Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1971 02 03 CC MIN1971 02 03 CC MIN(ÌìÙK!pe0004742 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. Councilman Blewett led the salute to the flag. Roll Call: Present: COUNCILMEN BLEWETT. HAMILTON, KING AND MAYOR MCCARON COUNCILMAN GREGORY CITY MANAGER NORDBY, CITY ATTORNEY FLANDRICK, CITY ENGINEER FRENCH, PLANNING DIRECTOR CHIVETTA, CHIEF OF POLICE ADAMS, CITY TREASURER CODLING AND CITY CLERK BALKUS Absent: Also Present: FEBRUARY 3, 1971 7:30 P.M. FLAG SALUTE ROLL CALL COUNCILMAN BLEWETT DIRECTOR DUNCAN BE were no objections Absent: FINANCE DIRECTOR DUNCAN 00- MOVED THAT COUNCILMAN GREGORY AND FINANCE EXCUSED. COUNCILMAN KING SECONDED. There The motion carried and was so ordered. 00- COUNCILMAN GREGORY & FINANCE DIR. DUNCAN EXCUSED COUNCILMAN KING MOVED THAT THE MINUTES OF JANUARY 6, 12 AND 20, 1971 BE APPROVED AS CORRECTED 1/20/71 page 6, 70-N-107 and 70-N-108 Resume third line, delete Mayor McCaron"; page 20, PM No. 281, add to motion Subject to Planning Comnission recommendations") AND FURTHER READING BE WAIVED. COUNCILMAN HAMILTON SECONDED. There were no objections. The motion carried and was so ordered. 00- RESOLUTION NO. 71-35 ALLOWING CLAIMS AND DEMANDS AGAINST THE CITY OF BALDWIN PARK COUNCILMAN HAMILTON MOVED THAT RESOLUTION NO. 71-35 BE ADOPTED AND THAT FURTHER READING BE WAIVED. COUNCILMAN BLEWETT SECONDED. Roll Call. There were no objections The motion carried and was so ordered. 00- City Clerk Balkus administered the oath to those in the audience desiring to be heard during the meeting. MINUTES OF JANUARY 6, 12 & 20, 1971 APPROVED AS CORRECTED AND FURTHER READING WAIVED RES. NO. 71-35 CLAIMS AND DEMANDS 1812 1868 PAYROLL PERIOD 1/1/71 1/15/71 RES. NO. 71-35 ADOPTED OATH 00- PUBLIC HEARINGS Mayor McCaron stated that the hour of 7:30 p.m. having arrived it was the time and place fixed for the combined hearing on the matter of the construction of certain improvements in the Watrut Street Assessment District, under authority of the Improvement Act of 1911, Section 5000 et seq. of the Streets and Highways Code of the State of California. Continued) PUBLIC HEARINGS 7:30 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING WALNUT STREET A/D BIB] 37659-U01 1971-U02 02-U02 03-U02 CC-U02 MIN-U02 LI1-U03 FO9591-U03 FO9838-U03 DO9972-U03 C4-U03 MINUTES1-U03 2/6/2003-U04 ROBIN-U04 REGULAR-U05 SESSION-U05 CITY-U06 COUNCIL-U06 1971 02 03 CC MIN(ÌìÙK!peRegular Meeting of the Baldwin Park City Council Mayor McCaron asked City Clerk Balkus whether the required notices relative to both hearings had been given. City Clerk Balkus replied that notice of the hearing on the Debt Limit Report was given by mail more than thirty 30) days prior to the date fixed for hearing, as required by Section 2800 et seq. of the Streets and Highways Code; and the Resolution of Intention was duly published and Notice of Hearing thereon and df its adoption were duly given as provided in Section 5000 et seq. of the Streets and Highways Code, and affidavits showing such compliance were on file in the City Clerk's office. COUNCILMAN KING MOVED THAT THE CITY COUNCIL RECEIVE AND FILE THE AFFIDAVITS OF PUBLICATION, MAILING AND POSTING. COUNCILMAN BLEWETT SECONDED. There were no objections. The motion carried and was so ordered. City Attorney Ftandrick explained the two separate hearings had been combined for the purpose of convenience: first, the hearing on the Debt Limit Report; and second, the protest hearing in regard to the district. He further stated that if, in either case, there was a majority protest, the Council could not proceed further with the District as proposed. Mayor McCaron declared the hearings open, but stated that prior to consideration of any protests it was necessary that the report under Division 4 of the Code be read to the Council. City Engineer French read the report given previously to the Council which indicates that the total cost of the District is estimated to be $34,482.68; the unpaid special assessments total $6,176.57; the true value of land, which is defined in the code as twice the assessed value, is $163,800.00. This report indicates that the cost of the improvement does not exceed the debt limit; all properties that will not bear an assessment have been excluded. Mayor McCaron asked City Clerk Balkus whether there had been any written protests or objections filed. The City Clerk stated that written protests had been received. Form tetters of protest were read in full from all protestants: IN DISTRICT ASSESSMENT NO. February 3, 1971 Page 2 NOTICES GIVEN RELATIVE TO HEARINGS AFFIDAVITS OF COMPLIANCE ON FILE IN CITY CLERK'S OFFICE AFFIDAVITS OF PUBLICATION. POSTING & MAILING RECEIVED & FILED SUMMARY OF REPORT UNDER DIVISION 4 OF MUNICIPAL CODE BY CITY ENGINEER FRENCH WRITTEN PROTESTS RECEIVED R. & Mary Higgins 3907 Walnut 1 Adeline Bartoto 3910, 3912 & 13709 Walnut 69 Irene Johnson 3919 Walnut 3 Ysidro & Delia Motina 4203 Walnut 23 Richard Lenoir 4339 Walnut 40 Ftoyd C. & Margaret Worden 4345 & 4347 Walnut 41 Calvin & Dorothy Goebel 4346 Walnut 101 Gilbert Benton 4352 Walnut 102 Lloyd & Marguerite Riggs 4418 Walnut 104 Howard & Jean Parkinson 4427 Walnut 46 Clifford Medlin 4436 Walnut 105 Heremengitdo & Sara Gonzates 4450 Walnut 107 Vada & Gallon Doty 4504 Walnut 109 John Tuck 4512, 4516, 4516-1/2. 4518, 4520 & 4524 Walnut 111 & 112 Robert & Tomasa Jaquez 4532 Walnut 113 Lenora Woodside 4537 Walnut 56 Oscar J. & Wilma A. De Forge 4545 Walnut 57 Continued) WRITTEN PROTESTS READ IN FULL COPIES IN OFFICIAL FILES) BIB] 37659-U01 1971-U02 02-U02 03-U02 CC-U02 MIN-U02 LI1-U03 FO9591-U03 FO9838-U03 DO9972-U03 C4-U03 MINUTES1-U03 2/6/2003-U04 ROBIN-U04 REGULAR-U05 SESSION-U05 CITY-U06 COUNCIL-U06 1971 02 03 CC MIN(ÌìÙK!pe00047^ Regular Meeting of the Baldwin Park City Council February 3, 1971 Page 3 IN DISTRICT Continued) ASSESSMENT NO. Leon.Quennevilte 4550 Walnut 117 Jesse & Emma Andrade 4554 Walnut 118 Richard & Ramona Vindiota 4564 Walnut 119 Bud & Susan E. Gray 4600 Walnut 120 Alfred R. & Sally E. Sandovat 4610 Walnut 121 A. E. & Irene Butterfield 4702 Walnut 129 Gtenn & J. S. Robinson 4708 Walnut 130 Gordon W. & Hanako Bradtey 4736 Walnut 134 Danny L. Gomez 4744 Walnut 135 Robert Witson 4748 Walnut 136 Darretl Hammers 4750 Walnut / 137 Gary W. & Joyce L. Stewart 4757 Walnut 67 NOT ON ASSESSMENT ROLLS AS OWNER Lucitle McKay for David H.K. Laemoa Martin) 3932, 3932-1/2 & 3934 Walnut 72 Andy Hogue by Oscar Peyton 4365 Walnut 43 Joe & Linda Morenio 4441 Walnut 48 Frank Victory 4449 Walnut 49 Gilber; E. Yates 4548 Walnut 116 Gary & Joyce Cox 4722 Walnut 132 George W. Johnson 4726 Walnut 133 Joe & Elsie Fry 4738 Walnut 134 A NOT IN DISTRICT Julianna Piper 4020 Walnut S.C. Rains 4020-1/2 Walnut Clarence & Atma Kirkland 4055 Walnut Mark C. Smith 4057 Walnut Mr. & Mrs. Roy Sullivan 4058-1/2 Walnut Franz J. Kirchner 4104 Walnut Richard & Jan Carter 4106-1/2 Walnut Herman Pearl 4118 Walnut Ruth L. Winn 4129 Walnut Richard Bosler 4138 Walnut Frank E. Raivo 4149 Walnut Hector Gonzales 4152 Walnut Frank Shucardie 4153 Walnut Claude St Jean 4157 Walnut John L. & K. Grimmritt 4253 Walnut Mettie Izelt for J. L. Izell 4257 Walnut Paul & Sylvia Lang 4255 Walnut Robert B. & Grace Dyer 4263 Walnut Julia Tergina 4304 & 4310 Walnut Joseph Drendiet 4316 Walnut Raymond Dozier 4103 Cutler Perry S. & Ruth M. Wampter 4717 Kenmore L.L. Werhan 4739 Kenmore Form letters of protest, received February 3, 1971, were read in full from the following protestants: IN DISTRICT Charles E. Chaple 4229 Walnut Raymond A. & Wilma D. Buege 4357<Wa1nut NOT ON ASSESSMENT ROLLS AS OWNER 26 43 Steve & Edith Stifel and All Paul Kass, et a1) 4563 Walnut 58 & 59 Alfred W. Spain General Partner with Roseveare) 4324 Walnut 38 Continued) BIB] 37659-U01 1971-U02 02-U02 03-U02 CC-U02 MIN-U02 LI1-U03 FO9591-U03 FO9838-U03 DO9972-U03 C4-U03 MINUTES1-U03 2/6/2003-U04 ROBIN-U04 REGULAR-U05 SESSION-U05 CITY-U06 COUNCIL-U06 1971 02 03 CC MIN(ÌìÙK!pe0004*745 Wi:^'- Regular Meeting of the Baldwin Park City Council Letters in favor of District were read in full from Bin R. & Chartene Lenhart, 4028 Walnut, Assessment No. 77 and Chuck Chaple, 4229 Walnut, Assessment No. 26. i Referring to the list entitled Protests on Walnut A/D Received 1/29/71 11:00 A.M.", City Attorney Flandrick stated that those marked with a red mark on the street address indicate that while a protest has been filed, the name is not the owner as shown on the assessment roll, and those marked in green are not within the district. City Attorney Flandrick suggested that prior to entertaining any oral comments from those who filed protests or any other oral comments, that the Council make inquiries of the City Engineer and request a statement concerning the basis of the spread of the cost of the assessment and any comments he might have on the protests as filed. City Attorney Flandrick asked City Engineer French if he were familiar with and had worked with assessment district proceedings in the past. City Engineer French stated yes. City Attorney Flandrick asked whether the City Engineer was familiar with the plans and specifications as proposed for this particular district, as well as the map showing the district boundaries. City Engineer French stated he was. City Attorney Flandrick asked whether any change of grade was proposed by any work contemplated. City Engineer French stated no". City Attorney Flandrick asked whether a11 of the area proposed in the district is within the City's boundaries. The City Engineer stated that it was. City Attorney Flandrick asked whether each of the properties included within the proposed district boundaries benefits from the proposed improvements. City Engineer French stated yes". The City Attorney asked what nature of benefits will be derived. The City Engineer stated the district is formed for the sole purpose of constructing curb and gutter in accordance with the City's policy where the property owners are responsible for the curb and gutter in the City and the City provides the pave-out, in R-1 zones only. This district is formed under that basis, with the property owners being assessed for the curb and gutter and the City providing the cost of the pave-out at no cost to the property owner. City Attorney Flandrick asked the City Engineer what work was included in the proposed improvements. The City Engineer stated that one block, the east side of Walnut between Palm and Los Angeles Street, is the only block that has sidewalk; the rest of the improvement consists of curb and gutter only. The City Attorney asked City Engineer French if he is familiar with the protests as filed, and he replied yes. City Attorney Flandrick asked the percentage of protests received, including those that were just filed. The City Engineer said he did not have the percentage of those that were just filed, but up unfit they were filed, 33.3% of the area protested, if you consider a11 the protests; if you eliminate the protests as the law indicates that they must either be shown on the last equalized assessment roil as owners or submit proof that they are owners, it would be 26%. The four protests that were just filed with the City Clerk would amount to approximately 6%, so if that were added, the percentage would be about 39% of the area. City Attorney Flandrick stated that if you disregard protests filed by persons who, as far as the assessment rolls, are not shown as Continued) February 3, 1^71 Page 4 LIST ENTITLED PROTESTS ON WALNUT RECEIVED 1/29/71 11:00 A.M." COPY IN OFFICIAL FILES) CITY ATTORNEY REQUESTS STATEMENT FROM CITY ENGINGEER RE BASIS OF SPREAD OF COST OF ASSESSMENT BIB] 37659-U01 1971-U02 02-U02 03-U02 CC-U02 MIN-U02 LI1-U03 FO9591-U03 FO9838-U03 DO9972-U03 C4-U03 MINUTES1-U03 2/6/2003-U04 ROBIN-U04 REGULAR-U05 SESSION-U05 CITY-U06 COUNCIL-U06 1971 02 03 CC MIN(ÌìÙK!pe1^''-. 0004746 Regular Meeting of the Baldwin Park City Council February 3, 1971 Page 5 owners, it would be approximately 32%, and the City Engineer stated this was correct, assuming a11 recently f11(id were shown as owners on the assessment roil. City Attorney Flandrick stated that over-all, counting all protests received, the percentage of protest is approximately 39% of the area, and he asked City Engineer French whether this was correct. City Engineer French stated it was. The City Attorney asked City Engineer French whether, in his opinion, the properties on which protests were filed would receive benefits from the district to the same extent as other properties. The City Engineer stated they would. The City Attorney asked whether it was the City Engineer's opinion that the benefits that wilt be derived by the construction of the improvements, as proposed, have a direct relationship to, and were based upon the cost to be imposed. The City Engineer replied yes". City Engineer French then presented slides depicting the CITY ENGINEER area as it exists at present, and he explained what PRESENTS SLIDES improvements could be expected, such as, widening of the street, solving drainage problems, fewer traffic problems. and safety for children walking to school. He stated that the improvements suggested follow the General Plan of improvement throughout the City in the R-1 zone, and range in the same spread for benefits throughout the R-1 zone in the City. Mayor McCaron asked City Engineer French if he could give the average assessment for each parcel. City Engineer French stated the average parcel was approximately 66', and where the property owner has dedicated for the street and contributed to the district, and a11 but 8 owners have contributed, the assessment would be approximately $407. Mayor McCaron asked what the assessment would be for a property owner who did not dedicate. The City Engineer stated these assessments would be around $737 or $740. Mayor McCaron asked whether this is because the property would have to be purchased, and City Engineer French stated yes". He explained that there is a section of the Streets and Highways Code that recognizes contribution of right-of-way as part of