HomeMy WebLinkAbout1966 01 05 CC MIN1966 01 05 CC MIN HÄ—@¸— 0 ^Í«2,q 2.
REGULAR MEETING OF THE BALDWIN PARK CITY COUNCIL
CITY HALL COUNCIL CHHMOER) 1440.) Last Pac i f c 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.
Councilman Adair led the salute to the flag.
Roll Call:
Present: COUNCILMEN ADAIR, GREGORY,
MCCARON, MOREHEAD AND MAYOR
CR ITES
Absent: NONE
Also Present: CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER
NORDBY, CITY ATTORNEY FLANDRICK,
BUILDING SUPERINTENDENT KALB-
FLEISCH, PLANNING DIRECTOR
CHIVETTA, FINANCE DIRECTOR
DUNCAN, CHIEF OF POLICE ADAMS,
CITY TREASURER PUGH AND CITY
CLERK BAL.KUS
00-
City Clerk Balkus presented a letter from Griegorian
Disposal Service, 2024 North Durfee, South El Monte,
dated December 10, 1965, stating their application for
a rubbish license had been denied and asked that the
application be reconsidered and approved.
Councilman Morehead stated it was his understanding that
the City had issued all of the commercial licenses that
the Code allowed; that this application was received after
the present licenses had been renewed.
COUNCILMAN MOREHEAD MOVED THAT THE LETTER BE RECEIVED AND
FILED. COUNCILMAN MCCARON SECONDED. There were no objec-
tions, the motion carried and was so ordered by Mayor
Crites.
00-
City Clerk Backus read in full a letter from Charles A.
Mueller, 917 South Glendora Avenue, West Covina, dated
January 2, 1966, requesting a sixty 460) day extension
on N-2; and a letter from Hazel Sutton) Clark, 4170
North Cogswell Road, El Monte, dated January 4, 1966,
requesting an extension until January 9, 1966, on N-3.
Chief Administrative Officer Nordby recommended that the
City proceed as the resolution called for.
City Attorney Flandrick stated if the Council should
consider the granting of the request it might be on the
basis of whatever period of time the Council set providing
that the individuals deposit with the Chief Administrative
Officer a bond to insure that demolition would be com-
pleted within thirty 30) days.
Discussion followed wherein Chief Administrative Officer
Nordby stated there were three weeks in which the work could
be accomplished before the contractor actually would do
the work; that they had adequate time yet to abate the
nuisance.
JANUARY 5, 1966
7:30 P.M.
FLAG SALUTE
ROLL CALL
LETTER FROM
GRIEGORIAN DISPOSAL
SERVICE, 2024 N.
Durfee, So. El
Monte
REQUESTING COMMER-
CIAL RUBBISH LICENSE
RECEIVED AND FILED
REQUEST FOR EXTEN-
SION OF TIME N-2
REQUEST FOR EXTEN-
SION OF TIME N-3
Continued)
BIB]
39576-U01
1966-U02
01-U02
05-U02
CC-U02
MIN-U02
LI1-U03
FO9994-U03
FO116938-U03
DO116939-U03
C4-U03
MINUTES1-U03
5/5/2008-U04
ROBIN-U04
REGULAR-U05
SESSION-U05
CITY-U06
COUNCIL-U06
1966 01 05 CC MIN HÄ—@¸— 0 ^Í«Regular Meeting of the Baldwin Park City Council
COUNCILMAN MOREHEAD MOVED THAT THE LETTERS BE RECEIVED
AND TABLED. COUNCILMAN MCCARON SECONDED. The motion
carried by the following vote:
AYES: COUNCILMEN MOREHEAD, MCCARON, ADAIR,
GREGORY AND MAYOR CRITES
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: NONE
00-
January 5, 1966
Page 2
RECEIVED AND TABLED
Councilwoman Gregory reported on the December 9th meeting of ESGVP COMMITTEE
the East San Gabriel Valley Planning Committee meeting stating MEETING DEC. 9, 1966
that there were fifteen street name changes considered;
that number one on the list was that Maine Avenue and STREET NAME CHANGES
Pacific Avenue be renamed to Cameron Avenue; that Puente CONSIDERED
Street and Root Street to be renamed Puente Street. She MAINE AVE., PACIFIC
stated it was requested that the Council discuss this AVE. TO CAMERON
matter so that she could take the Council's recommenda- AVE.
Lion to the Planning Committee.
PUENTE ST. AND ROOT
ST. TO PUENTE ST.
Planning Director Chivetta placed a map on the wall which MAP PLACED ON WALL
indicated the proposed changes. INDICATING PROPOSED
CHANGES
Mayor Crites agreed with the proposed change on Puente
Street and Root Street to Puente Street, however he
stated there was already a Maine Street that was continuous
from the south end of town on through the center of town and
up to the north and this would be a peculiar version of re-
naming~t-o lose the City of Baldwin Park's identity by
changing the name of two or three streets and which would
go under an underpass and lose their identity in another
city as another Main Street; that part of this street had
been renamed before.
Planning Director Chivetta stated it was the consensus of
opinions of the Planning Directors at the subcommittee
meeting to recommend to the parent committee, The East
San Gabriel Valley Planning Committee, that certain street
names be recommended for change and that the parent committee
would in turn vote on these and then recommend to the County
the possibility of a change in the names; that some of the
street names under consideration were Ramona, Badillo, San
Bernardino Road, Amar, Torch, Puente, Hacienda and so forth;
that the streets which affected Baldwin Park were Pacific
to Cameron and Maine to Cameron and Puente-Root to Puente;
that the consensus of opinion was that Root itself should
be changed to Puente and that Pacific Avenue should be
changed to Cameron because Cameron came in from a southerly
direction down through the City of Industry and should go
through to Arrow Highway as Cameron to complete the total
picture as one continuous street name; that it would be
his recommendation that Maine stay as was and Pacific stay
as was and perhaps Cameron changing to Pacific in the
southerly direction; that the most logical street name to
be changed would be Root Street and that street only to
Puente; that this matter was coming before the Planning
Commission on January 6, 1966, for their recommendation
to go back to the parent committee.
Councilman McCaron stated the recommendation for the street
name change from Root to Puente had been made quite a few
years ago; that the recommendation just made would appear
to be what was most feasible at the present time, changing
Root only and having the others remain as they were.
Councilman Morehead stated, in his opinion, that Root to
Puente was the only change that should be considered at the
present time.
Continued)
BIB]
39576-U01
1966-U02
01-U02
05-U02
CC-U02
MIN-U02
LI1-U03
FO9994-U03
FO116938-U03
DO116939-U03
C4-U03
MINUTES1-U03
5/5/2008-U04
ROBIN-U04
REGULAR-U05
SESSION-U05
CITY-U06
COUNCIL-U06
1966 01 05 CC MIN HÄ—@¸— 0 ^Í«2684
I
Regular Meeting of the Baldwin Park City Council
Councilman McCaron stated it would seem that further
study should be made on Puente itself because the street
went north and south and east and west; that this should
be studied by the regional committee.
Planning Director Chivetta stated the Planning Commission
had the entire City under study at the present time for
possible changing of street names and house numbering;
that it was a matter of a few months before a recommenda-
tion could be made to the Council; that possibly there
would be a Puente Street and a Puente Avenue.
Councilman Adair stated he was in accordance with Council-
man Morehead.
COUNCILMAN MCCARON MOVED THAT THE CONSIDERATION OF CHANGE
OF NAME OF ROOT STREET TO PUENTE STREET BE ACCEPTED AT
THE PRESENT TIME. COUNCILMAN MOREHEAD SECONDED. There
were no objections, the motion carried and was so ordered
by Mayor Crites.
00-
City Clerk Balkus administered the oath to those in the
audience desiring to be heard during the meeting.
00-
City Clerk Backus announced that the hour of 8:00 p.m.
having arrived that it was the time and place fixed for
a public hearing on CP-62, an appeal from the decision
of denial of the Board of Zoning Adjustments, an applica-
tion submitted by Jeanette N. Heidtke purchaser of the
property) for a Conditional Use Permit pursuant to Section
9472, subsection 16, to allow the construction and use
of a Guest Home for the Aged upon the property located
at 3156 Paddy Lane, in the R-I single family residential)
Zone.
City Clerk Balkus stated that proper publication, postings
and mailings had been accomplished.
Planning Director Chivetta presented a resume of the case
and stated the Board of Zoning Adjustments had adopted
Resolution No. BZA 65-69 on November 10, 1965, denying
the request; that it was recommended that the Council
concur with the Board's decision. He pointed out the map
on the wall showing the existing zoning of the area.
TESTIMONY IN BEHALF OF THE REQUEST WAS CALLED FOR BY
MAYOR CRITES.
January 5, 1966
Page 3
MOTION MADE AND
CARRIED THAT CON-
SIDERATION OF CHANGE
OF NAME OF ROOT ST.
TO PUENTE ST. BE
ACCEPTED AT PRESENT
TIME
OATH ADMINISTERED
PUBLIC HEARING
8:00 P.M.
CP-62, APPEAL FROM
DENIAL OF BZA,
REQUEST TO ALLOW
CONSTRUCTION AND
USE OF GUEST HOME
FOR AGED AT 3156
PADDY LANE IN R-I
ZONE, JEANETTE N.
