Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1988 07 11 CC MIN1988 07 11 CC MIN;¢f4Á’JOINT MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL AND THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF BALDWIN PARK, CITY HALL, 14403 EAST PACIFIC AVENUE, MONDAY, JULY 11, 1988, AT 6:30 P.M. The City Council and the Planning Commission of the City of Baldwin Park met in a Joint Session in Council Chambers of the City Hall at 6:30 p.m. ROLL CALL: PRESENT: COUNCILMEMBERS GIBSON, IZELL, ROLL CALL LOWES, MCNEILL AND MAYOR KING COMMISSION MEMBERS FITZGERALD, RICHARD, RUMNEY AND CHAIRMAN WHITLEY City Manager Webb, ALSO PRESENT: Dir. of Admin Services Yelton, Dir. of Housing & Economic Development Hemer, City Planner Rangel, and City Clerk Gair 00- City Planner Rangel: I am going to start out by RANGEL giving a brief history of how we got here, then I will turn the program over to the consultant, Cotton/Beland. The City's General Plan is often referred to as the City's Constitution. The blueprint, the document that identifies the City's policies relative to its' physical, economic and environmental development. The General Plan that we operate under today was adopted in 1979, zoning amendments took place in 1980. At that time there was a considerable amount of land that was redesignated to multiple family. We are not real certain as to why, but we think that part of the reason may well have been to get the City' s population up to the 50/000 mark which is significant for subventions and other monies that come from the Feds and State. And, secondly, is to cleanup, we suspect, some of the areas that were in a state of decay at that time. In September of about 84 there was an Ad Hoc Committee established and that Ad hoc Committee put together the regulations that currently establish the RG and R3 zone. The Ordinance was adopted in September of 85 for those standards. From about January of 1986 to August of 87 over 400 multiple family units were developed in the City of Baldwin Park, or at least that many building permits were issued. In August of 87 the moratorium which is currently in place was adopted and then extended again in September of that same year and that moratorium is due to expire the 31st of this month know we're taking, to Council, recommendation, public hearing, moratorium for a year. July). And as you in two weeks a to extend that You may recall that the purpose of the moratorium was a few. One, was that we were hearing from a lot of people that there was a considerable amount of develop- ment taking place within the community which they did not like. Tall, two and three story buildings. Lot of it going into areas that they thought, prior, had been Rl. BIB] 37651-U01 1988-U02 07-U02 11-U02 CC-U02 MIN-U02 LI1-U03 FO3794-U03 FO9354-U03 DO9369-U03 C4-U03 MINUTES1-U03 1/30/2003-U04 ROBIN-U04 REGULAR-U05 MEETING-U05 CITY-U06 COUNCIL-U06 1988 07 11 CC MIN;¢f4Á’JOINT MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL AND THE JULY 11, 1988 PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF PAGE TWO BALDWIN PARK Also, of course we knew this, we saw some of this RANGEL development coming in. We had about 836 units in CON'T) process at the time the moratorium hit. Another very urgent concern from our standpoint was that all this density requires a lot of service. As an example, there's a standard, national standard/ that for every thousand people population you have you should have 2.2 officers, and for parkland space you should have about three acres per thousand population. With all these people coming in it's taxing the City's abilities to provide the services. As I said the Moratorium was adopted in August of 87, there were 836 units in process, 195 of those units had received building permits, or had had some other type of discretionary approval and therefore made it under the wire of the moratorium. Another 641 units were stopped by the moratorium. Of those there's about 272 of those units that will not be built. And the reason they will not be built is they have had approval for Planned Development or are going through the process currently for Planned Development. As you recall when you adopted the ordinance you made provisions for Planned Development and we feel that that process has worked very well. As an example, there is a property that you all are familiar with at essentially the corner of Los Angeles and Merced, There were 45 apartments units proposed for that property. There is now under construction a Planned Development, 16 units. The Commission has recommended and the Council has approved three other Planned Developments on Foster and Cosbey and Ramona. They total 63 units where there may have been a 151 units of apartments or condominiums. Currently in process, we also have, three other Planned Developments totaling 45 units where there may have been 120 multiple family units. Total we should have 118 Planned Development Units where there may otherwise have been 272. So there's a net loss of 163 which is significant. People continue to show an interest in this Planned Development and, by the way for your information, I'm sure the Council and Commission know, the proposed RG standards is at a density that we are seeing these multiple family planned developments. And, by the way, these multiple family planned developments that I am talking about are all on multiple family zoned lots. We have a lot of other planned developments that are on Rl zoned lots. In September of last year the Council awarded a contract to Cotton/Beland to do the General Plan update. In January of this year Cotton/Beland sent out 6,000 questionaires to businesses and residences of the community, and they're going to talk about that tonight. We've had two community workshops and various Planning Commission study sessions, we have two additional community workshops, we have two additional Planning Commission workshops and one other joint meeting such as this one. And we have at least two public Hearings scheduled before the Planning Commission and the Council before this General Plan is completed. That's pretty much all I have to say I'm going to turn this over now to Dale Beland of Cotton/Beland and Associates. BIB] 37651-U01 1988-U02 07-U02 11-U02 CC-U02 MIN-U02 LI1-U03 FO3794-U03 FO9354-U03 DO9369-U03 C4-U03 MINUTES1-U03 1/30/2003-U04 ROBIN-U04 REGULAR-U05 MEETING-U05 CITY-U06 COUNCIL-U06 1988 07 11 CC MIN;¢f4Á’JOINT MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL AND THE JULY 11, 1988 PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF PAGE THREE BALDWIN PARK Dale Beland: Thank you. Art. Good evening. Let BELAND me say in the beginning that this is a very pleasant occasion for us, because it is a mile stone program. That means we're making progress. We hope that after tonight's discussion you'll feel the same way. Briefly, looking at the agenda for this evening, I'd like to explain to you what our hoped for results would be. The major effort that we'd like to address tonight is Item 6, Draft Land Use Plan Map: Discussion of Land Use Options". As we have told you before, it has been our experience that in looking at a general plan, whether it's an initial general plan or an update of an existing program, the determination of land use policy and the map that reflects that policy is almost inevitably the most interesting and most difficult part of the program. And we have at this point in our work effort have gone a long way toward the analysis of all different options that are, in our opinion, feasible and viable for the City. So tonight we'll be focusing on this particular item. In addition to that we're going to very quickly over view for you some findings from the technical report dealing with land use, environmental and economic factors. And to assist us with this concern about economic factors we have the team from Natelson, Levander and Whitney, who are our economic sub- contractor. Led by Anita Kramer and John Stymmis who are with us this evening. We keep them on the other side of the table because they are economists. Paul will also be telling you a little bit about our assessment of the questionnaire responses and we'11 conclude with a definition of next steps and suggested schedule. But first let's take a look at where we are in the schedule. This diagram held up) should look familiar to the Commissioners and Councilman, Councilmembers, as we presented this at our initial workshop. The first phase, shown in yellow, is essentially home work, the background effort that we go through to understand the community, learn what the current characteristics of the City are do our land use analysis and all the other work that helps us become informed and competent on dealing with the City of Baldwin Park. Phase 2 is really equally important, but it deals more with trying to determine where we can go and where we want to go. Looking at goals, obj ectives and potential draft policies. Phase 3 is looking at land designations and some opportunites, if you will, with respect to land use and circulation. Phase 4 is looking further at the