Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1965 06 16 CC MIN1965 06 16 CC MINHÄ—@¸—/Í«I 2,107 I REGULAR MEETING OF THE BALDWIN PARK CITY COUNCIL CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBER) 14403 East Pacific Avenue In accordance with Section 2703 of the Municipal Code the City Council met in open meeting at 7:00 p.m. in the Conference Room for an informal session with the staff to be informed on regular agenda items. The City Council of the City of Baldwin Park met in regular session at the above place at 7:30 p.m. Mayor Crites led the salute to the flag. Roll Call: Present: COUNCILMEN ADAIR, GREGORY, MCCARON, MOREHEAD AND MAYOR CR ITES Absent: FINANCE DIRECTOR DUNCAN Also Present: CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER NORDBY, CITY ATTORNEY FLANDRICK, CITY ENGINEER FRENCH, BUILDING SUPERINTENDENT KALBFLEISCH, PLANNING DIRECTOR CHIVETTA, CHIEF OF POLICE ADAMS, CITY TREASURER PUGH AND CITY CLERK BALKUS 00- Councilwoman Gregory pointed out two typographical errors on the June 2, 1965, minutes as follows: Page 10, Pat Morandi should be Pat Moranda and on Page 14 in the motion regarding Lot Split No. 653 Zining should read Zoning. COUNC I LWOMAN GREGORY MOVED THAT THE MINUTES OF MAY 19, 1965, AND JUNE 2, 1965, BE APPROVED AS CORRECTED AND FURTHER READING BE WA I V ED COUNCILMAN MOR EH EAD SECONDED. There were no objections, the motion carried and was so ordered by Mayor Crites. 00- COUNCILMAN MOREHEAD MOVED THAT THE FINANCE OFFICER, THELMA S. DUNCAN, BE EXCUSED DUE TO ILLNESS. COUNCILWOMAN GREGORY SECONDED. There were no objections, the motion carried and was so ordered by Mayor Crites. 00- City clerk Batkus presented the City Treasurer's Report as of May 31, 1965. COUNCILWOMAN GREGORY MOVED THAT THE CITY TREASURER'S REPORT BE RECEIVED AND FILED. COUNCILMAN MOREHEAD SECONDED. There were no objections, the motion carr+ed and was so ordered by Mayor Crites. JUNE 16, 1965 7:30 P.M. FLAG SALUTE ROLL CALL CORRECTIONS TO JUNE 2, 1965 MINUTES MINUTES OF MAY 19, 1965, AND JUNE 2, 1965 APPROVED AS CORRECTED AND FURTHE READ ING WAIVED FINANCE DIRECTOR DUNCAN EXCUSED DUE TO I LLNESS CITY TREASURER'S REPORT AS OF MAY 34, 1965 RECEJ VED AND F I LED 00- City Clerk Batkus presented a letter from Mrs. Rose B. Lopez, 13803 Masline, requesting a $4.00 fingerprinting fee refund. Continued) LETTER FROM MRS. ROS B. LOPEZ, 13803 MASLINE REQUEST FOR $4.00 FINGERPRINTING FEE REFUND BIB] 39576-U01 1965-U02 06-U02 16-U02 CC-U02 MIN-U02 LI1-U03 FO9994-U03 FO116848-U03 DO116917-U03 C4-U03 MINUTES1-U03 5/1/2008-U04 ROBIN-U04 REGULAR-U05 SESSION-U05 CITY-U06 COUNCIL-U06 1965 06 16 CC MINHÄ—@¸—/Í«240 8 Regular Meeting of the Baldwin Park City Council COUNCILMAN MOREHEAD MOVED THAT THE $4.00 CHARGED TO Ms. ROSE B. LOPEZ FOR FINGERPRINT SERVICE WHICH WAS NOT RENDERED BE REFUNDED IN TOTAL VALUE. COUNCILMAN ADAIR SECONDED. The motion carried by the following vote: AYES: COUNCILMEN MOREHEAD, ADAIR, GREGORY, MCCARON AND MAYOR CRITES NOES NONE ABSENT: NONE 00- City Clerk Balkus presented a claim against the City submitted by Emmanuel Scovotti, 3719 Ardilla Avenue. COUNCILWOMAN GREGORY MOVED THAT THE CLAIM OF EMMANUEL SCOVOTTI BE DENIED AND REFERRED TO THE INSURANCE CARRIER WITH A COPY TO N. A. ARTUKOVICH. COUNCILMAN MOREHEAD SECONDED. The motion carried by the following vote: AYES: COUNCILMEN GREGORY, MOREHEAD, ADAIR, PACCARON AND MAYOR CRITES NOES: NONE ABSENT: NONE 00- City Attorney Flandrick presented a claim against the City submitted by Edith S. Norcott, M. D. for Debra Meyers, 4025 Puente Avenue. COUNCILMAN MOREHEAD MOVED THAT THE CLAIM BE DENIED AND REFERRED TO THE INSURANCE CARRIER. COUNC I UW'WOMAN GREGORY SECONDED. The motion carried by the following vote: AYES: COUNCILMEN MOREHEAD, GREGORY, ADAIR, MCCARON AND MAYOR CRITES NOES: NONE ABSENT: NONE 00- City Clerk Balkus read Resolution No. 65-102 by title as follows: RESOLUTION NO. 65-102 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BALDI,'J I N PARK AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 63-10 RELATING TO THE CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER OF SAID CITY" COUNC I L1'IOMAN GREGORY MOVED THAT RESOLUTION NO. 65-102 BE APPROVED AND FURTHER READING BE WAIVIED. COUNCILMAN MOREHEAD SECONDED. The motion carried by the following vote: AYES: COUNCILMEN GREGORY, MOREHEAD, ADAIR, MCCARON AND MAYOR CRJTES NOES: NONE ABSENT: NONE 00- City Clerk Balkus read Resolution No. 65-103 by title as follows: June 16, 1965 Page 2 MOTION MADE AND CARR I ED THAT $4.00 CHARGED TO MRS. ROSE B. LOPEZ FOR FINGER- PRINT SERVICE WHICH WAS NOT RENDERED BE REFUNDED I N TOTAL VALUE CLAIM AGAINST CITY EM ANUEL SCOVOTT I 3719 Ardilla Ave. DENIED AND REFERRED TO INS. CARRIER WIT! COPY TO N. A. ARTUKOVICH CLAIM AGAINST CITY DEBRA MEYERS, 4025 Puente Ave. DENIED AND REFERRED TO INS. CARRIER RES. NO. 65-102 AMENDING RES. NO. 63-10 RE C.A.O. SETTING COMPENSATION AT $1,350.00 PER MONTH RES. NO. 65-102 ADOPTED RES. NO. 65-103 EST. SALARIES FOR Continued) Continued) BIB] 39576-U01 1965-U02 06-U02 16-U02 CC-U02 MIN-U02 LI1-U03 FO9994-U03 FO116848-U03 DO116917-U03 C4-U03 MINUTES1-U03 5/1/2008-U04 ROBIN-U04 REGULAR-U05 SESSION-U05 CITY-U06 COUNCIL-U06 1965 06 16 CC MINHÄ—@¸—/Í«2409 Regular Meeting of the Baldwin Park City Council June 16, 1965 Page 3 RESOLUTION NO. 65-103 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BALDWIN PARK ESTABLISHING THE SALARIES FOR CERTAIN OFFICERS AND EMPLOYEES OF THE CITY OF BALDWIN PARK" City Attorney Flandrick stated there was a clerical error on Schedule No. 46, Planning Director; that the Pay Step should be C" not B". CCUNC I LAM}AN MOREHEAD MOVED THAT RESOLUTION NO. 65-103 BE APPROVED AND FURTHER READING BE WAIVED. COUNCILMAN MCCAROH SECONDED. The motion carried by the following vote: AYES COUNC I LMEN MOREHEAD, MCCARON, ADAIR, GREGORY AND MAYOR CRITES NOES NONE ABSENT: NONE 00- City Clerk Balkus read Resolution No. 65-105 by title as follows: RESOLUTION NO. 65-105 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BALDWIN PARK DENYING A LOT SPLIT CASE NO. L. S. NO. 653 APPLICANT: KEITH GARRICK.. 4523 BRESEE AVE. CCUNCILVIOMAN GREGORY MOVED THAT RESOLUTION NO. 65-105 BE APPROVED AND FURTHER READING BE WAIVED. COUNCILMAN MORE- HEAD SECONDED. AYES: COUNCILMEN GREGORY, MOREHEAD, ADAIR AND MAYOR CRITES NOES: NONE ABSTAIN: COUNC I LfAAN /r1CCARON ABSENT: NONE 00- Chief Administrative Officer Nordby Presented Ordinance No. 414 stating this ordinance would authorize the execution of the contract between the City of Baldwin Park and the California State Employees, Retirement System. City C It erfc Ba l ku s read rd i•t-a-wce No. 414 by title as foIIo4,s: ORDINANCE NO. 414 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BALDWIN PARK AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION OF A CONTRACT BETWEEN THE CITY COUNCIL AND THE BOARD OF ADMINISTRATION OF THE CALIFORNIA STATE EMPLOYEESI RETIREMENT SYSTEM" CERTAIN OFFICERS AND EMPLOYEES CF THE CIT OF B.PK. SETTING SALARIES AND PAY STEP PLAN FOR BLDG. SUPT., CHIEF OF POLICE, CITY ENGR., FINANCE DIRECTOR AND P LA NN I DIRECTOR RES. NO. 65-103 ADOPTED RES. NO. 65-105 DENYING L.S. NO. 653 APPLICANT: KEITH GARRICK, 4523 BRESEE AVE.) RES. NO. 65-105 ADOPTED ORD. NO. 414 AUTH. EXECUTION CF CONTRACT BETWEEN CITY COUNCIL AND 80. OF ADMINISTRATION OF CALIF. STATE EMPLOYEE RETIREMENT SYSTEM Continued) BIB] 39576-U01 1965-U02 06-U02 16-U02 CC-U02 MIN-U02 LI1-U03 FO9994-U03 FO116848-U03 DO116917-U03 C4-U03 MINUTES1-U03 5/1/2008-U04 ROBIN-U04 REGULAR-U05 SESSION-U05 CITY-U06 COUNCIL-U06 1965 06 16 CC MINHÄ—@¸—/Í«24 0 Regular Meeting of the Baldwin Park City Council June 16, 1965 Page 4 COUNC I LWONAN GREGORY MOVED THAT FURTHER READING OF ORDINANCE FURTHER READING NO. 414 BEVIAIVED. COUNCILMAN MOREHEAD SECONDED. The OF ORD. NO. 414 motion carried by the following vote: WAIVED AYES: COUNCILMEN GREGORY, MOREHEAD, ADAIR, MCCARON AND MAYOR CRITES NOES: NONE ABSENT: NONE COUNCILWOMAN GREGORY MOVED THAT ORDINANCE NO. 414 BE ORD. NO. 414 INTRODUCED. COUNCILMAN MOREHEAD SECONDED. The motion INTRODUCED carried by the following vote: AYES: COUNCILMEN GREGORY, MOREHEAD, ADAIR, MCCARON AND MAYOR CRITES NOES NONE ABSENT: NONE 00- Chief Administrative Officer Nordby presented Ordinance ORD. NO. 415 No. 415 stating this ordinance was designed to expedite RE LOT SPLITS lot splits. City Attorney Flandrick pointed out the following correc- CORRECTIONS tions: Page 2, Section 9303, Line 7, complies misspelled; Page 2, Section 9303 b), Line 12, add Whenever dedication is required, the offer of dedication shall be transmitted to the City Clerk for acceptance and recorda- tion prior to the Engineer's approval of the map"; Page 3, last line, complies misspelled; Page 4, last line should read that all of the following facts exist: and Page 5, Section 9305 d), third line, appeal misspelled. He stated with these changes the ordinance had the staff's recommendation for approval. Councilwoman Gregory questioned Section 9303, the second paragraph, asking if the requirement for street frontage RE 50 FT. REQUIRED for lots should not be fifty 50) feet instead of twenty- STREET FRONTAGE five 25) feet. City Attorney Flandrick stated the difficulty was that there might be a cul-de-sac lot that would not be able to meet a twenty-five 25) foot requirement. Councilwoman Gregory stated there were more uniform streets than cul-de-sac streets and asked if there could not be an allowance for cul-de-sac streets and have the standard requirement fifty 50) feet. Councilwoman Gregory questioned the amount of the appeal RE FEES fee stating she felt the $100.00 fee too high. Discussion followed wherein Chief Administrative Officer Nordby stated he concurred with the $25.00 fee for the initial application, however, he felt the $100.00 appeal fee excessive; that he suggested the fee be $50.00. Planning Director Chivetta explained that the present fee was $25.00 for the initial application with the City Engineer; that if the application could not be approved by the City Engineer, and the applicant wished a hearing before the Board of Zoning Adjustments there was an additional fee of $35.00; that beyond this there was no additional fee for appeal to the City Council. Continued) M BIB] 39576-U01 1965-U02 06-U02 16-U02 CC-U02 MIN-U02 LI1-U03 FO9994-U03 FO116848-U03 DO116917-U03 C4-U03 MINUTES1-U03 5/1/2008-U04 ROBIN-U04 REGULAR-U05 SESSION-U05 CITY-U06 COUNCIL-U06 1965 06 16 CC MINHÄ—@¸—/Í«Regular Meeting of the Baldwin Park City Council June 16, 1965 4U Page 5 I Further discussion followed concerning the fees; that under the new ordinance the only notice that would be required would be to the applicant; that there would not be any re- quirement for notice within three hundred 300) feet. Councilwoman Gregory suggested that the initial fee be APPEAL FEE $50.00 left at $25.00 and change the appeal fee to $50.00. There were no objections. City Attorney Flandrick stated if these changes were acceptable to the Council the changes would be as follows: Page 2, Section 9302 the last line of the third CORRECTION paragraph would read map, has at least 50 feet of frontage SECTION 9302 or in the case of lots abutting a cul-de-sac 25 feet of frontage." Page 2, Section 9303 b), the third line would read SECTION 9303 ning, each of the lots will have the required frontage upon all. Page 4, Section 9304 c) striking the sum of $100.00 SECTION 9304 and inserting the sum of $50.00. Page 5, Section 9306 striking the sum of $100.00 and SECTION 9306 inserting the sum of $50.00. City Attorney Flandrick explained that both of the appellate fees to Board of Zoning Adjustments and to the City Council) would be $50.00. City Clerk Balkus read Ordinance No. 415 by title as follows: ORD. NO. 415 AMEND. SECTIONS ORDINANCE NO. 415 9300-9306 ET SEQ. OF B.PK. MJN. CODE AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF RE LOT SPLITS THE CITY OF BALM I N PARK AMENDING SECTIONS 9300 THROUGH 9306 ET SEQ. OF THE BALDWIN PARK MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO LOT SPLITS" COUNC I L+; IOh1AN GREGORY MOVED THAT FURTHER READING OF ORDINANCE FURTHER READING OF NO. 415 BEWAIVED. COUNCILMAN MOREHEAD SECONDED. The motion ORD. NO. 415 WAIVED carried by the following vote: AYES: COUNCILMEN GREGORY, MOREHEAD, ADAIR, MCCARON AND MAYOR CR