the'district, and the people who help the district to proceed get this recognition, white the people who do not are assessed for the cost of the land. Mayor McCaron asked whether drive approaches would be Included in the district. The City Engineer stated that this assessment district does not include drive approaches, and that the City would provide an asphalt connection between the curb and the drive approach, in the parkway area. The Mayor asked whether any engineering charges were added to the costs. The City Engineer stated that basic engineering charges were included in the estimate; however, there was no proposal to add any engineering charges for the field engineering, the survey and the inspection. The Mayor asked what percentage of the $407 was engineering. The City Engineer stated that out of the $34,000.00, $1,700.00 was for engineering, broken down as follows: appraisal fees estimated at $1,900.00 actually came in at $975.00; title reports are estimated at $760.00, which wi11 actually be cheaper, because we will only require reports on eight parcels if they don't dedicate. The City Engineer stated that spme of these costs would be reduced if the remaining eight property owners would dedicate and contribute to the district. The Mayor asked whether this was because of the costs of acquiring the property. The City Engineer replied the district muit bear the cost of the overhead expense of acquiring the property, Continued) BIB] 37659-U01 1971-U02 02-U02 03-U02 CC-U02 MIN-U02 LI1-U03 FO9591-U03 FO9838-U03 DO9972-U03 C4-U03 MINUTES1-U03 2/6/2003-U04 ROBIN-U04 REGULAR-U05 SESSION-U05 CITY-U06 COUNCIL-U06 1971 02 03 CC MIN(ÌìÙK!peoeerw Regular Meeting of the Baldwin Park City Council February 3, W1 Page 6 such as attorney's fees, title reports and appraisal fees. Th3 Mayor asked whether, if the eight owners dedicated, the costs might be reduced by approximately another $1,700.00, and City Engineer French said he felt that was a fair estimate. Councilman King asked whether reducing engineering costs in this instance would necessitate reimbursing other property owners in other areas where these costs had been imposed. City Engineer French stated that, generally speaking, what has been done regarding costs in this district relates to the way costs have been spread in other R-1 areas; whether the improvement comes about by assessment district or by individual property owners, the cost should be spread equally. Mayor McCaron asked City Engineer French to explain how the proceedings for the assessment district were initiated. City Engineer French stated that the city had received requests for petitions in the area, some of which did not come back because of improper circulation and other reasons; there have also been complaints as to the condition of the street, and inquiries as to why the City does not maintain or repair the street. He explained that prior to consider- ation of initiating the district a post card poll had been taken of all the property owners on the street as to whether they would be witling to pay their share of the cost to improve the street. At this time the cost estimate of an individual property improvement was given at $500.00 for a 60' lot, compared to what now is an estimate of $400.00 for a 66" lot. A sizeable,majority of the property owners indicated by return post card that they did want the street improved and they were willing to pay their share. The petitions were presented to the Council, and after requesting and considering the post card poll, the Council ordered the steps for the formation of the district and this public hearing was for the purpose of determining whether the district should or should not be formed. The Mayor asked that if there were sufficient protests to prevent formation of the district, and more than 50% of a block was already in, and some of the people wanted the curb and gutter in front of their homes, what would be the procedure to complete the development of the block. City Engineer French stated that in the area south of Los Angeles Street there would not be much problem, because the City has sufficient right-of-way for installation of curbs and gutters. This is the area that also has virtually no protests. In this area, if over half of any one side of the block was developed, the rest of the people could be required by Short Form 1911 Act procedure to put in their curbs and gutters or sidewalks or whatever it might be and if the people do not have the money to pay the cost would then go on their taxes, and they would pay it in the next year's taxes in two equal payments. In the district now being considered the people have the option to pay over a ten- year period. City Attorney Flandnck reiterated that the estimated protests filed equal approximately 39% of the land area, and asked City Engineer French what the percentage was in terms of frontage. City Engineer French stated that prior to the protests just filed, it was 40% of the frontage considering a11 the protests; it was 34% if you did not consider those from persons not shown as owners on the assessment roil. City Attorney Flandrick asked Mr. French's estimate of the four protests just filed and how they would affect the percentage figures, and the City Engineer stated he felt the four protests would be not over 6%. City Attorney Flandrick asked whether it was the City Engineer's Continued) CITY ENGINEER EXPLAINS INITIATION OF ASSESSMENT DISTRICT BIB] 37659-U01 1971-U02 02-U02 03-U02 CC-U02 MIN-U02 LI1-U03 FO9591-U03 FO9838-U03 DO9972-U03 C4-U03 MINUTES1-U03 2/6/2003-U04 ROBIN-U04 REGULAR-U05 SESSION-U05 CITY-U06 COUNCIL-U06 1971 02 03 CC MIN(ÌìÙK!peown^is Regular Meeting of the Baldwin Park City Council February 3, 1971 Page 7 estimate that there was a Wo protest in terms of frontage, including a number of protests which were irade by people whose names do not appear on the current equalized assess- ment roll, and City Engineer French replied that this estimate was correct. Mayor McCaron called for testimony on either of the two hearings. The following persons orally protested or spoke in support of their written protests: Lloyd Riggs, 4418 N. walnut, stated he could see no need at this particular time, due to the state of the,country and the condition of employment, to force this street through at this time. He stated there were some good arguments for it, but he felt most of them were not warranted. He indicated that about 25% of the block directly south of Olive Street was school, so you couldn't get pro or con on that, because it's already been paid for. He stated that in his area, there is a lot of school traffic, but he couldn't see how widening the street would enhance the safety of the children. He stated he had another objection also. After the widening of Los Angeles Street and a section just directly off that on Walnut, where he lives in the first house, the City installed a barricade, which has been;knocked down several times by people speeding around the corner. He feels that if the street is widened, it win become a race track. He further stated his property has 175" frontage, and one of the estimates he has had on installing the curb was $1,940 or $1,960. He understands he has 30 days to pay, and if he cannot pay it in 30 days, he would then have to take the 10-year plan, which would cost him about $5,300 for curb and gutter and this is of no value to him, because he still doesn't know where he'd put approaches. He stated he would like, in time, to see the street widened, but he doesn't think this is the time. TESTIMONY LLOYD RIGGS 4418 N. WALNUT Councilman King asked Citv Enaineer French what the assess- ment is on Mr. Riggs1 property. City Engineer French stated the estimated assessment on Mr. Riggs1 property is $1,954.77; if he would dedicate as part of the district, it would be $1,079.77. Mr. Riggs stated that was a pretty expensive curb, and he didn't feel it should cost any more than $3.00 a foot to put it in. He further stated he didn't see the reason to pay attorney's fees, as it was his understanding the City has an'attorney on the payroll, and why pay him double. City Attorney Flandrick commented he was not being paid double, and was not on the payroll. Charles Berthel, 4615 N. Bresee, stated he was the owner of a piece of property on Walnut Street, and was in favor of the improvement; however he feels the difficulty is that these are hard times, and there are a lot of people who do not have jobs. In addition, the County is forever increasing the taxes. He stated he is looking ahead, and feels his property would be worth considerably more because of the improvement, but because of the difficult times, he respect- fully suggested the improvement be postponed, possibly for ten years. W.R. Bonnivier, 4648 Walnut Street, stated he has lived there for 38 years, and he is very much in favor of having the curbs put in and having the street repaired. He stated he did not feel it would be too much of a hardship if the people paid for it over a 10-year period, and even at 7% interest, he didn't think it would hurt the owners too much, and would be a good thing. He stated that even though there would be no sidewalks af this time, the widened street would be an advantage to the school children. Continued) CHARLES BERTHEL 4615 BRESEE W.R. BONNIVIER 4648 WALNUT BIB] 37659-U01 1971-U02 02-U02 03-U02 CC-U02 MIN-U02 LI1-U03 FO9591-U03 FO9838-U03 DO9972-U03 C4-U03 MINUTES1-U03 2/6/2003-U04 ROBIN-U04 REGULAR-U05 SESSION-U05 CITY-U06 COUNCIL-U06 1971 02 03 CC MIN(ÌìÙK!peW^P- Regular Meeting of the Baldwin Park City Council Glenn Robinson, 4408 Walnut Street, stated he felt the complete picture had not been brought out in this situation. He stated the street was dedicated before the incorporation at a specified width. He said that since he has lived there, no one has been contacted for any widening proceedings. He feels the street has served very well at its present width, and widening would serve as a hazard to the school children. He stated the improvement is long past due, but he fe^ls it should Come out of the general tax fund, as was done on Merced Street and other streets in town. Councilman King asked City Engineer French approximately what it would cost the City if the City were to put in the curb and gutter that has been put in year after year, not including secondary thoroughfares that the City had matching funds for, but just the ordinary city streets. City Engineer French stated probably about $100,000.00 a year, and 20 cents on the tax rate; however, this would mean that people in subdivisions who have pa'!d for curb and gutter in the past, and who have in various ways assessed themselves, would be paying for people who did not and, therefore, some people would be pay's ng twice. The City Engineer stated this was generally not the procedure anywhere that he knew of. Councilman King asked City Engineer French to briefly explain the select system of streets, under which you are allowed to spend highway funds gas tax funds). The City Engineer explained that there are certain streets on which these funds may be expended. A street cannot arbitrarily be included, but must be approved by the State. The noney is proportioned from tne State to the City, and you must use the money on the streets approved by the State. The basic system had to be approved by the Highway Commission. Approximately two or three years ago, the Planning Commission recommended that Walnut Street be included in the select system, but the State would not approve it. Mr. Robinson further stated that the physical aspects of the street should be considered. Too many people are going to get hurt with the curb up against their front door. He stated if the street is widened, there are going to be more problems, such as parking. He suggested further study to see how many houses would be devaluated. Councilman Blewett stated he felt Walnut Street is one of the poorest streets in the City, the reason being it does not have curb and gutter. He also stated it is against a City Ordinance to park in the front yard, and people are supposed to park in their driveways. He stated that the Eves family, who win probably have the house closest to the street when the improvement is completed, are totally in favor of the improvement being done:now. Frank Raivo, 4149 N. Walnut, stated his property was in the Monterey Avenue assessment district and he had received a bi11 for $7,200 for his 115' frontage. He stated he had been informed by the City that he would be excluded from this district, but feels this would be only temporary, as when they put the rest in, there wi11 be over 50% in and he"11 be assessed again. He also stated that the people who live along the secondary streets get their curb and gutter free, and he asked whether their tax rate was any higher than his. He also asked whether the cost of curb and gutter at the Charles Bursch School was included in this assessment district per se, or distributed over the whole city. Mayor McCaron stated that Mr. Raivo's questions would be answered later on in the proceedings. Continued) February 3, 1971 Page 8 GLENN ROBINSON 4408 WALNUT CITY ENGINEER EXPLAINS SELECT SYSTEM OF STREETS FRANK RAIVO 4149 WALNUT BIB] 37659-U01 1971-U02 02-U02 03-U02 CC-U02 MIN-U02 LI1-U03 FO9591-U03 FO9838-U03 DO9972-U03 C4-U03 MINUTES1-U03 2/6/2003-U04 ROBIN-U04 REGULAR-U05 SESSION-U05 CITY-U06 COUNCIL-U06 1971 02 03 CC MIN(ÌìÙK !peRegular Meeting of the Baldwin Park City Council Carl Bonnivier, 122 N. Lincoln, Monterey Park, stated he owns approximately 1-2/3 acres on Walnut Street, and had lived there for 17 or 18 years. He asked whether the drive approaches were included in the district. Cityj Engineer" French stated that the depressions would be put in, but the owners are not assessed for any drive approaches. The depressions will be put in where the owner wants them, and wi11 be asphalt, unless the owner wishes to put in concrete now. Mr. Bonnivier inquired about any future streets, and division of his property. The City Engineer indicated that