Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1972 07 05 CC MIN1972 07 05 CC MIN(ÌìÖÑpeI1!0.!! July 5. 1972 Page Minutes 6/21/72. 6/23/72. 6/26/72 Approved 1 71-S-58 1 71-S-58 Approved Costs Confirmed 72-S-9. 72-S-10. 72-S-11. 72-S-12. 72-S-13, 72-S-14, 72-S-15 Testimony 72-S-9 Grace Colwick, Doris Dahl Testimony 72-S-10 James S. Bell is 72-S-10 Continued to 7/19/72 3 72-S-11 Construction Ordered 4 Testimony 72-S-12 Ken Mi 11 is Testimony 72-S-12 Arthur Seymour 5 Testimony 72-S-13 Lenora Woodside 5 Testimony 72-S-13 Dave Kiedrowski 6 Testimony 72-S-15 Richard Champion 6 72-S-12, 13 & 14 Continued to 7/19/72 7 72-S-15 Public Hearing Closed Taken under submission for 60 days 7 72-N-30 Testimony T. E. Carpenter 7 Res. No. 72-94 72-N-30) Adopted 8 72-N-31 8 Res. No. 72-95 72-N-31) Adopted 9 72-N-36 Testimony T. E. Carpenter 9 Res. No. 72-96 72-N-36) Adopted 10 Oral Communications Del. Joe Ensminger, representing BP Police Assn. 10 re meet and confer sessions C.M. to report back to Council Oral Comnunications T. E. Carpenter re police procedure for handling 11 commercial and residential burglaries C.M. to report back to Council Oral Communications Michael Dargus re Ordinance No. 643 11 Oral Communications Dorothy 0. Mayes re Ordinance No. 643 11 City Attorney re Pending Litigation San Anseimo Police & Fire Assn. 12 vs. City of San Anseimo re Fundamental Services $2,500 maximum approved to participate in litigation Claim Lucille B. Chambers Denied & referred to insurance carrier 12 Claim Susan A. Jackson Denied & referred to insurance carrier 13 Chamber of Commerce Agreement 1972-73 Approved 13 Short Form Initiations 72-S-19. 72-S-20. 72-S-21. 72-S-22 Declare 13 intent cause construction; public hearing set for 8/2/72 Underground Utility District Program 13 Council concurred with proposed 20-year underground utility program 14 ORDINANCE NO. 642 AMENDING CERTAIN PROVISIONS OF THE CITY'S 14 BUSINESS LICENSE ORDINANCE Fingerprinting Fees) Adopted ORDINANCE NO. 643 AMENDING CERTAIN PROVISIONS OF THE BALDWIN PARK 15 MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION Adopted Re terms of office) Roland Boisjoli Appointed to Planning Commission; Edwin Elko's 15 name suggested; further appointments to be considered 7/10/72 Goals Program Suggested by Councilman Hamilton; IPA Grant proposed 16 for program Certificates of Connendation to be presented to outgoing Planning Comn. 16 Dorothy Mayes re Ordinance No. 643 16 Carol Cote re Ordinance No. 643 17 Adjourned 9:48 P.M. 17 BIB] 37659-U01 1972-U02 07-U02 05-U02 CC-U02 MIN-U02 LI1-U03 FO9591-U03 FO9837-U03 DO9926-U03 C4-U03 MINUTES1-U03 2/6/2003-U04 ROBIN-U04 REGULAR-U05 SESSION-U05 CITY-U06 COUNCIL-U06 1972 07 05 CC MIN(ÌìÖÑpe000^53^ UNOFFICIAL UNTIL APPROVED JULY 5, W; 7:30 P.^. REGULAR MEETING OF THE BALDWIN PARK CITY COUNCIL CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS) 14403 East Pacific Avenue The City Council of the City of Baldwin Park met in regular session at the above place at 7:30 P.M. Councilman Gregory led the salute to the flag. The invocation was given by Pastor Paul W. Johnson, of the Seventh-Day Adventist Church. Roll Call: Present: COUNCILMEN GREGORY. HAMILTON. KING, MC CARON AND MAYOR BLEWETT CITY MANAGER MOCALIS. CITY ATTORNEY FLANDRICK, DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS PERRY, PLANNING DIRECTOR GORDON. FINANCE DIRECTOR DUNCAN. CHIEF OF POLICE ADAMS, CITY TREASURER CALE. CITY CLERK BALKUS Also Present: 00- COUNCILMAN GREGORY MOVED THAT THE MINUTES OF JUNE 21, 1972, JUNE 23. 1972 AND JUNE 26, 1972 BE APPROVED AND THAT FURTHER READING BE WAIVED. COUNCILMAN KING SECONDED. There were no objections. The motion carried and was so ordered. 00- City Clerk Batkus administered the Oath to those in the audience desiring to be heard during the meeting. 00- 7:30 p.m. having arrived, it was the time and place for a continued public hearing on Short Form Case No. 71-S-58, northwest side of Vine!and Avenue between Rexwood Street and Merced Avenue, for sidewalk and drive approach. Continued from June 21, 1972) Proper postings and mailings had been accomplished. There were no written protests. Director of Public Works Perry stated this case had been continued because of questions involving the parcel cost for Parcel No. 2. He"stated that Mr. Kifer. 3367 Vineland, who had raised the questions, had made a partial payment prior to the 60-day period in which there is no administra- tive charge; therefore, the administrative cost was prorated based on the remainder of the parcel cost-($16.10). which added to the remaining construction cost $66.63) leaves a balance of $82.73. Mr. Perry stated Mr. Kifer had been notified of the adjust- ment in the cost and was in agreement and had, in fact, paid the remaining balance. Mr. Perry stated that under District 71-S-58, two parcels remained unpaid. No. 5 and No. 14. As there was no one in the audience desiring to speak either in behalf of or in opposition to 71-S-58, Mayor Btewett declared the public hearing closed. Continued) FLAG SALUTF: INVOCATION ROLL CALL MINUTES OF 6/21/72, 6/23/72 AND 6/26/72 APPROVED OATH PUBLIC HEARING SHORT FORM 71-S-58 S&DA) POSTINGS & MAILir.'G1 NO WRITTEN PROTEST RESUME PUBLIC HEARING DECLARED CLOSED 71-S-58 BIB] 37659-U01 1972-U02 07-U02 05-U02 CC-U02 MIN-U02 LI1-U03 FO9591-U03 FO9837-U03 DO9926-U03 C4-U03 MINUTES1-U03 2/6/2003-U04 ROBIN-U04 REGULAR-U05 SESSION-U05 CITY-U06 COUNCIL-U06 1972 07 05 CC MIN(ÌìÖÑpeRegular Meeting of the Baldwin Park City Council THAT THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE 58 AND CONFIRM THE COSTS FOR SET FORTH IN THE REPORT OF THE COUNCILMAN KING SECONDED. The motion carried and was COUNCILMAN GREGORY MOVED SHORT FORM DISTRICT 71-S- EACH PARCEL CONCERNED AS DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS There were no objections so ordered. 00- July 5, 1972 Page 2 APPROVE DISTRICT; CONFIRM COSTS 71-S-58 It was the time and place fixed for a public hearing on Short Form Case Nos. 72-S-9, west side of Marian Avenue between Palm Avenue and Los Angeles Street, for sidewalk and drive approach; 72-S-10, east side of Harlan Avenue between Palm Avenue and Los Angeles Street, for sidewalk and drive approach; 72-S-11, east side of Harlan Avenue between Palm Avenue and Morgan Street. for curb, gutter and drive approach; 72-S-12, south side of Arrow Highway between Maine Avenue and Bleecker Street, for curb, gutter and drive approach; 72-S-13, south side of Arrow Highway between Heintz Street and El ton Street, for curb, gutter, sidewalk and drive approach; 72-S-14» south side of Arrow Highway between Lante Street and Azusa Canyon Road, for curb, gutter and drive approach; and 72-S-15, southwest side of Earl Avenue between Athol Street and Frazier Street, for curb and gutter. Proper postings and mailings had been accomplished. There were no written protests. Director of Public Works Perry stated that Case Nos. 72-S-9 and 72-S-10 were initiated by a petition of 60% of the property owners requesting that sidewalk and driveway approaches be installed. Case No. 72-S-11 would complete Harlan Avenue in this area. Regarding 72-S-9, Mrs. Grace Cotwick, 4245 Hartan, stated that the reason she objected to the improvements was that they would not improve the looks of the street. She stated she had toured Baldwin Park and West Covina and many parts of West Covina do not have sidewalk. Where improvements exist, the curbs are cracked, the gutters are raised, tree roots are growing on top instead of underneath and causing damage, etc. She felt sidewalks would make the street look