definition of a preferred land use policy. Which gives us the foundation and the basic element for the draft general plan, which is then shown in the dark green there referring to the display) as Phase 5, that is the actual completed draft documentation which includes all the textural elements along with the maps, graphics and so forth. So the green block there, the draft general plan, is what we're working towards. The last section is the adoption and implementation of the actual program. BIB] 37651-U01 1988-U02 07-U02 11-U02 CC-U02 MIN-U02 LI1-U03 FO3794-U03 FO9354-U03 DO9369-U03 C4-U03 MINUTES1-U03 1/30/2003-U04 ROBIN-U04 REGULAR-U05 MEETING-U05 CITY-U06 COUNCIL-U06 1988 07 11 CC MIN;¢f4Á’JOINT MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL AND THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF BALDWIN PARK JULY II/ 1988 PAGE FOUR The red dot that you see right here) is at task BELAND 3.3. So we have, up til this very moment, essentially CON'T) completed all of phase three. And if you agree with our results to date, and have no major problems with our recommendations, as expressed this evening, we feel we will be able to complete Phase 4 this month and move forward very rapidly getting to the point where we have the potential for hearings in September. So we've made good progress and I think that, you know based on our discussions with you people this evening, we'll be in position to move forward rather quickly. The work program in Baldwin Park is typical of many jobs that are under way right now. We're looking at well established communities, and trying to make adjustments to do with the effects of growth. Looking at a situation where older zoning patterns have been determined to be not appropriate for today's requirements for quality of life and where the City's ability to provide services is being strained extremely. So, in that sense, this is a fairly contemporary program. The thing that I think that makes Baldwin Park's program distinctive is the extraordinary effort that has been made to look at the land use situation on a lot by lot, parcel by parcel basis. And I can tell you very confidently that we have a great deal of comfort in our definition of what's out there. We feel relatively sure that we have done a very good job of addressing what is on the ground, what is currently developed and what that means. In that sense it is not a general plan it's a very, very specific type of plan. And this is important for you to know because in any general plan there's a level of ambiguity just based on the lack of definition. That is not the case in this program. We have good information, we have a good understanding of current land use patterns. In addition to that, I think the City Staff has been very helpful in assisting us in determining some policy changes with respect to the density range, that will also be very unique to the City of Baldwin Park. So, as you can probably tell we feel good about what we've done so far, we think we're bringing you some options which are pragmatic and are achieveable and which will work directly to the support of the direction that came out of the questionnaire, from comment we'vw had at different workshops and from the community. With that I'd like to move on then to Item 3 on the agenda, Findings from the Technical Report"/ and ask Paul and Anita to give us a very brief overview. So that we can move forward into the heavy stuff. Paul Secord: In the packets that were sent out SECORD over the last couple of weeks you should by now have received copies of essentially all of our major back- ground reports and materials as well as summary sheets that we've used at several of the past workshops and public meetings. These include an issues paper statement, a summary of the results that came from the questionnaire, a goals and policies report, there were two reports that related to goals and policies, a document called Land Use Options", that presented some of our initial ideas of the kinds of strategies that we might be using in Baldwin Park. And, finally a land use BIB] 37651-U01 1988-U02 07-U02 11-U02 CC-U02 MIN-U02 LI1-U03 FO3794-U03 FO9354-U03 DO9369-U03 C4-U03 MINUTES1-U03 1/30/2003-U04 ROBIN-U04 REGULAR-U05 MEETING-U05 CITY-U06 COUNCIL-U06 1988 07 11 CC MIN;¢f4Á’JOINT MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL AND THE JULY 11, 1988 PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF PAGE FIVE BALDWIN PARK designations report, and there was an eight and a half SECORD by eleven colored xerox version of, essentially this map CON'T) up on my right on display), the proposed land use changes map, which showed the various areas that we're suggesting that at this stage for some change in land use policy. We also passed out copies of the municipal fiscal technical report and representatives from Natelson, Levander and Whitney will address that in a few seconds. The first part of the project which we had a recap of where we had been was to put together some good base maps of the community and do very detailed parcel by parcel surveys which were completed fairly early on in the process and this led to the preparation of a series of technical reports, Land Use Element Technical Report", circulation is now essentially complete, noise, conservation, open space, an inventory of facilities throughout the community. Once we had finished that that led to the identification of a number of specific issues, of course most critical has to do with multiple family development, and that's the thrust of the program and where we have concentrated most of our efforts. Including multiple family developments on single lots with less than a fourth of an acre. Small lots where you're getting large developments on small lots essentially* Multiple family developments encroaching into single family areas. There were questions that were brought up concerning the range of densities of different kind of multiple family development, the appropriateness of those densities. There were some areas where we had identified existing non-conforming uses in densities. We will get the relative ratio of kinds of land uses within the community. And then we looked at the location of park and open space facilities, at the need for upgrading various kinds of facilities, recreational facilities, school facilities. There were other concerns that revolved around flood control, around the ability of the City to provide adequate infrastructure pipes, streets. And a series of factors which dealt specifically with housing, with the rise in housing costs. With the increase in family size over the last several years, which has been rather dramatic. After assessing those factors, some of them came out of our initial work, they also came out of a questionnaire. The questionnaire was mailed to 6,000 addresses in the community. It went, essentially to all business addresses, 2,000 were mailed out to business addresses; 4,000 were mailed out to households addresses, about 25% of all the households in the community. The responses from that indicated that in terms of services the people were using, a large number of people were using: the library, 57%, local parks, 47%, police was identified by 40% of the respondents. The picture that we got was that long term residents, individuals who for the most part that lived in the community for over ten years, generally the population that was concerned about the need for additional public services. They were pleased with the ones they were using. They had positive comments relative to library, parks, police service received very high marks, but BIB] 37651-U01 1988-U02 07-U02 11-U02 CC-U02 MIN-U02 LI1-U03 FO3794-U03 FO9354-U03 DO9369-U03 C4-U03 MINUTES1-U03 1/30/2003-U04 ROBIN-U04 REGULAR-U05 MEETING-U05 CITY-U06 COUNCIL-U06 1988 07 11 CC MIN;¢f4Á’JOINT MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL AND THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF BALDWIN PARK JULY 11, 1988 PAGE SIX police service, the need to expand that was identified as a concern. People indicated the advantages to living in Baldwin Park, particularly the proximity to the freeway systems and with housing costs becoming more and more expensive, especially close in to the city L.A.). Baldwin Park was identified as a desirable place to be. In addition, another critical aspect of our review was looking at the financial aspects of the community, what kind of effect do various kinds of developments have on the relative balance on revenues versus expenditures. As part of our work program in addition to traffic engineers, noise consultants, an economics firm was included as part of the program to look into that and I'll turn it over to Anita Kramer who will speak briefly to the results of that analysis. SECORD CON'T) Question regarding Big Dalton Wash the following is in response to the Mayor King: was not audible, question). Paul Secord: It is desirable to do cover the Big Dalton Wash), we have not investigated the viability of doing that or a proposal to cover the wash, Mayor King: I think that this is a viable option, and