HEIDTKE
PUBLICATION, POSTINGS
MAILINGS
RESUME
TESTIMONY IN
BEHALF
Mr. Milton Hadley, Attorney, 14304 East Ramona Boulevard, MILTON HADLEY, ATTY.,
Baldwin Park, stated he was representing Mrs. Heidtke; 14304 E. Ramona
that the purpose of the appeal before the Council for Blvd., B.Pk.
consideration was to make two statements in correction;
that the applicant sought only to have four people as a REPRESENTING MRS.
maximum in the home; that she was licensed for four people HEIDTKE
only; that the notice stated this was for the construction
of a guest home; that there would be no structural changes
in the residence at all; that since the matter had been
heard by the Board of Zoning Adjustments Mrs. Heidtke had
circulated a petition in the area. He read the petition
from twenty-four 24) residents stating they did not object
to a guest home for four 4) ambulatory residents. He filed PETITION HANDED
the petition with City Clerk Balkus. He requested that the TO CITY CLERK
permit be granted and that it be nontransferrable; that Mrs. REQUESTING THAT
Heidtke had had prior experience; that she was a Navy Hospital PERMIT BE GRANTED-
Continued)
BIB]
39576-U01
1966-U02
01-U02
05-U02
CC-U02
MIN-U02
LI1-U03
FO9994-U03
FO116938-U03
DO116939-U03
C4-U03
MINUTES1-U03
5/5/2008-U04
ROBIN-U04
REGULAR-U05
SESSION-U05
CITY-U06
COUNCIL-U06
1966 01 05 CC MIN HÄ—@¸— 0 ^Í«2695
Regular Meeting of, the Baldwin Park City Council-, January 5, 1966
Page 4
Corpsman; that she had experience in caring for her mother;
that she was the sole support of her sixteen 16) year old
son and herself; that she had been with°`the Los Angeles
Police Department for a number of years and because of
a minor health problem she was unable to continue in that
capacity and had been released by the Department; that this
would provide income and a business where she could stay
home and watch her child and still provide a very valuable
service to the population of L'o's Angeles County and
particularly aged residents; that this was highly favored
by the Bureau of Aged Persons of Los Angeles County; that
they sought to have small establishments rather than
larger establishments; that they felt that the aged
residents were more satisfied in local small homes; that
this home would be adequate for the purpose for which it
was licensed; that it had been inspected by the Bureau
and the Fire Department and the license had been issued;
that Mrs. Heidtke had been a resident in Baldwin Park
for ten 10) years; that this use would not be detrimental
to any parties in the area; that this was a dead end
street and the home was located toward the end of the
street; that there would be no additional burden upon
the facilities of the City such as Police Department or
Fire Department by reason of granting a nontransferrable
conditional use permit; that this use would be a real asset
to the community; that Mrs. Heidtke was in the audience and
would be happy to answer any questions.
In answer to a question by Councilman McCaron, City
Attorney Flandrick stated it would be permitted as a
home occupation except for the requirement of a
conditional use permit.
Councilwoman Gregory asked if the license by the County
took into consideration the housing of four adults and
how this was to be accomplished.
Mr. Hadley stated the immediate plans were to have no
more than two gentlemen in the home presently; that at
some later time there would be four gentlemen, two to a
bedroom the third bedroom being for Mrs. Heidtke. He
stated the grounds were completely fenced; that there
was a patio.
In answer to a question by Councilman McCaron, City
Attorney Flandrick stated normally any type of permit
would run with the land, however, the applicant had
requested the permit be issued to her personally and
it could be composed on that basis indicating that it
was a request of the applicant.
In answer to a question by Councilman McCaron, Planning
Director Chivetta read Section 9551, subparagraph 6,
regarding roomers and boarders. He further stated that
two parking spaces would have to be provided in addition
to the two already provided, a total of four; that further
the Hospital Planning Association in their model ordinance
recommend against licensing of resthomes or boarding homes
for the aged in the R-l, R-2 and R-3 zones within any
community.
In answer to a question by Councilman McCaron, Planning
Director Chivetta stated this was basically the same
application that was presented to the Board of Zoning
Adjustments; that an error had been made as to the number
of persons to reside on the premises; that the Department
of Social Welfare would require that no more than two
persons reside in one bedroom.
In answer to a question by Councilwoman Gregory, Planning
Director Chivetta stated the application was not'for the
construction, it was to permit a guest home in en existing
residence. Continued)
BIB]
39576-U01
1966-U02
01-U02
05-U02
CC-U02
MIN-U02
LI1-U03
FO9994-U03
FO116938-U03
DO116939-U03
C4-U03
MINUTES1-U03
5/5/2008-U04
ROBIN-U04
REGULAR-U05
SESSION-U05
CITY-U06
COUNCIL-U06
1966 01 05 CC MIN HÄ—@¸— 0 ^Í«656
Regular Meeting of the Baldwin Park City Council
Discussion followed regarding parking; wherein Planning
Director Chivetta stated possibly ample parking could be
provided by putting a cover over the present driveway
making a carport.
Mr. Hadley stated this was a semicircular driveway; that
the applicant could comply with the parking requirements
without any structural changes by the alignment of cars
on the driveway.
in answer to a question by Councilman McCaron, Mr. Hadley
stated the applicant had no definite time limit for the
use in mind,
As there was no one else in the audience desiring to
speak in behalf of or in opposition to CP-62, Mayor
Crites declared the public hearing closed.
Councilman Morehead stated some four or five years ago
this property was rezoned from A-I to R-I that the lots
were fifty 50) by one hundred 100); that the houses in
the tract were approximately 1400 square feet; that they
were only designed for single family residences.
COUNCILMAN MOREHEAD MOVED THAT THE CITY COUNCIL CONCUR
WITH THE BOARD OF ZONING ADJUSTMENTS AND DENY CP-62.
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 Clerk Balkus announced that it was the time and
place fixed for a public hearing on N-4, to determine
whether certain premises, and buildings and structures
constitute a public nuisance at 3154 Athol Street.
City Clerk Balkus stated that proper postings and mailings
had been accomplished.
City Attorney Flandrick passed to the Council pictures
of the property at 3154 Athol Street taken by Special
Enforcement Officer Palmer and stated that Mr. Palmer
had compiled a series of documents relating to this case
indicating the nature of the notices by mail and the
ownership of the property; that there was a comment from
the Health Department as well as the Fire Department
indicating the dangerous nature of the structure; that
Building Superintendent Kalbfleisch had examined the
structure and his comment was that it was structurally
unsafe; that in addition to the structure there was also
a shed and miscellaneous debris as shown by the pictures;
that the staff's recommendation to the Council was that
the Council declare this entire property to be a public
nuisance within the meaning of the Municipal Code.
As there was no one in the audience desiring to speak
in behalf of or in opposition to N-4, Mayor Crites
declared the public hearing closed.
COUNCILMAN MOREHEAD MOVED THAT THE CITY COUNCIL DIRECT
THE PRESENTATION LATER ON THE AGENDA OF A RESOLUTION
DECLARING THIS PROPERTY TO BE A PUBLIC NUISANCE.
COUNCILMAN ADAIR SECONDED. The motion carried by the
following vote:
AYES: COUNCILMEN MOREHEAD, ADAIR, GREGORY,
MCCARON AND MAYOR CRITES
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: NONE
oa
January 5, 1966
Page 5
PUBLIC HEARING
DECLARED CLOSED
CP-62
MOTION MADE AND
CARRIED THAT COUNCIL
CONCUR WITH BZA
AND DENY CP-62
PUBLIC HEARING
N-4
3154 Athol St.
POSTINGS, MAILINGS
PUBLIC HEARING
DECLARED CLOSED
N-4
MOTION MADE AND
CARRIED THAT COUN-
CIL DIRECT PRE-
SENTATION LATER
ON AGENDA OF RES.
DECLARING THIS
PROPERTY TO BE
PUBLIC NUISANCE
BIB]
39576-U01
1966-U02
01-U02
05-U02
CC-U02
MIN-U02
LI1-U03
FO9994-U03
FO116938-U03
DO116939-U03
C4-U03
MINUTES1-U03
5/5/2008-U04
ROBIN-U04
REGULAR-U05
SESSION-U05
CITY-U06
COUNCIL-U06
1966 01 05 CC MIN HÄ—@¸— 0 ^Í«1- 116 9
Regular Meeting of the Baldwln.P`ark City Council
City Clerk Balkus announced that it was the time and
place fixed for a public hearing oh`N-5, to determine
whether certain premises, and buildings and structures
constitute a public nuisance at 4642 Bresee Avenue.
City Clerk Balkus stated that proper postings and mail-
ings had been accomplished.
City Attorney Flandrick passed to the Council pictures
of the property at 4642 Bresee taken by Special Enforce-
ment Officer Palmer and stated that Mr. Palmer had compiled
a series of documents relating to this case indicating
the nature of the notices by mail and the ownership of
the property; that there was a comment from the Health
Department as well as the Fire Department indicating the
dangerous nature of the structure; that City Engineer
French and Building Superintendent Kalbfleisch had also
submitted reports to the Council Indicating that the
building in its present condition was structurally unsafe
as well as an obvious fire hazard to the surrounding area
and the building itself; that the property was examined
this afternoon and was in the same condition as shown by
the pictures; that the posted notices were still on the
property; that the staff's recommendation was that the
Council declare this entire property to be a public
nuisance within the meaning of the Municipal Code.
Discussion followed that there was a shed to the rear of
the main structure which should be demolished.
As there was no one in the audience desiring to speak
in behalf of or in opposition to N-5, Mayor Crites de-
clared the public hearing closed.
COUNCILMAN MOREHEAD MOVED THAT THE CITY COUNCIL DIRECT
THE PRESENTATION LATER ON THE AGENDA OF A RESOLUTION
CALLING FOR THE ABATEMENT OF THIS NUISANCE. COUNCIL-
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 announced that it was the time and
place fixed for a public hearing on N-6, to determine
whether certain premises, buildings and structures
constitute a public nuisance at 3738 Merced Avenue.
City Clerk Balkus stated that the proper postings and
mailings had been accomplished.
City Attorney Flandr`ick ptated that the nuisance at
3738 Merced Avenue had been abated.
Chief Administrative Officer Nordby presented photographic
evidence that the property had been cleared.
COUNCILMAN MOREHEAD MOVED THAT THE CITY COUNCIL DISMISS
THE PROCEEDINGS AS TO THIS PROPERTY. COUNCILWOMAN
GREGORY SECONDED.
Discussion followed regarding the structure to the rear
wherein Special Enforcement Officer Palmer stated the
rear parcel was a legal lot split on which there was a
new home.