worse, and that if the existing curbs and gutters were repaired and new trees planted, the street would look much better. James B. Belt is, 4228 N. Harlan, stated he was billed $189 for the same size lot as on the west side of the street for $156, and asked what accounted for the difference. Mayor Blewett asked that since Mr. Belt is was concerned with Case 72-S-10, he present his testimony when that case was being considered. Mr. Bellis agreed. Regarding 72-S-9, Mrs. Doris Dahl, 4345 Harlan, stated she was against the sidewalks because she tikes the trees; this was one of the reasons they bought their home because of the beautiful trees and the shade. She commented that the lawns were small as it is, and sidewalks would take away 5 more feet. She stated Hart an did not have enough foot traffic to warrant sidewalks. She referred to Filhurst Street as looking like an asphalt jungle" and stated she lived on a beautiful street and would tike it to stay that way. Mrs. Dahl stated she had talked to several of her neigh- bors, and none of them wanted sidewalks. She stated that when the petition had been brought around, the circulators had said it was not a petition for sidewalks, but a petition to have the sidewalk adjacent to the curb if they had to be put in. She stated she was not the Continued) PUBLIC HEARING SHORT FORMS 72-S-9 S&DA) 72-S-10 S&DA) 72-S-11 CG&D/ 72-S-12 CG&DA 72-S-13 CGS&f 72-S-14 CG&DA 72-S-15 C&G) POSTINGS & MAILINGS NO WRITTEN PROTESTS RESUME 72-S-9 GRACE COLWICK 4245 HARLAN 72-S-10 JAMES S. BELLIS 4228 N. HARLAN 72-S-9 DORIS DAHL 4345 HARLAN BIB] 37659-U01 1972-U02 07-U02 05-U02 CC-U02 MIN-U02 LI1-U03 FO9591-U03 FO9837-U03 DO9926-U03 C4-U03 MINUTES1-U03 2/6/2003-U04 ROBIN-U04 REGULAR-U05 SESSION-U05 CITY-U06 COUNCIL-U06 1972 07 05 CC MIN(ÌìÖÑpe C'00^5.38 Regular Meeting of the Baldwin Park City Council July 5, 1W Page 3 only person who was misled, commenting, however, that she did not believe the couple who circulated the petition had intended to mislead anyone; the intention of the petition was to have the sidewalks adjacent to the curb in the event sidewalks were required, and if the petition was believed to be anything but that, it was false. Mrs. Dahl stated that another point she would like to make is that the construction would increase the assessed value of the property, which she could not afford. Mr. Perry quoted the petition, as follows: We the home- owners of the 4300 block of Harlan Avenue, Baldwin Park south of Los Angeles Street and north of Palm Avenue), are requesting to have the sidewalks placed against the curb." Mayor Blewett commented that the wording could be interpreted in different ways. Councilman King felt it might be wise to postpone the proceedings until the proper intention of the petition could be determined. Mayor Blewett agreed. COUNCILMAN HAMILTON MOVED THAT THE CITY COUNCIL DISMISS THE PROCEEDINGS ON 72-S-9. COUNCILMAN KING SECONDED. Councilman McCaron felt that dismissing the proceedings was not taking into account the fact that 60% of the property owners had signed the petition, and he felt there should be a report made as to whether all the owners were in accord with the alleged intent of the petition. Councilman King agreed, and withdrew his second to the motion in order to allow time for the staff to investigate the matter further. Councilman Hamilton also agreed and felt that continuing the matter for two weeks would allow time to clarify it; he withdrew his motion. COUNCILMAN HAMILTON MOVED THAT 72-S-9 BE CONTINUED TO JULY 19. 1972. COUNCILMAN KING SECONDED. There were no objections. The motion carried and was so ordered, Mayor Blewett stated that since the petition was some- what nebulous, the efforts of the residents in the area would be appreciated in determining the true desires of the people, perhaps by circulation of a counter-petition. Mrs. Colwick stated she understood there was a master plan for the City, and asked whether they would eventually have to have sidewalks whether they wanted them or not. Mayor Blewett stated he felt the entire Council was in agreement that the whole City should be curbed and guttered, but there had been no definitive decision regarding sidewalks Councilman Hamilton stated he agreed with the need for curbs and gutters; however, on some of the streets where there were beautiful trees and very little foot traffic, and really no need for sidewalks, he would prefer keeping the trees, and felt a thorough study should be made before removing them where no real need for sidewalks exists. Mr. Perry commented that 72-S-10 was initiated on the same basis as 72-S-9, and recommended that this be held over also. COUNCILMAN GREGORY MOVED THAT 72-S-10 BE CONTINUED TO JULY 19, 1972. COUNCILMAN HAMILTON SECONDED. There were no objections. The motion carried and was so ordered. CO- MOTION TO DISMISS 72-S-9 MOTION & SECOND WITHDRAWN 72-S-9 CONTINUE? TO 7/19/72 MRS. COLWICK 72-S-10 CONTINUE!-- TO 7/19/72 BIB] 37659-U01 1972-U02 07-U02 05-U02 CC-U02 MIN-U02 LI1-U03 FO9591-U03 FO9837-U03 DO9926-U03 C4-U03 MINUTES1-U03 2/6/2003-U04 ROBIN-U04 REGULAR-U05 SESSION-U05 CITY-U06 COUNCIL-U06 1972 07 05 CC MIN(ÌìÖÑpecco^^s Regular Meeting of the Baldwin Park City Council Regarding 72-S-11, Mr. Perry stated this would complete the particular area insofar as curb, gutter and driveway approaches are concerned. As there was no one in the audience desiring to speak either in behalf of or in opposition to 72-S-11, Mayor Blewett declared the public hearing closed. COUNCILMAN KING MOVED THAT THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS IS HEREBY ORDERED TO TAKE THE STEPS NECESSARY TO CAUSE THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE REQUIRED IMPROVEMENTS IN CASE NO. 72-S-11, PURSUANT TO SECTION 5870. ET SEQ., OF THE STREETS AND HIGHWAYS CODE. COUNCILMAN HAMILTON SECONDED. There were no objections. The motion carried and was so ordered. Prior to the hearing on 72-S-12, 13, 14 and 15, Mr. Perry presented slides depicting some of the anticipated improve- ments on Arrow Highway and what the staff feels they would do for the character of the area. Ken Will is, 14506 Arrow Highway, stated his objections had nothing to do with the expenditure of money; rather, he objected to the improvements at this time on the basis that he felt they were unnecessary as far as transporta- tion of water, there had only been a problem one time, in 1938; there is not much traffic on Arrow Highway, and relatively no foot traffic and little likelihood of there ever being any. He felt there was no reason at all to put in driveway approaches. He commented he paid quite a bit of property tax and his business brought quite a bit of sales tax into the City. Mr. Will Is stated that, in his opinion, the improvements had no relationship to this City; the street is in Irwindale and there is no traffic on it; across the street is an old fence, a weed patch, the Dam, and no curbs or gutters on the Irwindale side. He reiterated he felt it had no bearing on this City. Mr. Will is further stated that it was his understanding that Arrow was a secondary highway and, as such, would qualify as a gas-tax supported street. Mr. Perry stated Arrow was a secondary highway on select system. He referred to a map posted on the wall indicating the areas where curbs and gutters had been installed at the property owners' expense through assessment districts. In working toward finishing select system streets with curbs and gutters, it has been the City's policy to have the property owner pay for the curbs, gutters, driveway approaches and sidewalks, if necessary, and the City will pay for the paveout, curb returns, cross gutters, etc. Mr. Perry stated this usually amounts to the City paying approximately 60% of the total cost while the property owner pays approxi- mately 40%. Mr. Wittis felt the proper time to install curb and gutter would be in the future whenever any building takes place on Arrow Highway. Mr, Perry pointed out that driveway approaches would be installed only as desired by Mr. Wilt is, in whatever number he wished. In answer to Councilman McCaron's question, Mr. Perry stated that Mr. Willi's" property amounted to approximately one quarter of the proposed district. Continued) July 5, 197F Page 4 7Z-S-11 RESUME PUBLIC HEARING DECLARED CLOSED 72-S-11 ORDER CONSTRUCTION 72-S-11 SLIDE PRESENTATION RE ARROW HIGHWAY 72-S-12 KEN WILLIS 14506 ARROW HIGIWY BIB] 37659-U01 1972-U02 07-U02 05-U02 CC-U02 MIN-U02 LI1-U03 FO9591-U03 FO9837-U03 DO9926-U03 C4-U03 MINUTES1-U03 2/6/2003-U04 ROBIN-U04 REGULAR-U05 SESSION-U05 CITY-U06 COUNCIL-U06 1972 07 05 CC MIN(ÌìÖÑpeC 00-^5^0 Regular Meeting of the Baldwin Park ity Council Arthur Seymour. 