot zoning, whereby they were merely asking for an exception which would be for the lowest classification of commercial use. 04-q Mr. Whitman stated that one of the issues again raised by the opposition was that there is no need for another market and that some other business area should be developed by the Council or by the City to renew or rehabili- tate other areas of the City. It was brought out in the beginning of the hearing that need would not be an issue in this case. Another issue raised was regarding the validity of some of the signatures on petitions and total number. Mr. Whitman stated that the area was canvassed within the 500 -foot radius and that he had submitted a signed affidavit indicating whether the persons favored or opposed the market, and if they were opposed, why they opposed it. The petition contained 1123 signatures. On the issue of increased traffic, Mr. Whitman stated that he feels the proposed market would decrease the traffic flow to other areas in Downey as well as on Florence Avenue by persons not having to go so far to a market. Mr. Whitman further stated that he could not see how it could be argued logically that installation of curbs and sidewalks would not benefit the safety of children going to and from school. Mr. Whitman stated that he did not know whether or not a liquor department is intended in the proposed market but as to this matter, it would be determined by the proper State Department. In his rebuttal Mr. Whitman stated the opposition offered no statistics to show that the installation of a market would immediately place a devaluation on their property; they had no qualified expert testifying on the basis of any investigation for this purpose and the opposition's statement to this effect was just a bare statement and hearsay of what other people who lived in other areas had to say. He wished to also add that there has been no showing of any valuation loss in any area by the introduction of business in the vicinity, either in the general area or in the immediate area adjoining. He stated the only way to find out about these things is to investigate the records and there is no indication that this was done by the opposition. Mr. Barnwell wished to add that as an appraiser he had checked other areas in Downey where uses much heavier than the market had developed adjacent to residential property and there was no indication that the proposed market would affect the marketability of adjoining property. Therefore, he feels that to permit the present zone without exception is depriving the owner of a sub- stantial property right, that there is no material detriment to the surrounding property owners or their property, and no detriment to the public welfare; and that the zone exception should be clarified to carry out the spirit of the zoning to carry on the progress of Downey. Mr. Burke stated that other available sites in Downey for the proposed A & P Market had been checked and none of them appear to be suitable for a market. As to the traffic flow he stated that he believes it is an established fact that Downey Avenue is not a through street, that the major traffic is by residents, and that an A & P market on the corner of Downey Avenue and Florence Avenue would not increase the traffic at all. He further stated that parking in the streets in the area would primarily decrease. He stated that by putting in a unit smaller than the regular super market and according to their plan for 151 parking spaces, he honestly feels there would be at no time as many as 151, and that there would be no overflow parking on the streets. Mr. Burke further stated that as he had not seen the photographs taken by Mr. Street he would say that they probably were taken of stores which were 25 or 30 years old, with no provision made for a facility, which the proposed market would provide, for refuse with no unsightliness and no possibility of unsightliness Others speaking in favor stated there should not be discrimination against this proposed market as there are hundreds of others in similar situations, with particular regard to the sale of liquor. ki The following persons wished their names and addresses to be recorded as being in favor of Zone Exception Case #129. In Favor: Robert Brain, 3859 Western, Long Beach, J. Brain, 3859 Western, Long Beach, Betty Brain, 7818 Irwingrove, Marilyn Brain, 3859 Weston Place, Long Beach, Mrs. Ruth Ball, 8419 Cherokee, Gypee Johnson, 7749 Florence, Betty Ripley, 7819 E. Imperial, Dr. Gerald B. Stanton, 9644 Garnish Dr., L. P. Folk, 8429 Florence, Margaret Folk, 8429 Florence, Peter J. Kohlmaier, 8441 Florence, Mrs. Wendell Wiser, 11842 Paramount, John Sack, 9222 Gallatin Rd., Maxine Sack, 9222 Gallatin Rd., Robert L. Sorensen, 8202 Florence, Helen Sachs, 10345 S. Downey, Mrs. R. M. Nimmo, 9150 E. Florence, R. M. Nimmo, 9150 E. Florence, Jessie Wright, 9215 E. Florence, Georgia Crumrine, 9048 Florence, Edward Kloth, 9126 Florence, Richard Steere, 8572 Cherokee, Mrs. Roberta J. Steere, 8572 Cherokee, Mrs. E. M. Steere, 8201 E. Florence, Thos. Wright, 9215 Florence, Jim Sex, 11994 Pomering Rd., Morris J. Meyers, 7832 E. Florence, Helen Meyers, 7832 E. Florence, J. D. Fisher, 8046 Florence. It was moved by Councilman Temple, seconded by Councilman Peavey and so ordered that the hearing be closed. After deliberation it was moved by Councilman Peavey, seconded by Councilman Temple and passed by the following vote that the following findings be adopted: The exception is not necessary for the preservation of a substantial property right of the owner; that such exception will be materially detrimental to the public welfare and to the property of other persons located in the general vicinity thereof; that there are not practical difficulties or unnecessary hardships in the way of carrying out the concrete letter of the ordinance and the granting of such exception would violate the spirit of the ordinance and would not secure the public safety or secure substantial justice to be done. Further be it moved that the appeal be denied, the zoning exception be denied and the decision of the Planning Commission be affirmed. AYES: 3 Councilmen: Peavey, Temple, Giddings NOES: 1 Councilman: Stamps ABSENT: 1 Councilman: Dunnum The meeting was adjourned at 10:30 P.M. i n ..