the Council discussed this some ten to fifteen years ago, Remaining remarks not audible) We'll look into it. We have not at Paul Secord: this point. Paul Secord: In response to Mayor King's question regarding the reponse to the questionnaire) It certainly is a valid sample from a statistical standpoint. We got a large enough response to do that. We also took a look at demographic factors, age of the population, household size, those kind of numbers that give you an indication of the range of different types and classifications of individuals within a community and we compared that, the information we knew from census data, with the responses that we got from the survey and they correlated quite well. We did get somewhat higher response from home owners than renters. Which is always what happens in surveys of this type. We got a higher response from elderly segments of the community and that's normal, too. We had a pretty good spread so that we're getting responses that are indicative of the population. It wasn't too skewed to one side. Mayor King: Statements regarding painting of homes not audible, the following is a reponse). Paul Secord: There was not a specific point where you could say that individuals were requesting that there be a committee formed to look over this. There was a need for code enforcement. The responses did indicate a desire for stronger code enforcement, stronger policing and for an improvement in the overall aesthetics aspects. That came through, so it is supportive of your Mayor King's) comments, Commissioner Fitzgerald: If I remember right your response to that survey was about 13%? Paul Secord: Yes, that's correct. That's average. That's pretty good actually, for this kind of survey that's a good response. We received something over 500 back of the 4,000 that went out to residents and that's a good response. It results in a valid sample. We checked back with the demagrphic factors to make sure we KING SECORD KING SECORD SECORD KING SECORD FITZ- GERALD SECORD BIB] 37651-U01 1988-U02 07-U02 11-U02 CC-U02 MIN-U02 LI1-U03 FO3794-U03 FO9354-U03 DO9369-U03 C4-U03 MINUTES1-U03 1/30/2003-U04 ROBIN-U04 REGULAR-U05 MEETING-U05 CITY-U06 COUNCIL-U06 1988 07 11 CC MIN;¢f4Á’JOINT MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL AND THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF BALDWIN PARK JULY 11, 1988 PAGE SEVEN weren't too skewed over on one side. Councilman Izell; Did you get any ethnic figures on the returned questionnaires? Paul Secord: Yes, we do and I don't recall the numbers right off, but my recollection of it is that the relative distribution of it was pretty close to what the census information was. In that we were pretty well balanced. I'll have to look back through the numbers to check that, but we do have the numbers to verify that. IZELL SECORD There was a major concern regarding appearance) people really focused on questionnaire. This was in response to Mayor King that could not be heard) neighborhood this in the a question by Anita Kramer: Our task was to provide the City with means of understanding the fiscal impact of different kinds of development activity. In order to do this we first grouped alldevelopment activity into four major categories: Industrial, Commercial, which includes both retail and office. Single Family Residential and Multi- Family Residential. Then we identified the net impact of developing one acre of each of these categories. For example, we identified all the revenues that would accrue to the City if one acre of land was developed for industrial purposes. Then we identified all the costs to the City of servicing that one acre. And we subtracted out the costs and the revenues to get the net fiscal impact to the City. We did this for each of the four categories of development activity. A net gain would mean that the total revenue, from that one acre, exceeds the total cost to the City of servicing that one acre. A net loss would mean that the cost of servicing that acre would exceed the total revenues that would accrue to the City from that acre. The results were as follows: A commercial acre produces a large net fiscal gain of about $4,700, on the per acre basis. An industrial acre produces a small net fiscal loss of about $70 per acre. Single family residential at an average density of about 5 units per acre produces a slightly larger net fiscal loss than industrial at about $870 per acre* Multi family residential produces the largest net loss, of all of these different kinds of uses, at almost $2,900 per acre. These factors are most helpful in looking at development options that may occur in any given time period, say a year. So that the City can assess how the mix of development balances out in terms of the net fiscal impact. So that these factors can actually be used/ not only to understand the impact of each individual use, but it can also look at the larger picture. Paul Secord: The implications of that are certainly an important factor that fit in really quite well with the direction that we anticipated the program to be going in right, at the outset. We're supportive of the basic land use conclusions that we are in the process now of formulating. The start of that was to develop some goals and policy statements, and you received copies of those, and I'll go over some of these fairly quickly. KRAMER SECORD BIB] 37651-U01 1988-U02 07-U02 11-U02 CC-U02 MIN-U02 LI1-U03 FO3794-U03 FO9354-U03 DO9369-U03 C4-U03 MINUTES1-U03 1/30/2003-U04 ROBIN-U04 REGULAR-U05 MEETING-U05 CITY-U06 COUNCIL-U06 1988 07 11 CC MIN;¢f4Á’JOINT MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL AND THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF BALDWIN PARK JULY 11, 1988 PAGE EIGHT Anita Kramer: In response to Mayor King, who KRAMER could not be heard) The 60% is one of the factors that can be put to the formula that produces the $870 referred to in the third paragraph, third line as referenced by Mayor King). One is the input, one is the output and there are many other factors that are involved in this, they are different parts of the equation. Dale Beland: I'd like to add a comment about this BELAND fiscal analysis. This is always a very/ very important concern which deals with the reality of the problems cities face when we have a lot of residential multiple development and many times don't have a corresponding increase in income to help pay all the services. You may be interested in knowing how these acre figures, showing the relative fiscal effect of different construction of different kind of land use per acre, how they relate to other communities involved in the same type of effort. They are very comparable to cities of the same character, as Baldwin Park. Meaning older communities that are substantially built out/ where multiples are really in effect infill/ new development. They are much different than areas which have a lot of empty land. Big cities with lots of space/ where there is very little existing/ backbone, infrastructure. In other words, they're still building the pipes, they're still building the streets from nothing. They're still setting up their police stations/ their fire stations. In those situations the numbers are much different. But the general pattern that says that commercial is of real benefit/ fiscal benefit, to the City/ and residential mulitiple is typically negative, a loss, that model is consistent. So/ there's nothing surprising here. If there's any variation between this community and others/ it's strictly related to the type of character of this community and what is here today. Okay? Councilwoman McNeill: I would just like to ask a MCNEILL question. How do you go about establishing the character of a city at this time when the people who live in that city are making a desperate effort at this time to change the character of their city? Dale Beland: I should be more careful in my terms. BELAND I was referring to the physical characteristics of the community not the overall City character. Okay? Councilwoman McNeill: I am very sensitive to that/ MCNEILL inasmuch as the residents of Baldwin Park are very anxious to change modes. Since I have the mike I would like to ask you another question. I am very sensitive/ too, to the density of the Planned Unit Development. In a tour that I went on the other day, I think they are very nice/ but the space in between these units/ five just won't do it. You very well see the difference between one that is five feet apart and one that is seven. And if we could establish a limit of five feet space between each unit I think it would be better for the aesthetics. Seven, set it as seven. Five is just too little. Dale Beland: I understand your comments. You're BELAND really raising an issue about development standards and that's kind of down the road. First we have to get BIB] 37651-U01 1988-U02 07-U02 11-U02 CC-U02 MIN-U02 LI1-U03 FO3794-U03 FO9354-U03 DO9369-U03 C4-U03 MINUTES1-U03 1/30/2003-U04 ROBIN-U04 REGULAR-U05 MEETING-U05 CITY-U06 COUNCIL-U06 1988 07 11 CC MIN;¢f4Á’ JOINT MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL AND THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF BALDWIN PARK JULY 11, 1988 PAGE NINE input from the Commission and Council on basic land use BELAND policy, meaning what goes where. Then we'll be talking CON'T) about some modifications to the density ranges, how many units per acre for the different kinds of land use classifications. Your question concerns the detailed development standards which would be the next step in line. So it's a little premature right now. Paul Secord: The first step before we get down to SECORD looking at specific policies is to establish some overall goals for the community. To get an idea of what kind of community and what sorts of changes the residents of Baldwin Park want to see. There was a Goldman's policies paper that was included as part of the packet of material that has been sent out. The crux of the overall goal was to strengthen and to perserve the low density character, in single family nature, of the community. That seemed to be one of the strongest priorities that we heard. There was also a strong statement relative to the need to encourage new community oriented retail uses throughout the community. And to do whatever we can to strengthen the commercial base of Baldwin Park and to continue to improve and expand the industrial base of the community. Our recommendations, initial recommendations, as we have now started to look at what those kinds of overall goals and some of the detail policies, behind them, would lead to, has resulted in the map that was sent out and now, the map that is up on the wall behind me. Over the last few weeks we've made a couple of modifications to that as we've gone through and taken another look at some of the specific parcels. I should say that I cannot remember a general plan program where we have gone literally on a parcel by parcel basis, and dealt with general planning at this level of detail. Normally the general plan is just that, it is general. It is establishing overall guidelines and its' perspective is taking a look at the community as a whole. The next steps to that after establishing basic land use policy guidelines comes down to zoning, and zoning is seen as one of the implementation tools. One of the tools that gets you to the general plan, to that desired general plan. As part of that zoning or other kinds of standards would be development standards that deal with set backs, heighth limitations and the rest of that. One of the things we took a look at as we started to play with the land use map is to say, what is the existing population right now and where's that population going. What kind of changes have we had. Back in 1984 the population was 56,000. Only three years later in 87 it was 62,200. The number of people per dwelling unit had risen from about 3.7 to 3.8. So the households were getting bigger. A lot more people were coming into the community. Something else was happening and that was the change in the relative relationship between households and employees. The number of people that are working in the community versus the number of people who are living in the community. While there's no ideal number, no ideal balance, this is becoming a real catch word in planning right now in a job/housing balance. Policies are being established to try to get the households/jobs as balanced as possible. This means less traffic on the BIB] 37651-U01 1988-U02 07-U02 11-U02 CC-U02 MIN-U02 LI1-U03 FO3794-U03 FO9354-U03 DO9369-U03 C4-U03 MINUTES1-U03 1/30/2003-U04 ROBIN-U04 REGULAR-U05 MEETING-U05 CITY-U06 COUNCIL-U06 1988 07 11 CC MIN;¢f4Á’ JOINT MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL AND THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF BALDWIN PARK freeways, less air pollution, less noise and a variety of factors. The employment base has not risen nearly as quickly as the population has here. In 1984 there were about 10,00 people that were employed and that resulted in a ratio that for every one household there was about 65 jobs. As the population has risen that imbalance has gotten greater. As we started to think about policies that would be proposed as part of the plan one of the things that we were looking at was what kind of policies essentially slow down that growth and encourage commercial growth that help rectify that general imbalance. The trend moving back in the other direction. We did two things, one of them was to take a look at existing multiple family and since in Baldwin Park the current general plan designations corresponds almost exactly with the zoning designations. We're talking about multiple family, we're talking about R3, the residential garden things, RG designations, and single family in Rl and we've used the terms interchangeably. Which is something planners don't like to do, we like to make that strong distinction, but here they correspond almost one to one. We looked at areas where there were established single family residential blocks that were currently zoned R3 or designated for multiple family development and where there had been a relatively small amount of multiple family incursion into these areas. In a few of those areas/ that we found, we suggested that the designations go back to single family designations. There were a number of other R3, or high density residential, areas where we suggested the density be reduced to the RG classification. There were very few RG areas that we suggested that go back to single family and then there were a couple of minor changes in commercial designations to recognize existing land uses for a development proposal. In one case in an area that's zoned industrial development, where there was a viable commercial project, it was a more appropriate use for that site. Those kinds of uses are reflested on the map that was passed out. As a result of some other minor changes what this means in terms of ultimate buildout in the City, what kind of a population is out there yet. If things kept going as they are in the existing plan, you'd end up with about 11/400 single family units, about 7/700 multiple family units assuming the number of mobile homes stays pretty much constant with the existing mobile parks, for a total of 19,500 units. That translates out to a population of around 72,000. A little over 72,000 people. That incidentally is consistent with the projection that the Southern California Associations of Governments have sent to the City to be used as part of the housing element. Their projections range from a population in 2010, which we're assuming would be about buildout for the community, between 72,700, and in one projection 92,000. With rather limited rise in the number of employment base, only from about 10,000 to 13,000, and in pretty consistent numbers across the board. So the imbalance, if got as high as 92,000 the imbalance would be enormous, but with 72,000 it would be roughly the same. You would have about the same jobs to households. BIB] 37651-U01 1988-U02 07-U02 11-U02 CC-U02 MIN-U02 LI1-U03 FO3794-U03 FO9354-U03 DO9369-U03 C4-U03 MINUTES1-U03 1/30/2003-U04 ROBIN-U04 REGULAR-U05 MEETING-U05 CITY-U06 COUNCIL-U06 1988 07 11 CC MIN;¢f4Á’ JOINT MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL AND THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF BALDWIN PARK JULY 11, 1988 PAGE ELEVEN t I The proposal that we have looked at would currently reduce the numbers to a total buildout of about 72,000. this is where that question came in earlier. Under the existing plan we're looking at multiple family areas you get about 3,000 units. Under the buildout/ by the current proposal, you'd get another about 1,000 units. So you'd be reducing that by about 2/000 total, across the citywide total. This is assuming complete buildout. The way we arrived at those figures was to look at every single parcel, in a multiple family area, and say if there was a multiple family development on it, then that was the number that was on it we assumed that was going to stay. If there was a single family house on it, what would happen if that house was demolished. How many units could you get under the existing zoning classifications. So we got into a very detailed look at that. Commissioner Rumney: Question could not be heard, the following is a response to the question) Paul Secord: 17.5 results in a population of 64,800, close to 65,000 people. Assuming 17,500 you'd get with 3.7 persons per households and end up with a population of close to 65,000 people. One of the things that happens is the household size numbers have been going up and a couple of drops one way or another in the number of persons per household changes that equation tremendously. The most recent poplation number that we had was 62,000. We recognize that we are probably close to the 65. Now, if we ended up, the total buildout of the City, with a smaller overall household size, which we would anticipate is going to happen. We think we are going to get down to this 3.7 numbers then we'd end up with a leveling off of the population. Over time twenty years) we wouldn't see dramatic change