ITES NOES: NONE ABSENT: NONE I COU NC I LW'JOMA N GREGORY MOVED THAT ORDINANCE NO. 415 BE ORD. NO. 415 INTRODUCED. COUNCILMAN MOREHEAD SECONDED. The motion INTRODUCED carried by the following vote: AYES: COUNCILMEN GREGORY, MOREHEAD, ADAIR, MCCARON AND MAYOR CRITES NOES: NONE ABSENT: NONE 00- Chief Administrative Officer Nordby reviewed his report REPORT BY C.A.O. on the acquisition of the access lot to the south of the RE ACQUISITION OF park site. He stated that the lot contained 5164.7 ACCESS LOT TO SOUTH square feet, was owned by Gray and Owings,and last fail OF PARK SITE it had been offered to the City for $4,000.00; that one L.S. NO. 625) month ago the owners revised the offer to $4,500.00 with the City assuming the sewer assessment and the incidental costs; that Jerry Morris had appraised the property at $.75 per square foot; that he had met with Mr. Owings and PURCHASE PRICE Mr. Gray and they had agreed to accept the price of $.75 $3,873.53 WITH CITY per square foot or $3,873.53 with the City assuming the ASSUMING SEWER ASSE! Continued) Continued) BIB] 39576-U01 1965-U02 06-U02 16-U02 CC-U02 MIN-U02 LI1-U03 FO9994-U03 FO116848-U03 DO116917-U03 C4-U03 MINUTES1-U03 5/1/2008-U04 ROBIN-U04 REGULAR-U05 SESSION-U05 CITY-U06 COUNCIL-U06 1965 06 16 CC MINHÄ—@¸—/Í«2 2 Regular Meeting of the Baldwin Park City Council June 16, 1965 Page 6 sewer assessment of Assessment District No. 3 and the MENT AND INCIDENTAL incidental charges of conveying the title title report, CHARGES OF CONVEYINC etc.). He recommended that the City acquire the property TITLE for the price and terms stated and that appropriate officials be authorized to proceed with escrow. COUNCILMAN MCCARON MOVED THAT THE CITY ACQUIRE THIS MOTION MADE AND PROPERTY FOR THE PRICE STATED AND AUTHORIZE THE MAYOR CARRIED THAT CITY AND THE CITY CLERK TO SIGN'ESCRON INSTRUCTIONS IN THAT ACQUIRE THIS PROPER1 AMOUNT). COUNCILMAN MOREHEAD SECONDED. The motion FOR PRICE STATED carried by the following vote: AND AUTHORIZE MAYOi AND CITY CLERK TO AYES: COUNCILMEN MICCARON, MOREHEAD, ADAIR, SIGN ESCROW INSTRUC- GREGORY AND MAYOR CRITES TIONS IN THAT AMOUNT NOES NONE ABSENT: NONE 00- Chief Administrative Officer Nordby reviewed his report DRAFT PUBLIC on the draft of the public nuisance ordinance. He passed NUISANCE ORDINANCE to the Council pictures of a current case concerning property cleanup. He stated he had met with Judge Martin and had given him a copy of the draft for his comments; that Judge Martin had suggested certain changes. He suggested that no action be taken at this time until the ordinance. could be.redrafted; that the City Attorney had additional changes to make. As there were no objections, Mayor Crites stated this HELD OVER ordinance would be held over. 00- Chief Administrative Officer Nordby stated that on April REPORT BY C.A.O. 7th he had reported to the Council that the City would RE NEIGHBORHOOD YOUT become involved.i'n a program with the School System employ- CORPS WORK-TRAINING ing students sixteen years and older for the summer months SUMMER PROGRAM of July and August; that the program would begin on July 1st; that this was partially a federally subsidized pro- gram with the; federal government this year absorbing ninety percent 90%) of the cost and the local agency ten percent 10%); that the pay for the students, working on a thirty-two 32) hour week would be $1.27 per hour; that the City had enrolled eighteen 18) students; that he had reported on Apri I 7th that the City's share would be approximately $1,000-$1,200; that he had found that the City would provide its share in credits from its supervisory employees Department Heads and subordinates). He stated he was now asking the Council to approve a tenta- tive program involving the City in a summer recreation program for the City of Baldwin Park; that this would again be a cooperative with the School System; that the School was providing cash in the amount of $12,500.00; that the City's portion would be $1,800.00 in cash plus some effort on the part of the Payroll Department; that this would later entail an amendment to the budget; that he,would have presented this to the Council prior to the adoption of the budget had he known what the figures were; that he was asking for an expression of the Council as to whether or not the Council approved the City's participation in the summer recreation program. COUNCILMAN ADAIR MOVED THAT THE CITY CCU NC IL RECOMMEND HANDLING IT. COUNCILMAN MOREHEAD SECONDED. The motion carried by the following vote: AYES: COUNCILMEN ADAIR, MOREHEAD, GREGORY, MCCARON AND MAYOR CRITES NOES: NONE ABSENT: NONE REQUEST BY C.A.O. RE SUMMER RECREATION PROGRAM INVOLVING CITY OF B.PK. CITY'S PORTION $1,800.00 PLUS SOME EFFORT ON PART OF PAYROLL DEPT. MOTION MADE AND CARRIED THAT CCU NCI L REC. HANDLING IT 00- BIB] 39576-U01 1965-U02 06-U02 16-U02 CC-U02 MIN-U02 LI1-U03 FO9994-U03 FO116848-U03 DO116917-U03 C4-U03 MINUTES1-U03 5/1/2008-U04 ROBIN-U04 REGULAR-U05 SESSION-U05 CITY-U06 COUNCIL-U06 1965 06 16 CC MINHÄ—@¸—/Í«I Regular Meeting of the Baldwin Park City Council Chief Administrative Officer Nordby requested a fifteen 15) work day vacation leave commencing the weekend of July 10, 1965. COUNCILMAN MCCARON MOVED THAT THE REQUEST BE GRANTED. COUNCILWOMAN GREGORY SECONDED. The motion carried by the following vote: AYES: COUNCILMEN NCCARON, GREGORY, ADAIR, MOREHEAD AND MAYOR CRITES NOES: NONE ABSENT: NONE 00- City Clerk Balkus announced that the hour of 8:00 p.m. having arrived that it was the time and place fixed for a public hearing on ZV-110, an appeal from denial of the Board of Zoning Adjustments, an application filed by Felipe Balanon for a Zone Variance to vary with the Zoning Code No. 357, Division 1, Section 9551, Subsection 1, Permitted Uses" in the R-I Zone and Section 9552, Sub- section I b) Standards of Development" to permit an additional single family dwelling to be constructed upon a parcel of land located at 3661 Rhodes Lane. City Clerk Balkus stated that proper publication, postings and mailings had been accomplished. City Clerk Balkus administered the Oath to those in the audience desiring to be heard during the meeting. Planning Director Chivetta presented a resume of the case and stated that the Board of Zoning Adjustments had adopted Resolution No. BZA 65-24 denying the request on May 12, 1965. He pointed out the area map on the wall. TESTIMONY IN BEHALF OF THE REQUEST WAS CALLED FOR BY MAYOR CRITES. Mr. Lombarto Bonito, 116 South Benton Way, Los Angeles 57, stated he was speaking on behalf of Felipe Balanon; that the dwelling had been there since Mr. Balanon had owned the property; that last year Mr. Balanon tried to make repairs and the man who was supposed to fix the house took the money and left without fixing it; that Mr. Balanon had invested $2,500.00 for this repair; that Mr. Balanon was asking permission to repair the house so that he could get back the money already invested; that he was willing to fix the place according to the Building Code of the City. Councilman McCaron asked what was being repaired. Planning Director Chivetta stated it was an old structure that was being repaired to some degree; that, in his opinion, it looked like it had slipped off of the foundation; that it was a nonconforming structure when it was in the County and was still nonconforming; that if allowed to be occupied it would create a nonconforming use of the land; that it was substandard in all respects in the opinion of the staff. In answer to a question by Councilman McCaron, Building Superintendent Kalbfleisch stated this property was granted a permit three or four years ago to construct a new unit on the front provided Land part of the conditions on the Continued) June 16, 1965 2413 Page 7 REQUEST BY C.A.0. FOR 15 WORK DAY LEAVE COMMENCING WEEKEND OF JULY 10, 1965 MOTION MADE AND CARRIED THAT REQUEST BE GRANTED PUBLIC HEARING 8:00 P.M. ZV-IIO, APPEAL FROM DENIAL OF BZA REQUES TO VARY WITH ZONING CODE NO. 357 TO PER- MIT ADDITIONAL SINGL FAMILY DWELLING IN R-l ZONE TO BE CON- STRUCTED UPON PARCEL OF LAND LOCATED AT 3661 RHODES LANE, FELIPE BALANON PUBLICATION, POSTING MAILINGS OATH ADMINISTERED RESUME TESTIMONY IN BEHALF LOMBARTO BONITO, 116 S. Benton Way, L.A. 57 BIB] 39576-U01 1965-U02 06-U02 16-U02 CC-U02 MIN-U02 LI1-U03 FO9994-U03 FO116848-U03 DO116917-U03 C4-U03 MINUTES1-U03 5/1/2008-U04 ROBIN-U04 REGULAR-U05 SESSION-U05 CITY-U06 COUNCIL-U06 1965 06 16 CC MINHÄ—@¸—/Í«Regular Meeting of the Baldwin Park City Council application was) that there would be no further use of this structure as an R-1 use; that the building was in bad condition; that it was setting so low that rain of any excess would flood the building in his opinion; that it practically had no foundation at all. Councilwoman Gregory asked if this had not been before the Council before and was not there something at that time pertaining to the roadway; that she believed the Fire Department objected to any further building on this property because of the inadequate road. Building Superintendent Kalbfleisch stated there was existing a fifteen 15) foot private easement drive); that this was all the access there was to all of the buildings along the street; that there was not proper fire fighting facilities within the area; that the Fire Department did recommend that no further structures be constructed on this private right-of--way until such time as there was proper fire fighting facilities and also proper width of ingress and egress to the property. As there was no one else in the audience desiring to speak in behalf of or in opposition to ZV-1l0, Mayor Crites declared the public hearing closed. COUNCILWOMAN GREGORY MOVED THAT THE CITY COUNCIL CONCUR WITH THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE BOARD OF ZONING ADJUSTMENTS AND DENY ZV-l10. COUNCILMAN ADAIR SECONDED. Councilman McCaron stated that before any more building was allowed there should be a petition circulated in the neighborhood to cause Rhodes Lane to be brought up to, standard; that in view of the fact that this structure was supposed to be condemned and removed as a condition of the original construction of improvements he felt the applicant was not justified in starting construction on this wifhout having gained prior approval. The motion carried by the following vote: AYES: COUNCILMEN GREGORY, ADAIR, MCCARON, MOREHEAD AND MAYOR CRITES NOES: NONE ABSENT NONE 00- City Clerk Balkus announced that it was the time and place fixed for a public hearing on ZV-III, an appeal from denial of the Board of Zoning Adjustments, an application submitted by Bernard and Betty Shay for a Zone Variance to vary with the Zoning Ordinance No. 357, Division 1, Section 9551, Subsection I Permitted Uses" in the R-i Zone and Section 9552, Subsection I b) Standards of Development", to permit an additional single family dwelling to be constructed upon a parcel of land located at 13649 Ramona Boulevard. City Clerk Balkus stated that proper publication, postings and mailings had been accomplished. Planning Director Chivetta presented a resume of the case and stated that the Board of Zoning Adjustments had adopted Resolution No. BZA 65-25 denying the request on May 12, 1965. He pointed out the area map on the wall. June 16, 1965 Page 8 PUBLIC HEARING DECLARED CLOSED ZV-I 10 MOTION MADE THAT COUNC I L CONCUR WITH REC. OF BZA AND DENY ZV-110 BEFORE ANY MORE BLDC SHOULD BE PETITION BROUGHT UP IN NEIGHE HOOD TO WHERE RHCDEE LANE WOULD BE BROUGI- UP TO STANDARD MOTION CARRIED PUBLIC HEARING ZV-111, APPEAL FROM DENIAL OF BZA REQUEST TO VARY WITH ZONING ORD. NO. 357 TO PERMIT ADDITIONAL SINGLE FAMILY DWELL:; TO BE CONSTRUCTED AT 13649 RAMONA BLVD., BERNARD AND BETTY SHAY PUBLICATION, POSTING: MAILINGS RESUME Continued) BIB] 39576-U01 1965-U02 06-U02 16-U02 CC-U02 MIN-U02 LI1-U03 FO9994-U03 FO116848-U03 DO116917-U03 C4-U03 MINUTES1-U03 5/1/2008-U04 ROBIN-U04 REGULAR-U05 SESSION-U05 CITY-U06 COUNCIL-U06 1965 06 16 CC MINHÄ—@¸—/ Í«I Regular. Meeting of the Baldwin'Park City Council TESTIMONY IN BEHALF OF THE REQUEST WAS CALLED FOR BY MAYOR CRITES. Mr. Thomas A. Vesey, 827 Millburgh Avenue, Glendora, stated he was representing Bernard Shay; that at the time this was submitted for a variance it was not felt it was unusual insofar as similar variances had been granted in the past; that Mr. Chivetta mentioned that his inter- pretation of the R-I ordinance was that any R-I lot would have to face an improved street; that this ordinance had been in effect for quite some time and he knew that other interior lots had been created; that the existing home on the lot was approximately seventy 70) feet back. from Ramona Boulevard; that it was a small one I) bedroom home with approximately 625 square feet; that Mr. Shay purchased the property last summer and had improved the lawn and painted the house; that the proposed house would conform with the new tract home built just to the east; that it would conform to the setback requirements; that he was not asking for a lot split,unless this would be a condition of approval; that the curbs and gutters were in; that there was now approximately 9800 square feet of lot area. TESTIMONY I N OPPOSITION TO THE REQUEST WAS CALLED FOR BY MAYOR CRITES. Mr. Gus Nesseth, California Property Brokers, 5355 Persi- mmon, Temple City, stated this was a new item as far as not asking for a lot split; that when it came up before the Planning Commission he believed it was set up as a lot split; that he did not feel that this type of thing was good for planning; that here again a twelve 12) or fifteen 15) foot driveway would be created; that he felt Baldwin Park should upgrade their thinking in narrow driveway type of development; that this would not improve the situation by approving another one although he did feel that a new house in the area would not hurt it any but the idea of two on a lot situation should be gone over carefully; that there was a substandard lot here to think about. Mr. James Q. Gibson,. 