HomeMy WebLinkAbout1987 08 05 CC MIN1987 08 05 CC MIN ;¢f4 Ã …! REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY
THE CITY OF BALDWIN PARK,
14403 EAST PACIFIC AVENUE,
AUGUST 5, 1987 AT 7:00 P.M.
COUNCIL OF
CITY HALL/
WEDNESDAY,
The City Council of the City of Baldwin
Park met in regular session in the
Council Chambers at 7:00 p.m.
The Invocation was given by Donna Eddings.
The Flag Salute was led by Councilwoman J. McNeill.
INVOCATION
FLAG
SALUTE
ROLL CALL PRESENT: COUNCILMAN GIBSON, IZELL,
J. MCNEILL, WHITE AND
MAYOR KING
ALSO PRESENT: City Manager Webb,
City Attorney Flandrick,
Acting Dir. of Admin.
Services Neelans,
Acting Dir. of Comm.
Services Rait,
Dir. of Housing & Economic
Development Hemer,
Chief of Police Hoskin,
City Planner Rangel,
City Treasurer Montenegro,
Deputy City Clerk Sharp and
City Clerk Gair
00-
City Clerk Gair presented the Consent Calendar:
1. Approval of Certificate of Posting for
August 5, 1987
2. Approve Minutes of June 10, 1987, June 17, 1987
July 1, 1987 and July 15, 1987
3. Waive Further Reading and Adopt
RESOLUTION NO. 87-67 ALLOWING CLAIMS AND
DEMANDS AGAINST THE
CITY OF BALDWIN PARK
ROLL CALL
CONSENT
CALENDAR
4. Waive Further Reading
ORDINANCE NO. 964
Second Reading)
5. Waive Further Reading
ORDINANCE NO. 965
Second Reading)
and Adopt
APPROVING A ZONING CODE
AMENDMENT TO CHAPTER
17.16 OF THE ZONING
CODE ADDING DEVELOPMENT
STANDARDS FOR SECURITY
BARS APPLICANT: CITY
OF BALDWIN PARK; CASE
NO. AZC-113
and Adopt
APPROVING A ZONING CODE
AMENDMENT TO CHAPTERS
17.04 AND 17.10 OF THE
ZONING CODE TO REVISE
THE R-l YARD AREA
REQUIREMENTS FOR
REVERSE CORNER LOTS
APPLICANT: CITY OF
BALDWIN PARK; CASE NO.
AZC-116)
BIB]
37652-U01
1987-U02
08-U02
05-U02
CC-U02
MIN-U02
LI1-U03
FO3794-U03
FO9441-U03
DO9454-U03
C4-U03
MINUTES1-U03
1/30/2003-U04
ROBIN-U04
REGULAR-U05
SESSION-U05
CITY-U06
COUNCIL-U06
1987 08 05 CC MIN ;¢f4 Ã …! REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF BALDWIN PARK
AUGUST 5/ 1987
PAGE TWO
6. Waive Further Reading
ORDINANCE NO. 966
Second Reading)
and Adopt
APPROVING AN AMENDMENT
TO CHAPTER 15.24 OF
THE MUNICIPAL CODE TO
PRECLUDE MOVE-ON
BUILDINGS
7. Deny Claims Against the City
Autohause Europe,
Sally Rojas,
Cheryl Sweat
8. Waive Formal Bidding Procedures For
Purchase Of Two City Vehicles
10. Waive Further Reading and Adopt
RESOLUTION NO. 87-68 RATIFYING AND
CONFIRMING CERTAIN
ACTIONS OF THE
CITY COUNCIL
11. Waive Further Reading and Adopt
RESOLUTION NO. 87-69A APPROVING APPLICATION
FOR PEDESTRIAN FUNDS
AUTHORIZING SB 821 AND
ADOPTING ITS PEDESTRIAN
PLAN
12. Approve Contract Testing and Monitoring
Underground Fuel Tanks Hekimian
It was moved and seconded to approve Item No,'s
1-5 and 7-12 and pull Item No. 6 for discussion.
M/S/C: GIBSON/WHITE. There were no objections.
Councilman Gibson stated that the City is moving
too quickly on the ordinance relating to move-on
buildings and that the ordinance should have
further study.
Councilman Gibson requested that the second reading
of Ordinance No. 966 be tabled and referred to the
Planning Commission for study. M/S/C: GIBSON/WHITE.
There were no objections.
00-
CONSENT
CALENDAR
APPROVED
ORDINANCE
NO. 966
REFERRED
TO
PLANNING
COMMISSION
PUBLIC HEARINGS
Mayor King introduced the Public Hearing on CP-287/
An appeal of the Planning Commission's decision to
deny a request to modify an existing conditional
use permit to add a dance area to an existing
restaurant/bar pursuant to Section 17.22.030.A of
the City Code, Applicant: Fernando Calderon;
Location; 4105 Maine Avenue",
City Planner Rangel explained that the applicant is
requesting modification of an existing conditional
use permit in order to allow the addition of a dance
area, a 10•x91 stage and 15'xl51 dance area, to an
existing restaurant and bar.
Parking spaces will be required to accommodate the
proposed dance area. During dance hours the required
number would be 42 parking spaces. The property
contains a parking area large enough to accommodate
APPEAL OF
CP-287
INTRODUCED
STAFF
REPORT
RANGEL
BIB]
37652-U01
1987-U02
08-U02
05-U02
CC-U02
MIN-U02
LI1-U03
FO3794-U03
FO9441-U03
DO9454-U03
C4-U03
MINUTES1-U03
1/30/2003-U04
ROBIN-U04
REGULAR-U05
SESSION-U05
CITY-U06
COUNCIL-U06
1987 08 05 CC MIN ;¢f4 Ã …! REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF BALDWIN PARK
AUGUST 5, 1987
PAGE THREE
only two parking spaces, the balance of the
required parking is provided in the adjacent City
owned parking lot which also serves the adjacent
commercial uses along Maine Avenue and Ramona
Boulevard.
A major staff concern is that the proposed expansion
will affect adjacent properties. On Laurens Avenue,
300 feet from the property are residential uses and
the City's Community Center and Boys' Club, which
will be temporarily housed until a new facility can
be constructed. Patrons of the proposed use will be
parking in the parking area to the west adjacent to
Laurens Avenue which staff feels may create a public
nuisance because of the proximity of the parking area
to the residential uses and future Boys' Club. The
proposed expansion may also increase the demand for
police service due to intoxicated patrons.
The subject property also contains several other
deficiencies which must be corrected. Such as a
trash enclosure and screening of the roof mounted
mechanical equipment, which have been required since
1979 as conditions of CP-287.
Based upon the proceeding analysis. Staff and the
Planning Commission does not feel that the site is
adequate for the proposed use and recommends that
Council adopt the Findings of Fact and deny the
modification of CP-287 to add a dance area to an
existing restaurant/bar.
Mayor King declared the Public Hearing on CP-287
open and invited those wishing to speak on this
subject to come forward.
Arthuro Cortez, business consultant for the owners
of 4105 Maine La Casa De Fernando), stated that
they would like to open the business to accomodate
social events. He further stated that an agreement
has been made with neighboring businesses to use
their parking during dancing hours.
Mr. Cortez has requested that a six month temporary
permit be granted to demonstrate to the City that
there will not be any problems.
Gayle Johnston, spoke about allowing the use with
a conditional use permit. Should crime become a
problem/ the permit should then be revoked.
Mayor King declared the Public Hearing closed.
Councilman Izell stated that he visited the place
and feels that the owners are inclined to go for
the six month permit.
Councilwoman McNeill was concerned about the young
adults going out of the City for dancing. She
felt we should keep business in our own City. She
agreed that the City should go with a conditional
use permit for six months.
Councilman White felt that there is not enough
room for the people and that the City will have
another Jet Room.
City Attorney Flandrick stated that it is possible
PUBLIC
HEARING
OPEN
ARTHURO
CORTEZ
GAYLE
JOHNSTON
CLOSED
COUNCIL
DISCUSSION
BIB]
37652-U01
1987-U02
08-U02
05-U02
CC-U02
MIN-U02
LI1-U03
FO3794-U03
FO9441-U03
DO9454-U03
C4-U03
MINUTES1-U03
1/30/2003-U04
ROBIN-U04
REGULAR-U05
SESSION-U05
CITY-U06
COUNCIL-U06
1987 08 05 CC MIN ;¢f4 Ã …! REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF BALDWIN PARK
AUGUST 5, 1987
PAGE FOUR
to grant a six month permit for the use of a
dancing area.
Mayor King stated that he felt the facility is
not large enough to accommodate dancing and
that parking would be a problem.
It was moved and seconded to approve Resolution No
87-69B, A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF BALDWIN PARK APPROVING A MODIFICATION TO
A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT APPLICANT: CALDERON;
LOCATION: 4105 MAINE AVENUE; CASE NO. CP-287)".
M/S: IZELL/MCNEILL.
RESOLUTION
NO. 87-69B
ROLL CALL VOTE:
COUNCILMEMBER:
AYES
NOES
ABSENT:
COUNCILMEMBER:
COUNCILMEMBER:
IZELL, J. MCNEILL, GIBSON.
WHITE AND MAYOR KING
NONE
ROLL CALL
VOTE
RESOLUTION
NO. 87-69B
Mayor King stated that at this time a Public Hearing
will be held on AZC-115, A City initiated request to
amend Chapters 17.12, RG and R-3 Residential Zones
and 17.34, Parking Regulations of the Baldwin Park
Zoning Code to revise said standards as they apply to
minimum lot area and lot width, common open space/
parking and other standards as the Council deems
necessary", in conjunction with input regarding the
moratorium on multi family development.
City Planner
experiencing
multi-family
construction
Rangel explained that the City has been
a substantial increase in the number of
residential projects, both under
and being processed through plan review
STAFF
REPORT
RANGEL
AZC-115
This increase in multi-family residential activity has
an ongoing concern over the quantity, quality and
design of these developments. Staffs intent is to
recommend revisions to the RG and R-3 standards which
will help promote better multi family residential
development.
Staff, in reviewing the current RG and R-3 standards
and recently built projects, have indentified the
following as major concerns:
Parking: The number of parking spaces required by the
current Code appears to be deficient as evidenced by
the presence of vehicles parked along the streets
adjacent to apartment projects.
The Planning Commission felt that the parking rate should
be increased and determined by the number of bedrooms in
each unit. Recommended was that two 2) spaces per unit
for unit containing one bedroom or less, plus one
additional parking space per bedroom for units containing
more than one bedroom. The Commission also recommended
that the guest parking rate be increased to one space per
unit. Their recommendation would result in an increase in
parking spaces for two bedroom 20 unit project from 46 to
80. The number of spaces for a three 3) bedroom 20 unit
project would be increased from 46 to 100. Staff feels
that the Commissions recommendation is excessive. Staff
feels that the required number of resident parking spaces
BIB]
37652-U01
1987-U02
08-U02
05-U02
CC-U02
MIN-U02
LI1-U03
FO3794-U03
FO9441-U03
DO9454-U03
C4-U03
MINUTES1-U03
1/30/2003-U04
ROBIN-U04
REGULAR-U05
SESSION-U05
CITY-U06
COUNCIL-U06
1987 08 05 CC MIN ;¢f4 Ã …! REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL AUGUST 5, 1987
OF THE CITY OF BALDWIN PARK PAGE FIVE
should be two 2) spaces per unit for a unit
containing two 2) bedrooms or less, plus one
additional parking space per bedroom for units
containing more than two bedrooms. The guest
parking rate should one-half space per unit.
Staff's revised recommendation would result in
an increase in parking spaces from 46 to 50 for
two 2) bedroom 20 unit project, and from 46 to
70 for a three 3) bedroom 20 unit project.
Common Open Space: The current Code requires a
minimum dimension of five feet for common open
space. An on-site inspection of several projects
has shown that the five foot minimum dimension is
too narrow to be considered common open space.
Furthermore, the current Code allows 40% of the
open space to be covered by second and third floors
and balconies. The proposed change in the minimum
dimension should be increased to ten feet and should
be left clear to the sky" no permitted coverage).
This requirement will result in an improvement in
quality of the open space areas.
Minimum Lot Width: The existing problems for narrow
lots less than 100 feet) has been a linear design
with a straight driveway along one side and the
buildings along the other. The quality of these
projects have often been marginal.
Staff feels that for a proposed change the minimum
lot width should be increased from 50 feet 100,
precluding the development of multi-family projects
on long narrow lots.