January 5, 1966
Page 6
PUBLIC HEARING
N-5
4642 BRESEE AVE.
POSTINGS, MAILINGS'
PUBLIC HEARING
DECLARED CLOSED
N-5
MOTION MADE AND
CARRIED THAT COUNCIL
DIRECT PRESENTATION
LATER ON AGENDA OF
RES. CALLING FOR
ABATEMENT OF THIS
NUISANCE
PUBLIC HEARING
N-6
3738 MERCED AVE.
POSTINGS, MAILINGS
MOTION MADE AND
CARRIED THAT COUNCIL
DISMISS PROCEEDINGS
AS TO THIS PROPERTY
Continued)
BIB]
39576-U01
1966-U02
01-U02
05-U02
CC-U02
MIN-U02
LI1-U03
FO9994-U03
FO116938-U03
DO116939-U03
C4-U03
MINUTES1-U03
5/5/2008-U04
ROBIN-U04
REGULAR-U05
SESSION-U05
CITY-U06
COUNCIL-U06
1966 01 05 CC MIN HÄ—@¸— 0 ^Í«Regular Meeting of the Baldwin Park City Council
The motion carried by the following vote: MOTION CARRIED
Councilwoman Gregory reported on the December 2, 1965,
League of California.Cities Meeting stating that the
staff might be interested in a number of State wide
meetings which the League would be conducting; that
most of the meetings would be two day training institutes
as follows:
00-
i
February 23-25 City Managers Conference in Coronado
Discussion on various types of fin-
ancing such as money management,
leases, assessment districts and
subjects of current interest
May 23-25
AYES: COUNCILMEN MOREHEAD, GREGORY, ADAIR,
MCCARON AND MAYOR CRITES
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: NONE
Mayors and Councilmen Institute in
Monterey
For newly elected Mayors and Coun-
cilmen to discuss their legal
duties and responsib'ilitie's as
well as duties of their administra-
tive officers
269
January 5, 1966.
Page 7
REPORT BY COUNCIL-
WOMAN GREGORY ON
LEAGUE OF CALIF.
CITIES MTG. ON
DEC. 2, 1965
FEBRUARY 23-25
CITY MANAGERS
CONFERENCE IN
CORONADO
MAY 23-25
MAYORS AND COUNCIL-
MEN INSTITUTE IN
MONTEREY
March 30-April I City Attorneys Conference in Palm Springs MARCH 30-APRIL I
Devoted to new court decisions CITY ATTORNEY'S
CONFERENCE IN
PALM SPRINGS
April 27-29 City Clerks Meeting in Long Beach APRIL 27-29
Discussions on record management, CLERKS MEETING IN
election law procedures, public LONG BEACH
relations, effective use of
personnel and data processing
She further stated that there would be a legislative LEGISLATIVE CON-
conference in Washington Q.C. sponsored by the National FERENCE IN WASH.
League in March; that legislative policies would be D.C. SPONSORED
discussed. BY NATIONAL LEAGUE
IN MARCH
In answer to a question by Councilwoman Gregory, Chief
Administrative Officer Nordby stated that the Dorn
Initiative had been withdrawn; that the League was more
interested in the broad nature of the preemption problem.
00-
Regarding Resolution No. 66-3, City Attorney Flandrick
stated that the City Engineer's recommendation was that
the Southern California Edison Company be the designated
contractor to install the facilities as they need to be
installed and to supply energy for the system.
Resolution No. 66-3 was read by title as follows:
RESOLUTION NO. 66-3
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF BALDWIN PARK DETERMINING
THAT THERE IS ONLY ONE CONTRACTOR
CAPABLE OF SERVING THE STREET LIGHT-
ING DISTRICT IN ACCORDANCE WITH
DIAGRAM AND PLAN, AND ORDERING THE
IMPROVEMENT TO BE CARRIED OUT BY
SUCH CONTRACTOR"
RES. NO. 66-3
DETERMINING THAT
THERE IS ONLY ONE
CONTRACTOR CAPABLE
OF SERVING STREET
LIGHTING SYSTEM
WITHIN B.PK. STREET
LIGHTING DISTRICT
IN ACCORDANCE WITH
DIAGRAM AND PLAN,
AND ORDERING IMPROVE.
MENT TO BE CARRIED
OUT BY SUCH CON-
TRACTOR
Continued)
BIB]
39576-U01
1966-U02
01-U02
05-U02
CC-U02
MIN-U02
LI1-U03
FO9994-U03
FO116938-U03
DO116939-U03
C4-U03
MINUTES1-U03
5/5/2008-U04
ROBIN-U04
REGULAR-U05
SESSION-U05
CITY-U06
COUNCIL-U06
1966 01 05 CC MIN HÄ—@¸— 0 ^Í«Regular Meeting of the Baldwin Park-'Cit'y Council
City Attorney:Ftandrick stated if this resolution was
adopted the Council would be presented with a contract
from the Edison Company indicating the terms, costs and
so forth; that all of these were rates set by the
Public Utility Commission.
COUNCILMAN MOREHEAD MOVED THAT RESOLUTION NO. 66-3 BE
APPROVED AND FURTHER READING BE WAIVED. COUNCILWOMAN
GREGORY SECONDED.
Councilwoman Gregory asked if the contract would be on
a long or short term basis.
City Attorney Flandrick stated he had not seen the
contract; that it seemed to him it was on a yearly
basis; that the contract would be submitted to the
Council before it was signed on behalf of the City.
The motion carried by the following vote:
AYES: COUNCILMEN MOREHEAD, GREGORY, ADAIR,
MCCARON AND MAYOR CRITES
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: NONE
00-
City Attorney Flandrick stated that the City Engineer had
now progressed to the point with the Maine Avenue Project
that the City was now ready for the acquisition of right-
of-way; that Council approval had been received for the
obtaining of Title Reports and appraisals of the property
to be acquired.
Resolution No. 66-5 was read by title as follows:
RESOLUTION NO. 66-5
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF BALDWIN PARK, FINDING AND
DETERMINING THAT THE PUBLIC INTEREST,
CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY REQUIRE THE
ACQUISITION OF THE FEE INTEREST IN AND
TO CERTAiN REAL PROPERTY FOR PUBLIC
STREET PURPOSES AND ALL USES APPURTE-
NANT THERETO MAINE AVENUE)"
COUNCILMAN MOREHEAD MOVED THAT RESOLUTION NO. 66-5 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 Clerk Balkus stated it was recommended that the
City purchase some tax delinquent lands for street
purposes at the cost of $1.00 for each parcel plus
advertising costs being Parcels 844, 845 and 904.
COUNCILWOMAN GREGORY MOVED THAT THE CITY OF BALDWIN-PARK
PURCHASE THE TAX DELINQUENT PROPERTIES, PARCELS 844, 845
AND 904, AND SO INSTRUCT THE CITY CLERK AND THE CITY
ATTORNEY TO PREPARE THE NECESSARY PAPERS TO ACCOMPLISH
THIS. COUNCILMAN MOREHEAD SECONDED. The motion carried
Continued)
January 5, 1966
Page 8
RES. NO. 66-3
ADOPTED
CONTRACT TO BE SUB-
MITTED TO COUNCIL
BEFORE SIGNED ON
BEHALF OF CITY
MAINE AVE. PROJECT
RES. NO. 66-5
FINDING AND DETER-
MINING THAT PUBLIC
INTEREST, CONVEN-
IENCE AND NECESSITY
REQ. ACQ. OF FEE
INTEREST IN AND TO
CERTAIN REAL PROP-
ERTY FOR PUBLIC ST.
PURPOSES AND ALL
USES APPURTENANT
THERETO MAINE
AVE
RES. NO. 66-5
ADOPTED
REC. PURCHASE OF
TAX DELINQUENT LANDS
FOR STREET PURPOSES
PARCELS 844, 845
AND 904
MOT I ON MADE AND
CARRIED THAT CITY
PURCHASE TAX DELIN-
QUENT PROPERTIES
PARCELS 844, 845
Continued)
BIB]
39576-U01
1966-U02
01-U02
05-U02
CC-U02
MIN-U02
LI1-U03
FO9994-U03
FO116938-U03
DO116939-U03
C4-U03
MINUTES1-U03
5/5/2008-U04
ROBIN-U04
REGULAR-U05
SESSION-U05
CITY-U06
COUNCIL-U06
1966 01 05 CC MIN HÄ—@¸— 0 ^ Í«Regular Meeting of the Baldwin Park City Council
by the following vote:
AYES: COUNCILMEN GREGORY, MOREHEAD, ADAIR, AND CITY ATTY. TO
MCCARON AND MAYOR CRITES PREPARE NEC. PAPERS
NOES: NONE TO ACCOMPLISH THIS
ABSENT: NONE
00-
City Clerk Balkus presented a claim against the City
submitted by Alfred C. Van Haink.
COUNCILMAN MOREHEAD MOVED THAT THE CLAIM OF MR. ALFRED C.
VAN HAINK BE DENIED AND REFERRED TO THE INSURANCE CARRIER
AND ARTUKOV I CH CONSTRUCTION COMPANY. COGJidC l L!^1Or',AN C'{EGORY
SECONDED. There were no objections, the motion carried
and was so ordered by Mayor Crites.
January 5, 1966
Page 9
AND 904, AND SO
INSTRUCT CITY CLERK
CLAIM AGAINST CITY
ALFRED C. VAN HAINK
DENIED AND REFERRED
TO INS. CARRIER AND
ARTUKOVICH CONSTRUC-
TION CO.
00-
City Clerk Balkus presented a claim against the City CLAIM AGAINST CITY
submitted by Mrs. A. M. Cranston. MRS. A. M. CRANSTON
COUNCILMAN MOREHEAD MOVED THAT THE CLAIM OF MRS. A. M. DENIED AND REFERRED
CRANSTON BE DENIED AND REFERRED TO THE INSURANCE CARRIER TO INS. CARRIER AND
AND THE CONTRACTOR. COUNCILWOMAN GREGORY SECONDED. There CONTRACTOR
were no objections, the motion carried and was so ordered
by Mayor Crites.
00-
City Clerk Balkus stated that a generel membership meeting LEAGUE OF CALIF.
of the League of California Cities would be hold in Arcadia CITIES MTG. IN
on Thursday, January 20, 1966, and that confirmation of those ARCADIA THURSDAY
attending had been requested. JAN. 20, 1966
Councilwoman Gregory and Chief Administrative Officer
Nordby indicated they would be attending.
00-
City Clerk Balkus read Resolution No. 66-2 by title as RES. NO. 66-2
follows: SETTING A TIME AND
RESOLUTION NO. 66-2
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF BALDWIN PARK SETTING A
TIME AND PLACE FOR A HEARING TO DETER-
MINE WHETHER CERTAIN BUILDINGS AND
STRUCTURES CONSTITUTE PUBLIC NUISANCES"
Chief Administrative Officer Nor dby stated this would set
a public hearing for six properties for February 2, 1966,
at 8:00 p.m.; that it was his recommendation that the
resolution be adopted and the hearing be held to deter-
mine whether or not the locations constitute public
nuisances; that photographic evidence would be presented
at the public hearing.