13268 Francisquito, Baldwin Park, stated he was not familiar with this particular lot split case but he did recall that previous cases, where there were substandard lots, had been passed by previous Council's; that he thought this was a very pertinent thing for this Council to consider; that he concurred with the previous gentleman that just spoke; that if Baldwin Park was going to be upgraded the line must be drawn some place; that at the time the last substandard lot split was granted that he recalled the Baldwin Park improvement Association suggested to the Council that the ordinance be changed to 6,000 square feet rather than 5,000 square feet for any lot. Mayor Crites stated that Mr. Gibson had mentioned the Baldwin Park Improvement Association and asked if he was speaking for the association or as an individual. Mr. Gibson stated he was speaking as an individual. Mrs. Barbara Woodruff, 13639 East Ramona Boulevard, Baldwin Park, stated she lived to the west of the property in question; that she would have no objections if the property was designated as R-2; that it was not, it was designated as R-l; that the property builders had complied with all regulations with the Code; that she did not feel that by putting a second house on the property at this time would be complying with what the City government had asked the people to do on R-I property. Continued) June 16, 1965 241 Page 9 TESTIMONY I N BEHALF THOMAS A. VESEY, 827 Millburgh Ave., Glendora REPR. BERNARD SHAY TESTIMONY IN OPPOSI- TION GUS NESSETH, CALIF. PROPERTY BROKERS, 5355 Persimmon, Temple City JAMES Q. GIBSON, 13268 Francisquito, B.Pk. MRS. BARBARA WOODRUFF 13639 E. Ramona Blvd B.Pk. BIB] 39576-U01 1965-U02 06-U02 16-U02 CC-U02 MIN-U02 LI1-U03 FO9994-U03 FO116848-U03 DO116917-U03 C4-U03 MINUTES1-U03 5/1/2008-U04 ROBIN-U04 REGULAR-U05 SESSION-U05 CITY-U06 COUNCIL-U06 1965 06 16 CC MINHÄ—@¸—/ Í«June 16, 1965 Regular Meeting of the Baldwin Park City Council 1 2416 Page 10 As there was no one else in the audience desiring to speak in behalf of or in opposition to ZV-111, Mayor Crites de- clared the public hearing closed. Councilman McCaron commented in this particular case the lot would be substandard to allow two residences on the lot; that he did not think from what testimony had been brought up this evening that the fact should be overlooked that there were some lots in the City where there was sufficient area and still not adaptable to put an additional house on the lot and front on a street; that these should be given some consideration, however, in this case the lot was substandard. COUNCILMAN MCCARON MOVED THAT THE CITY COUNCIL DENY THE APPEAL OF ZONE VARIANCE I11 ZV-III). COUNCILWOMAN GREGORY SECONDED. The motion carried by the following vote: AYES: COUNCILMEN MCCARON, GREGORY, ADAIR, MOREHEAD AND MAYOR CRITES NOES NONE ABSENT: NONE 00-- City Clerk Balkus announced that it was the time and place fixed for a public hearing on ZV-113, an appeal from the conditions of approval of the Board of Zoning Adjustments an application submitted by Maxwell Sapp requesting a Zone Variance to vary with the Zoning Code No. 357, Section 9611, Subsection C 1) and 2), side and front yards re- quired in the C-2 Zone, upon a parcel of land located on the westerly side of Maine Avenue between Clark Street and Palm Avenue. PUBLIC HEARING DECLARED CLOSED ZV-III MOTION MADE AND CARRIED THAT COUNCI DENY APPEAL CF ZV-III PUBLIC HEARING ZV- 113, APPEAL FROM CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL OF BZA REQUEST TO VARY WIT' ZONING CODE NO. 357; SIDE AND FRONT YARD` REQUIRED IN C-2 ZON UPON PARCEL OF LAND LOCATED ON WESTERLY SIDE OF MAINE AVENU( BETWEEN CLARK STREET AND PALM AVENUE City Clerk Balkus stated that proper publication, postings PUBLICATION, POSTINC and mailings had been accomplished. MAILINGS Planning Director Chivetta presenteda resume of the case RESUME and stated that the Board of Zoning Adjustments had adopted Resolution No. BZA 65-27 approving the zone variance on May 12, 1965; that the applicant was appealing the decision of the Board based on the unreasonableness of the dedication requirement of the corner radii. He pointed out the Site Plan on the wall showing the proposed development of the shopping center, a map showing what sections of Palm and Clark had been dedicated and an area map showing the existing zones surround- ing the property. TESTIMONY I N BEHALF OF THE REQUEST WAS CALLED FOR BY MAYOR TESTIMONY I N BEHALF CRITES. Mr. Arthur Snyder, 2832 Lawndale Drive, Eagle Rock, Attorney ARTHUR K. SNYDER, for Maxwell Sapp, applicant and owner, stated they were in 2932 Lawndale Dr., agreement with the Board of Zoning Appeals" with the single Eagle Rock exception of the five 5) foot dedication on Clark and Palm ATTY. FOR MAXWELL Streets; that the first factor which was important to them SAPP was the fact that by the reduction of five 5) feet of the property five 5) parking spaces would be eliminated from the parking area of the development; that perhaps this did not seem-much in view of the number of parking spaces that they had, however the studies by people who developed shopping centers of this sort tell them that each parking space in any shopping centers of this sort tell them that each parking space in any shopping center of-this size means $20,000 worth of business per year; that this meant only Continued) BIB] 39576-U01 1965-U02 06-U02 16-U02 CC-U02 MIN-U02 LI1-U03 FO9994-U03 FO116848-U03 DO116917-U03 C4-U03 MINUTES1-U03 5/1/2008-U04 ROBIN-U04 REGULAR-U05 SESSION-U05 CITY-U06 COUNCIL-U06 1965 06 16 CC MINHÄ—@¸—/ Í«Regular Meeting of the Baldwin Park City Council June 16, 1965 Page 11 I perhaps $100,000.00 per year gross loss in the availability of spending in this individual shopping center but it had a secondary effect because each one of the leases for the existing shops that they did have was predicated upon this development and upon the number of parking spaces that were in the center; that so far through all of the hearings they had been able to save their parking spaces, however, this requirement would make it necessary for them to renegotiate the leases that they did have; that unfortunately there had been such delay in this so far that they had lost their financing on the shopping center and the reason Mr. Sapp was not here this evening was that he was in Chicago attempting to renegotiate the financing; that if it became necessary to totally renegotiate the leases it would become a very grave problem for them; that another factor, of course, and this was a dollar factor, to them, was that the land they were being asked to dedicate was some $20,000.00 worth of land; that this was what the land had cost them on an average square footage basis over the entire parcel, and frankly unless some necessity was shown for the dedication they felt it was un- reasonable to ask them to come up with that type of contribution; that the second economic factor was that by reducing even the smallest shop that remained vacant in the project over the term of the first leases it would mean a loss to them of some $60,000.00; that he recognized the economic factors of the center were not necessarily binding upon the City but he hoped that they would be persuasive to the Council because there were equities here which he hoped, in con- sideration of the question of necessity for the dedication of the extra five 5) feet, would, at least, bear upon the Council's mind; that certainty they have no objection to the principle of sixty 60) foot dedication on the streets in Baldwin Park; that what it actually meant was a forty 40) foot street; that they had retained what they considered one of the finest Traffic Engineering Consultants in Southern California to give them his opinion as to whether this was really a good thing in this situation and he agreed with them that it was the forty 40) foot street in this location); that the appeal that they actually brought to the Council was from the application of this principle in this particular location; that they were not talking about the forty 40) foot street but the ten 10) foot parkway on either side of the street that would contain the five 5) foot sidewalk; that their position was that while a five 5) foot sidewalk at this location was necessary and adequate, the provision for the extra five 5) feet for parkway was both unnecessary and affirmatively bad at this location; that experience in the development of this type of facilities had shown them that the five 5) foot parkway became first an eyesore, secondly dangerous and thirdly a continuing maintenance problem; that people who came to shop, and there was a constant flow of people, even though there was parking within the facility, had an alarming tendency to stand on the plants; that if a parkway was provided in that location he was afraid it would turn out to be like the other parkways that existed at three locations on Palm to be nothing but either piles of rubbish or unplanted and just dirt or finally if, indeed, and it would be their responsibility and they would do their best, the maintenance would be a serious problem for them because it would be a consistent problem of every day having to go out and replant the area; that on the other hand if it was planted in a low maintenance type planting of ice plants people with high heels stepping out of cars would become a problem as well; that certainly the principle of the sixty 60) foot dedication and the ten t0) foot parkway including the five 5) foot planting strip was a very good one in residential areas because in- residential areas there was not nearly the amount of vehicular traffic in and out as there was adjacent to the side yard of a commercial district; that also there was perhaps a little more respect of the people that did come out of the cars to keep from stepping on your" roses Continued) BIB] 39576-U01 1965-U02 06-U02 16-U02 CC-U02 MIN-U02 LI1-U03 FO9994-U03 FO116848-U03 DO116917-U03 C4-U03 MINUTES1-U03 5/1/2008-U04 ROBIN-U04 REGULAR-U05 SESSION-U05 CITY-U06 COUNCIL-U06 1965 06 16 CC MINHÄ—@¸—/ 1965 06 16 CC MINHÄ—@¸—/ Í«I Regular Meeting of the Baldwin Park City Council revised by the City Council June 1, 1964; that according to law it could not go into effect until thirty 30) days after it was passed by the Council which made the date July I, 1964; that the escrow of all eighteen properties was closed and recorded at 8:00 p.m. on June 23, 1964,before the ordinance was in effect; that all property owners received their check from the Bank of America in Baldwin Park on June 26, 1964; that they had