Maximum Building Height: The existing Code allows the
height of multi-family buildings to be 35 feet or three
stories, which appear to be too massive and reduce the
amount of privacy on adjacent parcels. Staff feels that
changes such as reducing the maximum building height to
25 feet or two stories may result in a decrease in
densities in the R-3 zone.
Subterranean Parking: Currently only semi-subterranean
projects have been constructed, where the driveway has
been lowered approximately four feet and the rear grade
of the garage has been raised approximately four feet.
Such parking is discouraged by the Engineering Division
because of the potential flooding problems which can
occur if the required pumps fail. To prevent drainage
and flooding problems. Staff feels that subterranean
and semi-subterranean parking should not be allowed in
residential zones.
Site Layout and Architectural Features: Projects which
have met all Code requirements, lack important design
features which would have improved the aesthetic quality
of the projects. Devising a set of standards to correct
this problem does not appear to be practical. Instead
Staff feels that more emphasis should be placed on the
Design Review process in order to assure a higher
aesthetic quality in the design of future projects.
Fences and Walls: The current Code requires a six foot
high wood fence or block wall to be constructed along
the side and rear property lines. Wood fences
present future maintenance problem. Staff feels
that the Code should be amended to require block
walls only which shall be finished on both sides.
BIB]
37652-U01
1987-U02
08-U02
05-U02
CC-U02
MIN-U02
LI1-U03
FO3794-U03
FO9441-U03
DO9454-U03
C4-U03
MINUTES1-U03
1/30/2003-U04
ROBIN-U04
REGULAR-U05
SESSION-U05
CITY-U06
COUNCIL-U06
1987 08 05 CC MIN ;¢f4 Ã …! REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF BALDWIN PARK
August 5, 1987
PAGE SIX
In addition to the changes Staff feels that certain
interior standards should be deleted.
Staff and the Planning Commission recommend that
the Council approve the Negative Declaration of
Environmental Impact and approve AZC-115 amending
the RG and R-3 and parking regulations.
City Planner Rangel explained that the high density
residential use could be expected to impact our
street system, public services and utilities. A
traffic analysis conducted by Staff indicated that
a build out" of the 836 proposed high density
residential units would generate a total of 7,750
vehicles per day. While the current uses generate
a total of approximately 680 vehicles per day.
Public Services such as police, parks and fire
protection as well as recreational programs and
facilities may also be significantly impacted.
The 836 units could produce 3,177 people at 3.8
persons per unit. That population could require
6 additional police officers at 2.1 officers per
1000 and 9 additional park acres at 3 acres per
1000.
Infrastructure maintenance, already a major concern
in this City because of our limited revenues, could
become an unmanageable situation if unchecked
growth is allowed to continue.
An adverse impact on the City drainage system could
result from the creation of additional impervious
surfaces, due to paving and building construction,
in areas that are currently less density developed.
Although it is difficult to measure the impact,
citywide, that a higher density residential use
would have on utilities, we can anticipate that
both sewer and water facilities will be impacted.
The City's largest water surveyor. Valley County
Water District, has indicated that a significant
increase in population would require the water
district to either secure a new well or purchase
water from the Metropolitan Water District.
Either of these alternatives would represent a
significant cost to the District and would
impact all users within the District.
FOR VERBATIM OF THE PUBLIC HEARING ON AZC-115
AND THE PUBLIC INPUT REGARDING THE MORATORIUM
URGENCY ORDINANCE)
SEE ATTACHMENT PAGES 1-24
STAFF
REPORT
RANGEL
MORATORIUM
PUBLIC
HEARING
AZC-115
PUBLIC
INPUT
MORATORIUM
It was moved and seconded to approve Ordinance No.
967, AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF BALDWIN PARK IMPOSING A MORATORIUM ON CERTAIN
REAL PROPERTY WITHIN THE CITY URGENCY MEASURE)".
and to include Section 6 as stated. M/S:
WHITE/GIBSON.
ORDINANCE
NO. 967
BIB]
37652-U01
1987-U02
08-U02
05-U02
CC-U02
MIN-U02
LI1-U03
FO3794-U03
FO9441-U03
DO9454-U03
C4-U03
MINUTES1-U03
1/30/2003-U04
ROBIN-U04
REGULAR-U05
SESSION-U05
CITY-U06
COUNCIL-U06
1987 08 05 CC MIN ;¢f4 Ã …! REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF BALDWIN PARK
August 5, 1987
PAGE SEVEN
ROLL CALL VOTE:
AYES WHITE, GIBSON, IZELL, J. MCNEILL AND MAYOR KING
NOES NONE________________________________________
ABSENT: NONE
ROLL CALL
VOTE
ORDINANCE
NO. 967
APPROVED
Mayor King introduced the Public Hearing on The Use
of the UDAG Program to Create Employment Opportunities
within the City of Baldwin Park".
Director of Housing & Economic Development Hemer
explained that the City has received three UDAG
awards. These awards assisted in the development of
a small industrial project and two major retail/
mixed use projects; i.e. the Puente-Merced and
Westar developments. The projects will address the
need for greater employment opportunities as well
as create subtantial revenues for the City which are
major areas of need.
UDAG
PROGRAM
INTRODUCED
STAFF
REPORT
HEMER
He further explained that Federal regulations specify
that at least two public hearings be conducted in
conjunction with the submittal of a UDAG application.
The first public hearing is intended to provide the
citizens with the opportunity to express their views
regarding community needs which can be addressed
through the UDAG program. The second hearing,
scheduled for August 19, 1987, will cover a
specific proposed UDAG program.
Mayor King declared the Public Hearing open on
the UDAG Program and invited those wishing to
speak to come forward.
There were none.
Mayor King declared the Public Hearing closed.
00-
REPORTS OF OFFICERS, COMMISSIONS AND COMMITTEE
Acting Director of Community Services Rait
explained that ESB Properties-Baldwin Park has
proposed to develop an office industrial park
within the San Gabriel River Redevelopment
Project area. At ESB's request, the City
initiated an Assessment District to cover a
portion of the costs associated with extending
Little John Street to the proposed development.
An assessent district allows the City to
construct public improvements, with the cost
of said improvements being apportioned to the
benefitted properties. An EDA Grant will also
provide $750,000 towards this improvement project.
Sully-Miller Contracting Company was the lowest
of eight bidders for this project. To facilitate
coordination of the construction survey and
construction inspection it is recommended that
the Couincil award a contract for construction
inspection to Psomas and Associates.
Staff recommended that the City Council accept
the construction bid submitted by Sulley- Miller
Contracting Co. and authorize the Mayor to execute
PUBLIC
HEARING
OPEN
CLOSED
STAFF
REPORT
RAIT
BIB]
37652-U01
1987-U02
08-U02
05-U02
CC-U02
MIN-U02
LI1-U03
FO3794-U03
FO9441-U03
DO9454-U03
C4-U03
MINUTES1-U03
1/30/2003-U04
ROBIN-U04
REGULAR-U05
SESSION-U05
CITY-U06
COUNCIL-U06
1987 08 05 CC MIN ;¢f4 Ã …! REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF BALDWIN PARK
AUGUST 5, 1987
PAGE EIGHT
agreements for the construction contract and
construction inspection for the Little John Street
and Utility Improvement Project.
It was moved and seconded to award a contract for
the construction to Sully-Miller Contracting Co.
and a contract for construction inspection to
Psomas and Associates. M/S/C: WHITE/GIBSON.
There were no objections.
City Manager Webb explained that during the summer
of last year, the City of Duarte proposed a jointly
funded study of the waste haul by rail alternative.
In August of 1986 the Council approved a commitment
of interest in participating in such study. The
City's estimated share of the cost for the study was
$5,000.
Although the proposed study has not proceeded, the
rail-haul concept is still alive and well. The San
Gabriel Valley Association of Cities has formed a
Solid Waste Management Task Force to consider
alternatives to cope with our collective solid waste
disposal crisis. The Task Force will be soliciting
proposals from several organizations to conduct a
feasibility study of tranporting municipal solid
waste by rail for ultimate disposal.
LITTLEJOHN
IMPROVE-
MENT
PROJECT
CONTRACTS
APPROVED
STAFF
REPORT
WEBB
RAIL HAUL
STUDY
The Task Force has obtained a commitment of funds from
the State Waste Management Board, SCAG and Supervisor
Schabarum has offered funds from the County. It has
been estimated a fair share amount of $3,756 for
Baldwin Park to participate in such study.
It is recommend that the Council adopt a commitment
of support for the proposed study and approve an
amendment to the budget to re-allocate the $5,000
previously allocated but not spent.
Mayor King stated he felt that this is feasable and
would like the people to express their interest.
It was moved and seconded to approve the budget
amendment and adopt a commitment of support for
the Rail-Haul Study. M/S/C: WHITE/MCNEILL.
There were no objections.
City Manager Webb explained that code enforcement
functin is a high visibility activity in the City
of Baldwin Park. It is felt that there is room
for improvement within this program and the best
source of assitance in evaluating opportunities
for making improvements in the program is an
independent professional management consulting firm
Their independent evaluation and recommendations
will be of considerable benefit in reviewing our
program and indentifying opportunities for improve-
ment.
Based on a review of the three proposals received,
staff recommends that the consulting work be
performed by Ralph Anderson and Associates.
BUDGET
AMENDMENT
RAIL-HAUL
STUDY
APPROVED
STAFF
REPORT
WEBB
BIB]
37652-U01
1987-U02
08-U02
05-U02
CC-U02
MIN-U02
LI1-U03
FO3794-U03
FO9441-U03
DO9454-U03
C4-U03
MINUTES1-U03
1/30/2003-U04
ROBIN-U04
REGULAR-U05
SESSION-U05
CITY-U06
COUNCIL-U06
1987 08 05 CC MIN ;¢f4 Ã … ! REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF BALDWIN PARK
Ralph Anderson and Associates has performed
in the past for Baldwin Park and their work has
been of a high professional quality.
It was moved and seconded to approve the contract
with Ralph Anderson and Associates and a budget
amendment to allocate Community Development Block
Grant administrative funds for the study of the
code enforcement program. M/S/C: WHITE/IZELL.
There were no objections.
It was moved and seconded that Councilman Izell
be nominated for the position of Mayor Pro Tern.
M/S/C: KING/MCNEILL. There were no objections.
It was moved and seconded to approve Resolution No
87-70, DESIGNATING THE CITY'S REPRESENTATIVES AND
ALTERNATES TO CERTAIN MUNICIPAL COMMITTEES AND
ORGANIZATINS". M/S/C: WHITE/GIBSON. There were
no objections.
00-
AUGUST 5/ 1987
PAGE NINE
CODE
ENFORCEMEN
STUDY AND
BUDGET
AMENDMENT
APPROVED
MAYOR
PRO TEM
NOMINATED
RESOLUTION
NO. 87-70
APPROVED
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
Mayor King declared Oral Communications open and
invited those wishing to speak to come forward.
ORAL COMMU
NICATIONS
OPEN
Maureen Popick, 13946 Sandstone St., spoke about
the problems she and neighbors are having with
loud noise all night long from a house across
the street from her.
Aileen Pinhero, Baldwin Park resident, spoke about
opening the museum on September 17, 1987 and
requested that the City flag be shown.
Joanne Bommarito, 14143 Shaffer, spoke about the
no parking signs that have been removed.
Janice Zarate, 14637 California, requested that
the City have a bilingual code enforcement staff.
Albert Sanders, 4421 Stewart, spoke on the lack
of communication the City has with the community.
Suggested there be more community boards other
than the marquee at Morgan Park,
MAUREEN
POPICK
AILEEN
PINHERO
JOANNE
BOMMARITO
JANICE
ZARATE
ALBERT
SANDERS
Hershel Keyser, 13645 Rexwood Ave./ asked if he
presented Council with a petition on behalf of
the people of Baldwin Park in support of the
moratorium would it be helpful.
Lorin Lovejoy, 12749 Torch, stated that the
street sweeping is not being done on his street.
Gail Zauss, Merced, spoke about not allowing
smoking in the Council Chambers.
Mayor King declared Oral Communications closed.
00-
It was moved and seconded to adjourn the Regular
Meeting of the City Council at 10:45 p.m. M/S/C:
WHITE/GIBSON. There were no objections.