Mr. Bonnivier has a piece of property that would be divided facing two streets and would have to be developed in accordance with the General Plan. He stated that at one time a subdivision was filed that went in on th3 side of his street, and in answer to Mr. Bonnivier's question. City Engineer French stated this street was not now on the General Plan, but the Planning Commission is presently making a study of that area. Mr. Bonnivier stated he is in favor of having the curb put in. but feels this is not the time, and would tike to go on record as being in opposition at this time. Bud-Gray, 4600 Walnut, stated that the installation of curbs would not enhance the safety of the children, as they would stilt have to walk in the street. He stated he is definitely against the district. Mr. Bonnivier, 4648, Walnut stated he understood the City would take all trees, etc. back to the property line, and that would give the children 10 extra feet to walk on. City Engineer French stated this was correct, and that this area would be cleared by City forces, at no cost to the district. Howard Parkinson, 4427 N. Walnut, stated he was in favor of the improvement, but it was explained to him the cost would be $2.00 to $3.00 a foot. He stated he had been assessed $574, which didn*t come out to $3.00 a foot. Mr. Parkinson stated he was also interested in how many, if any, street lights were to be put in, and what kind of police protection there would be since the street as it is now is a race track. Mayor McCaron suggested he contact the police when cars are racing up and down the street, and they would be happy to respond. Gilbert Yates, 4548 Watnuti stated he had a parking problem. He has a 12" front yard now, and there are four in his family, each having a car. He cannot put a car in his garage, because it's too narrow, and If he pulls up to his garage, the car sticks out into the street. By widening the street, he would have no place left to park. He further srated he was for widening the street, but not taking any of his property. City Engineer French stated Mr. Yates1 property was dose to the street, and he wi11 not be able to park between his garage and the curb; if the curb were put at the existing property line he would have the same problem, but it would be worse. Councilman King asked City Engineer French whether the assessment in the amount of $574.00 coincided with his records. The City Engineer stated he would accede that the costs were not between $2.00 and $3.00 a foot; curb and gutter alone would run in t^at range, plus legal costs of forming the district, so Mr. Parkinson's contention that the costs were over $2.00 to $3.00 a foot was correct. Continued) February 3, 1971 Page 9 CARL BONNIVIER 122 N. LINCOLN MONTEREY PARK BUD GRAY 4600 WALNUT W.R. BONNIVIER 4648 WALNUT HOWARD PARKINSON 4427 WALNUT GILBERT YATES 4548 WALNUT BIB] 37659-U01 1971-U02 02-U02 03-U02 CC-U02 MIN-U02 LI1-U03 FO9591-U03 FO9838-U03 DO9972-U03 C4-U03 MINUTES1-U03 2/6/2003-U04 ROBIN-U04 REGULAR-U05 SESSION-U05 CITY-U06 COUNCIL-U06 1971 02 03 CC MIN(ÌìÙK !pe09W31 Regular Meeting of the Baldwin Park City Council February 3, 1971 Page 10 Councilman King asked the City Engineer whether the bids might come in tower than the estimate. City Engineer French stated he hoped this would be the case. The cost of curb and gutter and the bond discount were put in higher, and financing charges were also estimated in this district. It is assumed the bonds will carry a 17% discount in this area, because the area is built up. A.E. Butterfield, 4702 Walnut, stated he had received an estimate from a contractor of $2.25 per foot for a 66' lot. The assessment of $407 is in excess of $6.00 per foot. City Engineer French stated that if Mr. Butterfield's contractor had put in the curb at his cost, Mr. Butterfield would have had to dedicate; since he is one of the eight property owners who has not dedicated, if he did so, his assessment would drop considerably. City Engineer French indicated this district was providing a complete street improvement; if a contractor had done it, it would not have been complete. Councilman King asked Mr. Butterfield in what year he had received the estimate from the contractor. Mr. Butterfield replied 1970. City Engineer French commented that prices have jumped 2Q% according to the latest bids, for the present year. Mr. Butterfield mentioned a process which contractors were using to put in curbs, using a berm machine. City Engineer French explained that if the district goes through, the contract will go to the lowest competitive bidder, and if they can perform the work using a berm machine cheaper, that's the way it wi11 go in, and if the cost is cheaper, the assessments wilt be cheaper. Mrs. Arellanos, 4553 Grace Averue, stated she owns property at 4457 Walnut Street. She inquired whether it would be possible to have two drive approaches, as they have renters and her husband also needs access to the back lot. City Engineer French stated this property has 66 feet of frontage, so it would be possible to have two approaches if it was necessary to serve the property. Mrs. Arellanos stated she was in favor of the improvement and feels it is necessary for the street. A.E. BUTTERFIELD 4702 WALNUT MRS. ARELLANOS 4553 GRACE AVENUE Carl Bonnivier, 122 N. Lincoln, Monterey Park, asked whether the Bursch School curb and gutter was assessed as part of the district, or whether it was paid for by the school district. City Engineer French stated the school district paid for this section, and it was not assessed to the property owners. Lenora Woodside, 4537 N. Walnut, stated she wished to affirm her protest. She stated she had just paid two sewer bonds, and couldn't pay her taxes, and just could not afford another assessment. She also commented about the problem of school children walking out in the street. Councilman Blewett asked Police Chief Adams to took into this matter and try to alleviate it. She stated she didn't feet Walnut was one of the worst streets in the City, and stated there were many other things she'd rather do at her house than put in curbs and gutters, one of them being driveways. Mrs. Woodside further stated she was planning to move from the City because taxes were too high, and with three schools and a potential fourth on Walnut, she felt it should be one of the streets the City would pay for. She stated she previously was not against curbs and gutters going in, but the fee was exorbitant. She reiterated she was very much against the district. City Attorney Flandrick suggested it would be appropriate for the City Engineer to comment on the oral and writte'n protests, and to recap the percentage figures in terms of protests. Continued) CARL BONNIVIER 122 N. LINCOLN MONTEREY PARK LENORA WOODSIDE 4537 N. WALNUT COMMENTS AND RECAP BY CITY ENGINEER BIB] 37659-U01 1971-U02 02-U02 03-U02 CC-U02 MIN-U02 LI1-U03 FO9591-U03 FO9838-U03 DO9972-U03 C4-U03 MINUTES1-U03 2/6/2003-U04 ROBIN-U04 REGULAR-U05 SESSION-U05 CITY-U06 COUNCIL-U06 1971 02 03 CC MIN(ÌìÙK !peRegular Meeting of the Baldwin Park City Council February 3, 1971 Page 11 City Engineer French stated that the majority of protests appear to be based upon costs. He connented that regarding costs, there wi11 probably never be a street improvement district lower in costs than this one. On a 66* frontage with an assessment of approximately $400, the first year's payment at 7% interest would be $68.00; this reduces every year, so the fifth year's payment would be $54.00, to give an idea of the amount of reduction each year. The costs given are only estimates, and the contract will go to the lowest competitive bidder, and assessments wi11 be based on the costs submitted by the lowest bidder. City Engineer French stated that in terms of protests, and estimating the four just received, the valid protests according to the Streets and Highways Code would probably be in the range of 30% in area and 40% frontage. If you consider a11 the protests, even though the names are not on the assessor's roil as owners, the percentages are probably about 39% in area and 46^ in frontage. Mayor McCaron suggested the hearing be continued, and the City Engineer study the possibility of readjusting the lines of the district after determining from which area most of the protests come, and present a report at the continued public hearing. Included in the report should also be the areas where the people do not wish to dedicate, and what effect this has on the district. Lenora Woodside, 4537 N. Walnut, stated that the people know the contract wi11 go to the lowest bidder, but that the district cost has got to be lower. City Engineer French suggested contacting the property owners to determine whether it would be beneficial to have a general meeting to obtain their ideas for bringing the costs down. Mayor McCaron stated he was mainly interested in a report at this time to see whether there were any blocks that should be eliminated from the district because of a large number of protests. i Gilbert Yates, 4548 Walnut, stated his question regarding the number of street lights to be installed had not yet been answered, and he also wanted to know what kind of police protection would be on the street. City Attorney Flandrick explained that this district does not concern itself with police protection, nor does it involve installation of street lights. Mayor McCaron stated the only concern at this hearing was the installation of curbs and gutters and the improvement of the street^ and suggested that Mr. Yates contact Chief of Police Adams regarding any policing problem, and advise the Engineering Department if he feels there is a need for additional street lights, and they will investigate and make a determination. City Engineer French explained that by order of the City Council, there are to be no assessments to the people who were part of the Monterey Avenue Assessment District until the Monterey Avenue Assessment District bonds are paid off. Eugene Atber, 3940 N. Walnut, stated he was in favor of the improvement, but was confused as to the assessment cost, and felt possibly the district was too large. He suggested possibly setting a time limit and letting the property owners make the improvements themselves. City Engineer French stated the reason for formation of assessment districts, is that many times property owners say they wi11 make improve- ments on good faith, and then find other uses for tie money Continued) GILBERT YATLS 4548 WALNUT' EUGENE ALBER 3940 WALNUT BIB] 37659-U01 1971-U02 02-U02 03-U02 CC-U02 MIN-U02 LI1-U03 FO9591-U03 FO9838-U03 DO9972-U03 C4-U03 MINUTES1-U03 2/6/2003-U04 ROBIN-U04 REGULAR-U05 SESSION-U05 CITY-U06 COUNCIL-U06 1971 02 03 CC MIN(ÌìÙK 1971 02 03 CC MIN(ÌìÙK !peooce^sa• Regular Meeting of the Baldwin Park City Council February 3, 1971 Page 13 was so high when a private contractor's costs would be much cheaper, according to estimates she has seen. City Engineer French stated the big difference is assessing back the dedication costs. Mrs. Parkinson commented on the generally dirty and trashy condition of the street, broken bottles, etc. She also stated that the curbs and gutters were needed because of the drainage problem. Councilman King stated that if curbs and gutters were installed, the street sweeper would be by every other week. Mrs. Ungerbiller, 4446 Walnut, stated she has four small children, and she is definitely in favor of the district. There is a bad drainage problem, which may partially account for the children using the middle of the street. She stated they have curb, gutter and sidewalk, but are involved because of the drainage problem. Councilman Hamilton stated there seems to be a misunder- standing of the distribution of costs, and suggested/that City Engineer French meet with the property owners and give them a breakdown of costs to try to clear up that question. Councilman Blewett directed a question to the audience, asking if there were any people who were absolutely opposed to curb and gutter on the street. One person raised his hand. Mayor McCaron continued the public hearing on the Walnut Street Assessment District until February 17, 1971. 