PLACE FOR A HEARING
TO DETERMINE WHETHER
CERTAIN BUILDINGS
AND STRUCTURES CON-
STITUTE PUBLIC
NUISANCES
P.H. FEB. 2, 1966
N-7
13135 FAIRGROVE ST.
N-8
4236 CENTER ST.
N-9
13629 L.A. ST.
N-10
4641 MERCED AVE.
N-II
4642 N. MAINE AVE.
N-12
1327 VIRGINIA AVE.
Continued)
BIB]
39576-U01
1966-U02
01-U02
05-U02
CC-U02
MIN-U02
LI1-U03
FO9994-U03
FO116938-U03
DO116939-U03
C4-U03
MINUTES1-U03
5/5/2008-U04
ROBIN-U04
REGULAR-U05
SESSION-U05
CITY-U06
COUNCIL-U06
1966 01 05 CC MIN HÄ—@¸— 0 ^
Í«22O1 Regular Meeting of the Baldwin Park City Council
COUNCILMAN MCCARON MOVED THAT RESOLUTION NO. 66-2 BE
APPROVED AND FURTHER READING BE WAIVED. COUNCILMAN
MOREHEAD SECONDED. The motion carried by the following
vote:
AYES: COUNCILMEN MCCARON, MOREHEAD, ADAIR,
GREGORY AND MAYOR CRITES
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: NONE
00-
Chief Administrative Officer Nordby recommended that the
position of Utility Man be reclassified to Maintenance
Man effective January 15, 1966. He stated at the time
the budget was prepared for this fiscal year the pay for
this position was set considerably higher than the individual
who now held it was drawing; that there would still be a
surplus in this particular account at the end of the year;
that the intention was to place the individual in the first
step of the position and six months later to advance as
he normally would to the second step.
City Attorney Flandrick stated if the Council approved
the recommendation a resolution would be submitted at
the next Council Meeting making this effective as of
January 15, 1966.
COUNCILWOMAN GREGORY MOVED THAT THE POSITION OF UTILITY
MAN BE RECLASSIFIED TO MAINTENANCE MAN EFFECTIVE JANUARY
15, 1966. COUNCILMAN ADAIR SECONDED. The motion carried
by the following vote:
AYES: COUNCILMEN GREGORY, ADAIR, MCCARON,
MOREHEAD AND MAYOR CRITES
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: NONE
00-
Chief Administrative Officer Nordby presented Ordinance
No. 438 relating to house moving and relocation permits
stating that the Planning Commission made certain
recommendations; that the City Attorney drafted the
ordinance; that following the procedure used in Ordinance
No. 422 this would grant the responsibility to the
Chief Administrative Officer; that in some instances
the ordinance could be changed for example in the filing
of the application; that the relocations involved more
than one department; that to effectively coordinate these
departments and direct them to proceed to the inspection
of property and final recommendations there must be some-
one who had jurisdiction or authority over each person
involved; that also involved were departments outside the
City's jurisdiction; that, in his opinion, the best con-
tact could be made through his office for that purpose.
Councilwoman Gregory stated it was her understanding that
the reason the City had issued the moratorium was to strengthen
the ordinance the City was presently operating under; that
in her opinion, the ordinance did not belong with the
Administrative staff; that this ordinance did not give
the strength needed; that 7900 c) should be Building
Superintendent; d) City Engineer and e) Planning Director;
that in every place where the Chief Administrative Officer
was mentioned it should be Building Superintendent; that
in Section 7902 she would prefer that the b) should include
a complete description of the building or structure being
moved, designate its type, construction material, age, size
and any other pertinent information that might be required
January 5, 1966
Page 10
RES.. NO. 66-2
ADOPTED
REC. BY C.A.O.
THAT POSITION OF
UTILITY MAN BE RE-
CLASSIFIED TO MAIN-
TENANCE MAN EFFECTIVE
JAN. 15, 1966
RES. TO BE SUBMITTED
AT NEXT COUNCIL MTG.
APPROVED
ORD. NO. 438
RE HOUSE MOVING
AND RELOCATION
PERMITS
Continued)
BIB]
39576-U01
1966-U02
01-U02
05-U02
CC-U02
MIN-U02
LI1-U03
FO9994-U03
FO116938-U03
DO116939-U03
C4-U03
MINUTES1-U03
5/5/2008-U04
ROBIN-U04
REGULAR-U05
SESSION-U05
CITY-U06
COUNCIL-U06
1966 01 05 CC MIN HÄ—@¸— 0 ^Í«Regular Meeting of the Baldwin Park City Council
January 5, 1966
2.Page II
by the Building Superintendent; that somewhere in the
ordinance it should be stated that three 3) copies of
application were required; that regarding Id) the Planning
Commission had recommended a filing fee and processing
fee of $75.00 but perhaps the Finance Department should study
this further; that the personnel who would be involved and
the gas mileage could be taken into consideration; that an
application for a move through the City again should be
under the Building Superintendent with a copy to the Director
of Public Works and to the Chief of Police; Section 7906 d) a)
should state that four photographs should be submitted and
the photographs shall be 8 x IO inches in size; that re-
garding Section 7907, d) b) any shack would be compatible
with two more shacks; that, in her opinion, some wording
such as shall be of no less value than those buildings
and structures already in the area" and that the structures
to be relocated would upgrade the standards of the area"
should be inserted; that in Section 7907 c) the words
before Certificate of Occupancy is granted" should be
added; Section 7907 d) the third paragraph contradicts
Section 7907 c) on the previous page and made an ambiguity
because it was totally wrong and against policy; that the
Council was the only body who, on the appeal of an appli-
cant, may waive curbs, gutters and sidewalks; that Section
8105 declared that an applicant can deposit cash or an
instrument of credit only if the Building Official deter-
mines facts proving such an action feasible; that the
decision should be with the Council.
Councilwoman Gregory further stated that the applicant
should have one hundred twenty 120) days from issuance
of permit to completion taking care of the building to
be set down on the new foundation and all aspects in-
cluding sidewalks, curbs and gutters; that there should
be a penalty clause of $5.00 a day until completion; that
she did not like the appeal to the City Council; that, in
her opinion, the decision should rest with the City Council;
that the'old ordinance was good in many ways and took the
burden of decision from the staff; that she did not believe
the new ordinance giving all authority to the Chief
Administrative Officer was good; that Mr. Nordby had
already expressed the wish for an assistant; that the
Council would be risking additional taxation of the people
if and when the Council was asked to add more personnel
to the already growing family; that this was going to
be something that could not be avoided anyway in other
departments; that she was sure the Council realized that
the revision of the ordinance must designate those who
would be responsible for accepting applications for
relocations; that she did understand this ordinance and
had studied it and felt the Building Superintendent was
the logical man to accept or reject the applications for
relocations; that he, together with the Director of Public
Works, would check out the buildings to be relocated and
make the recommendation to the Planning Commission and the
Planning Commission in turn would make their recommendation
to the City Council for final decision; that the City Council
should act on it whether the Planning Commission rejects
or accepts the relocation; that she felt strongly that the
Council should put first things first; that it was the
Council's responsibility to carry the burden of decision;
that she knew Mr. Nordby might argue that it would be saving
time with this ordinance but she did not take the responsibility
of this office with any idea of cutting corners at the expense
of good leadership or good planning; that the City had
obtained and was paying for services of people in the depart-
ments and although she disagreed with them very heartily at
times she valued and relied on their judgments; that she
believed she had pointed out reasons why she sincerely hoped
the Council would consider what was before them and reject
it; that there was no short cut for City officials to dis-
patch their duties and likewise there was no short cuts for
Continued)
BIB]
39576-U01
1966-U02
01-U02
05-U02
CC-U02
MIN-U02
LI1-U03
FO9994-U03
FO116938-U03
DO116939-U03
C4-U03
MINUTES1-U03
5/5/2008-U04
ROBIN-U04
REGULAR-U05
SESSION-U05
CITY-U06
COUNCIL-U06
1966 01 05 CC MIN HÄ—@¸— 0 ^
1966 01 05 CC MIN HÄ—@¸— 0 ^
Í«Regtr Meeting of the Baldwin Park City Council
C.A.O. Office; that probably all of the items that might
need to be included had not been included; that these
could be added and modifications made.
Councilwoman Gregory stated by the appeal sections it had
been taken away from Planning and the Council; that a re-
location came under Planning and it should be brought to
the attention of Planning.
Chief Administrative Officer Nordby stated it should be
brought to the attention of the Planning Director at the
outset; that he had no objection if the Council wanted to
become involved or the Planning Commission.
In answer to questions by Councilman Morehead, Chief
Administrative Officer Nordby stated any inspections pre-
ceeding the issuance of a relocation permit should be a
coordinated effort in the form of a team and a coordinated
report made prior to the issuance of a relocation permit;
that he still had the authority over the Department Heads
and it could be coordinated whether or not the C.A.O. in
fact was designated; that he had no objections to the
change in terminology.
Councilman Adair stated he would like to see the one
hundred eighty 180) days for completion changed to one
hundred twenty 120) days.
Discussion followed regarding the penalty clause.
Councilman McCaron stated he thought there should be some-
thing whereby the completion could be forced such as a bond
to cover the costs of a contractor coming in to complete
the work.
City Attorney Flandrick suggested that Section 7907, sub-
paragraph d), on page 3 could be reworded; that this was
the part that required a bond to insure the building was
completed in the manner proposed; that he suggested it be
rewritten so that it provided first for the time situation
for completion; that if not completed the bond would pro-
vide that the bonding company would in fact complete it;
that this would take care of the structural problems; that
in addition to a faithful performance bond there should be
a cash deposit as suggested for curbs, gutters and side-
walks because this was something the City could do; that
he would recommend against any provision that the City go
in and complete the building; that regarding the penalty
clause he thought the bond would take care of that aspect;
that the liquidated damage clause could be put in but only
when there was a contract and the City did not really have
a contract with anyone on a relocation permit.
Discussion followed regarding Section 7907 b) wherein City
Attorney Flandrick stated he would not suggest using the
language that any building that was moved in would have to
upgrade the area; that compatible" at least had a defini-
tion in Planning; that it was a value judgment no matter
who made it.