5141 Bleecker Street, stated he owned 247 feet on Arrow Highway at the corner of Bleecker, and all the curb and gutter was in, and he had had the radius put on the corner and the cross gutter put in. He stated his area was paved with asphalt. The City Engineer had requested that driveway approaches be installed, which would be very costly, and the present curbing would have to be torn up; when the driveway approaches are in, they will be higher than the asphalt and will cause a hump, so it will have to be repaved. He felt it would be better to wait to do the work until sidewalks are required and do it all at one time. He stated there was no traffic turning in there and he did not feel there was a need for approaches. Mr. Perry presented photographs depicting how asphalt driveway approaches deteriorate over a period of a few years. He stated that sidewalks had not been requested in this area, since there were none in and it was not felt they would be advantageous at this time. Mr. Seymour felt that without sidewalks, the approaches would not accomplish much. Discussion followed regarding costs for Mr. Seymour's particular project, and also for Mr. Willis" improvements. As there was no one else in the audience desiring to speak either in behalf of or in opposition to 72-S-12, Mayor Blewett declared the public hearing closed. Regarding 72-S-13, Mr. Perry stated this was basically the same as 72-S-12, except that sidewalks were included in this district, in that over 50% of the sidewalks are presently installed, and a building permit has been taken out in the area which will increase that amount to approxi- mately 67%. City Clerk Balkus again administered the Oath. Lenora Woodside, owner of property on Arrow Highway, questioned why one block along Arrow was going to be required to put in sidewalks. Mr. Perry reiterated that over 50% of the sidewalks in the block were presently in. Mrs. Woodside asked what was the advantage. Mr. Perry replied that it would create a finished product. Mrs. Woodside stated she did not see why sidewalks were being required in this one block rather than waiting until sometime in the future when they would be required a11 along the street. Councilman McCaron explained that in making a determination of which area should be considered for improvements, it is taken block by block, and where 50% of the area has the improvements, that is tantamount to a demand by the property owners themselves to improve the other half; this is basic state law. Mrs. Woodside argued that the property owners did not want curb and gutter, let alone sidewalks, and that what Mr. Perry was considering sidewalk was a concrete slab and a drive approach, and the rest was part of the Richfietd Service Station, which was not used as a sidewalk. She stated there was absolutely no sense whatsoever to requiring sidewalk in this area. She stated this was an M-1 zone, and as such would have no walk-in trade; there is no foot traffic on Arrow Highway. Continued) July 7" Page 5 72-S-12 ARTHUR SEYMOUR 5141 BLEECKER PHOTOGRAPHS DISCUSSION PUBLIC HEARING DECLARED CLOSED 72-S-13 RESUME OATH READMI^TR 77-S-13 LENORA WOODSIDE 4537 N. WALNUT S^ BIB] 37659-U01 1972-U02 07-U02 05-U02 CC-U02 MIN-U02 LI1-U03 FO9591-U03 FO9837-U03 DO9926-U03 C4-U03 MINUTES1-U03 2/6/2003-U04 ROBIN-U04 REGULAR-U05 SESSION-U05 CITY-U06 COUNCIL-U06 1972 07 05 CC MIN(ÌìÖÑpeRegular Meeting of the Baldwin Park City Council July 5, 1972 Page 6 Mayor Btewett concurred with Mrs. Woodside that there was no foot traffic on Arrow Highway, and probably little reason for sidewalk. Mrs. Woodside stated she would not fight curb and gutter, but she did not want sidewalk. Dave Kiedrowski. stated he was in the process of buying 15006 E. Arrow Highway. He stated he had been in the building only about 30 days, but in that time had seen no foot traffic on Arrow Highway, and felt it would be ridiculous to put in sidewalks. He questioned under what authority this was being done. Mayor Btewett explained the districts were being formulated under California State law, referred to as the 1911 Act, which provides that the City can initiate such districts. Mr. Kiedrowski stated curb and gutter would eliminate his parking; he has very fine blacktop approaches to his area at present, and he stated he cannot see where anything will be Improved, and it would, in fact, detract from him as far as convenience is concerned, to put in curbs and gutters. He further stated that he was against the improvements from the standpoint of money. There was no testimony on 72-S-14. Regarding 72-S-15, Richard Champion stated the property had been in his parents' hands since 1932; the front half had been sold, but he retained possession of the back half. He stated that about 10 or 15 years ago he had been before Council regarding different subdivisions which had gone in around his property; the people behind him had substandard lots. and he had fought it at that time, but to no avail. Then when property to the west of his had been developed, a street had been put right in back of his property. When his mother wanted to divide their property, she was told she would have to dedicate for the street through there, so they gave up at that time. Recently, after receiving the letter regarding the curb and gutter, he came in to see Mr. Perry, and the outcome was that he would now be able to develop the property into three lots; therefore, he would like to hold off on the curb and gutter until he finds out what action will be taken on his application for a variance, and then he will know where he wants the drive approaches. He stated he was against the curb and gutter right now, because it might have to be torn up when he divides the property. Mr. Perry indicated it would probably be 90-100 days before the work would be commenced, and by that time Mr. Champion would probably be in a position to determine the location of the approaches; if Council approved the district, con- struction could be held up and the staff could work with Mr. Champion to see that the driveway approaches are installed where he wants them. Discussion followed regarding any possible problems insofar as dividing the property. Mr. Perry stated that he and Mr. Gordon had conferred with Mr. Champion and had resolved the problem in that a future street would not be required; however, Mr. Champion must go before the Planning Cormnssion for a variance concerning the size of the lots. Continued) 72-S-13 DAVE KIEDROWSKI 15006 E. ARROW HWY 72-S-14 NO TESTIMONY 72-S-15 RICHARD CHAMPION DISCUSSION BIB] 37659-U01 1972-U02 07-U02 05-U02 CC-U02 MIN-U02 LI1-U03 FO9591-U03 FO9837-U03 DO9926-U03 C4-U03 MINUTES1-U03 2/6/2003-U04 ROBIN-U04 REGULAR-U05 SESSION-U05 CITY-U06 COUNCIL-U06 1972 07 05 CC MIN(ÌìÖÑpercPJ!?