worked under the old ordinance, and there was nothing said about the five 5) feet on either side until they were all through escrow and recorded; that she knew, by experience, that one could not grow shrubs and have them look like anything on Maine Street. She cited incidents concerning the problems of front yard plantings when she had lived at 4219 North Maine. She stated further that this shopping center would bring revenue to Baldwin Park. June 16, 1965 2419 Page 13 Mrs. Rose Wiseman, 14259 Palm Street, Baldwin Park, stated MRS. ROSEW ISEMAN, someone had said they had donated five 5) feet of land; 14259 Palm St., that she did not remember this donation and asked if they B.Pk. had to donate five 5) feet on their side how about the other side of the street; that she would donate two and one-half 21) feet and how about the other side two and one-half 2r) feet. Mayor Crites stated this was in effect testimony on the other side of the case; that he had not called for this testimony in opposition; that when it was called for he would be happy to entertain this testimony. Mrs. Faye Hickey, stated regarding the parkway, that they MRS. FAYE HICKEY had donated ten 10) foot and then they donated f.Ivo 5) more feet; and so did the rest of the property owners; that a petition was circulated; that the parkway belonged to the City and the City had never taken care of the parkway, the property owners did with the exception of when Mr. Littlejohn was Mayor. Mayor Crites stated that it was the responsibility of the property owner to care for the parkway even though it belonged to the City. Mrs. Hickey stated she thought that shrubs should not be required and that it should be like Food Giant and the other shopping centers. locations in the parkway. He stated that the parkway would be ten 10) feet from the face of curb to the property line; that the building setback on Palm as well as Clark, require- ment 5.ft,), had been waived as well as the front yard setback In answer to questions by Councilman McCaron, Planning Director Chivetta explained that on Maine Avenue there were no requirements as to wall, shrubs, bushes; that along Palm there was a thirty-six 36) inch masonry wall to be set back five 5) feet with landscaping or ground cover to be placed in front of the wall and the same requirement along Clark; that there was also a re- quirement that there be a view obscuring fence along the rear portion of the property abutting the R-3 zone; that this had been agreed upon by the applicant; that there was a requirement along Palm, Clark and Maine for tree wells for proper tree planting; that it was a require- ment of the City that all parkways in commercial development be fully concreted; that on Palm the wall would be just in front of where the parking abuts the street; that approximately 1400 feet square of landscaping would be in front of the walls; that the wall would be set back five 5) feet from the side property lines along Clark and Palm. He pointed out on the map on the wall the landscaping, masonry wall, and tree well of ten 10) feet; that at the present time the parking ratio was sufficient for the size of the shopping center; that he wanted to pointed out that the cross section that was on the board was a typical cross section that had been approved by Continued) BIB] 39576-U01 1965-U02 06-U02 16-U02 CC-U02 MIN-U02 LI1-U03 FO9994-U03 FO116848-U03 DO116917-U03 C4-U03 MINUTES1-U03 5/1/2008-U04 ROBIN-U04 REGULAR-U05 SESSION-U05 CITY-U06 COUNCIL-U06 1965 06 16 CC MINHÄ—@¸—/Í«2.~ 2 0 Regular Meeting of the Baldwin Park City Council June 16, 1965 Page 14 the past City Council as standards of the City by Resolu- tion No. 62-27 adopted February 5, 1962; that along Clark seventy-five percent 75%) of the property owners on the northerly side had dedicated for the proposed sixty 60) foot right-of-way; that there had only been one I) dedication along Palm; that there would be entrances to the two structures on Clark; that he could not answer for the structures on Palm to the rear of the property; that there would be ingress and egress to the proposed Firestone building to be located at the intersection of Palm and Maine so that vehicular traffic could get in to be worked on for tire changes or batteries or something of this type; that the proposed bank at the intersection of Clark and Maine would possibly have entrances and exits at Maine and Clark; that the fifteen foot radii on the corners was standard by the Code; that Section 9535, vision clearance) required this on all corner lots and reverse corner lots; that the structure at Palm and Maine would not hamper the vision clearance but the proposed bank would hamper the vision clearance of the fifteen 15) foot. Councilrl:an Morehead asked Planning Director Chivetta if it was one of the Planning Commission's conditions regarding the wall, the buffer between the parking area and Clark and Palm. Planning Director Chivetta stated this was according to Zoning ordinance No. 357; that along with this was re- quired two percent 2%) interior landscaping on parcels that have in excess of twenty 20) parking spaces which this would coincide with. Councilman Morehead, regarding the view obscuring fence RE VIBN OBSCURING on the west side of the property, asked if fi'r,-I was the FENCE ON WEST SIDE condition of'the Planning Commission pointing out what OF PROPERTY he was referring to on the map on the wall. Planning Director Chivetta stated that the fence was also a requirement of the Code. Councilman Morehead asked what was a view obscuring fence other than a block wall. Planning Director Chivetta stated his interpretation of a view obscuring fence was something that could not be seen through. Councilman Morehead stated it was his understanding that the chain link fence the Planning Commission had allowed could be seen through and asked what type they had approved. Planning Director Chivetta stated they approved a six 6) foot chain link fence with plastic slats inserted inside the links which could be seen through at an angle or even looking straight on. Councilman Morehead asked Mr. Chivetta how that'was considered a view obscuring fence. Planning Director Chivetta stated that the applicant was able to convince the Commission that the fence vacs in fact view obscuring by the insertion of the plastic slats. Councilman Morehead asked, in Your" opinion, the fence that was conditionally allowed was that a view obscuring fence. Planning Director Chivetta answered No Sir fl. Councilman McCaron asked if in the future there was excess traffic on Palm due to future development, possibly either R-3 or commercial, was it possible to alleviate some of the crowding by cutting the width of the sidewalks down Continued) BIB] 39576-U01 1965-U02 06-U02 16-U02 CC-U02 MIN-U02 LI1-U03 FO9994-U03 FO116848-U03 DO116917-U03 C4-U03 MINUTES1-U03 5/1/2008-U04 ROBIN-U04 REGULAR-U05 SESSION-U05 CITY-U06 COUNCIL-U06 1965 06 16 CC MINHÄ—@¸—/Í«RoguLLr Meeting of the Baldwin Park City Council and widening the actual paving. He asked if it would be sufficient to cut five 5) feet off of each side and have a third lane for cars to stop to discharge passengers. I Planning Director Chivetta stated that the increase in width of paving of any street would allow ease of traffic movement; that the cutting down of the parkway along the R-3 would not hamper pedestrian traffic because of the setbacks in R-3 zone; that in commercial zone, where allowed to go up to the side property line except in the case of where the property was adjacent to an R zone, this would hamper the pedestrian traffic and this was the concern. In answer to Councilman Adair, Planning Director Chivetta stated that Palm was proposed to be a sixty 60) foot right-of way with forty 40) foot of paving curb to curb with a ten I0) foot parkway on both sides. Councilman McCaron asked Mr. Snyder if he had taken into consideration the benefit that would accrue from the park- ing on the street on both Clark and Palm due to the fact that there would be area there to develop the street. Mr. Snyder stated yes sir"; that they had considered the potential availability of on street parking as one of the definite potentials for people to park when shopping at the locations immediately adjacent to C!arx and Palm; that the development of the street beyond forty 40) feet, if the City went to fifty 50) foot development of the street there, would not be enough to put in two more lanes; that Baldwin Park Boulevard at Pacific Avenue was thirty-six 36) feet in width, and it w,-)-.!d be very doubtful, at least to the Traffic Consultan;.. even with the total development of both Clark and P, S{Teets in multiple residential the potential volumes of a forty 40) foot street at that location would not be used up; that he agreed with the Traffic Consultant and joined with the City in saying that a forty 40) foot street at that location was reasonable and proper; that the thing they were saying that, especially in light of the equities of the situation, that requiring a ten 10) foot parkway in that location was not reasonable. Councilman McCaron asked Mr. Snyder if he was aware of the condition that existed on Maine Street at the present time; that due to the fact of developments in the past that Maine Street was now deficient in Its width; that to make the street a proper width it would be impossible to acquire the necessary right-of-way. Mr. Snyder stated yes; that unfortunately this was a very common thing; that this was why they joined with the City in supporting a forty 40) foot width; that he thought Mr. Hardy could probably give the Council a more technical explanation of head spaces between cars and traffic volumes. Councilman Caron stated he was not referring to just the forty 40) foot width but the fact that the City did not have even sufficient right-of-way to even widen the street; that this could very well occur in this case. Mr. Snyder stated his point was that building a forty 40) foot street would be providing for all possible future alternatives in the development of the property even to an R-4 zoning on the full length of both Clark and Palm Streets. Councilman McCaron stated it would be to the City's benefit to see that any development within the City succeeds; that he would think the City should be looking toward making a connection with the western extension of Palm; that that would open a large area that would lead traffic to this area in support of this area. Continued) June 16, 1965 Page 15 BIB] 39576-U01 1965-U02 06-U02 16-U02 CC-U02 MIN-U02 LI1-U03 FO9994-U03 FO116848-U03 DO116917-U03 C4-U03 MINUTES1-U03 5/1/2008-U04 ROBIN-U04 REGULAR-U05 SESSION-U05 CITY-U06 COUNCIL-U06 1965 06 16 CC MINHÄ—@¸—/Í«Regular Meeting of the Baldwin Park City Council June 16, 1965 Page 16 Mr. Snyder stated they had considered that; that originally it had been their position that a thirty-six 36) foot dedica- tion or improvement would actually be adequate and for the length of Palmas it presently was it probably would have been; that to consider an extension of Palm on farther through the right-of-way the City partially had,and on through to connect with Palm as it presently existed farther out would increase the capacity to such that it would be more proper to have a forty 40) foot street; that they had altered their position from what it was at the Board of Zoning Adjustments meeting on this matter; that forty 40) foot was adequate for the actual maximum capacity that could possibly be generated in this block on Palm Street when extended and Clark as it existed with an R-3 development; that a five 5) foot sidewalk at this location was adequate to handle all potential pedestrian traffic; that they had gone to a good deal of expense to make sure they were on sound ground when they did this; that the fact that they would be penalized for the dedication of the five 5) feet would be penalizing $100,000.00 a year per year to the thirteen 131 local merchants who would be established there and after a ten year period it would be somewhere between $8,000.00 and $10,000.00 from then on indefinitely; that they were asking the Council for consideration to eliminate the re- quirements for an additional dedication. Councilman Morehead asked Mr. Snyder as the attorney for the developer and