Councilman Adair stated that the Planning Commission should
view the structures to be relocated.
Further discussion followed wherein City Attorney Flandrick
stated the scope could be widened in Section 7907 b) by
saying compatibility in terms of adjacent uses as well as
the community as a whole".
Chief Administrative Officer Nordby recommended that this
ordinance be withdrawn and resubmitted incorporating the
thoughts of the Council.
January 5, 1966 270
Page 13
Continued)
BIB]
39576-U01
1966-U02
01-U02
05-U02
CC-U02
MIN-U02
LI1-U03
FO9994-U03
FO116938-U03
DO116939-U03
C4-U03
MINUTES1-U03
5/5/2008-U04
ROBIN-U04
REGULAR-U05
SESSION-U05
CITY-U06
COUNCIL-U06
1966 01 05 CC MIN HÄ—@¸— 0 ^Í«2iMIDS Regular Meeting of the Baldwin Park City.,Coundil
Discussion followed that the present moratorium expired
on February 18, 1966.
City Attorney Flandrick asked if it was the consensus that,
the processing would be in the same manner as at the pre-
sent time or on the administrative level.
Councilwoman Gregory stated she had indicated her opinion
that the processing should be taken care of in the same
manner as at the present time.
Councilman McCaron stated, in his opinion, it should be set
up for appeal to the City Counicil.
Councilman Morehead stated'he had indicated his opinion.
Councilman Adair stated he thought the Council was over-
loaded with everything going to the Council.
Mayor Crites stated, in his opinion, the Council did not
need to get involved in moving structures through the
City; that in the relocations of structures in general
the Building Superintendent, Planning Director, and the
Superintendent of Public Works culd make up practically
all of the staff recommendations and make them to the
Planning Commission; that if the Planning Commission con-
curred with the staff it should be a mere detail of
issuing the permits; that a few teeth were needed such as
the time limit, bond to insure completion and Certificate
of Occupancy given when the conditions were completed;
that he did not see any reason for the Council to get so
terribly involved in every one of these things; that he
felt this was the position of the Planning Commission to
plan satisfactorily for the City; that building judgments
ought to be left to the Building Department as recommenda-
tions to the Planning Commission; that the Council should
be the source of appeal.
Councilman Morehead stated he could consider the comments
of the Mayor along with what he had heard this evening.
Discussion followed that the Planning Commission had not
seen the ordinance as presented to the City Council this
evening; that the Planning Commission had made recommenda-
tions and there were sections in the ordinance that covered
the Planning Commission's recommendations; that the
Planning Commission had commented that there should be a
$75.00 fee for filing and no appeal fee; that they did not
make a specific recommendation on the administrative aspect.
City Attorney Flandrick stated the ordinance would be with-
drawn, rewritten and submitted to the City Council at the
next regular meeting.
00-
City Engineer French reported on the review of angle park-
ing on the north side of Ramona Boulevard between Bogart
Avenue and Robin Avenue stating that all indications were
that the angle parking was doing the job that it was in-
tended to do; that,the majority of the through traffic was
going on south Ramona Boulevard; that the accident rate was
virtually the same as before; that the severity of accidents
had lessened; that it was the recommendation of the staff
that the experiment be continued.
Discussion followed that there was much heavier traffic on
the south side of Ramona Boulevard than there was before.
January 5, 1966
Page 14
ORD. TO BE RE-
WRITTEN AND SUB-
MITTED AT NEXT REG.
MTG.
REVIEW BY CITY
ENGR. OF ANGLE
PARKING ON NORTH
SIDE OF RAMONA
BLVD. BETWEEN
BOGART AVE. AND
ROBIN AVE.
REC. THAT
EXPERIMENT BE
CONTINUED
Continued)
BIB]
39576-U01
1966-U02
01-U02
05-U02
CC-U02
MIN-U02
LI1-U03
FO9994-U03
FO116938-U03
DO116939-U03
C4-U03
MINUTES1-U03
5/5/2008-U04
ROBIN-U04
REGULAR-U05
SESSION-U05
CITY-U06
COUNCIL-U06
1966 01 05 CC MIN HÄ—@¸— 0 ^Í«I
Regular Meeting of the Baldwin Park City Council
As there were no objections, Mayor Crites declared the
report accepted and filed with thanks.
00-
City Engineer French reviewed extensively his report on the
policy towards the development of Select System of Streets
as a project and recommended the adoption of a new policy
which would allow the maximum use of the City's gas tax
revenue and maximum benefit to the City as a whole in that
the City could concentrate on traffic flow. He stated,
as an example, the City was presently preparing plans on
the widening of Los Angeles Street from Maine Avenue to
the easterly City boundaries; that under the present policy
the City would spend approximately $23,000.00 for right-
of-way and $45,000.00 for construction making a total cost
of $68,000.00; that this would be obtaining enough right-
of-way to put in the curbs and gutters, not the sidewalks;
that compared with the proposed policy the construction
cost would remain $45,000.00; that if everyone dedicated
the right-of-way to the City the right-of-way dedicated
would be valued at $46,200.00 which would mean that the
City would have provided the matching credit to the State
and make it eligible for the project to be completed.
In answer to questions by the Council, City Engineer French
explained that when condemning for right-of-way the City
had been condemning just enough to get the curbs and gutters
installed and not condemning the parkway area; that this
was the difference in the cost; that this meant the right-
of-way acquisition, if the City condemned for the parkway
area on this particular project, would cost twice as much;
that if the people donated the right-of-way they would
donate the full parkway area; that the whole thing would
be eligible for matching; that the State did not draw a
line between the curb area and the parkway area; that this
would allow the City twice as much credit for matching;
that one project would cost $45,000.00 of State Gas Tax
Money and no money from the General Fund; that the other
project would cost $68,000.00 of State Gas Tax Money
and the City would have to provide an expenditure of
$34,000.00 of funds other than Gas Tax, General Funds,
Subdivider contribution or some contribution somewhere
in the City.
City Engineer French stated there would be property
owners that did not want to do this and these sections
would not have curbs and gutters; but they would be
graded out and would drain; tnat this would not interfere
with the proper traffic movement; that when the people got
Building Permits they would be required to put in the curbs
and gutters at no expense to the City.
Councilman McCaron asked if the 1911 or 1913 Act could
be used if over 50% was improved.
Discussion followed that the City had the right-of-way
to the curb line but not the area for the sidewalk;
that curbs and gutters could be put in and coordinate
the two for complete development.
City Engineer French stated that it could be scheduled
that where the people would not donate the land the
City could condemn and then Short Form.
City Attorney Flandrick stated he had seen this overall
policy work magnificently in a number of cities; that he
concurred with the City Engineer with one cautionary
corrment, as the City Engineer pointed out, that the City
would never have a situation where everyone would dedicate
the property; that possibly the City would get 20% or 30%
dedication.
Continued)
January 5, 1966 27018
Page 15
REPORT ACCEPTED AND
FILED
REPORT BY CITY ENGR.
ON POLICY TOWARDS
DEVELOPMENT OF
SELECT SYSTEM OF
STREETS AS PROJECT
AND REC. ADOPTION
OF POLICY WHICH WOULD
ALLOW MAXIMUM BENEFIT
TO CITY IN THAT CITY
COULD CONCENTRATE ON
TRAFFIC FLOW
BIB]
39576-U01
1966-U02
01-U02
05-U02
CC-U02
MIN-U02
LI1-U03
FO9994-U03
FO116938-U03
DO116939-U03
C4-U03
MINUTES1-U03
5/5/2008-U04
ROBIN-U04
REGULAR-U05
SESSION-U05
CITY-U06
COUNCIL-U06
1966 01 05 CC MIN HÄ—@¸— 0 ^Í«Regular Meeting of the Baldwin Park City Council January 5, 1966
Oro 07 Page 16
COUNCILMAN MCCARON MOVED THAT THE POLICY BE TRIED ON THE
FIRST PROJECT BUT IF IT MEETS WITH A DISMAL FAILURE THEN
WE CAN GO BACK TO THE OTHER SYSTEM. COUNCILMAN ADAIR
SECONDED. The motion carried by the followivote:
AYES: COUNCILMEN MCCARON, ADAIR, GREGORY,
MOREHEAD AND MAYOR CRITES
NOES: NONE
A6SENT: NONE
00-
City Engineer French reviewed his report on a request for
additional condemnation in regard to Tract No.'29417 stat-
ing that the City had condemned a sewer easement to provide
service to the area north of Tract No. 29417 Igcated on
Adour Lane off of Center; that the easement wa$ acquired
from Grace to Adour Lane across the property ovned by Mr.
Benson and Mr. Baca; that due to an error on the part of
the developer's agent a portion of the sewer was constructed
outside of the ten 110) foot easement; that the developer,
Mr. Henry Levin, had not been able to reach a mutual under-
standing for the solution of this problem with the
affected property owner; that on November 17, 1965, Mr.
Levin requested that the City condemn the additional ease-
ment area necessary for the protection of the sewer in its
present location; that he offered to pay the cost for the
additional three 3) foot easement; that he had reviewed
the problem both from a paper standpoint and in the field;
that it was his opinion that the development of this tract
had caused an access problem to the property owners on
Adour Lane which was also a part of the tract; that it was
also his opinion that if the sewer problem was to be solved
by acquisition of additional right-of-way he thought that
the access problems to the people along Adour Lane should
be considered; therefore, he recommended that the City
Council take the following action on Mr. Levin's request:
that the City Council agree to the initiation of condemna-
tion for a sixty 60) foot wide street across the Benson
and Baca property so as to have the sewer constructed
within the dedicated street and eliminate the necessity of
a.storm drain across these properties; that with this he
would assume that the City would provide the necessary
paving; that he felt it would be unjust to have the property
owner pay for the condemnation and also improve; that two
lanes of paving could be provided across. this area; that
this action, if approved by the Council, would provide a
secondary means of access to the people on Adour Lane and
also solve Mr. Levin's problem; that they did not have
firm appraisals on the property but it was estimated that
the cost of acquisition of this property would be $5,000.00;
that it was very safe to say that Mr. Levin did not agree
with this recommendation; that he only wanted to pay for
an additional three 13) feet; that Mr. Levin felt strongly
this was not his responsibility and this was an unjust
recommendation; that Mr. Milak, Mr. Levin's representative,
was in the audience.