HERSHEL
KEYSER
LORIN
LOVEJOY
GAIL
ZAUSS
CLOSED
MEETING
ADJOURNED
10:45 P.M.
r JP^c.J^.it/}_______
GT^A SHARP/DEPUTY CITY CLERK
BIB]
37652-U01
1987-U02
08-U02
05-U02
CC-U02
MIN-U02
LI1-U03
FO3794-U03
FO9441-U03
DO9454-U03
C4-U03
MINUTES1-U03
1/30/2003-U04
ROBIN-U04
REGULAR-U05
SESSION-U05
CITY-U06
COUNCIL-U06
1987 08 05 CC MIN ;¢f4 Ã …
! REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL
AUGUST 5, 1987
PUBLIC INPUT MORATORIUM ON APARTMENT AND CONDOMINIUMS
Mayor King: I called for this moratorium, because
I asked Mr. Webb to agendize it for this meeting. I
thought seriously that there was a need and if it is
enacted, fine/ if it isn't that's another story. But I
have felt for a number of years that we haven't paid
enough attention to the General Plan and especially in
the past couple of years with respect to the numbers of
developments we are getting, with respect to the
infrastructure of the services we can provide.
It was more evidenced to me in this election, that
taught me a little more, that the public is crying out
and they want to be heard with respect to this issue and
I felt obligated that the public should be heard and I
think that is why so many of you are here this evening,
on both sides of the issue. So we both can air it and
determine what the Council wishes to do with this and
mostly what the general public, here in Baldwin Park,
wants to do at this point in time. With that I'll ask
any Councilmembers, any questions?
Councilman Gibson; To Mr. Rangel, the Item Number
5, what is the last statement you added, that was not in
your Staff Report? You talked about something about the
Conditional Use Permit. How does that differ from Item
5 in the attached Urgency Ordinance?
City Planner Rangel: Item 5 would permit, would
exempt any use that currently has a variance or a
Conditional Use Permit approved. What I'm suggesting
here is that there are other uses, such as: churches,
day care nurseries or day care schools, educational
institutions, nursing and convalescent rest homes, homes
for the physically, mentally impaired/ hospitals, off-
street parking, and private recreational uses that are
uses that are allowed if a Conditional Use Permit is
first granted. What I'm suggesting is that if someone
wants to come in and apply for one of these uses, and
get a use permit, that that be allowed. That they not
be stopped from applying and getting approval, if they
meet all the conditions.
Councilman Gibson: Okay, as it stands now then,
anyone that holds a Conditional Use Permit or has
acquired a variance, prior to tonight, will be allowed
to continue.
KING
GIBSON
RANGEL
GIBSON
City Planner Rangel: That is what we are recommend-
ing,
Councilman Izell: Mayor King, just one thing about
the Planned Development. One of the things that is
going to be allowed in this Ordinance. I'd like to call
your attention, that you have to have 43,600 square feet
before you can have a Planned Development and most of
the lots is known as commercial acres. And if you have
an acre in Baldwin Park that goes out to the center of
the street then you couldn't qualify for a PD under this
Ordinance.
City Planner Rangel: The 43,000 does apply, but it only
applies to Rl. In R3 and RG the minimum lot size is
15,000 square feet to qualify to apply for a Planned
Development.
Councilwoman McNeill: As you have listened to Mr.
Rangel's report you know if we allow these people or if
we allow continued building, we are really going to be
in trouble. We are in trouble now. If we have more
people, if we have more building, we need police power,
we need more fighting power, we need more sewer, we need
more schools, more parks, we need more of everything.
We need them right now.
RANGEL
IZELL
RANGEL
MCNEILL
BIB]
37652-U01
1987-U02
08-U02
05-U02
CC-U02
MIN-U02
LI1-U03
FO3794-U03
FO9441-U03
DO9454-U03
C4-U03
MINUTES1-U03
1/30/2003-U04
ROBIN-U04
REGULAR-U05
SESSION-U05
CITY-U06
COUNCIL-U06
1987 08 05 CC MIN ;¢f4 Ã … ! So, what I think we should do is have a General
Plan update, as the City has already planned, and have a
temporary moratorium until it's determined how much of
these other things we need and it is brought up to date.
As to the Planned Development, I think we would be
very wrong to stop building the single houses or Planned
Developments at this point. With a possibility of the
Raiders moving next door to us, it might really put
Baldwin Park on the map with single family dwellings.
As I said, I think we should find out where we are
before we move further. And only the people who have
building permits at this time be allowed to build.
Mayor King: I brought this forward so that people KING
would have a chance to discuss the issue. So it wasn't
agendized as a public hearing, but we're going to make
it a public hearing so that everyone can air their
points of view, and especially the citizens of Baldwin
Park to determine their feelings. In what direction
they wish this town to go.
So therefore, it the moratorium report) is out of PUBLIC
order and pulled out of order from the Reports of Offi- HEARING
cers), It is a public hearing and I'll open it up for a ON
public hearing, but I'd like to state this, I'd like the AZC-115
mortorium to be discussed and we'll go into the pro on AND
the moratorium, then I'll get into those against, and PUBLIC
then anyone wishing to testify on the other items. So INPUT ON
let's just take the moratorium now, to keep it in order. MORATOR-
It will really make the other one AZC-115) moot if the IUM
moratorium is passed, but keep it in the proper perspec- OPEN
tive,
So those that, let's take the opposition first and OPPOSI-
allow them to speak. If there's any spokesperson, we'll TION TO
allow them ample time for rebuttal. If there's no SPEAK
spokesperson, let's take the opposition now. In opposi- FIRST
tion to the moratorium.
Robert Weiss: My name is Robert Weiss, I'm an WEISS
attorney, my office address is 920 Village Oaks Drive in
Covina. You know so often I find that I come to a court
proceeding, more often than a proceeding like this, pre-
pared I have my arguments ready to go and then
something is said by someone that really changes the
whole tenor of what I intended to say. In this instance
I would refer to Councilwoman McNeill's comment that
quote), We are in trouble."
I also happen to be an owner of property in the
City of Baldwin Park. I'm not representing myself
tonight. I'm representing a builder, who has three sets
of units, to be held as rentals, in plan check, and had
one at plan review. But as an owner of property, I say
that we are not in trouble at all. On the contrary, we
used to be in trouble. There was a time when Baldwin
Park had a very poor reputation, as a city, as a
commercialized city and as a place to live. Baldwin
Park today has become a very nice community and it
increasingly has become a nicer community and for a
number of reasons. I think certainly for the reason
that you folks that are civic leaders have devoted your
time and energies to putting the whole thing into
perspective. To make it stronger, to make it better.
But secondly, and it must not be overlooked, it has
become a better looking community, a better place to
live property values have increased, because of that
people maintain their properties better. And thirdly,
and perhaps most important, it's because developers have
been willing to come into this community and take
capital risks to help this community. And that's what
happening today. You still have developer's wishing to
come into here and wishing to take capital risks. Not
just because the property here is cheaper than in other
BIB]
37652-U01
1987-U02
08-U02
05-U02
CC-U02
MIN-U02
LI1-U03
FO3794-U03
FO9441-U03
DO9454-U03
C4-U03
MINUTES1-U03
1/30/2003-U04
ROBIN-U04
REGULAR-U05
SESSION-U05
CITY-U06
COUNCIL-U06
1987 08 05 CC MIN ;¢f4 Ã …
1987 08 05 CC MIN ;¢f4 Ã …
! as those persons who have paid their plan check fees go,
you can't pull the rug out from under them. Now of the
836 units that reference has been made to, you're
speaking of a percentage of 33% of those presently in
plan check.
I do thank you for your attention and I really do
urge you to consider the situation before helter-skelter
we run off.
Mayor King: Before the next applicant speaks, I KING
would just like to state that we have explored the
possibilities with respect to the law and our attorney,
Mr. Flandrick, has given us advice in this area. I did
ask for this to be agendized for Multiple Family with
exception of R1PD. I wanted to make that clear.
Jonathan Horn: My name is Jonathan Horn and I am HORN
here representing John Hoe, the owner of three pro-
perties totaling 90,000 square feet that are currently
zoned R3. He has proposed for development on those
sites a total of 60 apartment units.
He has owned these properties for approximately two
and a half years. Two of these lots have already been
subject to a one year moratorium while the Redevelopment
Agency looked to acquire those properties and as of this
date you can appreciate that the simple financing costs,
not withstanding the costs for plan check, etc. have
been quite extreme for Mr. Hoe and he has therefore got
a substantial capital outlay in support of these
projects at this point.
I'm not here to argue the constitutionality of what
the City Council is proposing, I believe that the
really critical issue is what makes sound planning
policy and I think that's an objective that is shared by
everyone who is here. Mr. Hoe, as do other members of
the development community, recognizes that there is a
conflict between the desires of those that develop and
those adjacent neighbors that would like to see a lesser
rate of development. That's an inherent conflict that
you are not going to be able to resolve tonight.
However, what I think would be an appropriate act
tonight would be to recognize that decisions made
precipitously are generally exercises of bad planning
practice. I think there is a much more appropriate
thing that you take the opportunity at this point to
hear input from the development community, hear input
from your concerned citizens, allow the appropriate
amount of time in deliberation to hammer out a
reasonable and fair process. And during the period of
time that it is necessary to do that, yes, it is true
that some development will proceed and some of that
development might be inconsistent with potential
downstream changes in your land use regulations.
But I think you have to appreciate that the City of
Baldwin Park does not exist in a vacuum. You've seen
throughout Southern California and indeed throughout the
United States that there has been a dramatic increase in
the amount of development recently. Much of which is
simply catch-up development, which has been stagnate
during these lean past years. So I think a good
argument could be made that what you are doing you are
seeing a somewhat anomalous period in the time of
development history. You're seeing a lot of development
that would have ordinarily been spread out over the last
four or five years condensed into one rather narrow
period and I think that you will also see prospectively
there is going to be a sharp drop off in the amount of
development that's likely to follow that. As the market
fills up and values of property tend to increase.
We ask at this point that you give serious consi-
deration to revising your policies from a posture of due
consideration and in the ordinary course of events
BIB]
37652-U01
1987-U02
08-U02
05-U02
CC-U02
MIN-U02
LI1-U03
FO3794-U03
FO9441-U03
DO9454-U03
C4-U03
MINUTES1-U03
1/30/2003-U04
ROBIN-U04
REGULAR-U05
SESSION-U05
CITY-U06
COUNCIL-U06
1987 08 05 CC MIN ;¢f4 Ã …! rather than enacting this emergency ordinance. Thank
you very much.
Bill Jennings: My name is Bill Jennings, 1800 JENNINGS
Avenue of the Stars, Los Angeles. I'm here representing
a developer named Sinecamp that has a development appli-
cation before your City to build 45 apartments at the
northeast corner of Los Angeles and Merced on 1.6 acres
of land. In addition to being an attorney I serve on
the Santa Monica City Council. You think this is going
to be a one year process, let me tell you what happened
there. In April of 81 the council enacted a moratorium
so we could revise our Land Use Element* Three and a
half years later we adopted it. We're still waiting for
the zoning ordinance, three years after that. So, it
isn't a one year process by any stretch of the
imagination. It'll take at laeast two years for you to
get this thing revised. In the mean time you'll end up
extending the moratorium for two years.
I've looked at your zoning and I agree it's kind of
patch work, and probably it needs to be improved, but I
think that there's a possibility that imposing a
moratorium is going to be counter productive in the
situation of my client.
My client applied for a development permit on
December llth. Under state law you have thirty days to
decide whether or not that application is complete. You
didn't. Past the thirtieth day you sent a letter to my
client saying that the application is not complete.
According to state law if you don't do it within thirty
days the application is deemed complete. Six months
after that we automatically get our development rights
unless you do something to stop that. Well the six
months has run out, if we take that interpretation, as
of July 30th.
Now, my client wants to do a quality project in
this City. He doesn't have any interest in running
roughshod over this City. And I'm sure that most of the
other developers that want to do projects in the City
want to do projects that this City is going to be proud
of and they can be proud of. But if you impose a
moratorium it forces everyone to make the argument that
is the least productive to the City, namely, that if you
screwed up with respect to my client in telling him
whether his application was complete, I'm sure it must
have happened with respect to other people. They're
going to come in and they're going to say, my
application was deemed complete on the thirtieth day and
the six months has run out for disapproving my project,
and you're going to end up with a lot of projects that
are probably the worst designed, because your planning
staff generally comes back with ways to improve the
project not make it worse but to improve it. So if you
want quality projects I think you're going to end up
with the opposite by forcing people to make the argument
that their initial submission was the one you've gotta
rule on, if you didn't rule in thirty days you're out of
the ball.
Now, so basically I'm arguing against the
moratorium. In addition to that I'd like to argue
against the moratorium as it applies to this property.