00- City Attorney Flandrick requested the hearing on AZC-43, On-Premise Signs, be held over until the next regular meeting. Mayor McCaron ordered the public hearing be continued until February 17, 1971. There were no objections 00- It was the time and place fixed for a public hearing on 71-S-1, a Short Form 1911 Act, on the northwest side of Robinette between Tracy and Francisquito, for curb, gutter, sidewalk and drive approach. Proper postings and mailings had been accomplished. There were no written protests. As there was no one in the audience desiring to speak either in behalf of or in opposition to 71-S-1, Mayor McCaron declared the public hearing dosed. RESOLUTION NO. 71-36 ORDERING THE CONSTRUCTION OF CERTAIN IMPROVEMENTS PURSUANT TO SECTION 5870, ET SEQ., OF THE STREETS AND HIGHWAYS CODE 71-S-1) City Engineer French stated that in Section 1 c) the word no" should be inserted. COUNCILMAN KING MOVED THAT RESOLUTION NO. 71-36 BE ADOPTED AND THAT FURTHER READING BE WAIVED. COUNCILMAN HAMILTON SECONDED. There were no objections. The motion carried and was so ordered. MRS. UNGERBILLER 4446 WALNUT PUBLIC HEARING CONTINUED WALNUT A/D PUBLIC HEARING AZC-43 ON-PREMISE SIGNS CONTINUED TO 2/17/71 PUBLIC HEARING SHORT FORM 71-S-1 CGS&DA POSTINGS & MAILINGS NO WRITTEN PROTESTS PUBLIC HEARING DECLARED CLOSED 71-S-1 RES. NO. 71-36 ORDER CONSTRUCTION 71-S-1) SECTION 1 c) WORD NO" INSERTED RES. NO. 71-36 ADOPTED 00" BIB] 37659-U01 1971-U02 02-U02 03-U02 CC-U02 MIN-U02 LI1-U03 FO9591-U03 FO9838-U03 DO9972-U03 C4-U03 MINUTES1-U03 2/6/2003-U04 ROBIN-U04 REGULAR-U05 SESSION-U05 CITY-U06 COUNCIL-U06 1971 02 03 CC MIN(ÌìÙK!pe00^35 Regular Meeting of the Baldwin Park City Council It was the time and place fixed for a public hearing on 71-S-2, a Short Form 1911 Act, on the south side of Nubia Street between Bleecker Street and Borel Street, for curb and gutter. Proper postings and mailings had been accomplished. There were no written protests. As there Wds no one in the audience desiring to speak either in behalf of or in opposition to 71-S-2, Mayor McCaron declared the public hearing closed. It was the time and place fixed for a public hearing on 71-S-3, a Short Form 1911 Act, on the south side of Olive Street between Bresee Avenue and Stewart Avenue for side- walk and drive approach. Proper postings and mailings had been accomplished. There were no written protests. j i As there was no one in the audience desiring to speak either in behalf of or in opposition to 71-S-3, Mayor McCaron declared the public hearing closed. It was the time and place fixed for a public hearing on 71-S-4, a Short Form 1911 Act, on the southwest side of Francisquito Avenue between Cosbey Avenue and Ramona Boulevard for sidewalk and drive approach. Prope'" postings and mailings had been accomplished. There were no written protests. As there was no one in the audience desiring to speak either in behalf of or in opposition to 71-S-4, Mayor McCaron declared the public hearing dosed. It was the time and place fixed for a 71-S-5, a Short Form 1911 Act, on the Avenue between Nubia Street and Olive and gutter. public hearing on east side of Etton Street, for curb Proper postings and mailings had been accomplished. There were no written protests. As there was no one in the audience desiring to speak either in behalf of or in opposition to 71-S-5, Mayor McCaron declared the public hearing closed. It was the time and place fixed for a public hearing on 71-S-6, a Short Form 1911 Act, on the southeast side of Frazier Street between Fairgrove Street and Dart Street, for sidewalk and drive approach. Proper postings and mailings had been accomplished. There were no written protests. As there was no one in the audience desiring to speak either in behalf of or in opposition to 71-S-6, Mayor McCaron declared the public hearing dosed. It was the time and place fixed for a public hearing on 71-S-7, a Short Form 1911 Act, on the southeast side of Robinette Avenue between Tracy Street and Francisquito Avenue, for curb, gutter, sidewalk and drive approach. Continued) February 3, 1971 Page 14 PUBLIC HEARING SHORT FORM 71-S-2 C&G POSTINGS & MAILINGS NO WRITTEN PROTESTS PUBLIC HEARING DECLARED CLOSED 71-S-2 PUBLIC HEARING SHORT FORM 71-S-3 S&DA POSTINGS & MAILINGS NO WRITTEN PROTESTS PUBLIC HEARING DECLARED CLOSED 71-S-3 PUBLIC HEARING SHORT FORM 71-S-4 S&DA POSTINGS & MAILINGS NO WRITTEN PROTESTS PUBLIC HEARING DECLARED CLOSED 71-S-4 PUBLIC HEARING SHORT FORM 71-S-5 C&G POSTINGS & MAILINGS NO WRITTEN PROTESTS PUBLIC HEARING DECLARED CLOSED 71-S-5 PUBLIC HEARING SHORT FORM 71-S-6 S&DA POSTINGS & MAILINGS NO WRITTEN PROTESTS PUBLIC HEARING DECLARED CLOSED 71-S-6 PUBLIC HEARING SHORT FORM 71-S-7 CGS&DA BIB] 37659-U01 1971-U02 02-U02 03-U02 CC-U02 MIN-U02 LI1-U03 FO9591-U03 FO9838-U03 DO9972-U03 C4-U03 MINUTES1-U03 2/6/2003-U04 ROBIN-U04 REGULAR-U05 SESSION-U05 CITY-U06 COUNCIL-U06 1971 02 03 CC MIN(ÌìÙK!peO0.^75(?, Regular Meeting of the Baldwin Park City Council Proper postings and mailings had been accomplished. There were no written protests. As there was no one in the audience desiring to speak either in behalf of or in opposition to 71-S-7, Mayor McCaron declared the public hearing closed. RESOLUTION NO. 71-37 ORDERING THE CONSTRUCTION OF CERTAIN IMPROVEMENTS PURSUANT TO SECTION 5870, ET SEQ., OF THE STREETS AND HIGHWAYS CODE 71-S-2, 3, 4, 5. 6.& 7) City Engineer French stated that in Section 1 c) the word no" should be inserted. COUNCILMAN KING MOVED THAT RESOLUTION NO. 71-37 BE ADOPTED AND THAT FURTHER READING BE WAIVED. COUNCILMAN HAMILTON SECONDED. There were no objections. The motion carried and was so ordered. 00- It was the time and place fixed for a public hearing on 71-A-1, to determine whether certain vehicles constitute a public nuisance at 13251 Fairgrove Street. Proper postings and mailings had been accomplished. There were no written protests. City Engineer French presented photographs of the vehicles. He stated that four of the vehicles, designated a), d), f), and h) on the resolution, had been removed, and five vehicles had been added. City Engineer French stated he had been in contact with the property owner, who indicated he would remove the vehicles. TESTIMONY WAS GIVEN BY: Kathy Flowers, 13251 Fairgrove, stated the zoning in the area is residential-commercial. She asked for an explanation of what constitutes a nuisance. City Attorney Ftandrick stated that any vehicle which is inoperable or is abandoned constitutes a public nuisance under the Vehicle Code, for the purpose of these hearings. City Engineer French stated that if a business were to be conducted on this property with the automobile usage, the vehicles would have to be stored or worked on in a garage or similar enclosure. Ms. Flowers asked how long she would have to get rid of the vehicles, and stated she did not own the majority of them. Mayor McCaron stated if the vehicles were not removed by the owners within the time set by the Council, the City would remove them and she woulc be assessed for the removal. As there was no one else in the audience desiring to speak either in behalf of or in opposition to 71-A-1, Mayor McCaron declared the public hearing dosed. RESOLUTION NO. 71-39 FINDING AND DETERMINING THE EXISTENCE OF A PUBLIC NUISANCE AND ORDERING THE SAME ABATED 71-A-1) City Engineer French stated that in Section 2, a time limit of 60" days should be inserted. City Attorney Ftandrick stated that in Section 2 should be amended to delete items a), d), f) and h). Continued) February 3, 1971 Page 15 POSTINGS & MAILINGS NO WRITTEN PROTESTS PUBLIC HEARING DECLARED CLOSED RES. NO. 71-37 ORDER CONSTRUCTION 71-S-2, 3, 4. 5, 6 & 7) SECTION 1 c) WORD NO" INSERTED RES. NO. 71-37 ADOPTED PUBLIC HEARING PUBLIC NUISANCE 71-A-1 POSTINGS & MAILINGS NO WRITTEN PROTESTS RESUME PHOTOS TESTIMONY KATHY FLOWERS 13251 FAIRGROVE PUBLIC HEARING DECLARED CLOSED 71-A-1 RES. NO. 71-39 ORDER ABATEMENT 71-A-1) SECTION 2 60" DAYS TO ABATE AMEND SECTION 2 DELETE a)(d)(f) & h) BIB] 37659-U01 1971-U02 02-U02 03-U02 CC-U02 MIN-U02 LI1-U03 FO9591-U03 FO9838-U03 DO9972-U03 C4-U03 MINUTES1-U03 2/6/2003-U04 ROBIN-U04 REGULAR-U05 SESSION-U05 CITY-U06 COUNCIL-U06 1971 02 03 CC MIN(ÌìÙK!peWM757 Regular Meeting of the Baldwin Park City Council February 3, 1971 Page 16 RES. NO. 71-39 ADOPTED AS AMENDED PUBLIC HEARING PUBLIC NUISANCE 71-A-2 POSTINGS & MAILINGS NO WRITTEN PROTESTS RESUME PHOTOS TESTIMONY DAN HEGLIN 3664 MAINE COUNCILMAN BLEWETT MOVED THAT RESOLUTION NO. 71-39 BE ADOPTED AS AMENDED, AND THAT FURTHER READING BE WAIVED. COUNCILMAN KING SECONDED. There were no objections. The motion carried and was so ordered. 00- It was the time and place fixed for a public hearing on 71-A-2, to determine whether certain vehicles constitute a public nuisance at 3664 Maine Avenue. Proper postings and mailings had been accomplished. There were no written protests. City Engineer French presented photographs of the vehicles, and stated that one vehicle had been removed but there were still seven vehicles on the property. TESTIMONY WAS GIVEN BY: Dan Hegtin, 3664 N. Maine, stated he would like to know when the photographs were taken. City Engineer French informed him they were dated December 7, 1970. Mr. Heglin stated that some of the vehicles were in running condition, but were not licensed. City Attorney Flandrick enumerated the vehicles listed in the resolution and asked which were operable and which were not, and Mr. Hegtin commented appropriately as to the condition of each. Mr. Heglin stated he had started working on the cars with his son and his friends to give them something to do to stay off the street. He stated he had things stored in them and it would take a white to find someplace to put everything. He further stated he kept the cars washed and cleaned up so they wouldn't took abandoned. City Attorney Flandrick asked whether Mr. Heglin intended to remove the vehicles. Mr. Heglin stated he did, but it would take a little time. City Attorney Flandrick suggested the hearing be continued to February 17, and that City Engineer French review the vehicles and make a report to the Council on that date as to their status. Mayor McCaron stated the public hearing would be continued to February 17, 1971. There were no objections. PUBLIC HEARING 71-A-2 CONTINUED TO 2/17/71 PUBLIC HEARING PUBLIC NUISANCE 71-A-4 POSTINGS & MAILINGS NO WRITTEN PROTESTS RESUME PUBLIC HEARING DECLARED CLOSED 71-A-4 RES. NO. 71-40 ORDER ABATEMENT 71-A-4) SECTION 2 15" DAYS TO ABATE 00- It was the time and place fixed for a public hearing on 71-A-4, to determine whether a certain vehicle constitutes a public nuisance at 15431 Nubia Street. Proper postings and mailings had been accomplished. There were no written protests. City Engineer French stated he has been in contact with the property owner, Mr. Duvat, and the owner indicated he was only awaiting the order of the City Council to cause the vehicle to be removed and he wi11 remove it. City Engineer French recommended a 15-day time limit be imposed. As there was no one in the audience desiring to speak either in behalf of or in opposition to 71-A-4, Mayor McCaron declared the public hearing closed. RESOLUTION NO. 71-40 FINDING AND DETERMINING THE EXISTENCE OF A PUBLIC NUISANCE AND ORDERING THE SAME ABATED 71-A-4) City Engineer French stated that in Section 2, a time limit of 15" days be inserted. Continued) BIB] 37659-U01 1971-U02 02-U02 03-U02 CC-U02 MIN-U02 LI1-U03 FO9591-U03 FO9838-U03 DO9972-U03 C4-U03 MINUTES1-U03 2/6/2003-U04 ROBIN-U04 REGULAR-U05 SESSION-U05 CITY-U06 COUNCIL-U06 1971 02 03 CC MIN(ÌìÙK!peffW^SS H V Regular Meeting of the Baldwin Park City Council COUNCILMAN HAMILTON MOVED THAT RESOLUTION NO. 71-40 BE ADOPTED AND THAT FURTHER READING BE WAIVED. COUNCILMAN BLEUETT SECONDED. There were no objections. The motion carried and was so ordered. 00- At 9:37 p.m. Mayor McCaron declared a 10-minute recess. There were no objections. At 9:58 p.m. Council reconvened in regular session. Roll Call. Same as 7:30 p.m. 00- Mayor McCaron stated that it was the time and place fixed for hearing protests or objections against the assessment levied for improvement of A/D 70-1 Virginia Avenue Assessment District. Mayor McCaron asked City Clerk Batkus if she had the affidavits relative to this hearing, i.e.. Affidavit of Publication, Affidavit of Mailing, and Affidavit of Posting. City Clerk Balkus stated she had the three affidavits. COUNCILMAN KING MOVED THAT THE CITY COUNCIL RECEIVE AND FILE THE AFFIDAVITS OF PUBLICATION, MAILING, AND POSTING. COUNCILMAN HAMILTON SECONDED. There were no objections. The motion carried and was so ordered. City Attorney Flandrick explained that this was a confirmation hearing with regard to the Virginia Avenue Assessment District and the purpose of the hearing was to hear any objection or protest upon the work as accomplished by the contractor, namely, was it done in accordance with the specifications and the plans for the project; and, with reference to the specific costs to be proposed to be assessed against each of the properties, to allow any person who is liable to be assessed for these costs to present any protest he has to the diagram as prepared by the Assessment Engineer. Mayor McCaron asked City Clerk Balkus whether any written protests or objections had been received against the assessment, the improvement constructed, or against the proceedings. City Clerk Balkus stated she had received 17 written protests. Letters of protest were read ir full from the following protestants: Fred T. Mercer, 1312 Virginia Thomas and Beverly Estrada, 1445 Virginia Leo Valdes, 1414 Virginia Ray McNeilly, 1409 Virginia Henry Marquez, 1309 Virginia Andrew Nemeth, 1318 Virginia Pascuala Martinez, 1321 Virginia Jay Wyne, 1324 and 1332 Virginia Mrs. Sal as, 1341 Virginia Mil os Evosevich, 1355 Virginia Robert Funk, 1402 and 1408-1/4 Virginia David Sifting, 1516 Virginia Pierce PhiHips, 1352, 1442, 1424, 1420, 1450, 1511 & 1517 Virginia Joan Phye, 1509 Virginia Beatrice Elba, 10102 Cutty Sark Dr., Huntington Beach, J.A. Wilkes, Rt. 2, Bishop Gerald Courtemarche, 1363 Virginia Continued) February 3, 1971 Page 17 RES. NO. 71-40 ADOPTED 9:37 P.M. 10 MINUTE RECESS 9:58 P.M. RECONVENED ROLL CALL PUBLIC HEARING CONFIRM ASSESSMENT VIRGINIA AVENUE A/D 70-1 AFFIDAVITS OF PUBLICATION. MAILING & POSTING RECEIVED & FILED CITY ATTORNEY EXPLAINS PURPOSE OF HEARING 17 WRITTEN PROTESTS RECEIVED WRITTEN PROTESTS CONCERNING COSTS, ETC READ IN FULL LETTERS IN OFFICIAL FILES) BIB] 37659-U01 1971-U02 02-U02 03-U02 CC-U02 MIN-U02 LI1-U03 FO9591-U03 FO9838-U03 DO9972-U03 C4-U03 MINUTES1-U03 2/6/2003-U04 ROBIN-U04 REGULAR-U05 SESSION-U05 CITY-U06 COUNCIL-U06 1971 02 03 CC MIN(ÌìÙK!peRegular Meeting of the Baldwin Park City Council February 3, 1971 Page 18 TESTIMONY J.A. WILKES PARCEL # 25 TESTIMONY WAS GIVEN BY: Mr. J. A. Wilkes, owner of Parcel #25, stated his original assessment was around $8,000.00, for 14,316 sq. ft. of land. He asked on what basis or on what guidelines was the assessment based on front footage. City Engineer French stated that because Mr. WiIkes' property was triangular-shaped his frontage was reduced, and he was assessed for half of'the frontage. The whole assessment district was spread based on 90% frontage and 10% area; the frontage in Mr. Wilkes' case was cut in half, because of the triangular shape, so in essence the triangle was just put on the back and treated tike a rectangular piece. Mr. Wilkes asked whether there was some precedent for spreading an assessment cost like this and asked what formula was used. City Engineer French stated this was the normal procedure for spreading assessment districts. Mr. Wilkes stated that on residential, he would agree, but he wanted to know if there were some basis where this has been done before on an industrial tract. He felt,this was done for the benefit of large parcel owners to give them access and he felt it was very unfair to spread the cost on small