Mr. Paul Milak, 1046 East Meda, Glendora, stated he had
discussed with Mr. Levin the funds available for the
condemnation; that whereas the condemnation recommended by
the City Engineer was desirab,II, they felt they would like
to adhere to the original sdMevision agreement which re-
quired only that the sewer it placed in the easement,
proper barricading and cleanup; that he would not go into
the problem and who caused the problem but they would go
into the solution; that the solution he thought was what
he had recommended originally, the dedication of three
3) feet and the construction of the storm drain; that if
the Council saw fit to accept the recommendation of the
MOTION MADE AND
CARRIED THAT POLICY
BE TRIED ON FIRST
PROJECT BUT IF
MEETS WITH DISMAL
FAILURE THEN WE CAN
GO BACK TO OTHER
SYSTEM
REPORT BY CITY
ENGR. RE REQUEST
FOR ADDITIONAL
CONDEMNATION RE
TRACT NO. 29417
PAUL MILAK,
1046 E. Meda,
Glendora
Continued)
BIB]
39576-U01
1966-U02
01-U02
05-U02
CC-U02
MIN-U02
LI1-U03
FO9994-U03
FO116938-U03
DO116939-U03
C4-U03
MINUTES1-U03
5/5/2008-U04
ROBIN-U04
REGULAR-U05
SESSION-U05
CITY-U06
COUNCIL-U06
1966 01 05 CC MIN HÄ—@¸— 0 ^Í«Regular Meeting of the Baldwin Park City Council January 5, 1966
Page 17 2708
I
City Engineer they were in a position only to contribute an
equal amount to the cost of the storm drain plus the cost of
the additional easement which he estimated to be around
$1200.00 to $1500.00 total.
In answer to a question by Councilman McCaron, Mr. Milak
stated the storm drain would be underground but very shallow.
Councilman McCaron asked if the Council condemned this for
a street would this be considered condemning to aid a
subdivision.
City Attorney Flandrick stated not actually; that there was
a public interest obviously in taking Grace Street through;
that what was being requested apparently was that the
subdivider through Mr. Milak was indicating that if the
Council would do this to solve his problem which was
incidental to the street situation that they would be
willing to contribute toward the total project.
Councilman McCaron stated that in time the property owner
would have to dedicate if he wished to develop.
City Attorney Flandrick stated he had discussed this pro-
blem with Mr. Benson and that he was sure Mr. Benson had
no intention in the near future of developing that
property for that reason.
Councilman McCaron asked what was the purpose of making the
dedication other than to allow a little more access.
City Engineer French stated he was basically thinking of the
people on Adour Lane.
Discussion followed wherein City Engineer French stated if
the Benson and Baca property had developed they would have
had two means of access; that there was a house in the way
of the street; that Adour Lane was dedicated twenty-five
25) foot on one-half; that assuming that the dedication
was completed on twenty-five 25) feet it would leave a
forty-five 45) foot lot; that to accomplish a lot split
Mr. Benson would have to come before the Board of Zoning
Adjustments; that Mr. Benson and Mr. Baca were not aware of
his recommendation tonight; that they were aware of the
problem and knew what the street pattern was in the area
and what was going to occur some time or another; that
they knew Grace was going to go through and Adour Lane
would go through; that any condemnation was going to make
Mr. Benson unhappy; that it would probably make him less
unhappy if the City would take the entire sixty 60) foot
because it did give him a lot split and he would gain by this;
that Grace Street was a narrow street eighteen 18) feet
wide.
Mr. Milak stated there was fourteen 14) foot of paving.
Councilman Morehead stated, in his opinion, there was
actually no solution unless Mr. Benson's property was
damaged.
Councilman McCaron stated he was not in favor of forcing
a developer to buy additional dedication as in this case
where the people who own the Benson and Baca property
would have to dedicate on their own if they wished to
develop in the future; that for proper development they
would almost have to go together; that Benson and Baca
might consider if they would accept the funds to be con-
tributed toward this that they might dedicate this at the
present time and the only thing it would be used for would
be possibly a graded ditch through there for drainage and
not open up Adour Lane for the traffic from Grace until
Continued)
BIB]
39576-U01
1966-U02
01-U02
05-U02
CC-U02
MIN-U02
LI1-U03
FO9994-U03
FO116938-U03
DO116939-U03
C4-U03
MINUTES1-U03
5/5/2008-U04
ROBIN-U04
REGULAR-U05
SESSION-U05
CITY-U06
COUNCIL-U06
1966 01 05 CC MIN HÄ—@¸— 0 ^Í«Regular Meeting of the Baldwin Park City Council January 5, 1966
21,09 Page 18
such time as it could stand the traffic; that this way it
would be adding additional traffic to just those few houses
that were being served by it at the present time; that in
case he did not wish to dedicate it all just go ahead and
put in what was necessary, acquire the additional footage
for right-of-way of the sewer and the drainage and then
leave it up to them for the future.
Mr. Milak stated there were seven 7) houses on that
particular street.
In answer to a question by Councilman Morehead, City
Engineer French stated because of the subdivider's agent
the sewer was constructed outside the easement; that it
was the subdivider's responsibility that the sewer was con-
structed outside of the easement; that there was a ten 10)
foot easement; that the subdivider could put that sewer
within the easement; that he had ten 10) feet to work in
to get this sewer within the easement; that when this sewer
originally went in discussions were made with Benson and
Baca and they agreed to allow the contractor some latitude
in piling his waste material on their property so that they
could put the sewer within the easement, but this was
only a temporary thing, a construction type easement; that
now the sewer had been built and it was outside the
10) foot easement; that the subdivider was now limited
to work within the ten 10) foot to get the sewer recon-
structed if that was what it took; that this meant a very
difficult construction problem for the subdivider who
was responsible; that the City had bonds; that the bonds
had not been released.
In answer to a question by Councilman McCaron, City Engineer
French stated that the subdivider had installed the sewer
line.
In answer to questions by Councilman Morehead, City Engineer
French stated it was his understanding the sewer in Center Street
was not supposed to be constructed on the center line as
part of 62-A-1; that it was constructed on the center line
of 62-A-I putting it six 6) feet out of the location; that
when the subdivision engineer staked it he did not check
the exact location of the sewer in Center Street; that bit,
plans were taken off of the plans prepared by Ivor Lyons
which showed the sewer to be constructed six 6) foot off
of center; that he did not check to see if the sewer was
six 6) feet off, he started, went in and the entire error
came up; that this man had to establish the center line of
Adour Lane and Center and if he had looked he would have known.
Mr. Milak stated it was lack of coordination between the
sewer district plans and the developer's plans; that the
subdivision engineer failed to reduce the total footage on
Adour Lane corresponding to the change in the location on
Center Street, six 6) feet. We further stated that he
had attempted to put in the storm drain three 11311- times;
that each time he was stopped; that the reason he was
stopped was because the sewer problem had to be corrected or
solved.
City Engineer French stated the sewer contractor that put
this in did not want to talk about getting the sewer con-
struction within the ten 10) foot easement; that this was
going to be expensive.
Mr. Milak stated it would probably be twice as much as the
cost of the easement would be.
Further discussion followed wherein City Attorney Flaadrick
stated the sewer line had not been accepted by.the City.
Continued)
BIB]
39576-U01
1966-U02
01-U02
05-U02
CC-U02
MIN-U02
LI1-U03
FO9994-U03
FO116938-U03
DO116939-U03
C4-U03
MINUTES1-U03
5/5/2008-U04
ROBIN-U04
REGULAR-U05
SESSION-U05
CITY-U06
COUNCIL-U06
1966 01 05 CC MIN HÄ—@¸— 0 ^Í«Regular Meeting of the Baldwin Park City Council
COUNCILMAN MOREHEAD MOVED THAT THE CONDEMNATION OF ADOUR
LANE AND GRACE AVENUE BE TABLED.
Councilwoman Gregory asked if it was reasonable to make a
motion that either Mr. Levin or the bonding company be
contacted. There was no'discussion).
Mr. Milak stated he believed it could be reconstructed but
it would be expensive; that, in his opinion; the City had
some responsibility in this inasmuch as they do the same
things in sewer districts, they condemn easements for
property owners and the fact that this developer had al-
ready sold the property; that the City would be doing it
for the property owners, not the developer anymore.
Councilman McCaron stated the City was involved in condemn-
ing the first ten 10) foot easement; that he could not see
why the City could not enter in and condemn the additional
footage needed to put it within the easement and also require
that the drain be put in and leave the property of Benson
and Baca as it was until such time as they wanted to do
something with it.
The motion died for lack of a second.
Further discussion followed.
City Attorney Flandrick stated there were seven 7) homes
located on the far side of Adour Lane which obviously had
the problem of the narrow street; that if there were to be
an assessment district or a condemnation, either one,
created that would take the entire width of Grace and the
remaining portion required for Adour Lane the City would
have to acquire all of the Benson property seven 7) feet
in width for approximately one hundred eighty 180) feet
in depth; that if these people in the tract were concerned
enough about living on the narrow street there was a
possibility if the City was willing to make a contribution
to the district and Mr. Levin was willing to make some con-
tribution also to that extent, to acquire that entire area
and create both of the streets, the majority of the expense
being spread on those seven properties plus the Benson and
Baca property north of Grace; that perhaps this would be a
partial solution.
COUNCILMAN MCCARON MOVED THAT THE CITY ENTER A CONDEMNATION
PROCEEDING TO ACQUIRE THE ADDITIONAL FOOTAGE NECESSARY FOR
THE SEWER EASEMENT AND THAT THE SUBDIVIDER INVOLVED, IN THIS
CASE,..MR. LEVIN, BE ASKED TO PROVIDE THE DRAINAGE SYSTEM
ACROSS THE BALANCE OF THE PROPERTY AND LEAVE THE PROPERTY
AS IT IS UNTIL SUCH TIME AS BENSON AND BACA WISH TO DEVELOP
THEIR PROPERTY, MR. LEVIN TO PAY ALL COSTS OF THE CONDEMNA-
TION. COUNCILMAN ADAIR SECONDED. The motion carried by
the following vote:
AYES: COUNCILMEN MCCARON, ADAIR, GREGORY,
MOREHEAD AND MAYOR CRITES
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: NONE
City Attorney Flandrick stated a condemnation resolution
would be prepared and submitted to the Council.