If you know where this property is located, it is
located at Merced and Los Angeles Street. There's an R3
zone that goes for about three continuous blocks on the
north side of Los Angeles Street. The only property
there that isn't developed as an apartment building is
my client's property. Now, that is the only thing that
would ever be built on that piece of property. Nobody
is going to build single family residences in the middle
of a bunch of three story apartment buildings. It
doesn't make any sense, so it won't happen.
I can understand the concern where you've got
apartment buildings going up right next to single family
BIB]
37652-U01
1987-U02
08-U02
05-U02
CC-U02
MIN-U02
LI1-U03
FO3794-U03
FO9441-U03
DO9454-U03
C4-U03
MINUTES1-U03
1/30/2003-U04
ROBIN-U04
REGULAR-U05
SESSION-U05
CITY-U06
COUNCIL-U06
1987 08 05 CC MIN ;¢f4 Ã …! residences, but where you've got the other situation
where any rational planning is going to end up exactly
the way it is now, it makes no sense to stop projects
from going forward.
So I would ask you if you decide you're going to
adopt a moratorium that in a situation where you've got
a major street, like Los Angeles Street, bordering R3,
and then you've got only R3 or commercial uses
surrounding the property that is going to be developed
as an apartment building and that you've got a good
sized strip of R3, here you've got two to three blocks
of R3 continuous, that that should not be included in
this moratorium. But instead you should limit it to
situations where you're dealing with a problem, that I
think you're referring to from your residents/ mainly
your residents don't want to see large apartment
buildings right next to single family residences. That
won't happen in the context of what I stated and I ask
that you give that consideration and not paint with too
broad a brush here. If you're gonna impose a moratorium
here, make it something that relates to the problem that
you're dealing with and not the things that will never
ever be a problem no matter what you do with your
zoning.
Mayor King: Thank you, Mr, Jennings. My property KING
is also in the middle of apartment complexes as RGs, so
I'm caught in it, too.
Gary Warner: My name is Gary Warner with Community WARNER
Development Consulting Services located in Diamond Bar,
California. I'm here representing several developers.
I provided a letter to the each of the members of the
City Council and the City Clerk indicating which
proj ects are included in, by the developers I am
representing. I would like to add, for the record/ that
these developers are not only residential developers but
are also pursuing commercial developments in Baldwin
Park.
From each of their stand points and myself, as a
City Planner by profession and experiance. I'd like to
share with the City Council some of the concerns,
without reiterating any of the valid points that have
already been presented to you. I'd like to address a
few additional points that I think that the City Council
needs to take into consideration before it jumps into
any decision whether or not a moratorium or some other
alternative is a proper method to move the City ahead in
terms of progressive planning.
As indicated in the Staff Report, the Planning
Department has already been budgeted, I presume
appropriate funding, to a prepare the updated General
Plan. And yet it is my understanding that the requests
for proposals have not as yet been sent out. We're
already into the fiscal year and as a planning
consultant I can tell you you're looking at a good sixty
days before a decision can be made by the City Council
on retaining a particular consultant. As has already
been indicated by the gentleman from Santa Monica, the
planning process has a tendancy to drag on for good
reason that includes the democratic approach that
requires, in order to satisfy good planning practices, a
lot of public input.
I'd like to stress the word public,
talking not only of the residents that
being affected by the development, but
owners, the investors, the developers/the architects and
engineers and all the people that deal with the City
zoning ordinances and the general plans and policies.
There is a level of trust that we all place in the City
of Baldwin Park and in the City process, the local
governmental process. We're all trusting that when the
City Council adopts a general plan policy or a zoning
ordinance it carries with it the support the City
because we're
are obviously
also property
BIB]
37652-U01
1987-U02
08-U02
05-U02
CC-U02
MIN-U02
LI1-U03
FO3794-U03
FO9441-U03
DO9454-U03
C4-U03
MINUTES1-U03
1/30/2003-U04
ROBIN-U04
REGULAR-U05
SESSION-U05
CITY-U06
COUNCIL-U06
1987 08 05 CC MIN ;¢f4 Ã …! Council/ the Planning Commission and the Staff and that
everyone is going to work toward a common objective,
namely the development of land or parks, housing,
commercial or what have you. Many people are therefore
putting their lives and their savings on the line in
many respects. Property owners that live here today
realize a financial benefit from zoning and in some
cases they choose because of their own individual
circumstances to relinquish the land, sell it for new
development because the existing housing may be older
and they envision that market trends are such that the
property would be able to be sold and developed.
The investors then are putting on the 1ine
substantial capital outlay as has already been
indicated. And this is all based upon the trust that
these people are placing on the City Council.
If the City Council were to take an action tonight
that would represent progress for the City of Baldwin
Park it would be, in my judgement, to direct staff to
immediately initiate the proceedings for the General
Plan update. And in that proceeding allow for the
public, including the developers, property owners and
residents the opportunity to participate in that
process. Same thing would hold true for the development
of the regulations that Mr. Rangel reiterated earlier,
the proposed development standards. My question is,
were theses standards developed with the input of the
people that would be using them. And if they lacked
that input, which I presume they do, is it not providing
the City with another set of, perhaps, faulty
regulations that sixty days down the road you may want
another moratorium.
The indication that the City feels favorable toward
single family development, I spoke to the Planning
Department earlier this week, and it's my understanding
that the single family development, apparently
acceptable to the City is not typical single family on
five or six thousand square foot lots. But could very
well be single family detached units on as small as
three thousand square foot lots. Against City and all
the concerns that are being expressed for apartment
developments hold true for single family developments on
three thousand square foot lots. As a matter of fact
I'd like to point out, that while I'm not a traffic
engineer I've certainly read plenty of traffic
engineering reports, a single family dwelling will
generate 30% more traffic than will apartment dwelling.
That's generally accepted standards used in the
engineering practice, used by, I'm sure, the City,
you've reviewed EIR's, certfied them as being adequate.
I think the City Council should be properly
advised, and review, not a staff report, that in my
judgement is pretty much biased towards the adoption of
the moratorium, rather should review a complete analysis
of which properties would in fact be effected. Because
as the Staff Report indicates it could very likely be
that there will be many properties that will not be
rezoned or changed in term of its land use. Why hold
these properties up for a period of two years or three
years, as was the case in Santa Monica, when there is no
need to.
I would like the opportunity to speak) if time is
available at the end.
Tracy Ellis: My name is Tracy Ellis. I've got a ELLIS
business location at 13081 N. Garvey. I'd like to
touch on a couple of items I don't think have been
brought to the attention. I want to congratulate the
Council, as it sits, for holding their guns for the
Sierra Vista Redevelopment Project. I support that and
I definitely think that we don't want to lose momentum
with the developers that are coining into town at this
point, as the other fellows have said, I won't reiterate
BIB]
37652-U01
1987-U02
08-U02
05-U02
CC-U02
MIN-U02
LI1-U03
FO3794-U03
FO9441-U03
DO9454-U03
C4-U03
MINUTES1-U03
1/30/2003-U04
ROBIN-U04
REGULAR-U05
SESSION-U05
CITY-U06
COUNCIL-U06
1987 08 05 CC MIN ;¢f4 Ã …! that.
Couple of things I think would be interesting to
know is, one thing that the City of Baldwin Park maybe
isn't aware of, is that in the last 15 months rents have
gone up over 14%. I believe that if we shut part of the
market off to the public, you know as well as I do, that
the rents are going to drastically go up to who knows
what.
Right now the City vacancy is approximately 2-4%.
Definitely in overall standards that is very, very low
so, I think, in that regard we need the housing.
You were the folks that promoted the Sierra Vista
Redevelopment Project, which is going to include how
many thousands of jobs. Also the Kaiser Hospital that
is going in, I belive was quoted as 3,000 jobs. Where
are those people going to live?
Also, I just jotted a few numbers down, Mr. Rangel
said that 836 units are in the pipeline. If there was
approximately $20,000 per unit in income, for the people
that reside in those units, that's 16 million dollars
that would be brought into the City. Do you want that
to go outside the City again?
We've done this, I've lived in and out of this City
for thirty-one years, everytime the ball gets rolling
something like this gives us a great big set back. And
we don't want to lose that 16 million dollars that these
people are going to be making when they come into this
town.
That's all I've got to say on that. I've got a
personal situation on myself and I think that needs to
be heard.
I've got two pieces of property that are R3 zoned.
One I've had for several years, the other I just
recently purchased. The property that I just recently
purchased, and I don*t know that the other developers
found this, but I found it, and it's outright
disgraceful. The property that I most recently
purchased was probably one of the biggest drug havens in
the City of Baldwin Park, While the property was in
escrow the Baldwin Park Police Department on one five
hour raid arrested 23 heroine addicts, prostitutes,
etc. at the property. I, myself, would find it pretty
hard to live next door to that.
I understand some of the concerns of the residents
as far as a three story building. But I have to ask you
this, would you rather have, possibly a million dollar
improvement next to you that is nice, clean, well
planned project or would you rather have 20, 30
prostitutes, heroine addicts, basically a drug haven,
living next door to you? This information can be
documented by the Baldwin Park Police Department.
Chris Nijjar: My name is Chris Nijjar. I'm a NIJJAR
developer from the City of Santa Ana, 1502 N. Main,
Santa Ana. I came here last year to do some multi-resi-
dential development and I had understanding that the
City of Baldwin Park was very aggressive and it needs
alot of multi-residential units. And last year we
submitted a project, 43 units, after the new ordinance
they had, and that was the first proj ect we had
submitted and Planning Department said that was the best
project they ever had. That is on La Rica Avenue. And
we followed all the standards of the new code at the
time and we got all kind of compliments from Planning
Department.
The existing building is ten units, kinda run-down
apartment building and they got lot of bad tenants and
it's kinda of scary. Lot of neighborhood complaining
about those tenants on the property. My intent is to
BIB]
37652-U01
1987-U02
08-U02
05-U02
CC-U02
MIN-U02
LI1-U03
FO3794-U03
FO9441-U03
DO9454-U03
C4-U03
MINUTES1-U03
1/30/2003-U04
ROBIN-U04
REGULAR-U05
SESSION-U05
CITY-U06
COUNCIL-U06
1987 08 05 CC MIN ;¢f4 Ã …! build 43 units on existing 10 units apartment building.
And I definitely think building 43 units, which is kind
of forgotten apartments, gonna improve the neighborhood
and also the appreciation of the residents in that
neighborhood.
We went to the extent to hire architect, paid the
plan check fees, and we anticipate for the approval so
that we can start construction on the 43 units. And
it's kind of sad that since we went that far/ and to
pull the permit and here comes the moratorium and down
zoning.
And people like me, there are a lot of other people
from out of Baldwin Park........
Mayor King: Please stand corrected. Sir, we
didn't say down zoning. There's nothing mentioned yet,
there could be, but it isn't a fact.
Chris Nijjar: Thanks for correcting me, but what I
mean to say is, that will effect to bring the density
lower than what it is right now submitted in the
Planning Department. And my request is that a lot of
developers, out of City, intend to improve City of
Baldwin Park and want to be a part of Baldwin Part in
term of developing City in multi-residential units or
residentials. If this moratorium is effected its gonna
effect a lot of developers not interested in the City
and may have some negative effect for the future.
My request is that you should consider before you
put a moratorium on, at least for the people who are
spending the money to the point where they are in the
plan check, and also maybe you should consider on a case
to case basis to what kind of project will be helpful to
the City of Baldwin Park
Margaret Cortney: I'm Margaret Cortney, 529 S.
Hollenbeck Street, West Covina, and I'm the architect on
two of the projects. So I'm the guilty one that a lot
of these people paid substantial sums to. I feel guilty
that they had to pay this money, not guilty, but I feel
that it's wrong that the City puts them in this
position. They've in good faith gone through all the
steps of your site plan review. Done everything that
the Planning Department's requested and they've been led
to believe they will be given a building permit. I
think the most unfair thing you are doing is not giving
notification, if you give them six months notice you're
going to have a moratorium, this could be fair. But
these people are spending money in good faith in your
town. They're ready to build.
KING
NIJJAR
CORTNEY
Both
is out of
that you
fairly.
of my projects are on Ramona Boulevard which
the heavy residential area. But mainly I feel
should let them know. Treat people more
Billy Yu: My name is Billy Yu. My address is 212
S. Palm Avenue in the City of Alhambra. I, here in the
eyes of general public, maybe the eyes of entire
development, I am guilty. But I'm here to plead I'm not
guilty, because I'm the one, since 1984, pleading to all
my clients, besides my profession I'm a broker a real
estate broker, pleading to my clients that are
developing in Monterey Park, Alhambra, San Gabriel.