parcels on any other basis than a square footage basis. He stated he did not think this would stand up in court. Mr. Ben Minamide, of Lampman and Associates, Assessment Engineer, stated that frontage improvements of this type being on a public right-of-way have been assessed on the basis of front footage. As to the reason for using frontage, he stated it goes back to the basics of service to the lot. Mail delivery, police and fire protection are all services afforded a parcel because of access afforded by the street. He cited as an example a parcel on one side of the street was 200 feet wide by 100 feet deep and on the other side a parcel was 100 feet wide by 200 feet deep. The lots were identical area wise but one had twice the frontage. Size and shape were considered In each case and there is no magical formula for a triangular lot. He stated that Mr. Wilkes1 parcel, because of its triangular shape, was difficult to evaluate- This district was evaluated because of the different sizes and different shapes of the properties. He stated that in Mr. Wilkes' case, it was felt that benefits should accrue based on one half of the frontage. City Attorney Ftandrick asked Mr. Minamide whether he w^s STATEMENT OF a registered civil engineer, and associated with Lampman ASSESSMENT ENGINEER and Associates, the Engineer of Work. Mr. Minamide stated that was correct. City Attorney Flandrick asked Mr. Minamide to briefly describe his experience in assessment district work and city work in general. Mr. Minamide stated he had been employed by two other cities directly in Los Angeles County, the County of Los Angeles itself, the State Division of Highways, and the County of San Luis Obispo. He stated that during the tenures with the counties and the cities, he has had experience with assessment districts and assessing properties since 1959, and during this time he has been involved in about three dozen assessment districts. Continued) BIB] 37659-U01 1971-U02 02-U02 03-U02 CC-U02 MIN-U02 LI1-U03 FO9591-U03 FO9838-U03 DO9972-U03 C4-U03 MINUTES1-U03 2/6/2003-U04 ROBIN-U04 REGULAR-U05 SESSION-U05 CITY-U06 COUNCIL-U06 1971 02 03 CC MIN(ÌìÙK!peRegular Meeting of the Baldwin Park City Council February 3, 1971 Page 19 City Attorney Flandrick asked Mr. Minamide whether he was familiar with the Virginia Avenue Assessment District, and the work as performed, and Mr. Minamide stated he was. City Attorney Flandrick asked whether the assessments were performed in Mr. Minamide's office, under his direction, and he stated they were. City Attorney Flandrick asked whether, in Mr. Minamide's opinion, the work was completed in accordance with the specifications, or whether any deviation occurred. Mr. Minamide stated the work was performed according to the specifications. City Attorney Flandrick asked whether the assessments as proposed in the spread prepared by Mr. Minamide are proportionate to the estimated benefits on an individual property basis. Mr. Minamide stated that in his opinion they are. City Attorney Flandrick asked Mr. Minamide to describe generally the basic formula for spreading the assessment throughout this district. Mr. Minamide stated they first started with the individual items that are only of direct benefit to each individual parcel, such as who asked for and received a water service individual driveways and sewer extensions. spread against the individual properties. the costs were spread basically on the basis of 90% on frontage and 10^ on area, taking into consideration the size and shape of the lots. those people lateral, These were The balance of ASSESSMENT ENGINEER DESCRIBES BASIC FORMULA FOR ASSESSMENT SPREAD City Attorney Flandrick asked Mr. Minamide to describe the nature of the benefits which, in his opinion, are derived by the properties in the district from the improve- ments. Mr. Minamide stated the improvements constructed consisted of a 10-1/2" or 10-3/4" water tine, street paving, curb and gutter, and storm drain facilities. City Attorney Flandrick asked whether it was Mr. Minamide's opinion that the benefits that have been received are commensurate with the costs as proposed to be assessed. Mr. Minamide stated that in his opinion they were. Mr. Witkes asked who had hired Lampman and Associates to do this work. City Attorney Ftandrick stated the City Council had hired them. Mr. Witkes asked if there was c, similar case to develop land for industrial use spread on a front footage basis, other than on acreage or square footage. Mr. Minamide stated he had spread an assessment in another city on industrial property in a tike manner, on a11 sizes, shapes and forms of property. MR. WILKES Mr. Wilkes stated he believed this was a very unjust way of assessing the property owner, on the basis of front footage, particularly on his piece of property. City Attorney Flandrick stated that, to summarize Mr. Wilkes1 protest, he was protesting the manner in which the costs were spread, and Mr. Wilkes stated that tin's was correct. Andrew Nemeth, 1318 Virginia Avenue, asked the City Attorney if it were true that the assessment is based on benefit to land and does not include its present use'and improvements. City Attorney Flandrick replied that the costs of the district are based upon benefits, but stated he was not an expert as an assessment engineer, and would not render such an opinion, and suggested Mr. Nemeth direct his question to the City Engineer or the Assessment Engineer. Mr. Nemeth stated his question was directed to the City Attorney. City Attorney Flandrick declined to answer the question and stated the question should be referred to the Assessment Engineer. Continued) ANDREW NEMETH 1318 VIRGINIA BIB] 37659-U01 1971-U02 02-U02 03-U02 CC-U02 MIN-U02 LI1-U03 FO9591-U03 FO9838-U03 DO9972-U03 C4-U03 MINUTES1-U03 2/6/2003-U04 ROBIN-U04 REGULAR-U05 SESSION-U05 CITY-U06 COUNCIL-U06 1971 02 03 CC MIN(ÌìÙK!peW^W Regular Meeting of the Baldwin Park City Council February 3, 1971 Page 20 Mr. Nemeth referred to a tetter he had received frpm O'Melveny and layers which cited a court case, Howard Park Company vs. City of Los Angeles;, in which Howard Park Company claimed they should not be assessed because they had oil wells on their property. The Court refused to hold that the plaintiff's property should not be assessed at all. The Court, however, did say that one of the factors to be considered in spreading the cost of the improvement was the comparison of the market value of the various properties before and after the improvement. The letter, from which Mr. Nemeth read, further indicated that the Howard Park Case does not say the City Council must spread the improvement costs in proportion to the differing amounts by which market values increase; rather, that these differences should be considered. The letter stated that he should ask the Council why, as under the Howard Park Case, these differences are not given some weight in the proposed method of spread. Nr. Nemeth stated that Virginia Avenue was gerrymandered' into a district; and in doing this, the petitioner not only improved the street, but he developed one for himself. He stated that the irony of it is that the value that h-s property has been enhanced has not been considered in the spread of the district. He stated that, when you take property from 25 cents a foot and put it up into the $1.25 category, you've increased it by $1.00, and somebody should pay for the benefits that have accrued on that property. The benefitee, if it's applied to the district, wilt reduce the total cost. He stated that the petitioner came to them and wanted something and some people agreed with the policy, and went along with the idea, and now that the cost is revealing itself, it's an amazing thing. iHe stated he didn't really believe anybody went down and appraised Mr. Syre's property today, after the street was in, or before the street was put in. He stated there's a measure of comparison some- place if appraisers are brought in and asked how much benefit there really is to that piece of property. He stated the man has 13 acres, and they had helped him develop it. He further stated if some Benefits accrued to the district they should come back to the property owners and reduce the front footage cost, which is a tittle bit exorbitant. Councilman King stated there did seem to be some inequity COUNCILMAN KING insofar as Mr. Nemeth's property being already developed and the other property in question being developed from undeveloped area, and so it enhances this area. but realty doesn't enhance Mr. Nemeth's property as much. Councilman King stated that if the Court case is true, he wondered whether this inequity could be justified. Mayor McCaron stated he would tike to hear the rest of the testimony, and then these points could be brought out. Mr. Nemeth stated that seven years ago he bought a house MR. NEMETH which cost him $13,000.00. He now has an assessment which costs $3,828.07, and he has approximately 16,000 ft. of land. He stated that's a pretty high tariff for an improved piece of land that was on a street that was usable, and where he could get his mail, could get his trash picked up, had his paper delivered rain or shine, and never had any difficulty prior to the time this street was put in, and he objected to it in the first place. He further stated he knows it has to be paid for and he doesn't mind paying for it, but he would tike to have a fair share to pay. He reiterated that he feels this should be based on benefit to land, and land that is developed is benefited by far much more than property that is already on an established street. Continued) BIB] 37659-U01 1971-U02 02-U02 03-U02 CC-U02 MIN-U02 LI1-U03 FO9591-U03 FO9838-U03 DO9972-U03 C4-U03 MINUTES1-U03 2/6/2003-U04 ROBIN-U04 REGULAR-U05 SESSION-U05 CITY-U06 COUNCIL-U06 1971 02 03 CC MIN(ÌìÙK!pe4^€^ Regular Meeting of the Balc'win Park City Council February 3. 1971 Page 21 Mr. Nemeth further stated that he had attended a meeting on January 13, 1971, at Mr. French's invitation, which was attended by five persons. He stated that when he saw his assessment he just about flipped". He stated that during ensuing conversation, Mr. Minamide remarked that Mr. Syre was credited with $24,000.00, and stated this was the same amount of money they would have paid him for a piece of property, so if you wash it out by giving him a credit, they literally bought the $24,000.00 worth of property, ahd stated that as far as he was concerned that was fraudulent. He said he didn't feet this should have been mentioned, and that the original contract should have started with $275,000.00, not $307,000.00; after Jansen was given $50,000.00 it should have started a little lower, because that's when the street costs and curbs and gutters came in. He stated they have never seen a broken down price for what the street has cost them. Mr. Nemeth further stated he would tike to see some figures before he makes up his mind whether or not he is being assessed fairly. Fred Mercer, 1312 Virginia Avenue, stated he has been in construction 22 years, including jobs as superintendent and foreman. He stated his lot is 47 feet wide. He further stated that comparing his lot to the lots that were developed on the south side of him, where two btociA were completed, every one of the lots is wider and deeper than his, and there is only $1.00 more on a foot than his property. He stated there was no way he could be convinced he could sell his property for M-1 and put s factory on it with this man sitting here with 800 and 900 ft. deep lots. He indicated he was told this was not in the tax district, but there were driveways put in going all the way back into the ba11 park clear to the wash, which is stilt Mr. Syre's property, and the whole area had been opened, and it is M-1 property. FRED MERCER 1312 VIRGINIA Mr. Mercer stated that the north end of Virginia Avenue was a very badly done job. He stated that City Engineer French told him there was no need to worry about it because the City would take care of it if it fell through. He stated they had paid $312,000.00 for this street, and the inspector told him the job was no good. He stated City Engineer French had a tetter from the inspector to this effect. City Engineer French had told him they would bring in an infra-ray machine to burn it off, which was done, but there were stilt 3/8 to t/2 inch humps on the north end. A beautiful job was done on the other end of the street. Mr. Mercer stated that before the costs go in, he eets the contractor should be made to come out and fix the street. Mr. Mercer stated he fett some unbiased appraisers should be brought in and made aware that this street was zoned R-t, not M-t, before the street went in. He further stated he thinks the 90/10 spread needs to be changed. He stated that other than that, he is satisfied with the job. City Engineer French stated that he did not tell Mr. Mercer CITY ENGINEER the City would fix the street if it fett through. He stated he had told Mr. Mercer the job me^ the specifications, and it meets the specifications now. Andy Nemeth stated that on July 15, 1970, Council adopted MR. NEMETH Resolution No. 70-174, in which property purportedly in the County of Los Angeles was exempted from the district. He stated that when the spread was made by Mr. Minamide, the five pieces that were exempted from the district were also spread. He stated he didn't understand how something could be deleted with a resolution and put back without a resolution, and before property could be assessed, it would have to be put back in the district. Continued) BIB] 37659-U01 1971-U02 02-U02 03-U02 CC-U02 MIN-U02 LI1-U03 FO9591-U03 FO9838-U03 DO9972-U03 C4-U03 MINUTES1-U03 2/6/2003-U04 ROBIN-U04 REGULAR-U05 SESSION-U05 CITY-U06 COUNCIL-U06 1971 02 03 CC MIN(ÌìÙK!peRegular Meeting of the Baldwin Park City Council February 3, 1971 Page 22 Mr. Nemeth further stated, that in response to Mr. Mercer's statement that the street was no good. City Engineer French did say that the City would hold still and keep the street in rep-air if