^ Regular Meeting of the Baldwin Park City Council July 5. 1972 Page 7 Councilman Gregory suggested that the cases on Arrow Highway be continued to investigate the possibility of using gas tax money. Mayor Blewett suggested that consideration also be given to deleting the sidewalks on 72-S-13. COUNCILMAN GREGORY MOVED THAT THE PUBLIC HEARING ON CASE NO. 72-S-12 BE REOPENED. SINCE NO ONE HAD LEFT THE ROOM. AND THAT CASES NO. 72-S-12, 72-S-13 AND 72-S-14 BE CONTINUED TO JULY 19, 1972 TO INVESTIGATE THE POSSIBILITY OF USING GAS TAX MONEY FOR THE PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS; ALSO THAT CONSIDERATION BE GIVEN TO DELETING THE SIDEWALKS REQUIRED IN CASE NO. 72-S-13. COUNCILMAN KING SECONDED. There were no objections. The motion carried and was so ordered. COUNCILMAN GREGORY MOVED THAT THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS IS HEREBY ORDERED TO TAKE THE STEPS NECESSARY TO CAUSE THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE REQUIRED IMPROVEMENTS IN CASE NO. 72-S-15, PURSUANT TO SECTION 5870. ET SEQ., OF THE STREETS AND HIGHWAYS CODE. COUNCILMAN KING SECONDED. Discussion followed regarding the time limit for commence- ment of construction. Councilman Hamilton felt the motion should specify construction would be held up until Mr. Champion knew whether or not he would be granted a variance for a lot sp1it» in the event 90 days would not be enough time. Councilman Gregory withdrew her motion, with the consent of the second. As there was no one else in the audience desiring to speak either in behalf of or in opposition to 72-S-15, Mayor Blewett declared the public hearing closed. COUNCILMAN KING MOVED THAT CASE 72-S-15 BE TAKEN UNDER SUBMISSION FOR 60 DAYS AND BE PLACED ON THE AGENDA FOR SEPTEMBER 20. 1972. COUNCILMAN GREGORY 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 72-N-30, to determine whether certain premises and buildings and structures constitute a public nuisance at 3134 Frazier Street. Proper postings and mailings had been accomplished. There were no written protests. Director of Public Works Perry presented slide photographs of the property, and reviewed his report concerning violations and hazardous conditions existing on the property. Mr. Perry stated he had talked to the real estate people representing the property owners and they had indicated they would probably demolish the building and requested 60 days to accomplish the work. TESTIMONY WAS GIVtN BY: T. E. Carpenter, 4346 Jerry.Avenue, stated he had reviewed the files thoroughly and did not find that any attempt had been mode to contact the owners and get permission to make Continued) PUBLIC HEARING REOPENED ON 72-S-12; 72-S-12, 13 & 14 CONT. TO 7/19/72 ORDER CONSTRUCTION 72-S-15 DISCUSSION RE TIME LIMIT MOTION WITHDRAWN PUBLIC HEARING DECLARED CLOSED 72-S-15 72-S-15 TAKEN UNDER SUBMISSION FOR 60 DAYS PUBLIC HEARING PUBLIC NUISANCE 72-N-30 POSTINGS & MAILINGS NO WRITTEN PROTESTS PHOTOS RESUME TESTIMONY T. E. CARPENTER 4346 JERRY AVE. BIB] 37659-U01 1972-U02 07-U02 05-U02 CC-U02 MIN-U02 LI1-U03 FO9591-U03 FO9837-U03 DO9926-U03 C4-U03 MINUTES1-U03 2/6/2003-U04 ROBIN-U04 REGULAR-U05 SESSION-U05 CITY-U06 COUNCIL-U06 1972 07 05 CC MIN(ÌìÖÑ peCtGS^J Regular Meeting of the Baldwin Park City Council July 5, 1972 Page 8 an inspection and, further, some of the violations listed as a result of the inspection were problematical as to whether they were true. City Attorney Flandrick pointed out that the staff had made an inspection and the points listed were evidence presented to Council following such inspection, and he did not think the word problematical" was appropriate, particularly in the absence of evidence contrary to the staff report. Mr. Carpenter stated he had not personally made an inspection of the property. Mr. Carpenter stated he objected to the procedural situation, in that the procedure in the City at this time does not call for a request to gain entry. Councilman McCaron asked whether State law covered this point. City Attorney Flandn'ck replied that this was covered by local ordinances adopted several years ago. Mayor Btewett asked whether, in Mr. Ftandrick's opinion, the City was doing anything illegal, and Mr. Flandrick replied in the negative. He stated that sections of the Code were being revised which would eliminate, hopefully, any questions in the future regarding entry. Councilman Hamilton asked whether an attempt had been made to contact the owner of the property. Mr. Perry stated that this nuisance was initiated in April on an abandoned property, and at that time the owner could not be located. As there was no one else in the audience desiring to speak either in behalf of or in'opposition to 72-N-30, Mayor Blewett declared the public hearing closed. City Attorney Flandrick stated the staff report should be amended in paragraph 1 of the recommendation to read and rehabilitate or demolish". RESOLUTION NO. 72-94 FINDING AND DETERMINING THE EXISTENCE OF A PUBLIC NUISANCE AND ORDERING THE SAME ABATED 72-N-30) Mr. Perry stated that under Section 2 a time limit of 60" days should be established. COUNCILMAN HAMILTON MOVED THAT RESOLUTION NO. 72-94 BE ADOPTED AND THAT FURTHER READING BE WAIVED. COUNCIL- MAN GREGORY 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 72-N-31, to determine whether certain premises and buildings and structures constitute a public nuisance on the rear lot of 3222 Frazier Street. Proper postings and mailings had been accomplished. There were no written protests. Director of Public Works Perry presented slide photographs of the property and reviewed his report. Continued) PUBLIC HEARING DECLARED CLOSED 72-N-30 STAFF REPORT AMENDED RES. NO. 72-94 ORDER ABATEMENT 72-N-30 SECTION 2 60" DAYS TO ABATE RFS. NO. 72-94 ADOPTED PUBLIC HEARING PUBLIC NUISANCE 72-N-31 POSTINGS & MAILINGS NO WRITTEN PROTESTS PHOTOS RESUME BIB] 37659-U01 1972-U02 07-U02 05-U02 CC-U02 MIN-U02 LI1-U03 FO9591-U03 FO9837-U03 DO9926-U03 C4-U03 MINUTES1-U03 2/6/2003-U04 ROBIN-U04 REGULAR-U05 SESSION-U05 CITY-U06 COUNCIL-U06 1972 07 05 CC MIN(ÌìÖÑ pef GOW44 Regular Meeting of the Baldwin Park City Council TESTIMONY WAS GIVEN BY: Robert Funk stated he had on the subject property. been sent to two previous him on May 4. a lease with option to buy He stated the notices had owners before they reached July 5, 1W Page 9 TESTIMONY ROBERT FUNK Mr. Funk stated they had removed a great deal from the property already, but were having difficulty removing the bamboo which grew there and requested an additional 60 days to clean up the property. He further stated that 2h out of the three buildings were already demolished. As there was no one else in the audience desiring to speak either in behalf of or in opposition to 72-N-31, Mayor Blewett declared the public hearing closed. RESOLUTION NO. 72-95 FINDING AND DETERMINING THE EXISTENCE OF A PUBLIC NUISANCE AND ORDERING THE SAME ABATED 72-N-31) Mr. Perry stated that under Section 2 a time limit of 60" days should be established. COUNCILMAN GREGORY MOVED THAT RESOLUTION NO. 72-95 BE ADOPTED 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 72-N-36, to determine whether certain premises and buildings and structures constitute a public nuisance at 4958 Maine Avenue. Proper postings and mailings had been