Pleading that City of Baldwin Park is a ideal place for
development.
I am also a survivor for the first moratorium. I
personally sold eleven pieces of property and five of
them has been developed into 15, 16, 14 unit apartments.
And recently my clients, some of them are sitting here,
has plans to build 18 units, 60 units, and some are
smaller projects.
I really feel obligated and I'm quietly speaking
YU
BIB]
37652-U01
1987-U02
08-U02
05-U02
CC-U02
MIN-U02
LI1-U03
FO3794-U03
FO9441-U03
DO9454-U03
C4-U03
MINUTES1-U03
1/30/2003-U04
ROBIN-U04
REGULAR-U05
SESSION-U05
CITY-U06
COUNCIL-U06
1987 08 05 CC MIN ;¢f4 Ã …! to them, the City of Baldwin Park is the ideal place to
develop. And really feel that I should speak up and
plead/ Mayor and Members of the Council please
reconsider. Those people have paid a lot of money/ a
lot of investment. They go through lawful situation.
They went through the plan checks and quietly/ patiently
waiting for their turn to be able to develop. And all
of a sudden there's a moratorium.
So please reconsider if you can allow a certain
amount of time, because I understand that one of my
clients has an 18 unit. A plan has been in the City for
at least seven months and right now is in the final/
final stage. Maybe one week will be clear from the
Planning Department. So would you please consider to
have a certain amount of time for these people to go
through their plan check and have the development.
George Ting: My name is George Ting 1335 San TING
Gabriel). I'm a developer and architect. In the past
few years I have acquired six pieces of property. On
Ramona/ Bresee/ Vineland. The first property that I got
was on Vineland and I encounter, just two days before
getting a permit, the moratorium came down without
notice. So I have spent about $35/000 on the planning/
engineering, plan check, and that one went down the
drain.
Now, again, look like the moratorium might be
coming again and I have several more properties and I
cannot sell them. That's what I want to do after going
through the tough planning. Code changes so rapidly and
it is almost impossible for the developer to keep up
with those kind of changes. Before you get the plans
just about done there are new code coming out/ new
parking requirements coming out/ knock out 3-4 units and
complete re-plans. And it's just not feasible and
naturally I feel like getting out of this City. Which I
regret I cannot get out real soon. I get stuck. Finan-
cially impaired.
I urge the city to review the standard that Mr.
Rangel has just outlined about the more parkings and
what-not. And if we do have to get into more parking
requirements I think we'd better take a more closer look
and see if it is feasible for the developer to come, or
to stay in here, to study the parking to see if it is
As of now, go by the present code. A lot of
we bought, meant to do 25 units, it
18 units; 22 units turned out to be 16
feasible.
these properties
turned out to be
units; 17 units turned out to be whatever, 12 units.
And I found out it is not feasible. I'm thinking of
getting out. I hope I can find a way out. I would
think that lot of my friends, who are developers in this
town/ they thinking of getting out.
Mayor King: Anyone
opposition? Hearing none
of the moratorium.
else wishing to testify in
I'll call for those in favor
IN FAVOR
SPEAK
Robert Gair: My name is Robert Gair. I live at
3714 N. Maine. I also serve as a member of the school
board and in that capacity I'm in favor of the
moratorium, at least for a year to give us a chance to
catch up on our classroom building due to the increase
in school population over the past several years.
As you know it takes us approximately a year to two
years to build one classroom of all the development fees
and architectual work we have to go through with the
state. So we're always going to be running behind these
high density units. If we can have a period of time to
catch our breath, and perhaps catch up/ then you can see
what can go on from there.
If Mr. Rangel's estimation of 3.8 people per unit,
and you can figure two of those are kids and one of them
is a school age kid, that's one classroom for every 30
GAIR
BIB]
37652-U01
1987-U02
08-U02
05-U02
CC-U02
MIN-U02
LI1-U03
FO3794-U03
FO9441-U03
DO9454-U03
C4-U03
MINUTES1-U03
1/30/2003-U04
ROBIN-U04
REGULAR-U05
SESSION-U05
CITY-U06
COUNCIL-U06
1987 08 05 CC MIN ;¢f4 Ã …! units. Just multiply that by however many units are
going to be built.
Sandra Cabral: My name is Sandra Cabral and I live CABRAL
at 3422 Baldwin Park Boulevard. I am representing home-
owners who strongly feel that there should be some
central control in the number of condos, attached PUDs
and multifamily development in Baldwin Park. We feel
that this kind of development should conform to the
currect SFR neighborhood. Granted that there are some
SFRs that were built before the war which have deferred
maintenance. However, there are many homeowners that
show pride of ownership and maintain and upgrade their
home accordingly.
We are not against having future development, how-
ever, we stress to all of you to have some consideration
in planning new and present development to conform to
the Rl neighborhoods. Such non-conformity creates the
following problems: privacy, mixed projects adjoining
Rl areas, and the property value for the SFRs decreases.
Private investors and agency investors such as
Fanny May and Freddie Mack are investors who purchase
loans from savings and loans, mortgage companies. And
banks consider a mixed neighborhood a definite risk
because of the following: too many new residents will
become renters, which will increase the risk of
vandalism in the area, since many muti-family projects
will attract more families with single parents with two
or more children, the children will probably be playing
in the driveways and streets. These children need to
have areas to keep preoccupied* In the event of default
investors want to be sure that they will be able to sell
their properties at a gain not a loss. Another problem
regarding multimulti-family units is traffic and
parking.
Lastly, I urge you to make any possible changes so
all that are affected will not have a detrimental impact
on their residency in Baldwin Park.
Mayor King: So in another words, you are for a
moratorium but you would like to be an integral part
with respect to the planning process in that moratorium.
And I assure you, you shall be if the moratorium passes.
KING
Ellen Gibson: I'm Ellen Gibson, 13268 GIBSON
Francisquito, and I am definitely for this moratorium.
I feel a lot of them already have taken the smoke out of
what I was going to say. I would like to know all of
these people, that have gotten up and talked against the
moratorium, if they are willing to pay for the all the
extras we would have to have. Such as schools, fire
departments, water, police protection, all the things
that go for services of the City.
All I heard was money, money, money. None of them
live in our town. We live here, we would like to see
our town developed, but not with all these condominiums.
Francisquito, right now, is a freeway. It never has
been before, but it's from all these developments. And
it is ridiculous we have nothing but trucks, noisy cars
and motorcycles. If that's peaceful living, I don't
want it», and I'm very much against it.
Betty Lowes: I'm Betty Lowes, 14122 Chilcot
Street, and I read in the paper this morning that Bobbie
Izell was for the moratorium and he's been saying for
several months that he's learned a lesson and is going
to listen to the people now. And I tell him he has
obviously not been talking to the people.
As a candidate in the recent election I've talked
to many, many people and they have felt that our City
has reached a saturation point on apartments and condos.
This was a big issue. The issue of extra parking space
and allowing extra play areas for the apartments and
LOWES
BIB]
37652-U01
1987-U02
08-U02
05-U02
CC-U02
MIN-U02
LI1-U03
FO3794-U03
FO9441-U03
DO9454-U03
C4-U03
MINUTES1-U03
1/30/2003-U04
ROBIN-U04
REGULAR-U05
SESSION-U05
CITY-U06
COUNCIL-U06
1987 08 05 CC MIN ;¢f4 Ã …! condos won't really solve the problem.
We do need a moratorium so that we can sit back and
review and revise our City General Plan, because if we
don't take a good look at this, once these apartments
are up, we have to live with them for a long time. So I
suggest that we do go forward with this moratorium, slow
down and think about what we are doing. Believe me, I
feel that standing here I represent many people in
Baldwin Park because I have talked to many people in the
last few months. I am definitely in favor.
Bobbie Izell:
personally, I think
wanted to say that
down on the amount
Since she mentioned my name
I have a right to respond. I just
I am definitely in favor of cutting
of R3 and I will vote for the
12 ELL
moratorium if the people that's in the pipeline is
allowed to proceed. That is my only concern. I am more
in favor of the development of single family homes,
probably than anybody else. I just wanted to make that
clear before you forget that Councilman Izell has the
figures to back up his statement.
Joanne Bommarito: My name is Joanne Bommarito. I
live at 13147 Shaver Street. I'm 1,000% for this mora-
torium, because the City gave me, what I call a Taj
Mahal. It's a two story apartment building that looms
over my back yard. It has totally destroyed my privacy.
It has bred crime quite obviously, because we have never
had the police called down in that area like we do now.
BOMMA-
RITO
Monday is a perfect example. In the alley that
separates the apartments from my house and the tract, I
heard a man tell my neighbors dog to shutup, right after
I heard the dog give him a lunging growl. Then, I heard
five gunshots/ repeated one after another.
If you are thinking of voting against the
moratorium, put your wife, daughter or sister in my
place, all alone in that house. Population density has
proved over and over again that it breeds crime and un-
healthy conditions. Homeowners in my tract along Bess
Avenue can't keep up cleaning that street for the trash
that this apartment has brought. A woman was seen
throwing an open, full trashbag along my wall along Bess
Avenue. In addition, a sofa was left there because
someone decided that apparently they didn't want to move
it. The managers, obviously, don't care. The absentee
landowner doesn't either.
Is this the quality of life you want long-standing
residents to have, that you represent? Do you want them
to live with this kind of a quality of life? If you can
call it quality. Parking is insufficient, because
multiple families rent one apartment. I understand,
according to the Health Department, there is nothing
anyone can do about it as far as these numbers of people
in a unit. As long as the renters are related by blood
or marriage they are considered one family per unit, no
matter how many they are.
Anyone that does not agree that a moratorium is the
only answer at this time, is representing developers and
not the people that put them in office. If these
developers feel that there is so much money in building
these apartments I would like to see one of them agree
to build one next to their house and live with it.
Pat Mawer: I'm Pat Mawer, 4246 Baldwin Park MAWR
Boulevard. The great City of Baldwin Park. I would
respectively request that, as the people before me have,
that you please put a moratorium on this housing.
We have in our audience tonight someone that asked
me, Well, if your're gonna go up a say something will
you please mention the fact that, yes, the density is
going to cause us many problems with services,
especially with children". If that 5% increase comes
BIB]
37652-U01
1987-U02
08-U02
05-U02
CC-U02
MIN-U02
LI1-U03
FO3794-U03
FO9441-U03
DO9454-U03
C4-U03
MINUTES1-U03
1/30/2003-U04
ROBIN-U04
REGULAR-U05
SESSION-U05
CITY-U06
COUNCIL-U06
1987 08 05 CC MIN ;¢f4 Ã …! through we'll have 4500 more children in this City.
Where are you gonna school them? Where are you going to
let them play in a park?
How are the police gonna protect that? We just had
a $40 /000 recall. That's the price of one police
officer for a year. Okay? Now we're gonna have these
extra children to worry about and they're going to move
around children. Well they're already doing that. No
one's here yet and this poor man's daughter had to move
from a school she had attended all through her grammar
school years, had a couple of years left, now she has to
move.
So the services are definitely going to be lacking
and there's nothing we can do about it except increase
the taxes. Which/ that's fine with me, let's get the
taxes there if that's what needs to be done. But the
other thing we have to think about is, progress means to
go ahead. One of our sister cities nearby may be doing
that with the addition of a professional team which will
bring us money and revenue. So we may lose a little bit
of revenue with the moratorium on housing for a year/
but we may also gain it back and through our business
people by building up a few businesses they can eat in
and relax in and enjoy. And that we, also as citizens,
can relax in and enjoy and eat in. Rather than putting
our City to a much higher density mode and causing us to
have to pay an extreme amount of money for the services
it's going to require. That means water, fire, police,
park district, schools and even the City government.
Linda Millard: My name is Linda Millard. I live
at 13056 Amar Road in Baldwin Park. I was listening to
the developers as they spoke and I wrote a few notes.
And instead of giving you a speech I'd just like to
share that.
The developers say that they are here to help our
community, but rather than help our community they're
helping their own profit. If they really want to
develop here why not build something else? You talk
about, you say that the staff wanted to change the code
for apartments to help stop the increased development.
I was a member of an ad hoc committee, as were you, Mr.
King and Mr. Izell, which we did just that several
years ago. Obviously it didn't work.
I have a question. In the R3, RGPD, it says that
15,000 square feet, how many units can be placed on that
15,000 square feet?
MILLARD
It will depend on the lot
Linda Millard: Approximate. General guess?
