HomeMy WebLinkAbout1965 06 16 CC MIN1965 06 16 CC MIN HÄ—@¸— / 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 MIN HÄ—@¸— / 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 MIN HÄ—@¸— / 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 MIN HÄ—@¸— / 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 MIN HÄ—@¸— / 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 MIN HÄ—@¸— / 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 MIN HÄ—@¸— / 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 MIN HÄ—@¸— / 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 MIN HÄ—@¸— / 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 MIN HÄ—@¸— /
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 MIN HÄ—@¸— / 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 MIN HÄ—@¸— /
1965 06 16 CC MIN HÄ—@¸— /
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 MIN HÄ—@¸— / 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 MIN HÄ—@¸— / 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 MIN HÄ—@¸— / 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 MIN HÄ—@¸— / 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 MIN HÄ—@¸— / 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 MIN HÄ—@¸— / 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 MIN HÄ—@¸— / 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 MIN HÄ—@¸— / 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 MIN HÄ—@¸— / 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 MIN HÄ—@¸— / 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 MIN HÄ—@¸— / 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 MIN HÄ—@¸— / 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 MIN HÄ—@¸— / 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 MIN HÄ—@¸— / 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 MIN HÄ—@¸— / 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 MIN HÄ—@¸— / 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 MIN HÄ—@¸— / 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 MIN HÄ—@¸— / 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