something went wrong with it. City Attorney Ftandrick suggested that since there appeared CITY ATTORNEY to be no one else who wished to speak, City Engineer French and Assessment Engineer Minamide should comment on the protests and asked the City Engineer to advise as to the total construction costs on the job, and also comment or the properties Mr. Nemeth referred to as being excluded from the boundaries of the district as to whether any spread was made on them. City Engineer French stated the job meets the specifications, CITY ENGINEER and would meet specifications anywhere in Los Angeles County. He stated that at one time there was a problem with the street meeting the specifications, which required that the contractor come out with an infra-ray machine and heat and re-roll it which was done, and the job now meets the/specifications. City Engineer French stated that in terms of cost of con- struction and all of the costs and how they were laid out-- they were filed in the City Clerk's office and have been for some time. The total construction cost was $199,296.90. The total amount to assess to the properties was $294,126.44. Regarding the spread, there has been a lot of discussion as to why it was put on a front footage basis vs. a square footage basis, and the City Engineer stated he would tike to point out a few things. He stated that if this were spread on a square footage bases, there are rectangular lots in the district with 152 feet of frontage that would have an assessment of about $7,500 vs. a lot with 114 feet of frontage with an $11,000 assessment. Considering industrial property and the need for access to industrial property, you would have a lot with a smaller frontage and less access to it that would be paying $3,500 more, and the City Engineer stated this is indicative of the district. City Engineer French stated that if the assessment were spread on a pure and simple square footage basis, taking only the area of the property that is benefited, and based on appraisals of land before and after, it would make quite a change in the assessment—the people who own the most property in one ownership would have tower assessments than they now have. He stated that some of the smaller parcels who have frontage, particularly on the northwest side of this street, and some on the southeast side, would have their assessments increased by as much as $3,000. City Engineer French stated there has to be some way to spread the benefit so it has a relationship to the access. He further indicated that there were no properties in this district that did not have access to a street. He stated that at the Planning Commission meetings when this whole program and plan was studied and adopted, a big point was the fact that the M" properties developing on the southerly end of Virginia were using the property between the end of Virginia and the railroad tracks and Whitesetl as a truck outlet to the freeway, and Whitesell is a residential street. The industrial access to this property is now off of Ddtewood. Mr. French stated, in regard to the parcels mentioned by Mr. Nemeth as being County property but included in the district, a portion of the rear of these parcels, numbers 5, 6 and 48, were in the County, and those portions that were in the County were excluded from the'district. City Attorney Flandrick asked the City Engineer whether any assessment had been levied against that portion of those lots that lies outside the boundaries of the district, Continued) BIB] 37659-U01 1971-U02 02-U02 03-U02 CC-U02 MIN-U02 LI1-U03 FO9591-U03 FO9838-U03 DO9972-U03 C4-U03 MINUTES1-U03 2/6/2003-U04 ROBIN-U04 REGULAR-U05 SESSION-U05 CITY-U06 COUNCIL-U06 1971 02 03 CC MIN(ÌìÙK!peeww Regular Meeting of the Baldwin Park City Council February 3, 1971 Page 23 and City Engineer French stated no assessment had been levied on any portion outside the district. City Attorney Flandrick asked the City Engineer, whether in making the spread, the before and after values of the properties were considered. City Engineer French stated only to the extent as to the general benefit to all of the properties. City Engineer French stated there were some appraisals made in this area but, contrary to some of the testimony, there are factors other than square footage which determine the value of industrial land, such as the condition of the buyer and seller at the ime of the sale, the economic condition of the area, and so on. On many appraisals, if you try to apply a flat square foot value and don't adjust it, on many of these properties the range of square footage values would be more than the difference in any adjustment in the assessment. Councilman King asked, in regard to the parcels outside the district boundaries, whether they were in transition as far as bringing them into the City. City Engineer French stated they are outside the City now. The parcels are owned by Mr. Nemeth and Mr. Mercer, who own property outside the City that abuts their's, so in essence they do have additional property with these parcels, but they are outside the City. City Attorney Flandrick clarified Mr. Nemeth's reference to an apparent discrepancy, or difference of opinion, as to the precise location of the City's boundary insofar as whether it followed their lot lines or not. He stated that City Engineer French had examined those records, and apparently the metes and bounds description indicating the City's boundary line was open to some question. Different records displayed different locations. It was concluded that those portions of the properties, approxi- mately 2200 square feet in alt three parcels, were not within the City's boundary apparently due to inadvertence at the time of the incorporation of the City. The City Attorney stated a change order proceeding was effected which deleted those portions of the three lots from the district. City Attorney Flandrick asked City Engineer French if he were in accord with Mr. Minamide's opinion in terms of the spread as proposed being equal to the benefits derived by each of the properties in the district. City Engineer French stated he was, and had spent about six hours going over the spread with Mr. Minamide. He stated they had spread it on other bases trying to put benefit into it, and he further stated he was in complete accord and fully recommended this spread. Councilman Hamilton asked if he understood correctly that if the formula were changed to a square footage basis, the cost to some of those protesting would increase. City Engineer French said this was true in some cases, although not a11. The City Engineer cited examples of increase and decrease of the assessment were done on square footage. He stated a Mr. Phillips, who owns 8 parcels, would have a decrease in his assessment of approximately $2,596.26, or a little over $300 a parcel. A Mr. McNeilty. who protested would realize an increase of $3,541.78 on a square footage basis. Mrs. Estrada, who said the assessment should be spread on the basis of square footage, would have an increase of $4,573.45. Continued) CITY ATTORNEY CITY ENGINEER'S OPINION OF METHOD OF ASSESSMENT SPREAD BIB] 37659-U01 1971-U02 02-U02 03-U02 CC-U02 MIN-U02 LI1-U03 FO9591-U03 FO9838-U03 DO9972-U03 C4-U03 MINUTES1-U03 2/6/2003-U04 ROBIN-U04 REGULAR-U05 SESSION-U05 CITY-U06 COUNCIL-U06 1971 02 03 CC MIN(ÌìÙK!pet^f^B- Regular Meeting of the Baldwin Park City Council February 3, 1971 Page 24 Councilman Hamilton asked whether changing the assessment to a square footage basis would mean the owners of the large parcels would benefit. City Engineer French stated large parcels with large frontages would benefit; the large parcels with small frontages would be hurt. Council- man King asked what effect this would have on Mr. Syre's property. City Engineer French stated this would drop Mr. Syre's assessment by $25,000. Mr. Syre's assessment at this time is $86,512.82; if it were figured on the basis of area, it would be $61,292.52. Mr. Nemeth stated that benefit to land is what it is worth to the land. He stated the benefit that was described to the Council is not applied in the sense of value; it is accountable in the sense of benefit as far is the Street goes, and that was not the concern. He stated this is why an appraiser was needed, who would come in and pu11 out the benefit, spread it over the district, then go for the cost, and the cost of the front foot would go down for everyone. He stated it was a simple application of benefit Councilman Blewett addressed a question to City Engineer French, Mr. Minamide, and City Attorney Flandrick. He asked whether, to their knowledge, there has ever been an assessment district based on benefit to property, and if so» where; in other words, the increase in value to the property. City Attorney Flandrick stated no, and as Mr. Nemeth pointed out, that's one factor of many factors to be considered, but would not be the sole factor in any case. Mayor McCaron said that it should be kept in mind that this property may have been zoned M-1, but it had access through R-1 property, and as such it should not, in any case, have been used for M-1 usages until it had proper access. Mr. Mercer asked where the 90/10 formula came from. He wanted to know why it wasn't 80/20 or 60/40. Mayor McCaron stated the 90/10 formula had been chosen for certain reasons. Mr. Minamide stated he had prepared different methods of spreading the assessment and concluded, after studying the various methods, that the 90/10 ratio proportion was the most equitable. Councilman King asked the City Engineer whether he might wish to reconsider the manner in which the assessments were spread. City Engineer French stated no; the district had been spread in different ways and, factually, a 90/10 spread gives a fair approach. A review of previous testimony and some further discussion followed. Councilman Hamilton stated he was concerned only that the assessment was spread fairly to a11 the property owners. Councilman King asked if there might be another solution to solve the purported inequity. City Engineer French, comparing the Monterey Avenue District to Virginia Avenue, stated that on a cost basis, the people on Virginia, who have M" property, are paying about the same amount per 60 foot lot as those people did on Monterey, who have R-1 property. Councilman Blewett stated it was a difficult decision for the Council to make; however, he felt the engineers had come up with a fair mathematical solution. Continued) MR. NEMETH COUNCILMAN BLEWETT MAYOR MCCARON MR. MERCER DISCUSSION BIB] 37659-U01 1971-U02 02-U02 03-U02 CC-U02 MIN-U02 LI1-U03 FO9591-U03 FO9838-U03 DO9972-U03 C4-U03 MINUTES1-U03 2/6/2003-U04 ROBIN-U04 REGULAR-U05 SESSION-U05 CITY-U06 COUNCIL-U06 1971 02 03 CC MIN(ÌìÙK!peoooiTee Regular Meeting of the Baldwin Park City Council MAYOR MCCARON MOVED THAT THE CitY COUNCIL OVERRULE ALL PROTESTS AS RECEIVED. COUNCILMAN BLEWETT SECONDED. Roll Call The motion carried oy the following vote: AYES MAYOR MCCARON, COUNCILMEN BLEWETT AND HAMILTON ABSTAIN COUNCILMAN KING ABSENT COUNCILMAN GREGORY As there was no one else in the audience desiring to speak either in behalf of or in opposition to the Virginia Avenue Assessment District A/D 70-1, Mayor McCaron declared the public hearing closed. RESOLUTION NO. 71-41 CONFIRMING ASSESSMENT IN VIRGINIA AVENUE ASSESSMENT DISTRICT City Clerk Batkus stated that after the third paragraph should be added WHEREAS, written protests were received from the following property owners; and said Council having duly considered said protests, by motion overruled the same, MAYOR MCCARON MOVED THAT RESOLUTION NO. 71-41 BE ADOPTED AS AMENDED AND THAT FURTHER READING BE WAIVED. COUNCILMAN BLEWETT SECONDED. Roll Call. The motion carried by the following vote: AYES: MAYOR MCCARON, COUNCILMEN BLEWETT AND HAMILTON ABSTAIN: COUNCILMAN KING ABSENT: COUNCILMAN GREGORY 00- February 3, 1971 Page 25 ALL PROTESTS RECEIVED OVERRULED PUBLIC HEARING DECLARED CLOSED VIRGINIA AVENUE A/D 70-1 RES. NO. 71-41 CONFIRM ASSESSMENT VIRGINIA AVENUE A/D 70-1 INSERT AFTER 3RD PARAGRAPH THAT PROTESTS OVERRULED RES. NO. 71-41 ADOPTED AS AMENDED ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: Gloria Zook, 4817 N. La Rica, asked how many square feet the City is buying from Southern Pacific Raitraod for the Ramona Redevelopment Project, and how much is the City paying per square foot. City Engineer French stated he did not have the figures with him. He stated the City had an original appraisal which allowed for a certain amount of square footage, but since that time the amount of land being acquired from Southern Pacific has been increased, but the dollar value remains the s<»me. City Engineer French stated the original appraisal was from Bogart to La Rica, and since that time Southern Pacific has granted property easterly of Bogart, but the City did not increase the amount of money paid for the property. City Engineer French stated he would be happy to make the calculations and meet with Mrs. Zook at his office, but she stated she preferred to ask again at the next Council meeting. Myrtle Asquith, 13138 E. Judith Avenue, stated she wished to discuss Ordinance No. 584, and asked what in this Ordinance tetts anyone that this is an ordinance to acquire property by eminent domain. Mrs. Asquith read the Ordinance by title. City Manager Nordby stated this is not specified in the ordinance; however, if property is part of a community redevelopment project and it is necessary to obtain the property by right of eminent domain, the City will proceed to do so. Mrs. Asquith stated she felt this ordinance should have been explained more fully, as there were many people who did not understand exactly what it meant, and she felt the citizens are entitled to know that the City can take their property by right of eminent domain. She stated there are many properties in the City that are not developed. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS GLORIA ZOOK 4817 N. LA RICA MYRTLE ASQUITH 13138 E. JUDITH AVENUE Mayor McCaron this would be go ahead, but stated the occasion would have to arise where needed. The City would have the ordinance to it would have to be done through public hearings Continued) BIB] 37659-U01 1971-U02 02-U02 03-U02 CC-U02 MIN-U02 LI1-U03 FO9591-U03 FO9838-U03 DO9972-U03 C4-U03 MINUTES1-U03 2/6/2003-U04 ROBIN-U04 REGULAR-U05 SESSION-U05 CITY-U06 COUNCIL-U06 1971 02 03 CC MIN(ÌìÙK!perWWG^ Regular Meeting of the Baldwin ark City Council February 3, 1971 Page 26 Mayor McCaron further stated that this was not a new item-- it had been put into the Master Plan of the.City, and was suggested to the Council back in 1960 as a Method of handling development when development was warranted. Councilman Btewett stated that with today's taxes, bedroom communities cannot exist, and the only way to solve Baldwin Park's revenue problem is to develop the city. The Conmunity Redevelopment Agency is one method of doing this. For instance, if in the middle of an area a developer was trying to develop there was one person who was holding out for $25 a square foot on their land, the C.R.A. would prevent this. Mrs. Asquith stated this was legitimate, but that isn't what the ordinance says. Councilman Blewett stated the ordinance was so the City could obtain property by eminent domain at the market value, which would be determined by three appraisers, one of the property owner's, one of the City's, and one independent. If the parties cannot agree, the matter is handled through the courts. City Manager Nordby stated Mrs. Asquith had been to his office earlier in the week, and he had discussed with her all the points she had been making this evening. Mrs. Asquith stated she wanted the Council's opinion on the matter. Councilman Hamilton stated that before Council adopts an ordinance or resolution it is thoroughly studied and he felt the Council understood and agreed with the need for the ordinance. Mrs. Asquith stated she is still against the ordinance and felt that if it were publicized there would be any number of citizens against it. Ralph Littig, 14012 E. Nubia, asked whether there could be a reading of the section that was going to be adopted concerning eminent domain. He stated property was concerned, and property is something that is very individualistic in a capitalistic society. He stated he felt it was inordinate of the Council not to make it absolutely dear to the people of the community that there is going to be a resolution or ordinance, even minuscule, to give them the facts. He stated he would like to have the ordinance read and perhaps hear some testimony on it. Mayor McCaron stated discussion on an ordinance would require publication of it and a public hearing before testimony could be accepted. Mr. Lillig stated he felt there should be some publicity as to the fact that this ordinance was going to be adopted, and the people should know there is a possibility their property could be, in effect, confiscated at what could be considered fair market price by other than themselves. Councilman King stated he felt the public should be made more aware of some of the facts, and stated that possibly a newsletter would be of some benefit to the citizens of Baldwin Park. Councilman Btewett stated that the Community Redevelopment Agency had been 1n the newspapers, including the Los Angeles Times and the San Gabriel Valley Tribune. Mr. Litlig stated that perhaps a special effort should be made in a case of this type to make the citizens aware of something that might directly affect a person's property, and suggested the possibility of a flyer to the homes. Continued) RALPH LILLIG 14012 E. NUBIA BIB] 37659-U01 1971-U02 02-U02 03-U02 CC-U02 MIN-U02 LI1-U03 FO9591-U03 FO9838-U03 DO9972-U03 C4-U03 MINUTES1-U03 2/6/2003-U04 ROBIN-U04 REGULAR-U05 SESSION-U05 CITY-U06 COUNCIL-U06 1971 02 03 CC MIN(ÌìÙK!pe1 r'i^w we Regular Meeting of the Baldwin Park City Council Mr. James Q. Gibson, 13268 Francisquito, stated that when you start talking about taking away people's property, that is, anything but highways, schools, ciVic developments or something like that, you are leaning way over to the left, and that is verging on socialism or even communism, in his opinion. Mr. Gibson stated if he owned property and he felt it was worth $100 a square foot, in America nobody should take it away from him to develop somebody's business, He stated he is not satisfied with the tax structure and knows the City needs business, but he does not feel the C.R.A. is the way to get it. Mr. Edwin Eiko, 13057 E. Bess, stated perhaps this matter of Ordinance No. 584 should not be handled with such great haste, and more people should be informed on it, and also the other ordinance regarding the R-3 zoning on Ramona. Mayor McCaron stated that perhaps the matter should be set up for a public hearing. He indicated there would be further discussion when the ordinance came up later in the meeting. 00- City Clerk Batkus presented a claim from Anthony Michael Carr, et at. COUNCILMAN BLEWETT MOVED THAT THE CLAIM BE DENIED AND REFERRED TO THE INSURANCE CARRIER. COUNCILMAN KING SECONDED. There were no objections. The motion carrie and was so ordered. 00" City Manager Nordby stated the minipark" program, began with the adoption of the General Plan about ten years ago, and this year's budget includes the development of three parks, at a cost of approximately $6,000.00 each. The Charles Bursch minipark is a continuation of the program. The School has executed the same standard agreement under which the other parks have been developed. He recommended that the agreement be executed by the Mayor and the City Clerk. COUNCILMAN BLEWETT F10VED THAT THE MAYOR AND THE CITY CLERK BE AUTHORIZED TO EXECUTE AN AGREEMENT WITH THE SCHOOL DISTRICT FOR THE MINIPARK AT CHARLES BURSCH SCHOOL. COUNCILMAN KING SECONDED. There were no objections. The motion carried and was so ordered. 00- City Manager Nordby presented for approval by the Council a request for leave of absence by Mrs. Codling, City Treasurer. He stated that anything is excess of 15 days without pay must be placed before the City Council for approval. He further stated that Mrs. Codling had made a written request for the leave of absence, in compliance with the rules and regulations. COUNCILMAN HAMILTON MOVED THAT THE LEAVE OF ABSENCE BE GRANTED CITY TREASURER CODLING UP TO FEBRUARY 1, 1971. COUNCILMAN KING SECONDED. There were no objections. The motion carried and was so ordered. 00- February 3, 1971 Page 27 JAMES Q. GIBSON 13268 FRANCISQUITO EDWIN ELKO 13057 E. BESS CLAIM ANTHONY MICHAEL CARR, ET AL DENIED AND REFERRED TO INSURANCE CARRIER MINIPARK AT CHARLES BURSCH SCHOOL MAYOR AND CITY CLERK AUTHORIZED TO EXECUTE AGREEMENT RE MINIPARK WITH SCHOOL DISTRICT REQUEST FOR LEAVE OF ABSENCE BY CITY TREASURER CODLING LEAVE OF ABSENCE GRANTED BIB] 37659-U01 1971-U02 02-U02 03-U02 CC-U02 MIN-U02 LI1-U03 FO9591-U03 FO9838-U03 DO9972-U03 C4-U03 MINUTES1-U03 2/6/2003-U04 ROBIN-U04 REGULAR-U05 SESSION-U05 CITY-U06 COUNCIL-U06 1971 02 03 CC MIN(ÌìÙK!peQf^W?- Regular Meeting of the Baldwin Park City Council City Manager Nordby presented a request for a proposed rate increase from Yellow Cab Company. He stated that Yellow Cab Company has pointed out the percentage of increases in overhead. He indicated that most of the communities surrounding Baldwin Park have granted the rate adjustment. City Manager Nordby stated the last rate adjustment made by the City was in September of 1967. Mayor McCaron asked whether this increase was in line with adjustments made in the rates in Los Angeles. City Manager Nordby stated that based on the percentages of increases indicated in the letter from Yellow Cab Company on gasoline, real estate taxes, cost of automobiles, etc. since the last increase, the rate increases seem equitable. Geoffrey Markell, 4544 Landis, stated that many of the Valley cities have granted Yellow Cab a rate increase, but he feels Baldwin Park has a different clientele than many of these cities. He stated that, for example, in Baldwin Park the average person using a cab would be a senior citizen going to the grocery store to shop, and many of these people can hardly afford the fares that exist now. In Los Angeles, the client most likely using a cab would be a businessman or an attorney or someone on his way to an appointment, whose cab fare might be deductible on an expense account. Councilman King stated Mr. MarkeTi has a valid point, in that possibly we should evaluate more thoroughly the other areas in comparison to'our own. City Manager Nordby stated he would contact Yellow Cab Company to find out whether there would be any unusual problem created by running the same cabs throughout the Valley and giving special consideration to one community. He stated the cab company may face an operational problem in a case such as this, and it is conceivable that the service might be removed or diminished. Councilman Hamilton stated that, based on Yellow Cab's figures, it appears an increase is warranted; however, since the report contains only their figures, he would like to hold the matter over for further evaluation. City Manager Nordby stated he would obtain further information and present a report at another meeting. 00- City Manager Nordby presented a resolution to amend the City's Personnel Rules and Regulations, which makes an adjustment on three holidays. The changes suggested do not alter the number of holidays this year, but merely change the dates, in accordance with a law passed by the Ninetieth Congress in 1968. The holidays affected are Washington's Birthday, which is now to be the third Monday in February; Memorial Day, which will now be the last Monday in May; and Veteran's Day, which wi11 now be the fourth Monday in October. RESOLUTION NO. 71-42 ESTABLISHING HOLIDAYS FOR ALL CITY EMPLOYEES. COUNCILMAN KING MOVED THAT RESOLUTION NO. 71-42 BE ADOPTED AND THAT FURTHER READING BE WAIVED. COUNCILMAN HAMILTON SECONDED. There were no objections. The motion carried and was so ordered. February 3, 1971 Page 28 PROPOSED RATE INCREASE YELLOW CAB COMPANY GEOFFREY MARKELL 4544 LANDIS RES. NO. 71-42 ESTABLISH HOLIDAYS CITY EMPLOYEES RES. NO. 71-42 ADOPTED BIB] 37659-U01 1971-U02 02-U02 03-U02 CC-U02 MIN-U02 LI1-U03 FO9591-U03 FO9838-U03 DO9972-U03 C4-U03 MINUTES1-U03 2/6/2003-U04 ROBIN-U04 REGULAR-U05 SESSION-U05 CITY-U06 COUNCIL-U06 1971 02 03 CC MIN(ÌìÙK!peWw Regular Meeting of the Baldwin Park City Council City Engineer French reviewed his report on the initiation of Short Form 1911 Act Case Nos. 71-S-8, on the north side of Olive Street betwen Landis Avenue and Maine Avenue for curb and gutter; 73-S-9, on the north side of Olive Street between La Rica Avenue and Baldwin Park Boulevard for sidewalk and drive approach; 71-S-10, on the north side of Olive Street between El ton Avenue and Fortin Street for curb and gutter; 71-S-11, on the south side of Olive Street between Walnut Street and Merced Avenue for sidewalk and drive approach; 71-S-12, on the south side of Olive Street between Stewart Avenue and Edra Avenue for sidewalk and drive approach; 71-S-13, on the south side of Olive Street between Edra Avenue and Baldwin Park Boulevard for sidewalk and drive approach; 71-S-14, on the northwest side of Frazier Street between Fairgrove Street and Bess Avenue for curb, gutter, sidewalk and drive approach; and 71-S-15, on the northwest side of Puente Avenue between Francisquito Avenue and Datewood for curb, gutter, sidewalk and drive approach. He stated Case No. 71-S-12 should be amended to read curb, gutter, sidewalk and drive approach. RESOLUTION NO. 71-38 DECLARING INTENTION TO CAUSE CONSTRUCTION OF CERTAIN IMPROVEMENTS PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 5870 ETJ SEQ., OF THE STREETS AND HIGHWAYS CODE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 71-S-8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14 and 15) COUNCILMAN HAMILTON MOVED THAT RESOLUTION NO. 71-38 BE ADOPTED AS AMENDED CHANGE 71-S-12 TO INCLUDE CURB, GUTTER, SIDEWALK AND DRIVE APPROACH) AND THAT FURTHER READING BE WAIVED. COUNCILMAN KING SECONDED. There were no objections. The motion carried and was so ordered. 00- City Engineer French reviewed his report on the initiation of Public Nuisances, building and structures, Case Nos. 71-N-1, 4864 Anniston; and 71-N-2, 12848 Waco Street. RESOLUTION NO. 71-43 SETTING A TIME AND PLACE FOR A HEARING TO DETERMINE WHETHER CERTAIN BUILDINGS AND STRUCTURES CONSTITUTE PUBLIC NUISANCES 71-N-1 & 71-N-2) COUNCILMAN HAMILTON MOVED THAT RESOLUTION NO. 71-43 BE ADOPTED AND THAT FURTHER READING BE WAIVED. COUNCILMAN BLEWETT SECONDED. There were no objections. The motion carried and was so ordered. February 3, 1971 Page 29 S.F. INITIATION 71-S-8 C&G 71-S-9 S&DA 71-S-10 C&G 71-S-11 S&DA 71-S-12 CGS&DA 71-S-13 S&DA i 71-S-14 CGS&DA 71-S-15 CGS&DA RES. NO. 71-38 DECLAR INTENT CAUSE CONSTRUCTION 71-S-8, 9. 10, 11 12, 13, 14 & 15) RES. NO. 71-38 ADOPTED AS AMENDED P.N. INITIATION 71-N-1 71-N-2 RES. NO. 71-43 SET HEARING DATE P.H. MARCH 3, 1971 RES. NO. 71-43 ADOPTED 00- City Engineer French reviewed his report on the initiation of Public Nuisance, vehicles. Case No. 71-A-7, 13311 Palm Avenue. RESOLUTION NO. 71-44 SETTING A TIME AND PLACE FOR A HEARING TO DETERMINE WHETHER CERTAIN VEHICLES CONSTITUTE A PUBLIC NUISANCE COUNCILMAN KING MOVED THAT RESOLUTION NO. 71-44 BE ADOPTED AND THAT FURTHER READING BE WAIVED. COUNCILMAN BLEWETT SECONDED. There were no objections. The motion carried and was so ordered. 