City Planner Rangel:
configuration.
City Planner Rangel: We can figure it out for you.
Linda Millard: Many of the developers stressed the
fact that they want to put in quality developments, I
don't think that anyone here that wants the moratorium
is doubting that ability for these developers to place
quality buildings. That's not the problem. The problem
is the quantity. A developer himself told me once, A
good development without good management soon becomes a
bad development". If you doubt that, which I'm sure the
police department can back me up on, go look at the
Dalewood Apartments. When they were built they were a
very nice development. Now it's a crime center. So
it's not the quality, as those people wanting a
moratorium have nothing to say against those people
wanting to build something, as that they would be
building something of poor quality. We just don't want
any more quantity.
As one of the gentleman that was speaking in oppo-
sition to the moratorium said, that PD would cause us a
RANGEL
MILLARD
RANGEL
MILLARD
BIB]
37652-U01
1987-U02
08-U02
05-U02
CC-U02
MIN-U02
LI1-U03
FO3794-U03
FO9441-U03
DO9454-U03
C4-U03
MINUTES1-U03
1/30/2003-U04
ROBIN-U04
REGULAR-U05
SESSION-U05
CITY-U06
COUNCIL-U06
1987 08 05 CC MIN ;¢f4 Ã …! lot more problems as far as traffic and so forth than
regular single family development would cause, I would
ask that depending on what Mr. Rangel's answer is that
you might consider including that R3 and RGPD in that
moratorium.
City Planner Rangel: About four units*
Linda Millard: 15/000 sguare feet is
properties for the average size property. Am
about four
I correct?
City Planner Rangel: Some of the properties that
are zoned Rl are 5,000 square feet. Many of the
properties are zoned R3 and RG are 15,000 sguare feet or
bigger.
Linda Millard: So on one piece of property you
could then add four more units. Well, I would ask you
to keep that in mind and possibly consider the R3 and
RGPD as a possibility as going under the moratorium.
Although it may cause difficulty to these developers
that have come through and that have thought that they
would like to put units in our City. They would have a
short term problem if the 800 units or anything similar
to that is built.
If the moratorium is placed those developers will
go along their way they will have other developments in
other cities and they will recover. If the moratorium
is not placed tonight and that moratorium does not stand
and the buildings are built the developers will still go
on their way, build more buildings, and the City of
Baldwin Park, the individuals, the community, the
children will have to suffer for the rest of their lives
or as long as we decide to live here.
And finally I'd like to say, ask, it may not be
possible, but if it is possible that the people who have
placed their money in plan check and so forth, which are
due to come up soon for approval could they possibly be
refunded and if you would keep that in consideration.
So that these people that pledged their money in good
faith might be reimbursed either all or a portion of the
monies that they have placed in good faith. We don't
want to hurt anyone, we just don't want our community
hurt anymore.
Jeannie Martins: Jeannie Martins, 14847 Sierra
Way, Baldwin Park. I guess I stepped out for a moment
and I guess now its pro time, pro moratorium. I guess
if you had an undecided I should have come up at that
time.
I have a couple of questions. I've kinda been out
of the picture for a little while. I'm now more active
in Baldwin Park again and when we had that ad hoc
committee that Linda Millard) referred to we revised a
lot of the R3 construction standards at that time and
frankly my opinion was that it was so restrictive that
no one would ever build another apartment building in
Baldwin Park again. And now I hear about 800 and some
in the pipeline.
I understand the reasons for the actions being
considered. But what happened then, didn't we design on
paper what we would be willing to live with? And then
if it didn't accomplish what we hoped for it to
accomplish my thought was to provide quality I didn't
really think we were trying to eliminate or cut down
quantity, but if that was one of the intentions it
didn't accomplish that or maybe the quality still wasn't
what we had hoped that we accomplished. Then I can
understand the proposal now for a moratorium.
I'd like to differ with my friend, Linda, and even
refer back to one of mine and yours confrontations was
saying anything against the developers and their intent.
I think that they have a right, even if their projects
RANGEL
MILLARD
RANGEL
MARTINS
BIB]
37652-U01
1987-U02
08-U02
05-U02
CC-U02
MIN-U02
LI1-U03
FO3794-U03
FO9441-U03
DO9454-U03
C4-U03
MINUTES1-U03
1/30/2003-U04
ROBIN-U04
REGULAR-U05
SESSION-U05
CITY-U06
COUNCIL-U06
1987 08 05 CC MIN ;¢f4 Ã …! are killed. At least they have the right for compassion
and understanding. They've come in, I believe on the
major paert/ with good intentions, realizing that some
of these that are starting the small developments, often
this is their first development or their second or their
third. They're just starting it could kill them, too.
It could have a long range effect on them, also. Which
is not a reason to allow them to build I understand
that. But I hope we can understand that also.
Gail Zauss: Gaii Zauss, 4340 N. Merced* I don't ZAUSS
think anyone would be opposed to well designed, well
built, well managed, well maintained apartments in this
City. But that's not what we've been seeing for the
past three years. I, also three years ago got up and
spoke and from what I had said at that time an ad hoc
committee was formed. Some of the rules and regulations
in the code were changed for apartments and condominiums
at that time. And afterward I came up, after seeing
what was built, still being built, I complained again,
Most of the apartments in this City have been
designed and built to the minimum standards of this
City. I think that's very sad. I think the City of
Baldwin Park has been raped by developers. They come in
they build what they can get by with, they submit plans
and resubmit them until they barely pass and they go
with it. If they have a good plan and it just needs
minor adjustments they don't have them sitting in there
for eight months to a year trying to get them passed.
I've heard a moratorium would cause developers to
lose money and I can feel for them a little bit. But I
feel sorry for the people that have bought homes in this
City and have to live across the street and around and
drive by and look at these towering buildings with the
rows of garages, mile after mile, after mile through out
this City.
What happens to my home when they build an
apartment across from it and the only view you have from
the front of my home is six rows of garages and two rows
directly in front of your front door. And you're
looking at the children because there is no place for
these children to play, and apartments generally have
plenty of children there, except for in the driveways.
I think that it is interesting that most of the
developers that got up and spoke, and their lawyers/
none of them are from Baldwin Park. One man even got up
here and said he owns property in Baldwin Park but he
chooses to live in Covina. If he likes Baldwin Park and
enjoys the developments that are going up here, I'd ask
him to develop his property in Covina and move back to
Baldwin Park and live with the developments that he's
building here.
I think that it's interesting that mostly women
have come up and have been for the moratorium. I'm
positive, I haven't asked them, but I'm quite sure that
the reason that mostly women have come up is because the
women are generally the ones that have to live/ work and
shop within the community. They probably drive more in
this community than most of their husbands do. They
have to drive their children to school, to little
league, to the park. They go shopping within the
community. They go to the Post Office, they run errands
and they are the ones that bring the money into this
City. They are generally the ones that talk their
husbands into buying the house for them within this
City. And they are generally the ones that ask their
husbands to sell the house and move to another community
when the crime is so bad and the atrocities that are
built around them are so bad that they can't stand it
anymore.
I happen to live in an area, Merced and Los Angeles
Street, I know there's one representative for the
BIB]
37652-U01
1987-U02
08-U02
05-U02
CC-U02
MIN-U02
LI1-U03
FO3794-U03
FO9441-U03
DO9454-U03
C4-U03
MINUTES1-U03
1/30/2003-U04
ROBIN-U04
REGULAR-U05
SESSION-U05
CITY-U06
COUNCIL-U06
1987 08 05 CC MIN ;¢f4 Ã …! developer up in that area. There are two projects
planning to go up within a half a block of my home. One
directly across the street form me, which is actually
six separate developments that will eventually bring 76
apartment units directly across from my home. And the
development that the mand spoke about later, I know
last year it was 66 units. I don't know if it's been
scaled down. That's 142 apartment units within a half a
block of my home.
Just north of Bursch School, which is an elementary
school where we have young children and school buses
during the winter years. If Art Rangel's figures are
correct with 3.8 persons per apartment that brings 539
people to that area of Merced and Los Angeles Street.
Several times I have dialed 911 and helped the police
department apprehend criminals up in our area and we've
been very lucky they've responded and they've been able
to come. With 539 more persons up in that area I'm not
so sure they're gonna have time to come.
With also Los Angeles Street between Walnut and
Stewart Street has got to be death row as far as traffic
accidents in this area in the City of Baldwin Park.
There is constantly accidents. Almost every single day
you see new glass.
Three years ago when we had the ad hoc committee we
did not have a moratorium at that time and what happened
was within about nine months to a year, I forget how
long it lasted, we had more ugly, overcrowded apartments
and condominiums built inthis city. I'd also like to
say I don't understand how Mr. Izell can buy a piece
of property and find room for garages behind the
apartments and nobody else can......
Mayor King: Please let's don't use names, KING
Councilman Izell: She's saying good things about IZELL
me.
Gail Zauss: I m saying good things. I don't 2AUSS
understand how one person can find, is able to build
garages behind their apartments and no other developer
in this City has been able to do that.
Ed Huetinck: My name is Ed Huetunck. I live at HUETINCK
13059 Amar and I just want to say that I am in favor of
the moratorium. And today I read in the paper about the
negative economic effects that this will cause the
developers, but I'm worried about the negative economic
effects that this will cause the City of Baldwin Park
with traffic, police protection and schools and the
services.
Many other cities have seen this and have declared
moratoriums or slow growth. Baldwin Park, we do not
need to increase our population. We need to take care
of the ones we have with development and jobs.
Many of these developments are built by out-of-town
developers or foreign money and they build minimum
buildings. They leave and the City's left holding the
bag and the residents are left with the problem these
developments create. These developers can still develop
but they may have to change to a different type of
development, as Planned Development. Which is a lot
better for the City and the residents, we can live with
that.
And we lived in a portion of town that was zoned
R3. We have three apartments in our immediate area and
we know problems it brings. The police Department is
there every day, one or the other, sometimes two or
three times a day. And at night they are there a few
times, too. And lot of people say that down zoning, we
hear this from the developers, we did down zone, we were
R3 and we did down zone to Rl. In some cases Rl Planned
Development. And we heard from many developers and
BIB]
37652-U01
1987-U02
08-U02
05-U02
CC-U02
MIN-U02
LI1-U03
FO3794-U03
FO9441-U03
DO9454-U03
C4-U03
MINUTES1-U03
1/30/2003-U04
ROBIN-U04
REGULAR-U05
SESSION-U05
CITY-U06
COUNCIL-U06
1987 08 05 CC MIN ;¢f4 Ã …! builders that we'd lose the value of our homes, that
we'd lose money. But we found just the opposite. The
homes around our place are selling for quite a bit more
now than they ever have. And so we never lost a thing
we gained.
Eugolio Roca: Eulogio Roca, 14637 California
Avenue. I've been listening to the pro and cons and the
only item that hasn't been brought up is, I'm not
exactly sure if it's feasible, but could this be an item
that could be brought up to the vote of the people?
Since there is an election this November.
Mayor King: No Sir. This will be acted on by the KING
Council. If a moratorium is imposed then it will go to
the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission will
hold hearings throughout the Community, I might add,
with respect to allowing people to have a handle on
their destiny. You'll have your input and it will be
during the time of the moratorium. So we will act on it
this evening one way or the other.
Eugolio Roca: Okay. In that respect, in reviewing ROCA
the General Plan of Baldwin Park, I notice that it
indicated that the plan is general in nature rather than
detailed and precise and is meant to be flexible enough
to respond to changes in community attitudes. Now, my
understanding is that this City Council is here for the
community and in reference to the General Plan of
Bladwin Park it's all community related. So I strongly
feel, since we do have of a lot of community that are
for the moratorium that the Council should vote for it.
Bess Jenkins: My name is Bess Jenkins. I live at JENKINS
13056 Amar Road, Baldwin Park. I would like to ask one
question and I know it's going to sound stupid, but I'm
gonna ask it anyway. Where does the City interest lie?
I'm talking to Council/ I'm talking to Planning
Commission, I'm talking to our people that are supposed
to be running our town.
Mayor King: Where does the interest of the people KING
lie? With respect to this ordinance. With respect to
the multiple family. If this ordinance is approved and
the people's interest will apply directly, because the
people will be involved. So that's a pretty good
answer. And as I said to Mr. Roca just a moment ago,
we want to make certain that there is adequate input,
adequate understanding throughout the community with
respect to this, and let the people decide in regards to
the Planning Commission, what will take place within
the city limits of the City of Baldwin Park.