Mr. Hardy as a Traffic Engineer if the five 5) feet from the curb face to the property line was allowed and you" had an opening on that side of the building of three 3) feet and some one drove up with a car and opened their door at the same time the building door was opened what would happen. Mr. Snyder stated he thought that Building Superintendent Kalbfleisch could tell the Council that it would-be con- trary to the Building and Safety Codes to allow them to swing a door at this location Palm). He stated all of the buildings were designed fore and aft. Councilman Morehead stated there would also have to be room for utility poles. Mr. Snyder stated there would be no utility poles on the south side of Clark. He stated that the side yard setback would not have added any pedestrian space, it would have merely been a planted area along side the building which the Board of Zoning Adjustments agreed was not necessary. He stated if he thought that this request would cause the blocking of traffic or pedestrian access to the center he would not have asked for this; that what was being discussed was not so much a matter of exchange; that what they were seeking they felt to be reasonable in every situation; that things they could have asked for they were not asking for; that they did not come in and ask for more square footage in their buildings so that they could build larger rentals and decrease the number of parking spaces so that they would have a substandard parking area; that there were a lot of things they could have asked for that would have baen unreasonable that they had not asked for. Councit+nan McCaron stated, suppose someone on the property adjacent to this should come In and ask for a commercial zoning; that their development would have to face on Palm and it would be reasonable to expect them to front on a five 5) foot sidewalk to conform with the development. Mr. Snyder stated if Palm Street was to be considered for commercial development there should probably be a request for a seventy 70) foot street; that the City planning, at least from what they had been able to ascertain by consultations with the various people in the City Hall Continued) BIB] 39576-U01 1965-U02 06-U02 16-U02 CC-U02 MIN-U02 LI1-U03 FO9994-U03 FO116848-U03 DO116917-U03 C4-U03 MINUTES1-U03 5/1/2008-U04 ROBIN-U04 REGULAR-U05 SESSION-U05 CITY-U06 COUNCIL-U06 1965 06 16 CC MINHÄ—@¸—/Í«23 Regular Meeting of the Baldwin Park City Council June 16, 1965 Page 17 who were up on this sort of thing, told them that the most heavy use would be R-4; that it was not fair to ask them to project fifty 50) years in the future and penalize them; that $100,000.00 was what it would cost them out- right plus loss of at least three of their leases plus loss of financing, they were back there getting now, and a delay of, he did not know how long, because at the first of the year all of their leases would expire. Councilman McCaron stated it would appear that you" would be pleading ignorance of what was required at the time you" were buying the property and what was required now; that the requirements had always been the same; the street had always been designated as a sixty 60) foot street; that this should be brought out; that there was one objection to this, the properties adjacent; that they the developers) were justified in making their objection inasmuch as they felt that the development should be. If it was designated as $ sixty 0t foot street,-it'should go to that, and to be properly developed there should be adequate space in front of the property; that he would think that for the protection of the property to the rear those properties should also be taken into consideration. Mr. Snyder stated that the best he could say on that was that the magic word was adequacy, was it adequate to carry the people that were going to walk on it; that ten 10) feet was not going to be adequate to front a commercial street on; that they should probably be ask to put in a twenty 20) foot sidewalk in order to provide for future commercial development and they would be expected and expecting themselves to be asked to put in a twenty 20) foot sidewalk there if they were siding onto some type of major shopping area immediately upon the frontage of the street; that in a situation like this all they could expect to have required of them was a sufficient amount to allow for the passageway of pedestriansat the heaviest possible development of the property and this they felt was provided with a five 5) foot sidewalk; that this was not just their imagination they had tried to go out and get expert testimony to that effect. Councilman McCaron stated the fact that the proposed shopping center did not front on this side street puts you" in a different position; that there was now a deficiency on Maine Street; that in the near future the City intended to widen Maine Street from Los Angeles Street north which would help bring traffic down to the shopping center, all of which would add to the congestion accumulating at this point; that the fact that the street was not of sufficient width and that it had been widened five 5) feet in front of the subject property at the present time had eliminated some of the congestion but the traffic area was still inadequate. Mr. Snyder stated that forty 40) feet would provide two lanes of parking and two lanes of traffic and an additional ten 10) feet would provide one more lane if it were widened in the future. Councilman McCaron stated that others in the center of the block, in order to develop, would be penalized. Mr. Snyder stated the density of the population which would be developed under an R-4 zoning could be anticipated; that based upon those densities and the natural densities that came from a development of a property such as this you" can project density, you" could project volumes on sidewalks and on streets; that this was what they had attempted to do; that if they could go into the future and consider Continued) BIB] 39576-U01 1965-U02 06-U02 16-U02 CC-U02 MIN-U02 LI1-U03 FO9994-U03 FO116848-U03 DO116917-U03 C4-U03 MINUTES1-U03 5/1/2008-U04 ROBIN-U04 REGULAR-U05 SESSION-U05 CITY-U06 COUNCIL-U06 1965 06 16 CC MINHÄ—@¸—/Í«Regular Meeting of the Baldwin Park City Council June 16, 1965 Page 18 the possibilities of development of the things which were not conceived at present, and perhaps it would be wise to if there were no offsetting equities; however it had been their feeling that the City of Baldwin Park could give adequate service to the largest possible projection with a five 5) foot sidewalk and a forty 40) foot street at this location. Councilman Mc-Caron asked if other than the five 5) parking spaces was there any other benefit they could accrue. Mr. Snyder stated yes sir" there was benefit they could accrue: one, this amount of land cost them $20,000.00. Councilman McCaron asked what benefit it was other than the five 5) parking spaces irregardless of the cost. Mr. Snyder stated that it would make it necessary to renegotiate every one of the leases; that they had three today that were trying to get out of their leases because they had been so long getting the project going; that they would automatically lose them on January 1, 1966, if they were not ready to move them in; that if they had to re- negotiate their leases on the basis of reduced parking he knew they would lose three 3) lessees; that they lost their first level financing because they had been delayed so long; that if they lost their second level of financing this would mean going out and renegotiating their financing again; that the taking of this five 5) feet endangered the entire project for them; that for Mr. Sapp it was not just a matter of waiting a year to three years, it was a matter of millions being invested in this already and it was sitting there tied up on vacant land in the middle of the City; that while five 5) feet of sidewalk might seem like a little thing to have such disasterous results it certainly did in a project of this sort when they had stretched the thing out so long now; that if they were able to get this and were able to proceed then the Council would see the fastest job of building they ever saw because they had to be ready to move the people into there on January 1, 1966, or the bottom would fall out of the entire project and they would have to go out and start all over again. Mayor Crites stated unless there was anything new to be presented he would declare the public hearing closed. NEW TEST IA1ONY IN FAVOR OF THE REQUEST WAS CALLED FOR BY TESTIMONY IN FAVOR MAYOR CRITES. Mrs. Faye Hickey stated we" have property on Palm and MRS. FAYE HICKEY that she did not think the property owners would give this ten 10) feet; that this would be right up next to the buildings; that she did not think anyone had dedicated any property; that she hoped that the City Council would approve this variance. Mayor Crites asked Mr. Snyder if he would like to offer a rebu t t a I or summary. Mr. Snyder stated No sir, I think that I have surrmarized pretty well in my conversation". As there was no one else in the audience desiring to speak PUBLIC HEARING in behalf of or in opposition to ZV-113, Mayor Crites DECLARED CLOSED declared the public hearing closed. ZV-113 Continued) BIB] 39576-U01 1965-U02 06-U02 16-U02 CC-U02 MIN-U02 LI1-U03 FO9994-U03 FO116848-U03 DO116917-U03 C4-U03 MINUTES1-U03 5/1/2008-U04 ROBIN-U04 REGULAR-U05 SESSION-U05 CITY-U06 COUNCIL-U06 1965 06 16 CC MINHÄ—@¸—/Í«Regular Meeting of the Baldwin Park City Council June 16, 1965 24 2,5 Page 19 I Councilwoman Gregory stated she had heard a great deal said this evening; that there had been so many concessions made already by the Planning Commission for this shopping center; that by no stretch of the imagination could she believe that they were not aware of this need in the City; that this had all been explained so she would not go over it again; that in view of all she had read and heard and all that she knew that had been given and met more than half way by the Planning Commission and the Board of Zoning Adjustments she would make the following motion: COUNCILWOMAN GREGORY MOVED THAT THE CITY COUNCIL CONCUR MOTION MADE THAT WITH THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE BOARD OF ZONING ADJUSTMENTS COUNCIL CONCUR WITH AND APPROVE ZV-113 ON THE SAME BASIS). COUNCILMAN ADAIR REC. OF BZA AND SECONDED. APPROVE ZV-l 13 COUNCILMAN MOREHEAD MOVED TO AMEND THE MAIN MOTION BY ADDING AMENDMENT TO MAIN A CONDITION TO THE BOARD OF ZONING ADJUSTMENTS RECOMMENDA- MOTION T I ON I N REGARD TO THE FENCE ON THE WEST S IDE OF THE PROPERTY, RE FENCE ON WEST SID WHICH TO HIM WAS A BUFFER BETWEEN THE SHOPPING CENTER AND THE OF PROPERTY R-1 PROPERTY; THAT IN THE PROFESS I ONAL OP I NI ON OF THE PLANNING CONDITION TO READ DIRECTOR THE FENCE THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION HAD APPROVED THAT THIS WILL BE WAS NOT A VIEW OBSCURING FENCE) AND HE WANTED THE CONDITION A BLOCK WALL FENCE TO READ THAT THIS FENCE WILL BE A BLOCK WALL FENCE. COUNCIL- MAN ADAIR SECONDED. The amendment to the main motion AMENDMENT TO MAIN carried by the following vote: MOTION CARRIED AYES: COUNCILMEN MOREHEAD, ADAIR, AND GREGORY NOES: COUNCILMAN MCCARON AND MAYOR CRITES ABSENT: NONE The main motion carried by the following vote: MAIN MOTION CARRIED AYES: COUNCILMEN GREGORY, ADAIR, MCCARON, MOREHEAD AND MAYOR CRITES NOES: NONE ABSENT: NONE 1 Mr. Snyder asked the City Attorney was not the matter that had to do with the view obscuring fence a matter that was before the Planning Commission and not before the Board of Zoning Adjustments. City Attorney Flandrick stated that was correct, it was on a Site Plan Review; that this was a zone variance and the Council had seen fit to impose a condition concerning the wall. Mr. Snyder stated he thought it was very unfair; that you did not even let me say anything about it. There was a very good reason for this, a very good reason why the BZA did it and I think certainly without even asking anyone why it was done to put something like this on us is a very unfair thing. I don't know what I can do at this point except protest but I think it's a disgrace." The Council agreed to hear Mrs. Faye Hickey regarding the fence for a maximum of three 3) minutes. Mrs. Faye Hickey