in that. And it has to do with this household size. Councilman Izell: Question could not be heard, the following is a response to the question) Paul Secord: The number that we used was a continuation of the number of the 1987 or last year's number. We know that in some cases and in some of the land use categories it may actually run up to 3.8. in some cases. In the census data I think we've got pretty good information from the census and the most recent numbers that we've gotten from the Department of Finance are accurate. One of the things that is happening is that traditionally Baldwin Park has been a community with higher proportion, proportionally than other communities of older residents, but that's been changing rapidly and it's certainly not the case now nor would we anticipate it to be the case in the future. We're talking about the average number overall. We're talking about community-wide average figure. I think we have accurate numbers that are giving us a good breakdown. The breakdown in persons per household, I have the numbers here/ the relative breakdown is 15% one person; about 30% two person; about 40% three or four persons per household, the largest group), and five or more 17%. So we've got 54% or more of over three or more persons in a household. SECORD CON'T) RUMNEY SECORD IZELL SECORD Councilman Gibson: audible that related to Comments were not completely the census figures about the 6% GIBSON BIB] 37651-U01 1988-U02 07-U02 11-U02 CC-U02 MIN-U02 LI1-U03 FO3794-U03 FO9354-U03 DO9369-U03 C4-U03 MINUTES1-U03 1/30/2003-U04 ROBIN-U04 REGULAR-U05 MEETING-U05 CITY-U06 COUNCIL-U06 1988 07 11 CC MIN;¢f4Á’ 1988 07 11 CC MIN;¢f4Á’ JOINT MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL AND THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF BALDWIN PARK JULY 11, 1988 PAGE THIRTEEN It would reduce the overall densities of those kinds of projects, and would allow for increased set-backs and additional parking and those kinds of requirements. For your basic single family lot, the ability to develop on a single family lot, would remain essentially unchanged. For the most part development in the community is about five to six units per acre. It's essentially reflecting the general overall character of the neighborhood. Mayor King: Question relating to the need to lower density to allow for good design review was not audible, the following is the response to the question). SECORD CON'T) KING Paul Secord: in hand. Well the two are really working hand SECORD Mayor King: Where do they meet? In other words the RG now, I've seen them where there is adequate they but it's not placed properly and if there were a little more room how much more. And if placed properly, proper design, it would be good. I'm talking about overall reduction. We're talking about reducing numbers I mean that's reduction in numbers. I voted down to a point, but I want to go beyond that point and I felt it should be reduced. But then when I got to the density factor. I agreed that we need to reduce, but on the other hand do we need to reduce it that much? When we' re eliminating all of the others and we would have good design refiew and still allow room for private yards and so forth. How much is needed? I don't know how to equate this in your report. Dale Beland: Mr. Mayor/ If I may. No, I understand what you are saying I'd like to make a comment if I may. I'm presuming that you have the two tables showing the buildout potential. Tables one and table two, 3.1 its says Land Use Designations Report/ June, 1988, and table one is the one we're looking at, it's on page 3.13. Mr. Mayor/ though you're question really gets down to the major task before us all and that is, considering a revision in land use policy. Before we look at these tables I want to spend just a moment focusing on your point. Mayor, because I think that's very critical, As you know, the recommendations that we have brought to you this evening consists really of two different strategies- One is to look at the areas within the City which should be considered for reclassification from a higher density to a lower density. The second strategy is to take the actual ranges and reduce the allowable developable unit under those particular ranges. So it's a two-fold effort. Now, as I understand your comments, you're King) expressing some concerns about the extent to which we have suggested reductions in the densities ranges. Let me make a comment about the general approach that we have suggested. It is entirely possible for a city to put its heavy confidence in staff review, under RPD, with some specific development standards establishing minimums, minimum set-backs, minimum separation between units, etc. And not attempt to reduce the upper range of allowable density. And if that is the approach we choose to take, we're saying that we feel comfortable that, with staff control and with minimal development standards, made explicit, we can proceed and accomplish the goal that we are trying to achieve. KING BELAND BIB] 37651-U01 1988-U02 07-U02 11-U02 CC-U02 MIN-U02 LI1-U03 FO3794-U03 FO9354-U03 DO9369-U03 C4-U03 MINUTES1-U03 1/30/2003-U04 ROBIN-U04 REGULAR-U05 MEETING-U05 CITY-U06 COUNCIL-U06 1988 07 11 CC MIN;¢f4Á’JOINT MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL AND THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF BALDWIN PARK JULY 11, 1988 PAGE FOURTEEN The reason we have not brought that to you initially is very simple. It has been our experience that throughout today * s building environment, the development world in Southern California, the one critical ingredient is predictability. The people who own the land, the people who want to buy the land, the people who want to build the units have one thing in common and that is a desire to, almost a demand, for predictability. They want to know what the rules of the game are. And to the extent that we can feel comfortable about establishing predictability, I think we eliminate a lot of problems down the road. The down side of that is that the more we make things predictable, the more fixed we become in terms of allowable density, etc. The less room we have for the flexibility administering our PB and everything else. So the trade off, and I think the range of choice that the Council and Commission have got to consider is which is more important to the community at this time and for the forseeable future? Are we better off trying to move very directly toward predictability, which means we would bracket the allowable ranges within a very limited number. Now there's reduced from existing down to a lower number and that's it or keep the upper limit relatively where it is today, but instruct staff to tighten up on site plan reviews and to do a more rigorous analysis and a more careful review of individual approvals. So that we look at every particular development on almost a site by site, project by project basis. Both of these can work. It's really a choice as to where the community feels most comfortable or you have the staff resources to deal with it. BELAND CON'T) Councilamn Izell: of housing being too totally audible, the question). Question relating to high cost high for the residents was not following is a response to the IZELL Paul Secord: One of the things thats happened throughout Southern California is that housing costs have just raised expedientially, much faster than individuals incomes have been able to rise. Lending institutions have taken a more liberal view of what percentage of a persons disposable income can be applied to buying a house and to paying off a loan. Frankly, there isn't anything that the general plan is going to do that's going to change that situation, or change how that equation occurs. As we get a situation with the kinds of development that we would forsee happening under this proprosal, we're certainly going to get more owner occupied units. We think that the relative range in cost, what those units are going to be likely to be selling for, gets to be difficult to predict. Who fifteen years ago what was going terms of rising house costs or rates* could have predicted to be happening in changes in interest But we're dealing at a point in the housing market where we have essentially middle class kind of housing, housing that's generally affordable to a fairly large range of population. And I think that the balance is going to work out pretty well. That we're not going to see a situation in new units where there are an undue number of vacant or foreclosed units, because people SECORD BIB] 37651-U01 1988-U02 07-U02 11-U02 CC-U02 MIN-U02 LI1-U03 FO3794-U03 FO9354-U03 DO9369-U03 C4-U03 MINUTES1-U03 1/30/2003-U04 ROBIN-U04 REGULAR-U05 MEETING-U05 CITY-U06 COUNCIL-U06 1988 07 11 CC MIN;¢f4Á’JOINT MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL AND THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF BALDWIN PARK JULY 11, 1988 PAGE FIFTEEN can't make the payments on something like that occurring. it. I can't anticipate Councilman Izell: Question relating to this rising housing costs, the need for an economic