accomplished. There were no written protests. Director of Public Works Perry presented slide photographs of the property and reviewed his report. TESTIMONY WAS GIVEN BY: T. E. Carpenter, 4346 Jerry Avenue, stated he would again like to comment on procedure. Mayor Blewett informed Mr. Carpenter that unless he was the property owner or acting as agent for the property owner, this was not the proper time to discuss procedure, in that this was a hearing on the property, not the procedure by which the property was brought before the Council. Mr. Carpenter stated he would just like to comnent that this property had been vacant, windows were broken, and it had apparently been vandalized. He felt that residential property owners should be afforded the same consideration as commercial owners when a place is broken into, in that the police usually stand by until the owner is contacted and arrives to see that the place is closed or boarded up. Councilman Hamilton suggested that since Mr. Carpenter's testimony was not relevant to the public hearing underway that he address Council under Oral Communications. Mr. Carpenter agreed. Continued) PUBLIC HEARING DECLARED CLOSCD 72-N-31 RES. NO. 72-95 ORDER ABATEMENT 72-N-31 SECTION 2 60" DAYS TO ABATE: RES. NO. 72-9F ADOPTED PUBLIC HEARING PUBLIC NUISANCE 72-N-36 POSTINGS M/^ll NO WRITTEN PP^E-^ PHOTOS RESUME TESTIMONY T. F. CARPENT^ 434fi JERRY AVF. BIB] 37659-U01 1972-U02 07-U02 05-U02 CC-U02 MIN-U02 LI1-U03 FO9591-U03 FO9837-U03 DO9926-U03 C4-U03 MINUTES1-U03 2/6/2003-U04 ROBIN-U04 REGULAR-U05 SESSION-U05 CITY-U06 COUNCIL-U06 1972 07 05 CC MIN(ÌìÖÑ peRegular Meeting of the Baldwin Park C;ity Council As there was no one else in the audience desiring to speak either in behalf of or in opposition to 72-N-36, Mayor Blewett declared the public hearing closed. City Attorney Flandrick stated that the staff report should be amended to read: 1) board up and secure front structure; 2) rehabilitate or demolish addition to garage and sunshade; and 3) conduct a general lot cleanup, including weeds. RESOLUTION NO. 72-96 FINDING AND DETERMINING THE EXISTENCE OF A PUBLIC NUISANCE AND ORDERING THE SAME ABATED 72-N-36) Mr. Perry stated that under Section 2 a time limit of 60" days should be established. COUNCILMAN HAMILTON MOVED THAT RESOLUTION NO. 72-96 BE ADOPTED AND THAT FURTHER READING BE WAIVED. COUNCILMAN KING SECONDED. There were no objections. The motion carried and was so ordered. 00- Detective Joe Ensminger, representing the Baldwin Park Police Association, stated that for the past two years they had participated in meet and confer sessions, and in those two years had not been able to sign a memorandum of agreement. Det. Ensminger stated the police personnel felt they worked for an excellent department; however, there were conditions under which the department must operate which were difficult and inconvenient, and he listed some of these, such as no restrooms, no drinking water, inadequate wiring resulting in blown fuses, flooding of the facility when it rains, excessive heat in summer in some areas, etc. He stated that there are no funds available to reimburse the officers when they acquire many hours of uncompensated overtime. Det. Ensminger stated the department was losing personnel because we could not offer what other cities do. He further stated that when the budget was adopted, a S% salary increase was approved, and nothing else, and they had received no further communication as to the disposition of the remainder of their proposals. He commented that the Police Association was not satisfied with the results of this year's negotiations. Discussion followed. Councilman McCaron requested that the City Manager prepare a report regarding the matter. He stated that Council had considered many of the points made, although there appeared to be some differences; however, of necessity, some of the things had to be rejected. Councilman Gregory stated also that many of these items had been discussed, and she felt that the entire Council agreed that some of these conditions were most unsatisfactory; however, the fact was that there were no funds available to correct them immediately. She agreed with Councilman McCaron that the City Manager should present a report at the next meeting, and it should be made public. 00- July r-, l°r Pago in PUBLIC HEARING DECLARED CLOSD- 72-N-36 STAFF REPORT AMENDED RES. NO. 72-96 ORDER ABATEMENT 72-N-36 SECTION 2 W DAYS TO AFOT. RES. NO. 72-96 ADOPTED DET. JOE EMSMiriGEF REP. B.P. POLICE ASSOCIATION DISCUSSION CITY MANAGER TO PREPARE REPORT BIB] 37659-U01 1972-U02 07-U02 05-U02 CC-U02 MIN-U02 LI1-U03 FO9591-U03 FO9837-U03 DO9926-U03 C4-U03 MINUTES1-U03 2/6/2003-U04 ROBIN-U04 REGULAR-U05 SESSION-U05 CITY-U06 COUNCIL-U06 1972 07 05 CC MIN(ÌìÖÑ 1972 07 05 CC MIN(ÌìÖÑ peRegular Meeting of the Baldwin Park City Council July 5, 1972 Page 12 since the election and she felt that was enough time for Council either to have reappointed the Commissioners whose terms have expired or to have told them they would be replaced. She stated that, in her opinion, the ordinance was brought on in an underhanded way, and she was against it. 00- City Attorney Flandrick presented information to the Council regarding pending litigation in the case of San Ansetmo Police and Fire Association vs. City of San Anseimo, and briefly reviewed the case. He stated that the Associations in San Anseimo have filed an action against that city to declare unconstitutional the method of financing the police and fire departments, as being fundamental services in the same sense that the Supreme Court held that education is a fundamental public service. Mr. Flandrick stated that the obvious, logical conclusion from this would be that any municipal service is equally fundamental and, thus, supporting such a service by the property tax under that theory would be invalid. City Attorney Flandrick stated it was suggested that the various cities interested in the problem join in filing an amicus brief to take the matter to the Appellate Court by a direct proceeding, as opposed to an appeal process. He stated his legal firm had had a number of contacts by cities other than those represented by the firm indicating their desire to participate. Discussion followed. City Manager Mocalis commented that he had previously informed Council of another possible legal suit into which the City might enter concerning rebation of revenues to cities based upon sales tax rather than population. He stated the City Attorney had assured him there was no possibility of the San Anseimo case jeopardizing this liti- gation. Mr. Mocalis stated that approximately $2,500 maximum was being requested from our City to participate in the San Anseimo litigation; this amount was not budgeted. He further stated that the League of California Cities was taking an active interest in this and had sent a bulletin to the 404 cities in California urging them to participate. He recomnended that the Council act in the affirmative, and that the amount be obtained from unappropriated surpluses. COUNCILMAN MC CARON MOVED THAT THE CITY COUNCIL CONCUR WITH THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE CITY MANAGER. COUNCILMAN GREGORY SECONDED. There were no objections. The motion carried and was so ordered. 00- City Clerk Batkus presented a claim in the name of Lucille B. Chambers, regarding an accident. She recommended thp claim be denied and referred to the insurance carrier. COUNCILMAN GREGORY MOVED THAT THE CLAIM OF LUCILLE B. CHAMBERS BE DENIED AND REFERRED TO THE INSURANCE CARRIER. COUNCILMAN KING SECONDED. There were no objections. The motion carried and was so ordered. 