read from a letter written by the Planning Director as follows: i. a screened area where the parking area is located next to an R zone the median height shall be no less than six foot. The type of fence screen can either be solid wall, a view obscuring fence or compact evergreen hedge." She stated there were three choices; that this letter was signed by Charles Chivetta. Continued) BIB] 39576-U01 1965-U02 06-U02 16-U02 CC-U02 MIN-U02 LI1-U03 FO9994-U03 FO116848-U03 DO116917-U03 C4-U03 MINUTES1-U03 5/1/2008-U04 ROBIN-U04 REGULAR-U05 SESSION-U05 CITY-U06 COUNCIL-U06 1965 06 16 CC MINHÄ—@¸—/Í«Regular Meeting of the Baldwin Park City Council June 16, 1965 Page 20 Councilman Morehead asked the City Attorney if it was legal and just to overrule the Planning Commission and definitely stipulate what was required as a view obscuring fence. City Attorney Flandrick read provision 9612 3) of the Code as follows: Loading Docks. Storage, tc. Loading docks, loading areas, surface yards, outdoor storage or sales area, and all trash, rubbish, or garbage or refuse containers, which are located in a direct line of vision from any portion of adjacent R" zoned properties, shall be screened and/or be separated from each R" zoned properties by a suitable view obscuring fence or wall, not less than 6 feet in height, measured from the finished grade of such surface yard or other area. No outdoor storage shall be permitted to extend above the height of such fence or wall." City Attorney Flandrick stated that the Council had as a condition of approval of the zone variance, indicated that among the other conditions, those imposed by the Board of Zoning Adjustments, that this was also a condition necessary for the development in the manner proposed. The letter Mrs. Hickey read from was passed to the City Attorney. City Attorney Flandrick stated this letter related to the wall for the parking area next to an R zone; that the area in question was not a parking area it was a loading area. 00- City Clerk Balkus announced that it was the time and place PUBLIC HEARING fixed for a public hearing on ZV-117, an appeal from denial of the Board of Zoning Adjustments, an application ZV-117, APPEAL submitted by J. W. Rossiter for a Zone Variance to vary with FROM DENIAL OF BZA the Zoning Code, No. 357, Division 1, Section 9551, subsection REQUEST TO VARY WITF 1, Permitted Uses" in the R-I Zone and Section 9552, sub- ZONING CODE NO. 357 section 1 b) Standards of Development," to permit an addi- TO PERMIT ADDITIONAL tional single family dwelling to be constructed upon a parcel SINGLE FAMILY of land located at 13089 Francisquito Avenue. DWELLING IN R-I ZON[ AT 13089 FRANCISQUI' AVE., J. W. ROSS ITEF City Clerk Balkus stated that proper publication, postings PUBLICATION, POSTING and mailings had been accomplished. MAILINGS Planning Director Chivetta presented a resume of the case RESUME and stated that the Board of Zoning Adjustments had adopted Resolution No. BZA 65-34 on May 12, 1965. He pointed out the plot plan and area map on the wall. TESTIMONY IN BEHALF OF THE REQUEST WAS CALLED FOR BY MAYOR TESTIMONY IN BEHALF CRITES. Mr. John W. Rossiter, 13089 Francisquito, Baldwin Park, JOHN W. ROSSITER, stated the lot was 55 x 194 which gave him 10,670 square 13089 Francisquuito, feet; that taking ten 10) feet off of the front for B.Pk. the parkway would still leave 10,010 square feet; that the house now on the lot was setback twenty-five 25) feet from Francisquito; that there was a garage to the rear; that the proposed house would be to the rear of the property; that there was a twenty 120) foot alley in the back for access to the house; that he would rent this home for additional income. Discussion followed that there was over 10,000 square feet in the lot; that across the street on the two corner lots there were two houses on each lot. Continued) BIB] 39576-U01 1965-U02 06-U02 16-U02 CC-U02 MIN-U02 LI1-U03 FO9994-U03 FO116848-U03 DO116917-U03 C4-U03 MINUTES1-U03 5/1/2008-U04 ROBIN-U04 REGULAR-U05 SESSION-U05 CITY-U06 COUNCIL-U06 1965 06 16 CC MINHÄ—@¸—/Í«Regular Meeting of the Baldwin Park City Council June 16, 1965 Page 21 Mayor Crites raised the question of whether or not there was any possibility of converting the alley into a street taking into consideration the depth of these lots. City Engineer French stated if enough was dedicated on the alley to provide for a sixty 60) foot street the lot would be under 10,000 square feet. Councilman McCaron suggested more study to determine what could happen to the entire area and what type of development could be had. City Engineer French stated ifa forty 40). foot. street were dedicated there would not be any sidewalk area; that if an additional five 5) feet was taken for sidewalk area this would still bring the square footage of the lot under 10,000 square feet. Councilman McCaron stated perhaps it could be determined whether a thirty-six 36) foot street would be adequate; that this was not a good development but still there was an excess of ground on both sides. Councilman Morehead stated this was a problem piece of property, oversize for one lot'and undersize for two lots including streets; that he thought that any time the City started thinking of going to a nonconforming status on streets and property it was a backward step; that it appeared any study of-this area would create a substandard development. As there was no one else in the audience desiring to speak PUBLIC HEARING in behalf of or in opposition to ZV-117, Mayor Crites DECLARED CLCS declared the public hearing closed. ZV-117 Councilman McCaron commented that it would appear that under present circumstances that the variance as pre- sented would be tantamount to redevelopment to the balance of the area; that this would be starting a development that could not be carried on; that he thought that possibly further study could produce results where the depth in combination with the neighboring lots could possibly be a street put-through and proper amount of area for each residence obtained for proper development. COUNCILMAN MOREHEAD MOVED THAT THE CITY COUNCIL CONCUR MOTION MADE AND WITH THE BOARD OF ZONING ADJUSTMENTS AND DENY ZV-I17. CARRIED THAT COUIC4 COUNCILMAN MCCARON SECONDED. The motion carried by CONCUR WITH BZA AND the following vote: DENY ZV-117 AYES: COUNCILMEN MOREHEAD, MCCARON, ADAIR, GREGORY AND MAYOR CRITES NOES: NONE ABSENT: NONE 00- AT 10:07 P.M. COUNCILMAN MOREHEAD MOVED THAT THE CITY COUNCIL RECESS AT 10:07 P.1. RECESS FOR TEN MINUTES. COUNCILWOMAN GREGORY SECONDED. RECONVENED AT 10:17 There were no objections, the motion carried and was so P.M. ordered by Mayor Crites. 00- City Engineer French reviewed the Traffic Committee TRAFFIC COMMITTEE Report of June 10, 1965. He stated that items one, REPORT JUNE 10, two and three required no action if the Council had no 1965 questions. Continued) ITEMS 1-3 NO ACTION BIB] 39576-U01 1965-U02 06-U02 16-U02 CC-U02 MIN-U02 LI1-U03 FO9994-U03 FO116848-U03 DO116917-U03 C4-U03 MINUTES1-U03 5/1/2008-U04 ROBIN-U04 REGULAR-U05 SESSION-U05 CITY-U06 COUNCIL-U06 1965 06 16 CC MINHÄ—@¸—/Í«Regular Meeting of the Baldwin Park City Council June 16, 1965 228 Page 22 City Engineer French stated that Item No. 4 was the request of the Enforcement Officer for no stopping" signs on the north and south sides of the Pacific Electric Railroad right-of-way from Harlan Avenue to Robin Avenue. He stated this had been an enforcement problem for the removal of storage of vehicles along this area and it had caused the Street Department some problem in attempting to clean up. He stated it was recommended that this area be posted no stopping and would require a resolution of the Council. In answer to a question by Councilman McCaron, City Engineer French stated that the buses could be excepted; that perhaps since it was really a parking problem it would be more appropo to say no parking. Councilman PAcCaron stated on the south side that it should take in from Harlan to the City limits also. City Engineer French stated this right-of-way was in Irwindale. Councilwoman Gregory commented on the requests of Baldwin Park citizens to remove the vegetable stands from this right-of-way. She mentioned also the not so pretty" signs and stated that something should be worked out with the City of Irwindale. She hoped that the City would make some agreement including the 1875 feet, when the sewer was in and the street widened, with the City of Irwindale to beautify the entrance to the City of Baldwin Park. She asked that City Engineer French or Chief Administrative Officer Nordby talk to someone in the City of Irwindale concerning no parking and start with that. There were no objections. Councilwoman Gregory stated that she understood that one of the City's merchants did lease part of the right- of-way and were renting to trucks; that if the City did not have an ordinance that required parking lots to be paved then we should acquire that ordinance. COUNCILMAN MOREHEAD MOVED THAT THE CITY COUNCIL CONCUR WITH THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE CITY ENGINEER IN ITEM 4 OF HIS REPORT AND DIRECT THE CITY ATTORNEY TO PRE- PARE THE NECESSARY DOCUMENT. COUNCILWOMAN GREGORY SECONDED. There were no objections, the motion carried and was so ordered by Mayor Crites. City Engineer French reviewed Item Numbers 5 and 6, a request for the installation of traffic signals at Dalewood Avenue and Baldwin Park Boulevard and at FrancisquIto Avenue and Dalewood Avenue. He stated that the State had offered to pay part of the cost based on the number of legs of the intersection under the control; that if the Council agreed he would write a letter to the State stating that the City was in accord with the installation of the signals and they would prepare the necessary agreements for later presenta- tion to the Council. COUNCILhAN MOREHEAD MOVED THAT THE CITY COUNCIL CONCUR WITH THE CITY ENGINEER'S RECCWiiENDATION ON ITEMS 5 AND 6 OF HIS MEMORANDUM AND INSTRUCT HIM TO CARRY CUT HIS RECOMMENDATION. COUNCILMAN ADAIR SECONDED. There were no objections, the motion carried and was so ordered by Mayor Crites. ITEM 4 REQUEST FOR NO STOPPING SIGN: ON NORTH AND SOUTH SIDE OF PE RAILROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY FROM HARLAN AVE. TO ROBIN AVE. NO PARKING RATHER THAN NO STOPPING COUNCIL INSTRUCTION RE ORD. REQUIRING PARKING LOT TO BE PAVED ALONG RIGHT- OFWAY MOTION MADE AND CARRIED THAT COUNCI CONCUR WITH REC. CF CITY ENGR. I N 4 OF H I S REPORT A DIRECT CITY ATT TO PREPARE NEC. DOCUMENT ITEM NOS. 5 AND 6 REQUEST FOR INSTALLS TION OF TRAFFIC SIG! AT DALEWOOD AVE. AN' B,PK. BLVD. AND AT FRANCISQUITO AVE. A, DALEWOOD AVE. STATE TO PREPARE AGREEMENTS FOR LATER PRESENTATION TO COUN; MOTION MADE AND CARRIED THAT COUNCIL CONCUR WITH CITY ENGR. REC. ON ITEMS 5AND6OF HIS MEMO. AND INSTRUCT HIM TO CARRY CUT HIS REC. Continued) BIB] 39576-U01 1965-U02 06-U02 16-U02 CC-U02 MIN-U02 LI1-U03 FO9994-U03 FO116848-U03 DO116917-U03 C4-U03 MINUTES1-U03 5/1/2008-U04 ROBIN-U04 REGULAR-U05 SESSION-U05 CITY-U06 COUNCIL-U06 1965 06 16 CC MINHÄ—@¸—/Í«Regular Meeting of the Baldwin; Park City Council June 16, 1965 Page 23 City Engineer French reviewed Item No. 7, a report on the ITEM NO. 7 request of the Businessmen through the Chamber of Commerce RE REQUEST FOR ANGLE on angle parking on Ramona Boulevard. He stated that a PARK I NG RAMONA map was passed to the Council indicating the original re- BOULEVARD I quest which was one way traffic west bound on the north side and east bound on the south side with angle parking. He stated there had been a meeting with a committee set up by the Chamber of Commerce and through a mutual agree- ment jointly they had come up with a plan where the north side would have angle parking but would have two way traffic; that this in effect said that the City would not be improving the north side of Ramona Boulevard with gas tax funds; that this was not in the five year schedule and if it did become necessary to improve this with gas tax funds it would mean the angle parking would have to be eliminated. In answer to a question by Councilman McCaron, City Engineer French stated this basically made a better traffic pattern in that there would be no conflict between what would normally be considered through traffic with