study and the devaluatin of land due to this plan was not totally audible, the following is a response to the questions). Dale Belaud: Well, Councilman, let's be very direct. There is no way that we can lower the price of housing if we reduce the number of units that are allowed to be built. It's obvious. There is no way we can lower the cost of housing if we upgrade development standards and increase the distance between units and do other things that seem to be desirable, based on what we've heard. So we're caught directly in the trap that faces every community in this state and in this nation. At a time when we have more people coming into the housing market, many of whom have the income to enter the SECORD CON'T) IZELL BELAND market, they're being priced out, it? Well, I would repeat Paul's statement that, beyond the ability of the Baldwin Park General Plan to deal with it/ quite frankly. It's a regional, it's a national issue, What do we do about it's Mayor King: Statement not audible, is a response to the statement). the following Dale Beland: Well, in that sense. Mayor King, we're really talking about the City of Baldwin Park as a family with economic demands, with economic requirements, and it's getting as much pressure as Jane and Sam Smith that are trying to buy that first house. There is a basic policy decision to be recommended by the Commission and to be determined by the Council. Councilman Izell: What I'm asking for is I think everybody knows that kids can't afford houses, I want to see some figures of what is the projected costs of a house in Baldwin Park. How much is it going to take for a down payment and how many of our citizens can afford to live in the new houses that being built today. There are very few that can afford to live in a house in Baldwin Park. Chairman Whitley: There are a lot of people renting now, making enough, and people who already own their homes. Councilman Izell: I'm talking about people that have to go out and buy their homes. Dale Beland: Let me suggest this to you. Part of our responsibility, under our work program is to do an environmental impact report. Commissioner Richard: Statement regarding not being able to project cost and a concern for the cost of land was not totally audible, the following was in response to the statement). Dale Beland: If I may commissioners, let me offer this to you. One of our oblgations is to do an environmental impact report. We can, I think quite easily, do a general description of the effect of any reduced densities or buildout on the market demand for housing. And using the fiscal model that these people the economists) have produced we can estimate the KING BELAND IZELL WHITLEY IZELL BELAND RICHARD BELAND BIB] 37651-U01 1988-U02 07-U02 11-U02 CC-U02 MIN-U02 LI1-U03 FO3794-U03 FO9354-U03 DO9369-U03 C4-U03 MINUTES1-U03 1/30/2003-U04 ROBIN-U04 REGULAR-U05 MEETING-U05 CITY-U06 COUNCIL-U06 1988 07 11 CC MIN;¢f4Á’JOINT MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL AND THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF BALDWIN PARK JULY II/ 1988 PAGE SIXTEEN impact on the City, so that if we were to assume BELAND buildout, under the current plan, we know that the City CON'T) would be going in the hole. In terms of not receiving enough revenue to provide services to those many people. We can then look at what we're projecting under the revised plan, with a reduced buildout potential with respect to what that does to market costs and housing. All we can do is take some current numbers in terms of increase in market costs for housing, which are going up very rapidly and project those straight ahead over a twenty year span. Which is going to be highly artificial because there is going to be some dips in that. Some people think some big dips. But we could give you some information on that. In all respects I would have to say that we have no way of suggesting to you any planning strategies that is going to keep the price of new units where they are today. They are going to go up. Mr. Mayor let us resume by having us ask the Commission and Council a question. You have had a chance, I believe, to see the exhibits on the wall here and you have received copies of the reduced version of those maps in your packet. Are there any questions that you have about the proposed actual areas being classified? Commissioner Rumney: When we talked early on about RUMNEY this density. Here we have Rl and all of a sudden we look over at the lot next to it and R3 goes up. We talked about using R2 as a buffer between R3 and Rl and I don't see much of that. Mayor King: That's a good point. That was KING stressed by Planning Commissione few years ago. In that there'd be the R3 and then it would step down to R2 to residential units. Paul Secordz One of the things that happened that we found when we got out in the field and actually started looking at the distribution of multiple family development is that there really wasn't much opportunity to do that. The only way it could really be effectively done would be to encroach into single family neighborhoods, existing single family neighborhoods, redesignate them as an RG designation and then have them transition over. We didn't feel that that was an appropriate direction to go, because it'd be resulting in much higher densities to do that. SECORD Mayor that way, thought it R3, but it King; I found one that you could have done I can't think of the street right now, but I should stay residential. It was designated should remain Rl. KING Paul Secord: In fact we did go back, and I think you'll see on the map upon the wall that there were some modifications that went in the direction you're talking about. But they're on a snail and rather localized basis and it's because of the amount of development that has already occurred in the past. Many of these areas have so much development in them already that we're getting into a situation where there is just a couple of single family lots that are sandwiched in between. We did find a couple of other places where we could do that and that's shown on the map and that's why the numbers are a little bit different in that table that was passed out this evening that reflects those changes, SECORD BIB] 37651-U01 1988-U02 07-U02 11-U02 CC-U02 MIN-U02 LI1-U03 FO3794-U03 FO9354-U03 DO9369-U03 C4-U03 MINUTES1-U03 1/30/2003-U04 ROBIN-U04 REGULAR-U05 MEETING-U05 CITY-U06 COUNCIL-U06 1988 07 11 CC MIN;¢f4Á’JOINT MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL AND THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF BALDWIN PARK JULY 11, 1988 PAGE SEVENTEEN Art Rangel: In response to a question that was RANGEL not totally audible) One of the things I wanted to add, there is a perception that there are scattered two and three story apartments in these Rl zoned areas/ but remember what I said in the beginning that in 1979 when the City went through its general plan update, reclassi- fied a lot of property from Rl, if you will, to RG and R3. It's not until now that those properties are beginning to develop and the people who live in the area think that they are zoned Rl, but in fact they are not, They've been zoned R3 since 1980. And there is a perception that there is an apartment building going up in an Rl zone, but in fact, if you check the zoning maps you'll find that that area and areas around it are all zoned RG and R3 and have been for some time. Now one of the things that we can do, as Dale Beland said earlier, this being a general plan process, later we'll get into the actual implementation. One of the things we can do through the implemantation process is attempt to give added protection, where there is in fact a zone line. You've got an R3 or RG property adjacent to a Rl property and try to give that a better buffer. One thing to keep in mind, if you adopt these densities, RG densities, you are in fact adopting a density very comparable to an Rl anyway. It is, for all intents and purposes, a planned development at a slightly higher density which is what we are seeing in these RG, R3 zoned properties. That are in fact developed in an Rl concept. Commissioner Rumney: Statement regarding Rl homes RUMNEY next to R3 not totally audible, the following is a response to that statement). Art Rangel: The proposed density reductions to RANGEL some degree do that. As an example, when you have property that is currently zoned R3 and designated to be rezoned RG, that is in fact a buffer. Even when you've got a property zoned R3 intended to remain R3 you are going from 29-30 units per acre down to 20 if you adopt these regulations and then beyond that we can get into zoning phase. In adopting the zoning standards our aim would be to give further protection to that Rl zoned property. Paul Secord: The major thrust in change in the map SECORD has been a change of high density residential to the residential garden designation which is doing exactly what is being suggested. That represents the major change in the map, in the yellow areas that are shown up there are in fact reflective of that very situation. Are there