00- PENDING LITIGATIl' SAN ANSELMO POL I & FIRE ASSN. VS. CITY OF SAN ANSD RE FUNDAMENTAL SERVICES DISCUSSION C. M. RECOMMENDATION CONCUR WITH C. M. RECOMMENDAT./1 CLAIM LUCILLE U CHAMBERS GLENDORA CLAIM DENIED REFERRED TO INS. CARRIER BIB] 37659-U01 1972-U02 07-U02 05-U02 CC-U02 MIN-U02 LI1-U03 FO9591-U03 FO9837-U03 DO9926-U03 C4-U03 MINUTES1-U03 2/6/2003-U04 ROBIN-U04 REGULAR-U05 SESSION-U05 CITY-U06 COUNCIL-U06 1972 07 05 CC MIN(ÌìÖÑpe05^48 Regular Meeting of the Baldwin Park City Council City Clerk Balkus presented a claim in the name of Susan A. Jackson, regarding personal injuries. She recommended that the claim be denied and referred to the insurance carrier. COUNCILMAN GREGORY MOVED THAT THE CLAIM OF SUSAN A. JACKSON BE DENIED AND REFERRED TO THE INSURANCE CARRIFR. COUNCILMAN KING SECONDED. There were no objections. The motion carried and was so ordered. 00- City Manager Mocalis presented a proposed agreement between the City and the Chamber of Comnerce, stating that the agreement was identical to that of the previous year. He stated that the 1972-73 Budget approved by the Council included the appropriation for the Chamber of Commerce in the amount of $16,000. COUNCILMAN KING MOVED THAT THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE THE AGREEMENT AND AUTHORIZE THE MAYOR AND THE CITY CLERK TO EXECUTE SA^E. COUNCILMAN HAMILTON SECONDED. There were no objections. The motion carried and was so ordered. 00- Director of Public Works Perry reviewed his report on the initiation of Short Form 1911 Act Case Nos. 72-S-19, west side of Eiton Street between Olive Street and Nubia Street, for curb and gutter; 72-S-20, east side of Lante Street between Nubia Street and Olive Street, for curb and gutter; 72-S-21, west side of Lante Street between Olive Street and Nubia Street, for curb and gutter; and 72-S-22. east side of La Rica Avenue'between Ramona Boule- vard and Baldwin Park Boulevard, for curb, gutter and drive approach. Mr. Perry stated that these Short Forms required a 4/5 vote of the Council; he recommended that the cases be set for public hearing on August 2, 1972. COUNCILMAN GREGORY MOVED THAT THE CITY COUNCIL HEREBY DECLARES ITS INTENTION TO CAUSE CONSTRUCTION OF CERTAIN IMPROVEMENTS PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 5870 ET SEQ. OF THE STREETS AND HIGHWAYS CODE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA AND THAT THE PUBLIC HEARING BE SET FOR AUGUST 2. 1972 72-S-19, 20. 21 & 22). COUNCILMAN KING SECONDED. There were no objections. The motion carried and was so ordered. 00- Director of Public Works Perry stated that Council had recently approved formation of an Underground Utility Conmittee, comprised of himself. Planning Director Gordon, and representation from the Edison and Telephone Companies. He stated the Committee had submitted a 20-year master plan to the Planning Commission for recommendations and suggestions; the plan was approved by the Commission at their meeting of June 14, 1972. He stated that the goat was to ultimately put all thp overhead facilities in Baldwin Park underground; to accom- plish this, the Public Utilities Commission, some years ago, had the Edison Company set aside a certain amount of Continued) July 5, 197: Page 13 CLAIM SUSAN ft JACKSON CLAIM DENIED p REFERRED TO INS. CARRIFR CHAMBER OF COMMF^C AGREEMENT 197?-7? AGREEMENT APPROVED MAYOR & CITY CLER!' AUTHORIZED TO EXECUTE S. F. IHITIATinNS 72-S-19 C&G) 72-S-20 C&G) 72-S-21 C&G) 72-S-22 CG&DA) DECLARE INTFr:T CAUSE CONSTRUCT!^ 7?-S-19, 20, 21. P. H. 3/2/7? UNDERGROUND LITIL DISTRICT PROGRAM BIB] 37659-U01 1972-U02 07-U02 05-U02 CC-U02 MIN-U02 LI1-U03 FO9591-U03 FO9837-U03 DO9926-U03 C4-U03 MINUTES1-U03 2/6/2003-U04 ROBIN-U04 REGULAR-U05 SESSION-U05 CITY-U06 COUNCIL-U06 1972 07 05 CC MIN(ÌìÖÑpeRegular Meeting of the lioldw-in Park t ity Council July 5, 1W Page 14 money based on. basically, the number of meters within the City. He stated this would be roughly $50,000 a year for the City of Baldwin Park. Along with this, the Telephone Company will underground their facilities when the City forms an underground district. Mr. Perry stated he would like an indication from Council as to their ideas or recommendations with respect to what the Committee has studied and feels is important to the City for a 20-year program. For Council's consideration, Mr. Perry indicated on a map posted on the wall» areas pro- posed to be undergrounded; after this initial step, the Underground Utility Committee will begin to initiate underground utility districts to accomplish the anticipated work. He stated that the areas designated had been selected because there would be the least inconvenience to the property owners as far as hooking into the new underground facility; in very few cases would there be any cost to the property owners at all for this work; it was also felt that these were important areas to underground. Councilman Hamilton asked whether the costs would be paid by the property owner or out of the City's General Fund. Mr. Perry stated there was no cost to the City's General Fund; the only cost to the property owner would be if a district were initiated that would involve the property owner's hooking up to the new underground facilities, and this was usually a nominal cost. In answer to Councilman McCaron, Mr. Perry stated that, on the average, the cost to the property owner would be about several hundred dollars to provide underground!ng, but in most cases there is no- expense to the property owner, because the utility companies will do the work; the owner is responsible only from the property line to the meter. Councilman Gregory commented she felt this was a very fine recommendation, both by the Planning Commission and the Underground Utility Comnittee, and she felt it was time the City moved on it; that it was a good step forward. COUNCILMAN GREGORY MOVED THAT THE CITY COUNCIL CONCUR WITH THE 20-YEAR UNDERGROUND UTILITY PROGRAM AS PROPOSED BY THE UNDERGROUND UTILITY COMMITTEE AND APPROVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION. COUNCILMAN HAMILTON SECONDED. There were no objections. The motion carried and was so ordered. 00- City Clerk Balkus read by title: CONCUR WITH PROPOSED 20-YEAP UNDERGROUND UTIL^ PROGRAM ORDINANCE NO. 642 AMENDING CERTAIN PROVISIONS OF THE CITY'S BUSINESS LICENSE ORDINANCE COUNCILMAN GREGORY MOVED THAT FURTHER READING OF ORDINANCE NO. 642 BE WAIVED. COUNCILMAN KING SECONDED. There were no objections. The motion carried and was so ordered. COUNCILMAN GREGORY MOVED THAT ORDINANCE NO. 642 BE ADOPTED COUNCILMAN KING SECONDED. There WCPJ no objections. The motion carried and was so ordered. 00- ORD. NO. 642 AMEND BUS. LIC. C^-, FINGERPRINT!