00- P.N. INITIATION 71-A-7 RES. NO. 71-44 SET HEARING DATE P.H. MARCH 3, 1971 RES. NO. 71-44 ADOPTED BIB] 37659-U01 1971-U02 02-U02 03-U02 CC-U02 MIN-U02 LI1-U03 FO9591-U03 FO9838-U03 DO9972-U03 C4-U03 MINUTES1-U03 2/6/2003-U04 ROBIN-U04 REGULAR-U05 SESSION-U05 CITY-U06 COUNCIL-U06 1971 02 03 CC MIN(ÌìÙK!peCi04T71 fc^"<'-*-,^^,/-^ Regular Meeting of the Baldwin Park City Council City engineer French presented a request from Mr. Don Loberg, 4624 Monterey Avenue, to circulate a 1911 Act petition for the improvement of Monterey between Benbow and Rockenbach Streets. Mayor McCaron asked whether this involves property fronting on Walnut that might include property owners who were protesting the Walnut Street improvement. City Engineer French stated it did. He stated he had informed Mr. Loberg of this, and that he might not be too successful in having the petition signed. Mayor McCaron commented that there would have to be quite a bit of dedication. City Engineer French stated this would be an expensive district; assuming that every property owner dedicated, the cost could be in the range of $2,000 to $2,500 per lot. Councilman Blewett stated he felt a petition in this area at this particular time might further confuse the Walnut Street improvement area. COUNCILMAN BLEWETT MOVED THAT THE REQUEST FOR 1911 ACT IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT ON MONTEREY BETWEEN BENBOW AND ROCKENBACH STREETS BE TABLED FOR SIX MONTHS. COUNCILMAN KING SECONDED. There were no objections. The motion carried and was so ordered. 00- City Engineer French presented a report on excess right- of-way on Ramona Boulevard between La Rica Avenue and Baldwin Park Boulevard. He sts.ted in preparing the final design for Ramona Boulevard it became apparent that there was no necessity to provide access roads north and south of the main roadbed between La Rica Avenue and Baldwin Park Boulevard. Traffic circulation and access to properties could be better served by direct connection to the proposed Ramona Boulevard. Attempts to work with the property owners on a selective basis was begun over a year ago to determine the best treatment of the excess right-of-way the width of which in some cases would be approximately 90 feet. City Engineer French stated that alt the property owners in the Ramona-BaditIo project area had been contacted on October 6, 1970 to set up a meeting, which only one property owner attended. This property owner was going to try to contact the other owners to see what they felt would be a good use of the excess land. He stated that the service station on the corner of Baldwin Park Boulevard and Ramona has lost its non-conformity by being vacant for over six months. Union Oil Company was notified by the Planning Department to either bring the station into conformance with the Zoning Code or abate the station. In the process of redeveloping the station, and in looking at the City's development of Ramona-Badillo, the Oil Company was concerned about their access to pamona- Badilto and they would like to acquire the excess land when it becomes available and use it as part of their station facilities, and would tike to remain in operation under their present conditions until this land becomes available. He stated the matter has been discussed at length with the Planning Director and the City Attorney and their joint recommendation was that the station be allowed continue in its existing use until the land becomes available; the land be made available to the abutting commercial properties at Continued) February 3, 1971 Page 30 REQUEST FOR 1911 ACT IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT DISCUSSION OF AREA INVOLVED REQUEST TABLED FOR SIX MONTHS REPORT RE EXCESS RIGHT OF WAY ON RAMONA BETWEEN LA RICA AND BALDWIN PARK BLVD. BIB] 37659-U01 1971-U02 02-U02 03-U02 CC-U02 MIN-U02 LI1-U03 FO9591-U03 FO9838-U03 DO9972-U03 C4-U03 MINUTES1-U03 2/6/2003-U04 ROBIN-U04 REGULAR-U05 SESSION-U05 CITY-U06 COUNCIL-U06 1971 02 03 CC MIN(ÌìÙK!pe 000-7772 Regular Meeting of the Baldwin Park City Council February 3, 1971 Page 31 fair market value subject to the Council's approving the precise plan of how these properties will use the excess land. Mayor McCaron asked whether the land could be built on, i.e., whether there were utilities underground. City Engineer French stated structures could be built on certain areas, although there could be nothing sizeable constructed. Councilman Kinq asked what was the fair market value City Attorney Flandrick stated that it would be hard to determine at this time for several reasons; there are some underground utilities and that would have an effect on value; there is not an accurate idea as to size at present; and, the configuration would make it difficult to evaluate and there has not been an appraisal of this particular property in its after" condition. Councilman King stated he would like to look into th^ feasibility, if the cost was not exorbitant, of making the area into a green belt". City Engineer French stated the problem with making it a green belt was that it couldn't be used as a park because the property owners do now have driveway access onto Ramona, and the City would have to replace such driveway access. City Attorney Flandrick stated the immediate problem was the continued use of the station, and the memorandum from the City Engineer dated February 3, 1971 could be modified to indicate that construction would be completed and a determination made at that time whether it is feasible to re-sell the property to the adjacent property owners or to mal<e some public use out of it. Mayor McCaron asked if this situation was comparable to the request by Seaside Oil Company to continue use of a service station, which Council had denied. City Attorney Flandrick stated there was a difference; Union Oil representatives have indicated there has not been a voluntary abandonment of the station, but they have been unable to get a tenant in there because of the; street construction. Apparently, they now have a tenant wilting to tease the station. Union Oil is asking permission to operate the station only until completion of the Ramona Boulevard construction, at which time they witt relocate the station, remove it, or rehabilitate it. depending upon what the City does in terms of the disposition of this property. COUNCILMAN HAMILTON MOVED THAT UNION OIL COMPANY BE GRANTED PERMISSION TO CONTINUE OPERATION OF THE SERVICE STATION UNTIL CONSTRUCTION OF RAMONA BOULEVARD IS COMPLETED, AT WHICH TIME THE STATION WILL BE BROUGHT INTO COMPLIANCE WITH THE CODE, AND IN ADDITION, THE COUNCIL WILL DEFER A FINAL DECISION ON THE DISPOSITION OF THE EXCESS PROPERTY PENDING COMPLETION OF THE RAMONA BOULEVARD PROJECT. COUNCILMAN BLEWETT SECONDED. There were no objections. The motion carried and was so ordered. 00- PERMISSION GRANTED TO ALLOW UNION OIL CO. TO CONTINUE OPERATION OF STATION UNTIL COMPLETION OF RAMONA BLVD. CONSTRUCTION, AND COUNCIL DEFER FINAL DECISION ON DISPOSAL OF EXCESS PROPERTY UNTIL THAT TIME BIB] 37659-U01 1971-U02 02-U02 03-U02 CC-U02 MIN-U02 LI1-U03 FO9591-U03 FO9838-U03 DO9972-U03 C4-U03 MINUTES1-U03 2/6/2003-U04 ROBIN-U04 REGULAR-U05 SESSION-U05 CITY-U06 COUNCIL-U06 1971 02 03 CC MIN(ÌìÙK !peC04773 Regular Meeting of the Baldwin Park City Council February 3, 1971 Page 32 City Clerk Balkus read by title: ORDINANCE NO. 585 AMENDING THE ZONING MAP OF SAID CITY AND REZONIN6 CERTAIN HEREIN DESCRIBED REAL PROPERTY FROM ZONE R-1 TO ZONE M-1 ZONE CASE NO. Z-328, PART I) COUNCILMAN KING MOVED THAT FURTHER READING OF ORDINANCE NO. 585 BE WAIVED. COUNCILMAN BLEWETT SECONDED. There were no objections. The motion carried and was so ordered. COUNCILMAN KING MOVED THAT ORDINANCE NO. 585 BE ADOPTED. COUNCILMAN BLEWETT SECONDED. There were no objections. The motion carried and was so ordered. 00- There was discussion regarding adoption and publication of Ordinances. Mayor McCaron stated possibly all Ordinances should be set up for public hearing. 00- City Manager Nordby suggested that action on Ordinance No. 584 be deferred until the public is satisfied that the intentions and motives are honorable. COUNCILMAN BLEWETT MOVED THAT ACTION BE DEFERRED ON ORDINANCE NO. 584 AND THE MATTER BE SET FOR PUBLIC HEARING AND THAT THE ORDINANCE BE PUBLISHED IN THE NEWSPAPER IN ITS ENTIRETY. COUNCILMAN KING SECONDED. There were no objections. The motion carried and was so ordered. 00- COUNCILMAN BLEWETT MOVED THAT 3EORGE W. BAYLISS BE APPOim'ED AS THE CITY'S REPRESENTATIVE TO THE SANTA FE DAM REGIONAL PARK AUTHORITY. COUNCILMAN KING SECONDED. There were no objections. The motion carried and was so ordered. 00- AT 12:32 A.M. COUNCILMAN HAMILTON MOVED THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADJOURN. COUNCILMAN BLEWETT SECONDED. There were no objections. The motion carried and was so ordered. 00- ORD. NO. 585 AMEND ZONING MAP Z-328, PART I FURTHER READING WAIVED ORD. NO. 585 ORD. NO. 58b ADOPTED DISCUSSION RE ADOPTION & PUBLICATION OF ORDINANCES DISCUSSION RE ORD. NO. 584 PUBLIC HEARING SET RE ORD. NO. 584 GEORGE W. BAYLISS APPOINTED REP TO SANTA FE DAM REGIONAL PARK AUTHORITY ADJOURN 12:32 A.M. e^^ j THELMA L. BALKUS, CITY CLERK APPROVED: /7 1971 Date of Distribution to City Council: Date of Distribution to Departments: 3-/ 3~/ 1971 1971 BIB] 37659-U01 1971-U02 02-U02 03-U02 CC-U02 MIN-U02 LI1-U03 FO9591-U03 FO9838-U03 DO9972-U03 C4-U03 MINUTES1-U03 2/6/2003-U04 ROBIN-U04 REGULAR-U05 SESSION-U05 CITY-U06 COUNCIL-U06 1971 02 03 CC MIN(ÌìÙK!!peREGULAR 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. Councilman Blewett led the salute to the flag. Roll Call: Present: COUNCILMEN BLEWETT. HAMILTON, KING, AND MAYOR MC CARON Absent: COUNCILMAN GREGORY Also Present: CITY MANAGER NORDBY, CITY ATTORNEY FLANDRICK, CITY ENGINEER FRENCH, PLANNING DIRECTOR CHIVETTA, CHIEF OF POLICE ADAMS, CITY TREASURER CODLING. CITY CLERK BALKUS Absent: FINANCE DIRECTOR DUNCAN 00- CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. WALNUT STREET ASSESSMENT DISTRICT A proposed amendment to the Baldwin Park Municipal Code to determine regulations pertaining to on-premise signs within the City of Baldwin Park. Initiated by the Baldwin Park Planning Commission. 2. AMENDMENT TO ZONING CODE CASE NO. AZC-43 Public Nuisance To determine whether nuisance exists Vehicle 3. 71-A-2 3664 Maine Avenue 00- FEBRUARY 3. 1971 7:30 P.M. FLAG SALUTE ROLL CALL CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARINGS CONTINUED TO FEBRUARY 17. 1971 CONTINUED TO FEBRUARY 17, 1971 CONTINUED TO FEBRUARY 17. 1971 AT 12:32 A.M. COUNCILMAN HAMILTON MOVED THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADJOURN. COUNCILMAN BLEWETT SECONDED. There were no objections. The motion carried and was so ordered. ADJOURN 12:32 A.M. 00- C^^y yr^3^A-^^ THELHA L. BALkUS. CIH CLERR—— DATE: FEBRUARY 4. 1971 TIME: 10:00 A.M. BIB] 37659-U01 1971-U02 02-U02 03-U02 CC-U02 MIN-U02 LI1-U03 FO9591-U03 FO9838-U03 DO9972-U03 C4-U03 MINUTES1-U03 2/6/2003-U04 ROBIN-U04 REGULAR-U05 SESSION-U05 CITY-U06 COUNCIL-U06 !peooes^a' Regular Meeting of the Baldwin Park City Council February 3, 1971 Page 12 and the improvements never get in. felt instead of going a11 the way better to have part of the street none at a11. Mr. Atber stated he up Walnut, it would be improved, rather than Mayor McCaron explained that in order to get the street improved fully, you almost have to form a district to get the work done; otherwise, it has to be parcel by parcel, and would apply to one side of the street only, and for a block only. When 50% of the work is in, then the City can order the balance of the block to be installed. The Mayor also commented that any property owners who wished could pay cash for the assessment right after the improvement is made, rather than paying for it over a ten-year period. Councilman Hamilton stated the City Council was trying to improve the City with as little burden on the citizens as possible, hence the reason for spreading the assessment over a ten-year period. He further stated that possibly this was not the proper time for the district, but at the present trend, if it is postponed, the prices might go up and the cost to the taxpayers would be even higher. He commented that Council's intent was to assist the people, not to burden them. Mrs. Darret Fox, 13702 Palm, stated that the west side of her property was on Walnut Street. She referred to a tetter dated January 25 which she received, which states under Item 1 c) that those people who do not dedicate the street will have right-of-way costs, and she wanted to know what right-of-way costs are. City Engineer French stated this letter was a clarification of some of the questions that were asked regarding the district. He explained that there is a section of the Streets and Highways Code that allows people who have dedicated to receive credit for the dedication. On certain portions of the street, there needs to be extra land taken for'the curb and gutter. A11 but eight people have dedicated;, and those eight people would be assessed the land cost directly, so they are treated exactly the same as everyone else on Walnut Street. Mrs. Fox asked who is liable should damage occur, e.g., when a tree is being removed a branch falls and breaks a fence. City Attorney Ftandrick replied that, if the district is formed the contractor is required to have insurance to cover that type of eventuality. Mayor McCaron asked Mrs. Fox whether she was protesting the district, and she answered yes and no". Mrs. Jean Parkinson, 4427 Walnut, stated that City Engineer French had said there are only eight people who are against the curbs and gutters going in, and this is d section from Los Angeles Street to Olive, and she wondered about the ratio of how many houses to the number of blocks. City Engineer French clarified his statement by explaining that the eight people are those who did not dedicate; some people have dedicated for the improvement of the street, but are now protesting the district. Mrs. Parkinson stated she has four children who wi11 be attending school in the area, and she is in favor of the curbs and gutters. She has talked to quite a few people in her area, and has found no one who is against the improvements but everyone is interested in how much they are going to cost per foot. She stated there are many people with the same size lots who have different estimates. Mrs. Parkinson also inquired why the City's cost Continued) MRS. DARREL FOX 13702 PALM MRS. JEAN PARKINSON 4427 WALNUT BIB] 37659-U01 1971-U02 02-U02 03-U02 CC-U02 MIN-U02 LI1-U03 FO9591-U03 FO9838-U03 DO9972-U03 C4-U03 MINUTES1-U03 2/6/2003-U04 ROBIN-U04 REGULAR-U05 SESSION-U05 CITY-U06 COUNCIL-U06