any other comments relative to the map itself and relative to this concept of change an how the distribution is shown? Chairman Whitley: I don't know, but according to WHITLEY the map itself, in 1979 when we went through this/ at that time they were told we would have a possible 10% increase for buildup in the City of Baldwin Park. Now I hope, and it' s quite obvious that is not a true statement, I hope that five to six years from now we don't find that we're still going to bring another 1,000 units into the City and build out to that number. Paul Secord: No. One of the reasons that we went SECORD BIB] 37651-U01 1988-U02 07-U02 11-U02 CC-U02 MIN-U02 LI1-U03 FO3794-U03 FO9354-U03 DO9369-U03 C4-U03 MINUTES1-U03 1/30/2003-U04 ROBIN-U04 REGULAR-U05 MEETING-U05 CITY-U06 COUNCIL-U06 1988 07 11 CC MIN;¢f4Á’JOINT MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL AND THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF BALDWIN PARK JULY 11, 1988 PAGE EIGHTEEN to the effort of looking from a parcel by parcel standpoint was to address that very concern. Because generally planners are looking at acreage figures you're looking at it in terms of total acres of a particular kind of land use and you're making your estimates based on that kind of an analysis. Whenever you do that, 20% sometimes, sometimes one way or another, it becomes difficult to make predictions that are really accurate. Here because the City is small, because the areas that we are looking at are quite small, we've had to go through and say, yes, this is how many units you would get off this piece of property if it developed in this density. So I feel very confident that the numbers that we're showing for buildout are in fact what the buildout would untimately be, because we've looked at every single individual parcel. And of course there's quite a variance between how many units under high density you would get one parcel versus another parcel, We've taken that into consideration. I feel confident in those numbers and I'm sure we're within a couple of percent of what the actual total buildout would be. Councilman Izell and Mayor King: Questions were not audible, the following was information in response to the questions). Paul Secord: No, we were looking at reduction in terms of net units per acre and we were assuming essentially a continuation of what the current codes are, Mayor King: Statement regarding reductions not totally audible, the following is in response to the statement). Paul Secord: There have been major improvements made certainly in the quality of developments standards and in the nature of City codes over the last several years, very recently. We were using existing codes and standards as a way of judging what the buildout would be. Now/ we would certainly anticipate that there are likely to be other changes in codes, or other changes in specifics of zoning that could come out of this program, but we haven't addressed this issue yet. That's skipping a step there. We didn't think that that was appropriate Councilwoman Lowes: Statements regarding the people wanting growth slowed down, the need to cut SECORD CON'T) IZELL/KING SECORD KING SECORD LOWES density as far as we can infrastructure and questions of the bowling alley were following is in response questions). the critical effects on regarding the zoning north not totally audible, the to the statements and Paul Secord: I think some of those/ we're talking about the units on Baldwin Park between Merced and Pacific, are those the ones? Oh, between Ramona and Los Angeles Street. Yes, in fact, some of those units there is a change that came out of our looking at that with staff over the last couple of weeks, which would have changed that area back to Rl, or back to single family as well as some units on the other side of that block of multiple family developments there. SECORD It was done that's up the map. won't be reflected on this map, because this on June 22nd. It is reflected on this map here on the wall). Let me point it out on BIB] 37651-U01 1988-U02 07-U02 11-U02 CC-U02 MIN-U02 LI1-U03 FO3794-U03 FO9354-U03 DO9369-U03 C4-U03 MINUTES1-U03 1/30/2003-U04 ROBIN-U04 REGULAR-U05 MEETING-U05 CITY-U06 COUNCIL-U06 1988 07 11 CC MIN;¢f4Á’JOINT MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL AND THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF BALDWIN PARK JULY 11, 1988 PAGE NINETEEN Mayor King: For the record, I would like to state that Mr. Rangel pointed out the various areas with respect to individual members. With each responding to what he or she saw in density at that time. There was never any response but as an individual. Paul Secord: Yes that is correct. This map and the changes that are reflected here happened independently of that. This is about the fourth iteration of that we've gone through with the map. As I've been back in the community driving around, as we've talked with staff, and as we've gone back and gone over these areas a second time, a third time there were some changes. One of them is in fact reflected by these units here, right along Baldwin Park Boulevard, this little yellow rectangle and it is showing existing development. The brown areas are five units or more on a lot, the yellow is single family residential. So we're talking about these existing single family units right along here on map) and also we picked some more of those existing ones there on map) and it's reflected here on map) by this change there, That's reflective of the comment that you were making earlier about creating better edges and better buffers between existing developments. KING SECORD Commissioner Fitzgerald: What's the Bogart, dark and Ramona on the east side? latest on Art Rangel: The map that you have shows the area to go from R3 to Rl. That area, as you know, is part of the Sierra Vista Redevelopment Plan, One of the things that we said when we adopted Sierra Vista is that there would be no single family zoned property with in Sierra Vista. Given that fact and given the fact that as you drive through that area you will find that much of the property is already developed with more than one unit. Our recommendation would be that it go to RG rather than Rl for those reasons. As you recall when you took your tours a lot of those properties in there are already developed two or more. FITZ- GERALD RANGEL This would be on the west side of Bogart you've got the Westar project. of the street, of the properties we are well as both east and west of Downing. the street. On On the east side talking about as Paul Secord: The initial recommendation that we had was to go back to single family. After the discussions with Art and staff, and given its status in the redeveloment project, the recommendation now for that area is for RG. Art Rangel: You can keep in mind, too, that since that is in a redevelopment area, there's a possibility at a later date that we might want to come in with a specific development in that. Take a lot of that out and develop it with a planned unit development or specific plan. Commissioner Whitley: Not totally audible) Commented on the people giving the Commission and Council an idea of what is needed and relating to them some of the changes that are needed. SECORD RANGEL WHITLEY BIB] 37651-U01 1988-U02 07-U02 11-U02 CC-U02 MIN-U02 LI1-U03 FO3794-U03 FO9354-U03 DO9369-U03 C4-U03 MINUTES1-U03 1/30/2003-U04 ROBIN-U04 REGULAR-U05 MEETING-U05 CITY-U06 COUNCIL-U06 1988 07 11 CC MIN;¢f4Á’JOINT MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL AND THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF BALDWIN PARK JULY 11, 1988 PAGE TWENTY Mayor King: Not totally audible) Commented on the good job that was done on this and that/ given a good foundation the Council and Commission know the direction to go. Spoke about his concern about having an ordinance in place and to have the Planning Commission oversee the whole thing and change the duties of the Zoning Administrator Chairman Whitley: All remarks were not totally audible). I think that it behooves the City that the developer who develops multi family, when he gets his occupancy written off that we also have somebody from the planning department write off on that, also. The inspectors we have going out there now, a building inspector is just exactly that, a building inspector is interested in whether the boards are right. They are not interested in what color the building is painted, they are not interested in whether the air conditioner are exposed. And people from the Planning department, KING WHITLEY planners are looking inspectors are not. for these things where the Mayor King: All remarks were not totally audible). Spoke regarding the infrastructure, most specifically the repair of streets, and the need for assistance to the City to give proper maintenance to the repair of streets. Spoke of a need for some kind of a mechanism for maintenance and inspection of the streets. Dale Beland: Mr. Mayor and Mr. Chairman/ before we get to the final portion of our meeting tonight I want to make it a specific request of the entire Council and the