^. F^' FURTHER RDG. WAIV'A ORD NO. 642 ORD. NO. 642 ADOPTED BIB] 37659-U01 1972-U02 07-U02 05-U02 CC-U02 MIN-U02 LI1-U03 FO9591-U03 FO9837-U03 DO9926-U03 C4-U03 MINUTES1-U03 2/6/2003-U04 ROBIN-U04 REGULAR-U05 SESSION-U05 CITY-U06 COUNCIL-U06 1972 07 05 CC MIN(ÌìÖÑpe550 Regular Meeting of the Baldwin Park City Council July 5, 1"7? Page 15 City Clerk Balkus read by title: ORDINANCE NO. 643 AMENDING CERTAIN PROVISIONS OF THE BALDWIN PARK MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION City Attorney Flandrick stated that the ordinance as intro- duced contained phrases as follows, which were inadvertently omitted from the copies before Council: on Page 2, Section 3, following the first sentence should be inserted, Notwith- standing the provisions of Section 2202 of the Baldwin Park Municipal Code as adopted hereby, *; on Page 2, Section 3(b), following the word Council should be inserted shall appoint 7 members to said Commission, and...". COUNCILMAN GREGORY MOVED THAT FURTHER READING OF ORDINANCE NO. 643 BE WAIVED. COUNCILMAN HAMILTON SECONDED. There were no objections. The motion carried and was so ordered. COUNCILMAN GREGORY MOVED THAT ORDINANCE NO. 643 BE ADOPTED. COUNCILMAN HAMILTON SECONDED. The motion carried by the following vote: Ayes: COUNCILMEN GREGORY, HAMILTON, KING AND MAYOR BLEWETT Noes: COUNCILMAN MC CARON 00- ORD. NO. 643 AMEND BPMC RE PLANNING C(W, FURTHER RDG. JAIVL ORD. NO. 643 ORD. NO. W ADOPTED Mayor Blewett stated that he wished to present the name of Roland Boisjoli for consideration as an appointee to thp Planning Commission. Councilman Gregory stated she had no objection to the appointment of Mr. Boisjoti. Councilron King, Hamilton and McCaron also indicated they had no objections to the appointment. Mayor Blewett appointed Roland Boisjoti to the Planning Commission effective this date. Mayor Blewett commented that several other names were being considered for appointment to the Commission, and invited suggestions. Councilman Gregory suggested adjourning to a meeting to review applications which had been received for the Planning Commission. Discussion followed regarding whether Commissioners should be recommended by individual Councilmen, or by Council as a group. Councilman King stated he had read Mr. Boisjoli's resume and felt he would tend himself well to the Commission. He stated that he would like to submit the name of Mr. Edwin Eiko for consideration; he felt Mr. E1ko was well qualified and would also lend himself well to the Commssion. It was agreed that appointments to the Planning Conwission would be considered at an adjourned meeting on Monday, July 10, 1972. 00- ROLAND BOJSJOI T SUGGESTED FOR PLANNING CCW7'- ROLAh'P BOIS^' APPOINTED TC P. wrussw. EDWIN Oh'C siinr,ESTcn FOR FURTHER APFTS- T RE CONSIDERED JULY 10, 1W BIB] 37659-U01 1972-U02 07-U02 05-U02 CC-U02 MIN-U02 LI1-U03 FO9591-U03 FO9837-U03 DO9926-U03 C4-U03 MINUTES1-U03 2/6/2003-U04 ROBIN-U04 REGULAR-U05 SESSION-U05 CITY-U06 COUNCIL-U06 1972 07 05 CC MIN(ÌìÖÑpeccosssi Regular Meeting of the Baldwin Park City Council Councilman Hamilton suggested that the City Council meet with the City Manager and the staff to initiate a proposed goals" program. He stated there had been several things under consideration for some time, and he felt they should be given priorities and action be begun toward accomplishing these goals; he noted specifically a new City Hall, the Charter, and C.R.A. City Manager Mocalis commented that the staff had been actively pursuing an IPA grant regarding how to establish a goals program for the City. He felt it was important for the City to have a reliable program, that could be changed as conditions change. He stated that the proposal being pursued was that IPA would give the City a grant, and also that adjacent jurisdictions would be brought in to share in a program to assist the various cities in making the most of their resources. He stated it would probably be about six weeks before there would be any final word on the grant application, but he felt this was a good way to approach our problems. A consultant would be hired to study the problems of the City and would help the Council, through participation of lay groups, the various Commissions and the staff, to identify programs and to seek input from the community through mailers, etc. Mr. Mocalis stated this was a long-range program; if funds were not received from IPA, the staff available would be utilized. He stated that, with the help of the citizenry, we would have a forward-moving program in the months to come. 00- Councilman Gregory suggested that certificates of commendation be prepared for the outgoing Planning Conmissioners, to be presented to them at a future date. Mayor Blewett directed the City Clerk to have certificates prepared. 00" Mrs. Dorothy Mayes requested permission to address Council again. She stated the newspaper had indicated that the people wanted this ordinance Ordinance No. 643 relating to the Planning Comnission), and she asked how it was deter- mined that the people wanted it. Mayor Blewett replied that he felt the people in Baldwin Park wanted change in the community. Mrs. Mayes stated that a change she would like to see would be a reduction of other offices, rather than the Planning Commission. Mrs. Mayes reiterated she felt the ordinance had been passed too quickly, and there had been no communication with the Commission. Mayor Blewett explained that the Planning Commission is an advisory body to the City Council and, as such, serves at the pleasure of the Council. Discussion followed. Continued) July 5, 1972 Page 16 SUGGESTION FOR GOALS" PROGRAM IPA GRANT PROPOSD) FOR GOALS PROGRAM CERT. OF COMMENDATION FOR OUTGOING PLAN. COMMISSIONERS CITY CLERK DIRECTED TO HAVE CERT. PREPARED DOROTHY MAYES DISCUSSION BIB] 37659-U01 1972-U02 07-U02 05-U02 CC-U02 MIN-U02 LI1-U03 FO9591-U03 FO9837-U03 DO9926-U03 C4-U03 MINUTES1-U03 2/6/2003-U04 ROBIN-U04 REGULAR-U05 SESSION-U05 CITY-U06 COUNCIL-U06 1972 07 05 CC MIN(ÌìÖÑpeCO.^S5;Z Regular Meeting of the Baldwin Park City Council July 5, 197? Page 17 Mrs. Mayes felt it would have been much better for the City if the three Planning Commissioners had not resigned. Mayor Blewett pointed out that they had resigned of their own volition. He further stated that although the terms had been reduced to two years, this did not mean a Commissioner could serve only two years; if he was doing a good job, he could be reappointed. Mayor Blewett stated he believed that in positions where people were not voted into office where the people have to express their will on them, they should come up more often for review. T. E. Carpenter stated that because at the pleasure of the Council does should control them. Mayor Blewett been the case. the Commission serves not mean that the Council indicated this had never Councilman Hamilton commented that Council had never inter- fered with a decision of the Planning Commission. He stated that if a decision is appealed to the Council, then they will act on it; sometimes the Commission's decisions are reversed, but Council has tried to work with the Commission and does not interfere with their decisions. Mrs, Carol Cote voiced her objections to the ordinance from the audience. 00- A gentleman in the audience asked what was the disposition of the police presentation. City Manager Mocatis stated a report would be presented to Council regarding items brought up in the meet and confer sessions and how they were handled. Discussion followed. Councilman King commented that everyone was aware of the deplorable working conditions the police personnel must endure and Council was trying to rectify this and would do so just as soon as possible. 00- AT 9:48 P.M., COUNCILMAN MC CARON MOVED THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADJOURN TO 7:30 P.M., MONDAY, JULY 10» 1972 IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS OF THE CITY HALL. COUNCILMAN HAMILTON SECONDED. There were no objections. The motion carried and was so ordered. 