angle parking. He stated in his report he had copied verbatim from a memorandum signed by C. T. Ledden, City and County Projects Engineer; that the Council could see what all of the governing agencies and Traffic Engineers thought about angle parking through past experience; that in this particular case it would be going against all recommendations of sound traffic engineering by having angle parking In conjunction with through traffic; that in a short period of time he was sure the through traffic would travel on the south side separating the through traffic from the parking traffic or the shopping traffic. Discussion followed wherein it was brought out that there would be no change to the south side of Ramona Boulevard; that this change would be*on a trial basis and watched carefully by the Traffic and Safety Committee. Mr. E. A. Cannady, Manager, Chamber of Commerce, 14327 E. A. CANNADY, East Ramona Boulevard, Baldwin Park, stated his concern MANAGER, CHAMBER would be since the north side of Ramona Boulevard was OF COMMERCE, 14327 predominantly not a through street if this could be E. Ramona Blvd., indicated by slowing the traffic down on the north side B_Fk. of Ramona Boulevard to even fifteen miles per hour this would eliminate the danger of the normal speed limit that would be on the south side; that it might even be necessary to post signs that this north side) was not a through street. In answer to a question by Councilman Morehead, Chief of Police Adams stated that angle parking doubled his job"; that the suggestion by Mr. Cannady of slowing the traffic down would alleviate some of the problem; that he felt there would be a problem in the cross-over at Bogart; that this, in the Committees opinion, was the best solution they could arrange giving the extra parking requested; that at the present time the speed limit on Ramona Boulevard was twenty- five miles per hour; that he believed by showing a speed reduction some of the traffic congestion would be eliminated. Councilman McCaron asked if this would require an additional crosswalk on the south side. City Engineer French stated an additional crosswalk had been requested; that this had not be included as part of the change at this time; that they requested additional openings into the parking lot which were included as part of the change; that it would have to be worked out with Pacific Electric as to whether or not there was a possibility of an additional crosswalk before presenting this tp Council; that the entire proposal put the Traffic Committee in a strange position because Continued) BIB] 39576-U01 1965-U02 06-U02 16-U02 CC-U02 MIN-U02 LI1-U03 FO9994-U03 FO116848-U03 DO116917-U03 C4-U03 MINUTES1-U03 5/1/2008-U04 ROBIN-U04 REGULAR-U05 SESSION-U05 CITY-U06 COUNCIL-U06 1965 06 16 CC MINHÄ—@¸—/Í«Regular Meeting of the Baldwin Park City Council June 16, 1965 Page 24 they were not in agreement with angle parking; that they knew the businessmen had a problem; this proposal was submitted to help the businessmen and cause the least traffic problems;they felt this was a fair compromise between the two uses; that they were concerned with the fact that everything on streets to be judged on the basis of traffic was not always fair to the abutting property owners and the businesses concerned, conversely to judge everything by the abutting uses and businesses and not consider the traffic was not right either; that they felt this was as fair and equitable compromise as they could justify and work out as a compromise plan. COUNCILMAN MOREHEAD MOVED THAT THE CITY COUNCIL CONCUR MOTION MADE AND WITH THE TRAFFIC AND SAFETY COMMITTEE IN CONJUNCTION WITH CARRIED THAT COUNCI?. THE CHAMBER AND BUSINESSMEN'S ASSOCIATION AND PUT THIS CONCUR WITH TRAFFIC PLAN INTO EFFECT AND ALSO DECREASE THE SPEED LIMIT ON AND SAFETY COMMITTE. NORTH RAMONA BOULEVARD IN THE AREAS INVOLVED TO FIFTEEN IN CONJUNCTION WITH 15) MILES PER HOUR, TRY IT AND SEE WHAT HAPPENS. COUNCIL- CHAMBER AND BUSINESS MAN ADAIR SECONDED. The motion carried by the following MEN'S ASSOCIATION AN. vote: PUT THIS PLAN INTO EFFECT AND ALSO AYES: COUNCILMEN MOREHEAD, ADAIR, GREGORY, DECREASE THE SPEED MCCARON AND MAYOR CRITES LIMIT ON NORTH RAMOI\: NOES: NONE BLVD. IN AREAS IN- ABSENT: NONE VOLVED TO 15 MPH, TRY IT AND SEE WHAT HAPP ENS 00- City Engineer French reviewed his report on the right- of-way for the Puente-Root project stating that the Engineering Department had been instructed to negotiate with the Potter's and have an agreement prepared; that the agreement had been prepared and signed by the Potter's which required a payment of $3,040.00 to the Potter's for land acquisition; that he had an appraisal prepared by Jerry Morriss, appraiser for the firm of O'Brien, Mawhenney and Long of Los Angeles, California, in this amount; that he recommended that the Mayor and City Clerk be authorized to sign the agreement on behalf of the City and that the Potter's be paid the amount indicated in the agreement and they will then execute the easements. REPORT RE RIGHT-CF- WAY PUENTE-ROOT PRO- JECT AGREEMENT WITH POTTE' LAND ACQUISITION $3,040.00 COUNCILMAN MOREHEAD MOVED THAT THE MAYOR AND CITY CLERK BE MOTION MADE AND AUTHORIZED TO SIGN THE AGREEMENT WITH THE POTTER'S) ON CARRIED THAT MAYOR BEHALF OF THE CITY AND THAT THE POTTER'S BE PAID THE AMOUNT AND CITY CLERK BE INDICATED IN THE AGREEMENT $3,040.00). COUNCILWOMAN GREGORY BE AUTH. TO SIGN SECONDED. The motion carried by the following vote: AGREEMENT ON BEHALF OF CITY AND THAT AYES: COUNCILMEN MOREHEAD.. GREGORY, ADAIR, POTTER'S BE PAID MCCARON AND MAYOR CRITES AMOUNT INDICATED IN NOES: NONE AGREEMENT ABSENT: NONE 00- Planning Director Chivetta presented a resume of TENTATIVE TRACT NO. Tentative Tract No. 23672 located southeasterly of 23672 Robinette, southwesterly of Dart Street, northeasterly of Fairgrove Street and northerly of Garvey Avenue, owner and subdivider, Jerry Hammond. He stated that the Planning Commission had adopted Resolution No. PC 65-19 on June I, 1965, recommending approval of Tentative Tract No. 23672. He pointed out the map on the wall. He stated in the resolution for adoption this evening the only change he could see would be the require- ment of a ten 10) foot easement rather than a five 5) Continued) BIB] 39576-U01 1965-U02 06-U02 16-U02 CC-U02 MIN-U02 LI1-U03 FO9994-U03 FO116848-U03 DO116917-U03 C4-U03 MINUTES1-U03 5/1/2008-U04 ROBIN-U04 REGULAR-U05 SESSION-U05 CITY-U06 COUNCIL-U06 1965 06 16 CC MINHÄ—@¸—/Í«Regular Meeting of the Baldwin Park City Council June 16, 1965 Page 25 I foot utility easement. City Clerk Balkus stated that the required mailings had MAILINGS been accomplished. Councilman Morehead questioned the thirty-eight 38) foot turning radius on the cul-de-sac street wherein Planning Director Chivetta stated that the Planning Commission had requested a revised tentative map which was on the board this evening and showed a radius on the cul-de-sac of forty-three 43) feet, the fifty 50) foot right-of-way for A" Street to be named Hammond, the thirty 30) foot of dedication along Dart and the parcels lines readjusted so that each parcel would have no less than 5,000 square feet and a utility easement to be provided along the rear of the properties 1-7) which was shown on the map as five 5) feet but was requested by the City Engineer to be no less then ten 10) feet. Councilwoman Gregory asked why it was not stipulated street lights on ornamental poles instead of just street lights. Planning Director Chivetta stated this could be incorporated in the Council's resolution for adoption this evening. City Engineer French stated that it was a standard require- ment to require ornamental poles. Councilman McCaron asked if the Planning Commission did RE STREET NAME not have any system for naming streets. He asked if it lined up with any other streets wherein Planning Director Chivetta stated no that the name was put up before the Planning Commission and they were of the opinion that this would be appropriate. City Attorney Flandrick read Resolution No. 65-106 RES. NO. 65-106 by title as follows: APPROVING TENT. RESOLUTION NO. 65-106 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BALDWIN PARK APPROVING A TENTATIVE TRACT MAP FOR TRACT NO. 23672 APPLICANT: HANMOND)" G City Attorney Flandrick stated this resolution had the corrections indicated: street lights on ornamental notes and a public utility easement ten 10) feet in width. COUNCILMAN MOREHEAD MOVED THAT RESOLUTION NO. 65-106 BE APPROVED AND FURTHER READING BE WAIVED. COUNCILWOMAN GREGORY SECONDED. The motion carried by the following vote; AYES: COUNCILMEN MOREHEAD, GREGORY, ADAIR, MCCARON AND MAYOR CRITES NOES NONE ABSENT: NONE 00- City Attorney Flandrick read Resolution No. 65-107 by title as follows: RESOLUTION NO. 65-107 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BALDWIN PARK DENYING A ZONE VARIANCE CASE: ZV-110; LOCATION 3661 RHODES LANE; APPLICANT: FELIPE BALANON)" Continued) TRACT MAP FOR TRACT NO. 23672 APPLICANT HAMMOND) RES. NO. 65-106 ADOPTED RES. NO. 65-107 DENYING ZONE VARIANCE CASE: ZV-110; LOCATION 3661 RHODES LANE; APPLICANT: FELIPE BALANON) BIB] 39576-U01 1965-U02 06-U02 16-U02 CC-U02 MIN-U02 LI1-U03 FO9994-U03 FO116848-U03 DO116917-U03 C4-U03 MINUTES1-U03 5/1/2008-U04 ROBIN-U04 REGULAR-U05 SESSION-U05 CITY-U06 COUNCIL-U06 1965 06 16 CC MINHÄ—@¸—/Í«Regular Meeting of the Baldwin Park City Council COUNCILMAN MOREHEAD MOVED THAT RESOLUTION NO. 65-107 BE APPROVED AND FURTHER READING BE WAIVED. COUNC I L- WOMAN GREGORY SECONDED. The motion carried by the following vote: AYES: COUNCILMEN MOREHEAD, GREGORY, ADAIR, MCCARON AND MAYOR CRITES NOES: NONE ABSENT: NONE 00- City Attorney Flandrick read Resolution No. 65-108 by title as follows: RESOLUTION NO. 65-108 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BALDWIN PARK DENYING A ZONE VARIANCE CASE NO. ZV-lit; LOCATION: 13649 RAMONA BOULEVARD; APPLICANT: BERNARD SHAY)" COUNCILMAN MOREHEAD MOVED THAT RESOLUTION NO. 65-108 BE APPROVED AND FURTHER READING BE WAIVED. COUNCILMAN ADAIR SECONDED. The motion carried by the following vote: AYES: COUNCILMEN MOREHEAD, ADAIR, GREGORY, MCCARON AND MAYOR CRITES NOES: NONE ABSENT: NONE 00- City Attorney Flandrick read Resolution No. 65-109 by title as follows: RESOLUTION NO. 65-109 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BALDWIN PARK DENYING A ZONE VARIANCE CASE: ZV-117; LOCA- TION: 13089 FRANCISQUITO AVENUE; APPLICANT: J. W. ROSSITER)" COUNCILWOMAN GREGORY MOVED THAT RESOLUTION NO, 65-109 BE APPROVED AND FURTHER READING BE'WAIVED. COUNCILMAN MOREHEAD SECONDED. The motion carried by the following vote: AYES: COUNCILMEN GREGORY, MOREHEAD, ADAIR, MCCARON AND MAYOR CRITES NOES: NONE ABSENT: NONE 00- City Attorney Flandrick read Resolution No. 65-110 by title as follows: RESOLUTION NO. 65-110 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BALD IN PARK GRANTING A ZONE VARIANCE CASE NO. ZV-113; LOCATION: MAINE AVENUE; APPLICANT: SAPPY" City Attorney Flandrick stated this resolution carried the same conditions as in the Board of Zoning Adjustments resolu- tion with the exception of a condition which read as follows: June 16, 1965 Page 26 RES. NO. 65-107 ADOPTED RES. NO. 65-108 DENYING A ZONE VARIANCE CASE NO. ZV-III; LOCATION: 13649 RAMONA BLVD; APPLICANT: BERNARD SHAY) RES. NO. 65-108 ADOPTED RES. NO. 65-109 DENYING A ZONE VARIANCE CASE: ZV-117; LOCATION: 13089 FRANCISQUITO AVE.; APPLICANT: J. W. ROSSITER) RES. NO. 65-109 ADOPTED RES. NO. 65-110 GRANTING A ZONE VARIANCE CASE NO. ZV-113; LOCATION: MAINE AVENUE; APPLICANT: SAPP) Continued) BIB] 39576-U01 1965-U02 06-U02 16-U02 CC-U02 MIN-U02 LI1-U03 FO9994-U03 FO116848-U03 DO116917-U03 C4-U03 MINUTES1-U03 5/1/2008-U04 ROBIN-U04 REGULAR-U05 SESSION-U05 CITY-U06 COUNCIL-U06 1965 06 16 CC MINHÄ—@¸—/Í«I i Regular Meeting of the Baldwin Park City Council Section 2 1) That all construction shall comply with the provisions of the Baldwin Park Municipal Code, including, but not limited to, Section 9612 B. 3), which requires the construction of a solid block well 61 in height In anti along the westerly boundary of the subject propeEtles, between Clark Street and Palm Avenue." COUNCILMAN ADAIR MOVED THAT RESOLUTION NO. 65-110 BE APPROVED AND FURTHER READING BE WAIVED. COUNCILMAN MOREHEAD SECONDED. The motion carried by the following vote: AYES: COUNCILMEN ADAIR, MOREHEAD, GREGORY, MCCARON AND MAYOR CRITES NOES NONE ABSENT: NONE 00- City Attorney Flandrick requested that Item No. I under Unfinished Business, Short Form 1911 Act, Center Street, area on west side of Center Street between Adour Lane and Palm Avenue, be held over. He stated that the problem had not yet been resolved. There were no objections. 