Bess Jenkins: I would like to say that the JENKINS
developers come into our town, but the people stay in
our town. And to me that's most important. The ones
that stay here are the ones that have to go ahead and
follow through, have to combat a lot of things to make
our town a better place and all those things. So I'm
glad to hear that we are going to have complete input,
the people.
And all the things I heard tonight both pro and
con. I have never heard one thing about what are they
going to do about the input on the schools. With all of
these condos with all of these more apartments.
Mayor King: Mr. Gair spoke on that subject. He's KING
very interested in it. He's a school board member. And
the school district will also have input.
Bess Jenkins: Good. That's great. Because JENKINS
actually our future is with our children. And our
schools are over crowded right now. And at this
particular time, in our history of Baldwin Park, I'm
sure everybody realizes we have one of the best school
districts in the State of California. And we are high
in our grades and even though our teachers are over
BIB]
37652-U01
1987-U02
08-U02
05-U02
CC-U02
MIN-U02
LI1-U03
FO3794-U03
FO9441-U03
DO9454-U03
C4-U03
MINUTES1-U03
1/30/2003-U04
ROBIN-U04
REGULAR-U05
SESSION-U05
CITY-U06
COUNCIL-U06
1987 08 05 CC MIN ;¢f4 Ã …! crowded, the schools are over crowded in each room, they
still give an input to help our students become better
students.
Another thing I'd like to know about. You're
talking about condominiums and you're talking about
apartments and all these things. Where are the children
going to play? There has nothing been mentioned about
you have condominiums so you bring in say 50-60 more
children. Where are these children going to play, out in
the street? That's what happens next door to us.
There's a house and four units behind. There is not one
earthly place that those children can play. So they
either have to play in the neighbor's yards or in the
street. And that to me should be of utmost importance,
to find out what are they planning on doing with our
children.
And the last thing I'd like to say is that I am
against condos. I am against apartments. And I don't
think that should be any news to anybody. We fought for
over a year and a half to get our side of the town
without condos and without apartments. And I'm pretty
satisfied with our little part, our neck of the woods,
in Baldwin Park. And I hope to see it happen like that
in the rest of Baldwin Park.
Cybil Orr: I'm Cybil Orr. 13083 Francisquito.
And I think there should be no more condos or
apartments. I agree withe Mr. Gair. We should have
more schools and less condos and more single homes.
Because I've lived in Baldwin Park for forty-one years
and six children of mine went to school and my
grandchildren are going to school in Baldwin Park and
they're, the schools, are already over crowded. And
with the condos and apartments it would just add more
children and less schools.
John Rumney: My name is John Rumney
14920 Central Avenue in Baldwin Park. And
to state that I am for the moratorium for
reasons stated here tonight.
I live at
I would like
most of the
Ana Montenegro: I'm speaking as a member of the
community of Baldwin Park. I have some comments to make.
I've seen a lot of good things happen in Baldwin Park in
the past years. And I think that most of us that have
lived here for the most of our lives are very, very
proud to see what is happening in Baldwin Park. And I
think we've become overly zealous in the building,
But I really feel that some things have been
overlooked. I think that number one is that some of the
requests by citizens, as myself, who've been requesting
and have worked with the City for the past twenty-five
years to see some of the streets built in the deep lots.
Some of these the planning has begun and some how have
been forgotten along the way. I think that sometimes I
become like a broken record in reminding the City about
the needs of the building of these streets.
My street for example was built in 1928. Nothing
has been done to that street. However it is not Baldwin
Park's fault, because it is not in the City of Baldwin
Park. My property lies, divides, the City of Irwindale
and Baldwin Park. But never the less I think it would
be the City's responsibility to see that some of the
requests in carrying these things out in the improvement
of streets should be continued.
So, I think that our efforts have been kind of
misguided somewhere along the line and what we need to
do is go back and see what the citizens of this town
really want. I hear Mr. Izell saying that his first
preference would be single dwellings. This is a good
way to start. Look into the area of Park and Phelan
Avenue and Los Angeles Street. I think there's an
opportunity to develop there. And look into some of the
BIB]
37652-U01
1987-U02
08-U02
05-U02
CC-U02
MIN-U02
LI1-U03
FO3794-U03
FO9441-U03
DO9454-U03
C4-U03
MINUTES1-U03
1/30/2003-U04
ROBIN-U04
REGULAR-U05
SESSION-U05
CITY-U06
COUNCIL-U06
1987 08 05 CC MIN ;¢f4 Ã … ! old records and see some of those old plans that we had,
that I had helped get made when I was very concerned and
my children had to leave the City to go out into another
city, walk through a non-sidewalked road to go to
school. I think this is about what I wanted to say and
make the council and some of you who are in favor of the
moratorium hear me say.
John Gonzales: My name is John Gonzales. I live GONZALES
at 3819 Monterey Avenue and I've listened to favorable
and against. I noticed that the developer seems to
think the residents here are very unfair towards them,
because they say give them a chance. Well, it's very
obvious that they're not thinking of us.
I've lived here twenty-four years. I've seen a lot
of improvements. I've seen a lot of development. But
where's it going to stop?
Number one the water facilities, fire protection,
schools, roads, police protection, we need all this.
And what we're doing with these people, the developers,
the representatives of those property owners, don't even
live here. They don't think of us. They don't even
give us a second thought.
I, too, have grandchildren that are going to
Baldwin Park. I raised some pretty good kids. I'm
proud of Baldwin Park and proud of you people there and
I hope that you make the right the decision,
Mayor King: I can't allow all of you to speak. KING
Are you Mr. Weiss) going to speak for your group, sir,
in the opposition. Because the other side will not have
a chance.
Robert Weiss: Only for my group. WEISS
Mayor King: In other words I'm not going to allow KING
all of you to speak in opposition. Only one. So is
this satisfactory? Can you answer their questions? We
can't open the hearing for another half hour. So why
don't you caucus with those people very quickly and ask
if they want you to speak for them.
Robert Weiss: Be right back. WEISS
Mayor King asked Mr. Weiss/ upon his return from KING
speaking with the others who had spoken in opposition to
the moratorium, if he was going to speak for the others
at this time.
Robert Weiss: Yes, I suppose so. They've all WEISS
given me so many items of information, I'm only going to
touch upon a few of them, because you folks have been
patient as it is.
You have a very difficult decision to make, no
question of that. All the people that spoke were
articulate and certainly they've expressed their views
and I feel for everybody that's here, but there's a
major problem. First, before I go on to the major
problem, let me make one comment about schools. I think
the folks that have talked about schools have perhaps
failed to recognize that the developers pay a school
fee. As an example, I'm looking at a receipt for plan
check with a plan check fee of $4,231.09. When the
building permit is issued the school fee be $33,792,00.
Now that's not hay. I'm looking at another one. The
plan check fee $3,370.07 a total a twelve units. School
fee $20,504.00. The builder's are going to be paying
for the schools. It doesn't just come from other tax
sources. The builders are going to be paying for them.
So in any event the builders are paying their share.
The builders don't come into the community simply to
rape the community. They give something to the
community.
BIB]
37652-U01
1987-U02
08-U02
05-U02
CC-U02
MIN-U02
LI1-U03
FO3794-U03
FO9441-U03
DO9454-U03
C4-U03
MINUTES1-U03
1/30/2003-U04
ROBIN-U04
REGULAR-U05
SESSION-U05
CITY-U06
COUNCIL-U06
1987 08 05 CC MIN ;¢f4 Ã … ! I think that something that may have really been
overlooked and that should be considered, really should
be considered by this honorable board, that we're all
here tonight because we found out accidently. There has
not notice one been given to anybody. What about the
owners of the R3 property and the RG property that will
be left hung out to dry if the moratorium comes in.
Those people who may be in escrow. And I m not
suggesting/ although I noticed, Mr. Mayor, you
conferred with Counsel as appropriately so, I don't know
that subject of the law whether it is necessary that
notice must be given, but certainly in the spirit of
fairness.....
Mayor King: May
that very quickly.
I have the City Attorney answer
KING
City Attorney Flandrick: Mr. Mayor, there is no
requirement for a notice of the action proposed to be
taken on a moratorium. However, as you're well aware,
that period of its effective date, if it is adopted, is
only 45 days and at the end of that period of time a
noticed public hearing is required to be held and if the
moratorium is adopted that certainly will be the turn of
events.
FLANDRICK
Thank you, Mr. Flandrick. If I
a moment Mr. Mayor. I recognize
But think of the damage that's taken
by virtue of the temporary taking
A lot of people may be damaged as a
would suggest as an alternative to
Robert Weiss:
could continue for
that aspect of it.
by, that happens,
during the 45 days.
result of that. I
your passage of your moratorium tonight, if that's your
pleasure, perhaps you're not going to, perhaps it's
going to fall. But I would suggest that this matter be
put over as an agenda item for perhaps six weeks. Value
it, publicize it, get it out so the public really knows
something about it. Then from that point if you find
after conferring with members of the public, and by
members of the public I include builders, because
builders are people, too. And by people who are
property owners within the City, even absentee peoperty
owners within the City. Then you go forward and take a
long hard look at your moratorium. You will do the
least amount of damage if that happens. You certainly
will be in a position where you are, down the road
called to task, you will be able to show that you have
gone to people in advance of taking any preciptous step.
I thank you for your attention. I would like to
submit originals and copies of petitions that have been
signed and handed to me by my client of approximately
110 names of persons who are in opposition to the
moratorium.
Mayor King: At this point in time I will close the
public Hearing both on Azc-115 and the moratorium.
Councilman Izell: Since I did a little home work.
I want to make a little speech* This on the
moratorium) wasn't scheduled as a public hearing, so we
weren't expecting all you people to be here. So, what
I'd like to do is give you a little bit of figures, like
I said to show you that I do my home work.
This is gonna have approximately an 80 million
dollar impact on the amount of construction that won't
be built here in Baldwin Park, And that's gonna be a
tax loss, in the real estate tax that 1% on the Jarvis
and the 27% school over ride of $710,000. The building
permits that is gonna be lost is gonna be over a million
dollars. The school tax that's gonna be lost is gonna
be some where around a million and a half* The taxes
that we're gonna lose to build parks in Baldwin Park is
gonna be somewhere around $22,000 or better. It's gonna
cost about 13 million dollars worth of labor that the
people are gonna lose jobs. It's gonna be another
$134,000 worth of sales tax we're gonna lose. The
WEISS
KING
IZELL
BIB]
37652-U01
1987-U02
08-U02
05-U02
CC-U02
MIN-U02
LI1-U03
FO3794-U03
FO9441-U03
DO9454-U03
C4-U03
MINUTES1-U03
1/30/2003-U04
ROBIN-U04
REGULAR-U05
SESSION-U05
CITY-U06
COUNCIL-U06
1987 08 05 CC MIN ;¢f4 Ã … ! builders that spent over a hundred thousand on plans and
stuff already. The cost of the land is probably 17
million and to land bank that land for a year at 10%
interest is gonna be another $1,700,000. And my guess
is that once the new codes are adopted they're gonna
lose about 20% of the units.
And now I'm sure you're gonna be surprised at what
I'm gonna say next, since all you citizens came out. I
will support the 45 day moratorium providing the rest of
Council wants to.
Councilman Gibson: I'd like to take about two GIBSON
minutes here/ along with Mr. Izell, and number one,
challenge something that Mr. Izell just presented in
that the amount of money that would be lost, the amount
of jobs, wages, etc. that will be lost, and to draw on
my high school literary classes. I think they call it,
Paradise Lost and Paradise Regained." It's not gonna
be lost in the City of Baldwin Park it's gonna be there,
it's gonna be deferred, it will develop, it will build.
And the thing that we can do tonight, is to give
that direction in the City that we're looking for a long
range plan and a long range development that'd be done
in a proper manner. This is why we had Sierra Vista
Redevelopment. This is why we had all the problems with
the Sierra Vista Redevelopment, is that we had to take
that time, we had to make that study and we had
determine what that property could and could not do.
And that is what we are going to have to so with this.
I had asked Mr. Rangel earlier to put this chart
of the zoning map on the wall. Those of you that
afterwards would like to take the time and look at it, I
believe that you'll see there are certain areas of the
City that are R3, that there's no reason why that small
area, put in the middle of a Rl, residential, is R3.
Whoever, whatever, whenever, this was done, and I
believe it was done in 1979 when the General Plan was
reviewed. The property at that time was zoned R3 in the
middle of Rl development. I've received numerous calls.
Many at the last minute saying, We just got notice. I
live in an area they're gonna build a three story
apartment building next to my house. What can I do."