00-
City Engineer French reviewed his report on an engineer
for Jerry Avenue 1911 Act Improvement stating that the
Council at the last meeting had appointed lega'l'counsel
Continued)
January 5, 1966
Page 19
MOTION MADE
MOTION DIED FOR
LACK OF SECOND
MOTION MADE AND
CARRIED THAT CITY
ENTER CONDEMNATION
PROCEEDING TO ACQ.
ADDITIONAL FOOTAGE
NEC. FOR SEWER EASE-
MENT AND THAT SUB-
DIVIDER INVOLVED BE
ASKED TO PROVIDE
DRAINAGE SYSTEM
ACROSS BALANCE OF
PROPERTY AND LEAVE
PROPERTY AS IT IS
UNTIL SUCH TIME AS
BENSON AND BACA WISH
TO DEVELOP THEIR
PROPERTY, MR. LEVIN
TO PAY ALL COSTS
CONDEMNATION RES.
TO BE PREPARED
REC. BY CITY ENGR.
RE ENGINEER OF
WORK JERRY AVE.
Continued)
BIB]
39576-U01
1966-U02
01-U02
05-U02
CC-U02
MIN-U02
LI1-U03
FO9994-U03
FO116938-U03
DO116939-U03
C4-U03
MINUTES1-U03
5/5/2008-U04
ROBIN-U04
REGULAR-U05
SESSION-U05
CITY-U06
COUNCIL-U06
1966 01 05 CC MIN HÄ—@¸— 0 ^Í«Regular Meeting of the Baldwin Park City Council January 5, 1966
Page 20
and adopted a resolution for proceeding; that five 5) AVE. 1911 ACT
engineering firms had submitted proposals, Lampman and IMPROVEMENT A/D 66-I:
Associates, Harold L. Johnson, Engineering, Kenneth I. Mullen,
Consulting Engineer, W. J. Lockman, Civil Engineer, and
Walsh-Forkert-Hutchison Civil Engineers, Inc.; that they
were all highly qualified firms more than qualified to
provide all of the services requested; that the Council
had seen the brochures; that he recommended that Walsh-
Forkert-Hutchison Civil Engineers,lnc. be engaged in
accordance with their proposal; that this firm had been
employed by the City previously and their services had
always been more than satisfactory.
City Clerk Balkus read Resolution No. 66-6 by title as
follows:
RESOLUTION NO. 66-6
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF BALDWIN PARK APPOINTING
AN ENGINEER OF WORK FOR ASSESSMENT
DISTRICT 66-1"
COUNCILMAN MOREHEAD MOVED THAT RESOLUTION NO. 66-6 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 Clerk Balkus asked that Ordinance No. 433 be withdrawn
from the Agenda.
There were no objections.
00-
City Clerk Balkus read Ordinance No. 434 by title as
follows:
ORDINANCE NO. 434
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF BALDWIN PARK AMENDING THE
ZONING MAP CF SAID CITY, AND REZONING
CERTAIN HEREIN DESCRIBED REAL PROPERTY
FROM ZONE R-3 TO ZONE C-2 ZONE CASE
NO. Z-282)"
COUNCILMAN MOREHEAD MOVED THAT ORDINANCE NO. 434 PASS
SECOND READING AND BE ADOPTED AND THAT FURTHER READING
BE WAIVED. COUNCILMAN ADAIR SECONDED. The motion carried
by the following vote:
AYES: COUNCILMEN MOREHEAD, ADAIR AND MAYOR
CRITES
NOES: COUNCILMEN GREGORY AND MCCARON
ABSENT: NONE
City Clerk Balkus read Ordinance No. 434 in its entirety.
COUNCILMAN MOREHEAD MOVED THAT ORDINANCE NO. 434 BE
ADOPTED AS READ. COUNCILMAN ADAIR SECONDED. The
motion carried by the following vote:
RES. NO. 66-6
APPOINTING ENGR.
OF WORK FOR ASSESS-
MENT DISTRICT 66-I
RES. NO. 66-6
ADOPTED
ORD. NO. 433
WITHDRAWN FROM
AGENDA
ORD. NO. 434
AMEND. ZON. MAP
OF SAID CITY, AND
REZONING CERTAIN
HEREIN DESCRIBED
REAL PROPERTY FROM
ZONE R-I TO ZONE
R-2 ZONE CASE NO.
Z-282)
ORD. NO. 434 READ
IN ITS ENTIRETY
ORD. NO. 434
ADOPTED AS READ
Continued)
BIB]
39576-U01
1966-U02
01-U02
05-U02
CC-U02
MIN-U02
LI1-U03
FO9994-U03
FO116938-U03
DO116939-U03
C4-U03
MINUTES1-U03
5/5/2008-U04
ROBIN-U04
REGULAR-U05
SESSION-U05
CITY-U06
COUNCIL-U06
1966 01 05 CC MIN HÄ—@¸— 0 ^Í«Regular Meeting of the Baldwin Park City Council
AYES: COUNCILMEN MOREHEAD, ADAIR AND MAYOR
CRITES
NOES: COUNCILMEN GREGORY AND MCCARON
ABSENT: NONE
00-
Chief Administrative Officer Nordby recommended that
Ordinance No. 436 be withheld until the next regular
meeting.
COUNCILMAN MOREHEAD MOVED THAT ORDINANCE NO. 436 BE
WITHHELD UNTIL THE NEXT REGULAR MEETING. COUNCILMAN
ADAIR SECONDED. There were no objections, the motion
carried and was so ordered by Mayor Crites.
00-
Resolution No. 66-7 was read by title as follows:
RESOLUTION NO.. 66-7
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF BALDWIN PARK FINDING
AND DETERMINING THE EXISTENCE OF A
PUBLIC NUISANCE AND ORDERING THE
SAME ABATED CASE NO. N-4, 3154
ATHOL STREET)"
COUNCILMAN MOREHEAD MOVED THAT RESOLUTION NO. 66-7 BE
APPROVED AND FURTHER READING BE WAIVED. COUNCILMAN
MCCARON SECONDED. The motion carried by the following
vote:
AYES: COUNCILMEN MOREHEAD, MCCARON, ADAIR,
GREGORY AND MAYOR CRITES
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: NONE
00-
Resolution No. 66-8 was read by title as follows:
RESOLUTION NO. 66-8
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF BALDWIN PARK FINDING
AND DETERMINING THE EXISTENCE OF A
PUBLIC NUISANCE AND ORDERING THE
SAME ABATED CASE NO. N-5, 4642
BRESEE AVENUE)"
COUNCILMAN MOREHEAD MOVED THAT RESOLUTION NO. 66-8 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 Clerk Balkus read Resolution No. 66-4 by title as
follows:
January 5, 1966
Page 21
ORD. NO. 436
WITHHELD UNTIL NEXT
REG. MTG.
RES. NO. 66-7
FINDING AND DETER-
MINING EXISTENCE
OF PUBLIC NUISANCE
AND ORDERING SAME
ABATED CASE NO.
N-4, 3154 ATHOL ST.)
RES. NO. 66-7
ADOPTED
RES. NO. 66-8
FINDING AND DETER-
MINING EXISTENCE
OF PUBLIC NUISANCE
AND ORDERING SAME
ABATED CASE NO.
N-5, 4642 BRESEE
AVE.)
RES. NO. 66-8
ADOPTED
RES. NO. 66-4
APPOINTING DIR.
Continued) Continued)
BIB]
39576-U01
1966-U02
01-U02
05-U02
CC-U02
MIN-U02
LI1-U03
FO9994-U03
FO116938-U03
DO116939-U03
C4-U03
MINUTES1-U03
5/5/2008-U04
ROBIN-U04
REGULAR-U05
SESSION-U05
CITY-U06
COUNCIL-U06
1966 01 05 CC MIN HÄ—@¸— 0 ^Í«2713
Regular Meeting of the Baldwin Park City Council
January 5, 1966
Page 22
RESOLUTION NO. 66-4 OF CIVIL DEFENSE
AND SETTING AMT.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF OF COMPENSATION
THE CITY OF BALDWIN PARK APPO;NTING FOR SAID POSITION
A DIRECTOR OF CIVIL DEFENSE AND
SETTING THE AMOUNT OF COMPENSATION
FOR SAID POSITION"
COUNCILMAN MOREHEAD MOVED THAT RESOLUTION NO. 66-4 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
Mayor Crites stated that Civil Defense Director Joe Pierce
had resigned for business reasons; that Harry Eugene
Hastings had been appointed to this position; that Mr.
Hastings had been involved in Civil Defense affairs very
actively for some time.
00-
At the request of Councilman Morehead, Chief of Police
Adams related the incidents of an accident which had con-
vinced Councilman Morehead that the bumpers on the
police cars were worth their expense.
00-
Mayor Crites presented a letter of resignation from E. A.
Cannady, member of the Board of Zoning Adjustments to
become effective as soon as a replacement could be
appointed or at the Council's pleasure.
Mayor Crites filed the letter with the City Clerk.
Councilman Morehead stated when the resignation was
accepted a letter of commendation should be sent to
Mr. Cannady signed by the Mayor.
COUNCILMAN MOREHEAD MOVED THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ACCEPT
THE RESIGNATION OF E. A. CANNADY FROM THE BOARD OF ZONING
ADJUSTMENTS WITH REGRET. COUNCILWOMAN GREGORY SECONDED.
City Attorney Flandrick stated if the motion carried that
would mean that the resignation was accepted as offered;
that Mr. Cannady would serve until a replacement was
appointed.
There were no objections, the motion carried and was so
ordered by Mayor Crites.
00-
Mayor Crites stated that inasmuch as there were two Planning
Commission offices expiring February I, 1966 that the Council
consider making some presentations of candidates to these
posts or replacing the present holders of the offices along
with the presentations of candidates to the Board of Zoning
Adjustments.
COUNCILMAN MOREHEAD MOVED THAT THE CITY COUNCIL REAPPOINT
MR. CAPRONI AND MR. GERALDI TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION.