Commission. Is there anything in the material to date which you are not prepared to see in a draft general plan, which would be the subject of future hearings? Because we're at the point in our work program where we intend to take the bulk of this material, the land use policy that is shown on the map on the wall, and prepare the draft general plan. Make it ready for public hearing comment. We fully expect that there will be changes as that goes through the adopton process, but I want to be sure that we've got everything pretty well taken care of up to this point. Mayor King: It would be most difficult for us to sit here and try and change in that respect. So there's nothing that jumps out as Dale Beland: a big problem. Art Rangel: I'd like to bring to the attention of both the Commission and the Council. That one, the policy and the housing element, and that is for occupancy inspection. It's something we've talked about for some time. Again, keeping in mind that that may or can change. Do you want the consultants to go forward with that? What we're talking about there would be, as part of the implementation process at a later date, because these goals are established and policies are established and then we need to implement them. What we're suggesting here is that we adopt an ordinance in this City that whenever residential properties change hands that there be an occupancy inspection. Councilman Gibson: Not totally audible). Could you possibly, we have talked about this before, is there a possibility of us seeing other cities ordinances along this line see exactly how this is put together. It is a KING BELAND KING BELAND RANGEL GIBSON BIB] 37651-U01 1988-U02 07-U02 11-U02 CC-U02 MIN-U02 LI1-U03 FO3794-U03 FO9354-U03 DO9369-U03 C4-U03 MINUTES1-U03 1/30/2003-U04 ROBIN-U04 REGULAR-U05 MEETING-U05 CITY-U06 COUNCIL-U06 1988 07 11 CC MIN;¢f4Á’JOINT MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL AND THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF BALDWIN PARK JULY 11, 1988 PAGE TWENTY ONE good idea, but we need specifics on how and do this occupancy. we can get in Art Rangel: Certainly we can do that and need to do that when we come up with such an ordinance. And there are cities that have done this. Councilman Izell: Statement not audible, the following is in response to the statement). Art Rangel; Well, the policy here just says, monitor residential structural conditions on a neighborhood basis and new occupancy inspection programs. One of the things that continues to come up is things like, we might want to expand this, not just for structural things but other issues like, even to the extent of the number of people. It's a very difficult thing to deal with but it is something that continues to grow. It could be done either through the sales of properties, well, it would have to be done, I don't think anybody does it.,..(interrupted by comments), Council and Commissioners: Comments of several individuals was not audible, the following is in response to those comments). Dale Beland; Mr. Mayor, with those comments from the Commission and from the Council, we are prepared to close our meeting tonight. And we're looking forward to a work shop with the Planning Commission on July 18th. And a public workshop on the land use alternative on August 2nd. Thank you very much. Mayor King: Are there any questions before I open Oral Communications? Nobody. 00- Mayor King declared Oral Communications open and invi- ted those wishing to speak on the general plan to come forward. Ed Huetinck: Resident, Amar Road). Did they change the zoning for the mobile home park in any way, or did they make that Residential Garden? Answer: They remained as R3). I thought that at a future date there would be a problem with that as other cities have had, because they're moving the mobile homes out and they'd end up with a bunch of apartments there. So, I thought maybe you could give it a specific zoning, making it a mobile home park or make it Residential Garden and that would be very comparable to the space that is in there now, Maryann Huetinck: Resident, Amar Road). I'm very interested in the flag lot. If that isn't a problem it's seems to me owning your own home is the key to all of this. And even when there's one home on the back of someones lot, and they have the two properties, it can be a real problem. Of course it all ends up being the individual, what type of neighbor they are going to be. But I think the flag lot, if it doesn't cause a problem to the first owner to have that driveway next to them, I really think that would be an interesting thing to know about. GIBSON CON'T) RANGEL IZELL RANGEL COUNCIL/ COMMISSION BELAND KING ORAL COMMU NICATIONS OPEN ED HUETINCK MARYANN HUETINCK BIB] 37651-U01 1988-U02 07-U02 11-U02 CC-U02 MIN-U02 LI1-U03 FO3794-U03 FO9354-U03 DO9369-U03 C4-U03 MINUTES1-U03 1/30/2003-U04 ROBIN-U04 REGULAR-U05 MEETING-U05 CITY-U06 COUNCIL-U06 1988 07 11 CC MIN;¢f4Á’JOINT MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL AND THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF BALDWIN PARK JULY 11, 1988 PAGE TWENTY TWO Myor King declared Oral Communications closed. 00- It was moved and seconded to adjourn the joint meeting of the City Council and the Planning Commission at 8:34 p.m. GIBSON/MCNEILL CITY COUNCIL) FITZGERALD/RUMNEY PLANNING COMMISSION) There were no objections. CLOSED JOINT MEETING ADJOURNED 8:34 P.M. L. G^lR, CITY CLERK ARTHUR RANGEL, SECRETARY BALDWIN PARK PLANNING COMMISSION MERRILL F. WHITLEY, CHAIRMAN BALDWIN PARK PLANNING COMMISSION BIB] 37651-U01 1988-U02 07-U02 11-U02 CC-U02 MIN-U02 LI1-U03 FO3794-U03 FO9354-U03 DO9369-U03 C4-U03 MINUTES1-U03 1/30/2003-U04 ROBIN-U04 REGULAR-U05 MEETING-U05 CITY-U06 COUNCIL-U06 JOINT MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL AND THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF BALDWIN PARK JULY 11, 1988 PAGE TWELVE of the population of 65 and older and the change to a GIBSON younger population reflected in figures now, CON'T) Paul Secord: Yes, we do expect that trend in a SECORD younger population) to continue. I think we're going to see more families, too. Mayor King: Question relating to absentee KING landlords could not be heard, the following is the response to the question) Paul Secord: I don't know what the actual numbers SECORD are for other communities surrounding you. I suspect that it's very comparable to many of the immediately surrounding communities. I would think that it's a comparable number. Mayor King: Comments were not completely audible KING that related to the need to address the issue of absentee landlords and on how to control this problem)• Paul Secord: One of the things that happens, and I SECORD don't have the numbers to quantify/ we'll certainly look into it. But, one of the things that happens as you tend to reduce density and get less apartment kind of development, more of the planned unit type of development, you get higher percentages of owner occupants. Initially, one of the things that's happened there's been a certain amount of speculation in the units where individuals have bought more than one unit, if the interest rates and the price was right, but once the value has risen they'll sell them out on the market. Something that's happened in this area, we've seen that occur. The end result is that if you're getting townhouse, planned development kinds of projects you get a higher proportion of owner occupants than you do for rentals. We certainly identified, as part of the traffic consultants work, we identified locations where there were flag lots or where there were land locked blocks. I don't think you have, there's no documentation here yet. So you don't have a report that addresses that specifically now. But we certainly did look at it and we went through the base maps we used, show all the parcel lines. We're looking at these land use designations, we're looking at parcels lines, not the kind of general map that you thought. Councilwoman McNeill and Mayor King; Questions MCNEILL/ relating to the same subj ect were not audible, the KING following is a response to those questions). Paul Secord: The other side of the equation, in SECORD changing natural designations on property is a proposal that would result in a reduction, an overall reduction, of allowable densities. The current recommendation would reduce, right now, for single family residential densities are allowed up to nine units per acre, 8.9 units per acre, we're suggesting a reduction in the density to 6 units per acre. What that would mean, in most cases we looked at the effect that would have on adding a second unit on to an existing single family lot, a 5,000 square foot lot. In general the effect would be relatively minor. Where it would have the greatest effect would be planned developments on larger compilations of parcels, with in the Rl designated area. It would reduce BIB] 37651-U01 1988-U02 07-U02 11-U02 CC-U02 MIN-U02 LI1-U03 FO3794-U03 FO9354-U03 DO9369-U03 C4-U03 MINUTES1-U03 1/30/2003-U04 ROBIN-U04 REGULAR-U05 MEETING-U05 CITY-U06 COUNCIL-U06