00- City Clerk Backus read Ordinance No. 411 by title as follows: ORDINANCE NO. 411 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BALDW I N PARK AMENDING THE ZONING MAP OF SAID CITY, AND REZONING CERTAIN HEREIN DESCRIBED REAL PROPERTY FROM ZONE R-1 TO ZONE C-2 ZONE CASE NO. Z-266)" COUNCILWOMAN GREGORY MOVED THAT FURTHER READING OF ORDINANCE NO. 411 BE WAIVED. COUNCILMAN MOREHEAD SECONDED. The motion carried by the following vote: AYES: COUNCILMEN GREGORY, MOREHEAD, ADAIR, MCCARON AND MAYOR CRITES NOES NONE ABSENT: NONE COUNCILWOMAN GREGORY MOVED THAT ORDINANCE NO. 411 BE ADOPTED. COUNCILMAN MDRE14EAD SECONDED. The motion carried by the following vote: AYES: COUNCILMEN GREGORY, MOREHEAD. ADAIR, AND MAYOR CRITES NOES: NONE ABSTAIN: COUNCILMAN MCCARON ABSENT: NONE City Clerk Balkus read Ordinance No. 412 by title as follows: Continued) June 16, 1965 Page 27 RES. NO. 65-110 ADOPTED ITEM NO. I UNDER UNF. BUSINESS 9A'30 SHORT FORM 1911 ACT CENTER STREET TAKEN UNDER SUB- MISSION MAY 19, 196. HELD OVER JUNE 2, 1965 HELD OVER ORD. NO. 411 AMENDING ZONING MAP OF SAID CITY, AND R ZONING CERTAIN HERE- IN DESCRIBED REAL PROPERTY FROM ZONE R-I TO ZONE C-2 ZONE CASE NO. Z-26L FURTHER READING OF ORD. NO. 411 WAIVED ORD. NO. 411 ADOPTED ORD. NO. 412 AMENDING ZONING MAP Continued) BIB] 39576-U01 1965-U02 06-U02 16-U02 CC-U02 MIN-U02 LI1-U03 FO9994-U03 FO116848-U03 DO116917-U03 C4-U03 MINUTES1-U03 5/1/2008-U04 ROBIN-U04 REGULAR-U05 SESSION-U05 CITY-U06 COUNCIL-U06 1965 06 16 CC MINHÄ—@¸—/Í«Regular Meeting of the Baldwin Park City Council ORDINANCE NO. 412 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BALDWIN PARK AMENDING THE ZONING MAP OF SAID CITY, AND REZONING CERTAIN HEREIN DESCRIBED REAL PROPERTY FROM ZONE R-I TO ZONE R-3 ZONE CASE NO. Z-267)" COUNCILWOMAN GREGORY MOVED THAT FURTHER READING CF ORDINANCE NO. 412 BE WAIVED. COUNCILMAN ADAIR SECONDED. The motion carried by the following vote: AYES: COUNCILMEN GREGORY, ADAIR, MCCARON, MOREHEAD AND MAYOR CRITES NOES NONE ABSENT: NONE COUNCILWOMAN GREGORY MOVED THAT ORDINANCE NO. 412 BE ADOPTED. COUNCILMAN MOREHEAD SECONDED. The motion carried by the following vote: AYES: COUNCILMEN GREGORY, MOREHEAD, ADAIR AND MAYOR CRITES NOES; NONE ABSTAIN; COUNCILMAN MCCARON ABSENT: NONE 00- As there were no objections, Mayor Crites directed the City Clerk to place Ordinance No. 413 on the next agenda for consideration of second reading. 00- City Clerk Balkus read Resolution No. 65-104 by title as follows: RESOLUTION NO. 65-104 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BALDWIN PARK ALLOWING CLAIMS AND DEMANDS AGAINST THE CITY OF BALDW I N PARK" COUNCILMAN MOREHEAD MOVED THAT RESOLUTION NO. 65-104 BE APPROVED AND FURTHER READING BE WAIVED. COUNCILMAN ADAIR SECONDED. The motion carried by the following vote: AYES: COUNCILMEN MOREHEAD, ADAIR, GREGORY, MCCARON AND MAYOR CRITES NOES: NONE ABSENT: NONE 00- Councilwoman Gregory mentioned that she had at a previous Council Meeting, asked Chief Administrative Officer Nordby to contact Consolidated Rock concerning landscaping or tree planting along their fence line on Park Place, and that she would like a report on this. June 16, 1965 Page 28 OF SAID CITY, AND REZONING CERTAIN HEREIN DESCRIBED REAL PROPERTY FROM ZONE R-I TO ZONE R-? ZONE CASE NO. Z-26; FURTHER READING OF ORD. NO. 412 WAIVED ORD. NO. 412 ADOPT.Q' ORD. NO. 413 TO BE PLACED ON NEXT AGENC FOR CONSIDERATION OF SECOND READING RES. NO. 65-104 ALLOWING CLAIMS AND DEMANDS AGAINST CITY CF B.PK. GENERAL CLAIMS AND DEMANDS NOS. 6028- 6132 INCL. AND 131- 133 INCL. PAYROLL CLAIMS AND DEMANDS NOS. 1200- 1314 INCL. RES. NO. 65-104 ADOPTED RE LANDSCAPING OR TREE PLANTING ALONG FENCE LINE PARK PLACE CONSOLIDATED ROCK C.A.O, TO RE- PORT 00- BIB] 39576-U01 1965-U02 06-U02 16-U02 CC-U02 MIN-U02 LI1-U03 FO9994-U03 FO116848-U03 DO116917-U03 C4-U03 MINUTES1-U03 5/1/2008-U04 ROBIN-U04 REGULAR-U05 SESSION-U05 CITY-U06 COUNCIL-U06 1965 06 16 CC MINHÄ—@¸—/Í«Regular Meeting of the Baldwin Park City Council June 16, 1965 Page 29 Councilwoman Gregory asked if a weed abatement program RE WEED ABATEMENT would be initiated City wide. PROGRAM Chief Administrative Officer Nordby stated there had not been any plans for this. Councilwoman Gregory asked that Mr. Nordby research C.A.0. TO REPORT this and report to the Council. TO COUNCIL 00- i Councilwoman Gregory asked if the City had an ordinance RE ORD. REQUIRING requiring that each Mobile Home have a separate sewer THAT EACH MOBILE hookup and if not why not. HOME HAVE SEPARATE SBNER HOOKUP City Attorney Flandrick stated this was an existing provision of the Building Code. 00- AT 11:07 P.I.I. COUNCILMAN MOREHEAD MOVED THAT THE CITY ADJ. AT 11:07 P.M. COUNCIL ADJOURN TO WEDNESDAY, JUNE 30, 1965, IN THE COUNCIL TO WED., JUNE 30, CHAMBER OF THE CITY HALL. COUNCILWOMAN GREGORY SECONDED. 1965, IN COUNCIL There were no objections, the motion carried and was so CHAMBER OF CITY HALL ordered by Mayor Crites. 00- APPROVED: July 7 1965. Date of Distribution to City Council July 2 1965. Date of Distribution to Departments July 6 1965. BIB] 39576-U01 1965-U02 06-U02 16-U02 CC-U02 MIN-U02 LI1-U03 FO9994-U03 FO116848-U03 DO116917-U03 C4-U03 MINUTES1-U03 5/1/2008-U04 ROBIN-U04 REGULAR-U05 SESSION-U05 CITY-U06 COUNCIL-U06 1965 06 16 CC MINHÄ—@¸—/Í«REGULAR MEETING OF THE BALDWIN PARK CITY COUNCIL JUNE 16, 1965 CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBER) 14403 East Pacific Avenue 7:30 P.M. The City Council of the City of Baldwin Park met in regular session at the above place at 7:30 p.m. Mayor Crites led the salute to the flag. FLAG SALUTE Roll Call: Present: COUNCILMEN ADAIR, GREGORY, ROLL CALL MCCARON, MOREHEAD AND MAYOR CRI TE S Absent: FINANCE DIRECTOR DUNCAN Also Present: CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER NORDBY, CITY ATTORNEY FLANDRICK, CITY ENGINEER FRENCH, BUILDING SUPERINTENDENT KALBFLEISCH, PLANNING DIRECTOR CHIVETTA, CHIEF OF POLICE ADAMS, CITY TREASURER PUGH AND CITY CLERK BALKUS 00- AT 11:07 P.M. COUNCILMAN MOREHEAD MOVED THAT THE CITY ADJ. AT 11:07 P.M. COUNCIL ADJOURN TO WEDNESDAY, JUNE 30, 1965, AT 7:30 P.M. TO WED., JUNE 30, IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBER OF THE CITY HALL. COUNCILWOMAN 1965, AT 7:30 P.M. GREGORY SECONDED. There were no objections, the motion IN COUNCIL CHAMBER carried and was so ordered by Mayor Crites. OF CITY HALL 00- THELMA BALKUS, CITY CLET DATED: June 17, 1965 TIME 8; 5 0 A.M. BIB] 39576-U01 1965-U02 06-U02 16-U02 CC-U02 MIN-U02 LI1-U03 FO9994-U03 FO116848-U03 DO116917-U03 C4-U03 MINUTES1-U03 5/1/2008-U04 ROBIN-U04 REGULAR-U05 SESSION-U05 CITY-U06 COUNCIL-U06 1965 06 16 CC MINHÄ—@¸—/Í«I SPATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES SS: AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING NOTICE CITY OF BALDWIN PARK ADJOURNMENT MEETING THELMA L. BALKUS, being first duly sworn, says and deposes: that I am the duly chosen, qualified and acting City Clerk of the City Council of the City of Baldwin Park; that at a- Regular Meeting of the City Council of the City of Baldwin Park held June 16 1965 said meeting was ordered adjourned to the time and place specified in the Notice of the Adjournment ATTACHED HERETO; that on June 17 1965 at the hour of 8:50 a.m., I posted a copy of said Notice at a conspicuous place on or near the door of the place at which said meeting of June 16 19 65 was held. LMA BALKOS, CT TY CLERK Subscribed and sworn to before me this 2= day of 196n's- ll~,r-~i`~a-1i JACKQUELEAN ROADY MY Commission EWIres Feb. 24, 196$ JACKQUELEAN ROADY NOTARY PUBLIC CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES BIB] 39576-U01 1965-U02 06-U02 16-U02 CC-U02 MIN-U02 LI1-U03 FO9994-U03 FO116848-U03 DO116917-U03 C4-U03 MINUTES1-U03 5/1/2008-U04 ROBIN-U04 REGULAR-U05 SESSION-U05 CITY-U06 COUNCIL-U06 Í« Regular Meeting of the Baldwin Park City Council June 16, 1965 Page 12 or whatever type of ground cover that might be planted in the parkway; that also, in this situation, even if all were true, if it was necessary for proper pedestrian passageway to have a ten 10) foot sidewalk in there they would certainly bow to the wishes of the City of Baldwin Park; however, having consulted with Traffic Engineers and having had some experience in this matter themselves it was their opinion that it was not necessary to provide a ten 10) foot side- walk at this location, and it would be affirmatively bad and affirmatively dangerous to provide planting strips; that in-order to discuss the adequacy of the streets and the adequacy of the sidewalks as well he had taken the liberty of asking Mr. James Hardy who was a Consulting Traffic Engineer to discuss briefly the technical aspects of this if he might. Mr. James H. Hardy, Alhambra, stated he had been in the JAMES H. HARDY, field of traffic engineering for fifteen I5) years; Alhambra, Traffic that he had analized this particular proposal from the Engineer point of view of traffic adequacy and he would agree with Mr. Snyder that the proposal to provide for the forty 40) foot roadway for vehicular travel was excellent, necessary, and quite desirable; that the main problem apparently came with respect to the provision for pedestrians; that any street or easement, or course, was to provide for the movement of people either as pedestrians or in vehicles, and he believed they had indicated a willingness to go along with the vehicular aspect; that they now came to the concept of the pedestrian; that a shopping center, and this one particularly, was geared primarily to access by vehicles; that provision was made for parking on the site, and he must say that the provisions were quite adequate using the ten 10) foot parking stall; that the pedestrians would be somewhat limited, primarily to those people that might be generated from the south side of Clark or the north side of Palm; that by far the greatest number of people would arrive by automobile; that with the provision of adequate roadway for vehicles he felt that the existing five 5) foot sidewalk, which was provided elsewhere along Clark and along Palm, would be quite adequate along both sides of this particular shopping center. Mrs. Faye Hickey,14322 Gage Street, Baldwin Park, stated MRS. FAYE HICKEY, the development had been started with the thought It would 14322 Gage St., help bring revenue to Baldwin Park;. that she thought B.Pk. it would if the City would let it come in; that it was hard to get anyone to come in and buy the property and buy leases; that she thought the City would be courteous enough to welcome this shopping center which Mr. Crowhurst started under the old ordinance; that Mr. Shambly had taken over but he was unable to finish it so Mr. Sapp came in and took over where Mr. Shambly left off; that she thought he had done a good job, and she thought the City should be good enough to give him this variance he was asking for because there were no easements or any- thing against the property when he took over; that after the new Council came in they made a new ordinance and this development was not worked under the new ordinance it was worked under the old ordinance; that she was speaking in behalf of over 40,000 people and taxpayers who really wanted this shopping center. Eva Rockey, formerly of 4219 North Maine, now of 5022 EVA ROCKEY, 5022 North Fenimore, Covina, stated she wanted to clear up N. Fenimore, Covina something once and for all on the old ordinance and also, she wanted to talk on shrubs; that.she and Faye Hickey) had worked on this project since 1961; that the option was taken on October 12, 1961; that they had worked under the 1963 ordinance which was looked into by Mr. Crowhurst and checked into at the City Hall; that the ordinance was Continued) BIB] 39576-U01 1965-U02 06-U02 16-U02 CC-U02 MIN-U02 LI1-U03 FO9994-U03 FO116848-U03 DO116917-U03 C4-U03 MINUTES1-U03 5/1/2008-U04 ROBIN-U04 REGULAR-U05 SESSION-U05 CITY-U06 COUNCIL-U06