COUNCILWOMAN GREGORY SECONDED. The motion carried by the
following vote:
Continued)
RES. NO. 66-4
ADOPTED
HARRY EUGENE HASTINC
APPOINTED
CIVIL DEFENSE
DIRECTOR
RE ACCIDENT INVOLVIN(
BUMPERS ON POLICE
CARS
LETTER OF RESIGNA-
TION E.A. CANNADY,
BZA MEMBER
MOTION MADE AND
CARRIED THAT COUNCIL
ACCEPT RESIGNATION
OF E. A. CANNADY
FROM BZA WITH
REGRET
TWO PLANNING
COMMISSION OFFICES
EXPIRING FEB. 1,
1966
MOTION MADE AND
CARRIED THAT COUNCII
REAPPOINT MR.
CAPRONI AND MR.
Continued)
BIB]
39576-U01
1966-U02
01-U02
05-U02
CC-U02
MIN-U02
LI1-U03
FO9994-U03
FO116938-U03
DO116939-U03
C4-U03
MINUTES1-U03
5/5/2008-U04
ROBIN-U04
REGULAR-U05
SESSION-U05
CITY-U06
COUNCIL-U06
1966 01 05 CC MIN HÄ—@¸— 0 ^Í«2714
I
Regular Meeting of the Baldwin Park City Council
AYES: COUNCILMEN MOREHEAD, GREGORY, ADAIR,
MCCARON AND MAYOR CRITES
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: NONE
00-
COUNCILMAN MOREHEAD MOVED THAT MR. ROBERT LARSON, A
RESIDENT OF THIS CITY FOR TWENTY-FIVE 25) YEARS, BE
APPOINTED TO THE BOARD OF ZONING ADJUSTMENTS IN REPLACE-
MENT OF MR. E. A. CANNADY.
Councilman Morehead stated he had spoken with Mr. Larson
and that Mr. Larson stated he would serve with vigor if
appointed.
Discussion followed that this matter should be held
over to the next regular meeting; that the other
Council members had names to offer.
The motion was withdrawn.
Mayor Crites stated the Council might consider this in
the Executive session.
00-
City Clerk Balkus stated the candidates for Council for the
April 12, 1966, election, could submit a candidate's state-
ment if they wished; that possibly the candidates should
file with the Finance Director at the time their nomination
papers were filed a fee in the amount of $75.00 to cover
the cost of printing, handling and mailing of the statement.
COUNCILMAN MOREHEAD MOVED THAT ALL THOSE NOMINEES FOR ANY
OFFICE OPEN AT THE NEXT GENERAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION WHO
DESIRE THE STATEMENT OF INFORMATION AS OUTLINED BY THE
CITY CLERK BE REQUIRED TO DEPOSIT A FEE IN THE SUM OF
$75.00 WITH THE DIRECTOR OF FINANCE TO DEFRAY THE COST
OF THAT AT THE TIME OF FILING THEIR NOMINATING PETITION.
COUNCILWOMAN GREGORY SECONDED.
In answer to a question by Councilman McCaron, City
Attorney Flandrick stated that the Code Section that
was added to the Election Code permitted the City to
bill the candidate; that presumably the $75.00 would
defray at least a majority of that cost; that any
unused amount could be refunded; that the Statement
of Information was not required, it was at the
candidate's option.
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. 66-I by title as
follows:
RESOLUTION NO. 66-1
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF BALDWIN PARK ALLOWING
CLAIMS AND DEMANDS AGAINST THE CITY
OF BALDWIN PARK"
Continued)
January 5, 1966
Page 23
GERALDI TO P.C.
MOTION MADE RE
APPOINTMENT TO
BZA
MOTION WITHDRAWN
RE STATEMENT OF
INFORMATION
CANDIDATES FOR
COUNCIL FOR APRIL
12, 1966 ELECTION
MOTION MADE AND
CARRIED THAT ALL
THOSE NOMINEES FOR
ANY OFFICE OPEN AT
NEXT GEN. MUN.
ELECTION WHO DESIRE
STATEMENT OF INFORMA-
TION BE REQ. TO
DEPOSIT A FEE IN
SUM OF $75.00 WITH
DIR. OF FINANCE TO
DEFRAY COST OF THAT
AT THE TIME OF FILING
THEIR NOMINATING
PETITION
RES. NO. 66-I
ALLOWING CLAIMS
AND DEMANDS AGAINST
CITY OF B.PK.
GENERAL CLAIMS AND
DEMANDS NOS. 759-814
AND 147-148 INCL.
PAYROLL CLAIMS AND
DEMANDS NOS. 2847-
2976
BIB]
39576-U01
1966-U02
01-U02
05-U02
CC-U02
MIN-U02
LI1-U03
FO9994-U03
FO116938-U03
DO116939-U03
C4-U03
MINUTES1-U03
5/5/2008-U04
ROBIN-U04
REGULAR-U05
SESSION-U05
CITY-U06
COUNCIL-U06
1966 01 05 CC MIN HÄ—@¸— 0 ^Í«2'715
Regular Meeting of the Baldwin Park City Council January~5, 1966
Page 24
COUNCILMAN MOREHEAD MOVED THAT RESOLUTION NO. 66-I BE. RES. NO. 66-I
APPROVED AND FURTHER READING BE WAIVED. COUNCILMAN MCCARON ADOPTED
SECONDED. The motion carried by the following vote:
AYES: COUNCILMEN MOREHEAD, MCCARON, ADAIR,
GREGORY AND MAYOR CRITES
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: NONE
00-
City Attorney Flandrick stated City Engineer French and him- REQUEST FOR
self requested an Executive Session to discuss problems EXECUTIVE SESSION
that had come up in connection with the court proceedings TO DISCUSS PROBLEMS
for the Maine Avenue acquisition. IN CONNECTION WITH
CT. PROCEEDINGS FOR
MAINE AVE. ACQUISI-
TION
00-
AT 11:39 P.M. COUNCILWOMAN GREGORY MOVED THAT THE CITY RECESS AT 11:39 P.M.
COUNCIL RECESS FOR TEN MINUTES AND RECONVENE IN EXECUTIVE RECONVENED AT 11:49
SESSION. COUNCILMAN MOREHEAD SECONDED. There were no P.M.
objections, the motion carried and was so ordered by
Mayor Crites.
00-
At 12:35 a.m. the Council reconvened in-regular session. 12:35 A.M. COUNCIL
RECONVENED IN REG.
SESSION
00-
AT 12:36 A.M. COUNCILMAN MOREHEAD MOVED THAT THE CITY ADJ. AT 12:36 A.M.
COUNCIL ADJOURN. COUNCILMAN ADAIR SECONDED. There were
no objections, the motion carried and was'so ordered by
Mayor Crites.
00-
IVORY D. C TES, MAYOR
APPROVED: February 2 1966. THELMA L. BALKUS, CITY CLERK
Date of Distribution to City Council January 28 1966.
Date of Distribution to Departments January 31 1966.
BIB]
39576-U01
1966-U02
01-U02
05-U02
CC-U02
MIN-U02
LI1-U03
FO9994-U03
FO116938-U03
DO116939-U03
C4-U03
MINUTES1-U03
5/5/2008-U04
ROBIN-U04
REGULAR-U05
SESSION-U05
CITY-U06
COUNCIL-U06
Í«3
egular Meeting of the Baldwin Park City Council January 5, 1966
Rage 12
good planning; that relocations were too important, too
close to people and to controversial to delegate to the
sole thinking of one man; that she would like to have the
ordinance given some thought, put some teeth in It and
have it presented again.
Councilman Morehead stated, in his opinion,-the-reason
the moratorium was issued was to.upgrade,the relocation
ordinance and put some teeth in.it that he was not
strongly for a ten year age limitation on buildings be-
cause there were buildings that could be located in this
City that were far older.than ten 10) years, however, he
was expecting some age limitation set and if it had been
within reason he would have probably agreed with it; that
there should be a set time in the ordinance for the build-
ing to be brought up to Code after being relocated; that,
in his opinion, there were not too many changes that
should be made in the present ordinance to have what he
thought the Council intended to have in the first place,
just a few sharp teeth added to what there was and leave
the responsibilities where they were; that it seemed to
him the Chief Administrative Officer's Office was well
burdened with current work, and if he were the Chief
Administrative Officer and knew that the City had a real
good relocation ordinance he would want to turn it over
to the Building Superintendent, Public Works Director,
Planning Commission and to Council just as the current
ordinance provided for.
Councilman McCaron stated he thought the ordinance
stated that the Chief Administrative Officer would be
authorized to delegate the work in this instance; that,
in his opinion, all the Chief Administrative Officer had
in mind was to more or less delegate what had to be done
in relation to house moving permits and issue the final
order from the report given to him by whoever he delegated
the work to. He further stated that he would agree that
possibly the ordinance should be a little bit more
specific in time limits and in what had to be done; that
he did not disagree with the manner in which it was to be
handled because the Planning Commission and the Council
did not pass on the style of the new homes built, and this
in essence would be the same thing; that if there was a
few more teeth in the requirements, maybe a few more items
such as Mr. Morehead mentioned, that this would make the
ordinance stronger.
Councilwoman Gregory stated she had talked with representa-
tives from seven other cities in this valley; that this was
proper procedure Council making determination) as far as
local government was concerned.
Discussion followed.
Chief Administrative Officer Nordby stated, in his opinion,
the Council fully realized that when the designation of the
C.A.O. was included in this ordinance it did not mean that
the C.A.O. would personally conduct all of the moves in-
cluded; that this came under the delegation of powers;
that it had been his impression the Council would prefer
not to become involved in what'he thought was an administra-
tive matter to begin with; that the City had a professional
planner; that the City had an Engineer and a Building
Superintendent; that it was recognized that the Council had
always the final authority; that they had complete authority
to make the final decision; that it was not intended to re-
move any authority from the Council; that the C.A.O. was not
a Building Official or an Engineer but he was a coordinator;
that full use of the officials mentioned by Councilwoman
Gregory was made; that he had suggested one change be made
so that the filing of the application would not be in the
Continued)
BIB]
39576-U01
1966-U02
01-U02
05-U02
CC-U02
MIN-U02
LI1-U03
FO9994-U03
FO116938-U03
DO116939-U03
C4-U03
MINUTES1-U03
5/5/2008-U04
ROBIN-U04
REGULAR-U05
SESSION-U05
CITY-U06
COUNCIL-U06