We did review our standards. The projects that are
going up are quality buildings, however, the location of
those buildings is what is at question in my mind
tonight.
A couple of questions to, or a couple of answers, a
couple of addendums to some of the things said* Mr.
Weiss talked about we have a nice community, we know
that. We like it, we want to make sure it develops in a
proper manner. That's why I feel that I will vote for
the moratorium tonight to make sure that we do have this
quality development. Somethings that were said cannnot
be resolved tonight, true. However, we can resolve,
tonight, the direction that this community will take.
One of the figures that was brought up was, think
about the $20/000 of income per apartment. However, if
that Planned Development or Garden Residential/ etc.,
development comes up we've got to think about the
$50/000 to $60,000 combined income that it's gonna take
to qualify for that property and that that property is
in keeping with the attitude of the community.
One thing bothered me, I heard mention of one
developer talking that he is gonna tear down 10 units
that are definitely not to the standard that the
community would like, but in its place he's gonna put
43. That's why we've got to call this moratorium
tonight. Mrs. Lowes came forth and she said we're
going to sit back and look at this. I challenge that
remark and I say we're not going to sit back, but we're
gonna go aggressively with our plan and look at our map
BIB]
37652-U01
1987-U02
08-U02
05-U02
CC-U02
MIN-U02
LI1-U03
FO3794-U03
FO9441-U03
DO9454-U03
C4-U03
MINUTES1-U03
1/30/2003-U04
ROBIN-U04
REGULAR-U05
SESSION-U05
CITY-U06
COUNCIL-U06
1987 08 05 CC MIN ;¢f4 Ã … ! and decide where these things can and cannot happen.
Mr. Gonzales came up and asked where is the
development gonna stop. The development is not gonna
stop, the development will continue. It may not be at
the fast rate of 863 units that are before us now, but
the development will continue. Baldwin Park will
continue to grow and will grow in the right direction if
I have anything to say about it.
The only other item I do have a problem with, I
would even question in the moratorium ordinance, urgency
ordinance, tonight, is where we draw that line. Is it
plan check, plan review, building permits. But because
I'm not a professional at the building trades, I'm not a
professional at how to architect or engineer I have to
rely on the City Staff. We take the time to develop
this Staff. Mr. Webb has developed a Staff, we've got
to go with what has been recommended along these areas.
Or, question it and then find out why it's been
recommended in that way.
Mayor King: I'd like to just elaborate it very
quickly with respect to that cutoff and it's indicated
here, any development which has received a valid
building permit as of 5:00 p.m., August 5, 1987." Now,
we could go a step farther, to before a person turns the
ground, actually starts building, but probably that
wouldn't suffice either, it wouldn't be too fair. But
then when we talk of fairness, what is fair to the
community? I'd like to ask Mr. Rangel, you stated that
there was 110 units that the permits have been issued.
How many have been issued as of this date?
KING
City Planner Rangel: The numbers have been RANGEL
revised, as you can imagine there's been quite a scurry
amongst everyone. Well, it's hard to say how many have
been issued now. What I can tell you is how many units
are in the pipeline at 5:00 p.m. Plan Review, 26
projects, 447 units; Plan Check, 16 projects, 194 units;
all others have received building permits. In units we
have 208, so it went up.
Mayor King:
to 208.
It went up almost double then from 110
KING
Councilman White; Going back a few years,
basically, this Council, we were having serious trouble
getting developers to come to Baldwin Park. And we had
a lot of large irregular lots to deal with. We did some
pretty substantial/ in depth, studies and we found that
the maximum poulation that this City could probably
handle would be 64,000 people. We thought we will do
certain things to attract developers and ten years ago
that's about what the City of Baldwin Park did.
That exceeded our expectations and as of right now
we've got probably 60,000 people in the City. That
should not have happened for another five years or so.
This multiple residential property has happened a
lot quicker than anyone anticipated and I suppose it was
because of a lot of state trends. But this particular
moratorium, I think, is overdue.
Councilwoman McNeill: First Mr. Weiss, Attorney
Weiss that is, I think you misunderstood me earlier when
I said we're in trouble, I didn't mean that Baldwin Park
isn't a beautiful place and a lot of work has been done
here and it's reputation has changed, it has. And we're
so glad to know that you people in Covina recognize
that, too. And we hope that everybody in California
knows that Baldwin Park is growing. Thank you for the
compliment.
But when I said we're in trouble. I meant that the
old General Plan that we had had gone its limit and we
had to do something right away. We had to have a
WHITE
MCNEILL
BIB]
37652-U01
1987-U02
08-U02
05-U02
CC-U02
MIN-U02
LI1-U03
FO3794-U03
FO9441-U03
DO9454-U03
C4-U03
MINUTES1-U03
1/30/2003-U04
ROBIN-U04
REGULAR-U05
SESSION-U05
CITY-U06
COUNCIL-U06
1987 08 05 CC MIN ;¢f4 Ã … ! General Plan update and that means a General Plan update
now.
Mr. Jennings, you said that you build beautiful
buildings. I'm sure you do, because you build them on
the Avenue of the Stars and in Santa Monica. Thank you
very much, we like beautiful buildings, too. But at
this time we have to do something, because as I say
we're in trouble and when I say in trouble I mean we
need a plan update. And we can't say we're going to
have a plan update and then continue to give out permits
so that that many more condominiums can be given
permission to be built. We'd be hustling backwards,
don't you think.
So, what has been planned is that all people who
already have a permit could build. And I thought that
figure was 110, but I think it's two something now. And
in the pipeline, was it 836?
City Planner Rangel: It was at the time we we're
doing the Staff Report it was 836. That was the 22nd
of July).
Councilwoman McNeill: So you know all the
questions that you've heard asked today, those questions
are the reason why we have to a moratorium, we've gone
the limit on police service, fire service, sewage,
schools, recreation department, parks, everything. We
have to do something.
It's not that we don't like you developers, we like
you. We like the work you're doing. But, we can't help
you and hurt our people. We have to look out for them
first. So I'm for the moratorium, also.
Mayor King: Well, this would leave, if the Council
chooses to adopt the ordinance as presented, this would
leave approximately 530 units in the pipeline. And 208
units with permits issued that would be springing up
around town along with some of the other ones. Right,
Mr. Rangel?
RANGEL
MCNEILL
KING
City Planner Rangel:
The figures show 641 in the
pipeline.
Mayor King: 641, I'm sorry, I stand corrected. And
that's 641 with that the permits are issued.
City Planner Rangel: That's 641 where permits are
not issued.
Mayor King: 641 units, permits aren't issued. 208
that the permits are issued.
Councilman White: I move approval of the ordinance
as detailed by Mr, Rangel including all of the
conditions that he wished placed upon that ordinance.
Councilman Gibson: 1*11 second that.
City Attorney Flandrick: Mayor, we would add a
section to the draft that you have in your possession.
The motion as made would, as I understand it, would
cause an amendment to the draft of the ordinance you
have before you, which would include Section 6, which
would contain basically the language that's similar to
that in Section 5 but would relate to any of the
Conditional Uses now permitted in the R3 or RG zone
notwithstanding the moratorium.
Councilman White; And that is my motion, Mr. Mayor.
Councilman Gibson: And I'll second that.
Mayor King: Moved by Councilman White, seconded by
Councilman Gibson. Discussion.
RANGEL
KING
RANGEL
KING
WHITE
GIBSON
FLANDRICK
MOTION
BIB]
37652-U01
1987-U02
08-U02
05-U02
CC-U02
MIN-U02
LI1-U03
FO3794-U03
FO9441-U03
DO9454-U03
C4-U03
MINUTES1-U03
1/30/2003-U04
ROBIN-U04
REGULAR-U05
SESSION-U05
CITY-U06
COUNCIL-U06
1987 08 05 CC MIN ;¢f4 Ã …!! Councilwoman McNeill: Does that include the
pipeline? You know how many people are in there.
Councilman White: No, my motion only includes
those persons for which building permits have been
issued to today.
Mayor King: The 208, is that correct?
Councilman White: Nodded in agreement)
Mayor King: We will have a Roll Call on this.
City Clerk Gair: This is for Ordinance No. 967.
White, aye; Gibson, aye; Izell, aye; McNeill, aye; King,
aye.
Mayor King: And so ordered. I would like to have
gone a little further with it, but I don't thinks it
fair and possible there is some legality.
In response to Council questions
Flandrick explained that AZC-115 could
submission and if Council wished to
conjunction with other recommendations
they could do that.
City Attorney
be held under
act on it in
in the future
FLANDRICK
Mayor King explained for the benefit of the
audience that this moratorium was for a 45 day period
and at the end of that the time the Council could change
their mind. And he encouraged all interested persons
to attend the council meeting of September 16th when
Council will consider an extension of the moratorium at
a Public Hearing.
LINDA L. G^ZR, CITY CLERK
KING
BIB]
37652-U01
1987-U02
08-U02
05-U02
CC-U02
MIN-U02
LI1-U03
FO3794-U03
FO9441-U03
DO9454-U03
C4-U03
MINUTES1-U03
1/30/2003-U04
ROBIN-U04
REGULAR-U05
SESSION-U05
CITY-U06
COUNCIL-U06
! places, as Mr. Rangel points out, perhaps that's true/
perhaps it is not, I have not bought anything here for
some time. But simply because they have faith in the
community.
It seems to me, to pull the rug out from under
those builders, who have come in and who have bought
property, in reliance upon present zoning and building
standards, and who have paid their architects and their
designers for the development of plans, and in addition
to that, in the many cases, as in the case of my client,
have expended many thousands of dollars in plan check
fees and as I say to pull the rug out from under them
and to say sorry folks, you're stymied, you're stuck,
you're not going to do anything for at least 45 days.
And, as I understand the law, 45 days following you come
back in seeking the one year's moratorium, is entirely
unfair and inequitable.
I believe that the Council, Mr. Flandrick, has
pointed out to the Council, I'm certain that he must
have, competent as he is, some of the pitfalls that may
befall the City if a moratorium of this type comes into
existence. And specifically I would like to refer to
the recent case of First English and Evangelical Luthern
Church of Glendale vs the County of Los Angeles. Now
this was a case that was decided by the United States
Supreme Court as recent as June 9, 1987. Just a month
and a half ago. And it's a case that comes down on the
basis of a regulatory taking. As I understand it, and I
think Mr. Flandrick might confirm, it's really the
first case of this nature that the Supreme Court has
been able to reach out as far as it has and said, watch
out folks here's a situation where a municipal body may
be held liable in damages, in the event there is a
taking however temporary, if someone is deprived of the
full use of their property. And I fear that this is the
pitfall that the City may be falling into if the
moratorium is adopted at this time. Perhaps not,
perhaps no one will bring an action but I think that
unlikely, because there has been a lot of money spent at
this time.
I note that Justice Rehnquist, in delivering his
opinion, specifically said as follows, You realize that
even our present holding, will undoubtedly lessen the
freedom and flexibility of land use planners and
governing bodies of municipal corporations when enacting
land use regulations". Folks, I think he's talking to
all of us. I really do. And if one thinks that your
municipal coffers are going to be strained because of
additional development, where you get fees, you get
portion of taxes, where you have additional business
coming into the community. Think of the additional
strain that may be put upon your coffers and services if
you spend a lot of money with lawyers, not that I
particularly mind money being spent with lawyers, and in
addition if you might ultimately end up spending money
in damages by reason of the fact of the temporary
taking. Because it may well be that your taking will
only be a temporary thing, it may be overturned, but one
no longer has to wait for the issue of damages until the
courts have decided whether the moratorium or whatever
regulatory statute might have been enacted is reversed.
I only suggest that a lot of care be given. I
heard what Mayor King said. I recognized what he said.
I recognize that oftentimes we do things out of
immediate concern and perhaps sometime out of panic.
But I don't think that the City should be stampeded by
any one person, or staff's concerns into doing something
without strenuously considering, seriously considering,
just what you're getting into and seriously considering
other possibilities. As an example, it would seem to
me, that insofar as the pipeline is concerned, as Mr.
Rangel referred to it, certainly if you decide to go
forward with your moratorium tonight, or after hearings
down the road, it would seem to me that at least insofar
BIB]
37652-U01
1987-U02
08-U02
05-U02
CC-U02
MIN-U02
LI1-U03
FO3794-U03
FO9441-U03
DO9454-U03
C4-U03
MINUTES1-U03
1/30/2003-U04
ROBIN-U04
REGULAR-U05
SESSION-U05
CITY-U06
COUNCIL-U06