00- CAROL COTE QUESTION RE DISPOSITION OF POLICE PRESENTATION DISCUSSION ADJOURN 9:48 P.M. TO 7:30 P.M. MONDAY, 7/10/72 APPROVED: 1972 Date of Dmrib^on to City Council: j^^^^ 1972 Date of Distribution to Departments: /^,^^^^ 1972 BIB] 37659-U01 1972-U02 07-U02 05-U02 CC-U02 MIN-U02 LI1-U03 FO9591-U03 FO9837-U03 DO9926-U03 C4-U03 MINUTES1-U03 2/6/2003-U04 ROBIN-U04 REGULAR-U05 SESSION-U05 CITY-U06 COUNCIL-U06 1972 07 05 CC MIN(ÌìÖÑpeREGULAR MEETING OF THE BALDWIN PARK CITY COUNCIL CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS) 14403 East Pacific Avenue The City Council of the City of Baldwin Park met in regular session at the above place at 7:30 p.m. Councilman Gregory led the salute to the flag. The invocation was given by Pastor Paul W. Johnson, of the Seventh-Day Adventist Church. COUNCILMEN GREGORY, HAMILTON, KING, MC CARON AND MAYOR BLEWETT Roll Call: Present: CITY MANAGER MOCALIS, CITY ATTORNEY FLANDRICK, DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS PERRY, PLANNING DIRECTOR GORDON, FINANCE DIRECTOR DUNCAN, CHIEF OF POLICE ADAMS, CITY TREASURER CALE, CITY CLERK BALKUS Also Present: 00- JULY 5, 1972 7:30 P.M. FLAG SALUTE INVOCATION ROLL CALL CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. Short Form 1911 Act Intent to Order Work 72-S-9 West side of Hartan Avenue between Patm Avenue and Los Angeles Street S&DA) 72-S-10- East side of Harlan Avenue between Patm Avenue and Los Angeles Street S&DA) 72-S-12- South side of Arrow Highway between Maine Avenue and Bleecker Street CG&DA) 72-S-13- South side of Arrow Highway between Heintz Street and Eiton Street CGS&DA) 72-S-14- South side of Arrow Highway between Lante Street and Azusa Canyon Road CG&DA) 00- AT 9:48 P.M., COUNCILMAN MC CARON MOVED THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADJOURN TO 7:30 P.M. MONDAY, JULY 10, 1972, IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS OF THE CITY HALL. COUNCILMAN HAMILTON SECONDED. There were no objections. The motion carried and was so ordered. 00- CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARINGS CONTINUED TO JULY 19, 1972 ADJOURN 9:48 P.M. TO 7:30 P.M. MONDAY, 7/10/72 /^^<r^ THELMA L. BALKUS, CITY CLERK DATED: July 6, 1972 TIME: 10:00 A.M. BIB] 37659-U01 1972-U02 07-U02 05-U02 CC-U02 MIN-U02 LI1-U03 FO9591-U03 FO9837-U03 DO9926-U03 C4-U03 MINUTES1-U03 2/6/2003-U04 ROBIN-U04 REGULAR-U05 SESSION-U05 CITY-U06 COUNCIL-U06 1972 07 05 CC MIN(ÌìÖÑpeAFFIDAVIT OF POSTING NOTICE OF ADJOURNMENT OF HEET1N6 STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES) SS: CITY OF BALDWIN PARK THELMA L. BALKUS, being first duly sworn, says and deposes: that I am the duly chosen, qualified and acting City Clerk of the City Council of the City of Baldwin Park; that at a Regular Meeting of the City Council of the City of Baldwin Park held July 5____, 19 72 said meeting was ordered adjourned to the time and place specified In the Notice of the Adjournment ATTACHED HERETO: that on July 6_____, 1972 at the hour of 10:00 a.m.. I posted a copy of said Notice at a conspicuous place on or near the door of the place at which said meeting of July 5 1972 was held. y TtiELMA L. BALKUS. CTTY CLERK Subscribed and sworn to before me this /-^ day of Q^/y____ 19 Z» T^^^ Notary Public in and for said County and State S^-^ e.,^——————"-91706 BIB] 37659-U01 1972-U02 07-U02 05-U02 CC-U02 MIN-U02 LI1-U03 FO9591-U03 FO9837-U03 DO9926-U03 C4-U03 MINUTES1-U03 2/6/2003-U04 ROBIN-U04 REGULAR-U05 SESSION-U05 CITY-U06 COUNCIL-U06 1972 07 05 CC MIN(ÌìÖÑpeREGULAR MEETING OF THE BALDWIN PARK CITY COUNCIL CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS) 14403 East Pacific Avenue The City Council of the City of Baldwin Park met in regular session at the above place at 7:30 p.m. Councilman Gregory led the salute to the flag. The invocation was given by Pastor Paul W. Johnson, of the Seventh-Day Adventist Church. Roll Call: Present: COUNCILMEN GREGORY, HAMILTON, KING, MC CARON AND MAYOR BLEWETT Also Present: CITY MANAGER MOCALIS, CITY ATTORNEY FLANDRICK, DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS PERRY, PLANNING DIRECTOR GORDON, FINANCE DIRECTOR DUNCAN, CHIEF OF POLICE ADAMS, CITY TREASURER CALE, CITY CLERK BALKUS 00- AT 9:48 P.M., COUNCILMAN MC CARON MOVED THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADJOURN TO 7:30 P.M. MONDAY, JULY 10, 1972, IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS OF THE CITY HALL. COUNCILMAN HAMILTON SECONDED. There were no objections. The motion carried and was so ordered. 00- JULY 5, 1972 7:30 P.M. FLAG SALUTE INVOCATION ROLL CALL ADJOURN 9:48 P.M. TO 7:30 P.M. MONDAY, 7/10/72 THELMA L. BALKUS. CITY CLERK DATED: July 6, 1972 TIME: 10:00 A.M. BIB] 37659-U01 1972-U02 07-U02 05-U02 CC-U02 MIN-U02 LI1-U03 FO9591-U03 FO9837-U03 DO9926-U03 C4-U03 MINUTES1-U03 2/6/2003-U04 ROBIN-U04 REGULAR-U05 SESSION-U05 CITY-U06 COUNCIL-U06 peW^54^ Regular Meeting of the Baldwin Park City Council T. E. Carpenter, 4346 Jerry Avenue, stated that what he was asking was that the citizens who own property in this City receive the same consideration as the commercial owners; if a property is vandalized, the windows broken, etc., give it immediate consideration; that the Police Department be directed to follow a pro- cedure whereby they will immediately contact the owner and tell them that the property should be boarded up. Councilman McCaron commented that there should be some method of notifying the property owners in cases such as Mr. Carpenter referred to, and if this is impossible, the legal aspects should be looked into to determine what action can be taken. Discussion followed. Mayor Blewett directed the City Manager to obtain a report from the Chief of Police on the procedure for handling both commercial burglaries and disturbances and residential burglaries and disturbing of property and present it to the Council at the next meeting. Planning Director Gordon commented that as soon as the City is aware there is a problem with the property, the owner is notified in writing, usually within one or two days; further, when the properties are vacant, it is usually difficult to locate the owner, as in many cases the only address we have is the address of the vacant property. 00- Michael Dargus, 13260 E. Francisquito, asked the City Attorney whether it was customary to have a public hearing to enact an ordinance. Mr. Flandrick replied it was not. Mr. Dargus asked whether this meant all ordinances, or just certain ones, and Mr. Flandrick stated just certain ones. Referring to Ordinance No. 643 on tonight's Agenda for second reading, Mr. Dargus stated he objected to the method Council used to enact this ordinance. He stated comments had been made by members of the Council during the past few months regarding appointment and/or reappointment of Planning Commissioners, and no action had been taken as far as the two Commissioners whose terms had expired. He stated Council had the power to either reappoint or replace Commissioners and he felt enacting an ordinance to create two-year terms was not necessary and that it was not a good ordinance. He reiterated he objected to the method used to enact the ordinance, and stated he felt there was not sufficient comnunication between the Council and the public. 00- Mrs. Dorothy 0. Mayes, 3453 N. Big Dalton Avenue, stated that, regarding Ordinance No. 643, she disagreed with reducing the terms of Planning Commissioners. She felt there had been no communication between the new Council and the Planning Conmissioners; it has been six weeks Continued) July 5. 1^7? Page 11 T. E. CARPENTER 4346 JERRY AVENUE DISCUSSION C. M. TO OBTAIN REPORT FROM CHIEF OF POLICE RE PROCEDURE ON RES. & COMM. BURGLARIES MICHAEL DARGUS 13260 E. FRANCISL? DOROTHY 0. MAYFS 3453 BIG DALTGN BIB] 37659-U01 1972-U02 07-U02 05-U02 CC-U02 MIN-U02 LI1-U03 FO9591-U03 FO9837-U03 DO9926-U03 C4-U03 MINUTES1-U03 2/6/2003-U04 ROBIN-U04 REGULAR-U05 SESSION-U05 CITY-U06 COUNCIL-U06