Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1989 07 19 CC MIN1989 07 19 CC MINòw @˜u‘CC MIN JUL 19 1989â›[H 8 REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BALDWIN PARK, CITY HALL, 14403 EAST PACIFIC AVE, WEDNESDAY, JULY 19, 1989 AT 7:00 P.M. The City Council of the City of Baldwin Park met in regular session in Council Chambers at 7:00 p.m. ROLL CALL: PRESENT: COUNCILMEMBERS IZELL, LOWES, ROLL CALL MCNEILL AND MAYOR KING ALSO PRESENT: Acting City Manager Yelton, City Attorney Flandrick, Acting Dir. of Community Services Rangel, Acting Dir. of Economic Development Pearce, Acting Dir. of Housing Smith, Dir. of Human Services Lucas, Chief of Police Hoskin, Deputy City Clerk Sharp, and City Clerk Gair The absence of City Treasurer Montenegro was excused. ABSENCE EXCUSED 00- PRESENTATIONS Chief of Police Hoskin introduced Police Officers OATHS OF Xavier Torres and Kenneth Shearens and gave a OFFICE background description of each of the officers. City Clerk Gair gave the Oath of Office to each of the officers. 00- Mayor King declared Oral Communications open and ORAL invited those wishing to speak on any subject to come COMMUNI- forward. CATIONS OPEN Frank Ramirez, 4924 Wimmer, spoke regarding the FRANK proposed 3% Utility Tax. RAMIREZ Alma Agbashian, 12852 E. Ledford, inquired about ALMA the people who would be exempt from the utility tax. AGBASHIAN Justina Ramirez, 4924 Wimmer, asked if argument in JUSTINA favor and in opposition to the utility tax measure RAMIREZ would be available for the public to see. Z Herschel Keyser, 13645 Rexwood, asked if the Council HERSCHEL is ever going to do anything about prohibiting KEYSER fireworks and stated that he does not approve of fireworks. Jeanne Martens 14847 Sierra Way, of Martens Real JEANNE Estate spoke regarding Paddy Lane Assessment District MARTENS Discussion delayed for further discussion under Reports of Officers, Commissions and Committees). John Holcombe, 5002 Wimmer, spoke about property JOHN located between Nubia and Maine where the property HOLCOMBE owner has planted plants on the city parkway causing people to walk into the street and not on the parkway area. BIB] 37175-U01 CC-U02 MIN-U02 JUL-U02 19-U02 1989-U02 LG1-U03 LI1-U03 FO3794-U03 FO3837-U03 FO3861-U03 DO3863-U03 C4-U03 MINUTES1-U03 10/11/2001-U04 ADMIN-U04 BIB] 37260-U01 1989-U02 07-U02 19-U02 CC-U02 MIN-U02 LG1-U03 LI1-U03 FO3794-U03 FO8598-U03 DO3863-U03 C4-U03 MINUTES1-U03 10/11/2001-U04 ADMIN-U04 CITY-U05 COUNCIL-U05 MINUTES-U05 1989 07 19 CC MINòw @˜u‘CC MIN JUL 19 1989â›[H 8 REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL JULY 19, 1989 OF THE CITY OF BALDWIN PARK PAGE TWO There being no other speakers, Mayor King declared CLOSED Oral Communications closed. 00- City Clerk Gair presented the Consent Calendar: CONSENT CALENDAR 1. Approval of Certificate of Posting for July 19, 1989 2. Approve Proclamation Proclaiming Existence of a Local Emergency 3. Approve Minutes of July 5, 1989 4. Waive Further Reading and Adopt RESOLUTION NO. 89-54 ALLOWING CLAIMS AND DEMANDS AGAINST THE CITY OF BALDWIN PARK 5. Waive Further Reading and Adopt ORDINANCE NO. 1023 PROHIBITING SMOKING IN Second Reading) PUBLIC ACCESS AREAS OF CITY-OWNED BUILDINGS 6. Deny Claim Against the City Christopher Abney 7. Waive Further Reading and Adopt RESOLUTION NO. 89-55 AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 89-17 SETTING FEES AND CHARGES FOR ISSUANCE, PROCESSING, AND FILING OF VARIOUS CITY SERVICES AND PERMITS 8. Waive Further Reading and Adopt RESOLUTION NO. 89-56 AUTHORIZING CERTAIN AMENDMENTS TO THE JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT CREATING THE INDEPENDENT CITIES LEASE FINANCE AUTHORITY AND CERTAIN MATTERS RELATING THERETO 9. Waive Formal Bidding Procedure Purchase Certain Vehicles & Equipment 10. Waive Further Reading and Adopt RESOLUTION NO. 89-57 ORDERING THE SUBMISSION TO THE QUALIFIED ELECTORS OF THE CITY OF AN ADVISORY CITY MEASURE RELATING TO A CITY UTILITY TAX AT THE SPECIAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION TO BE HELD ON TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 7, 1989, AS CALLED BY RESOLUTION NO. 89-45 BIB] 37175-U01 CC-U02 MIN-U02 JUL-U02 19-U02 1989-U02 LG1-U03 LI1-U03 FO3794-U03 FO3837-U03 FO3861-U03 DO3863-U03 C4-U03 MINUTES1-U03 10/11/2001-U04 ADMIN-U04 BIB] 37260-U01 1989-U02 07-U02 19-U02 CC-U02 MIN-U02 LG1-U03 LI1-U03 FO3794-U03 FO8598-U03 DO3863-U03 C4-U03 MINUTES1-U03 10/11/2001-U04 ADMIN-U04 CITY-U05 COUNCIL-U05 MINUTES-U05 1989 07 19 CC MINòw @˜u‘CC MIN JUL 19 1989â›[H 8 REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL JULY 19, 1989 OF THE CITY OF BALDWIN PARK PAGE THREE 11. Waive Further Reading and Adopt RESOLUTION NO. 89-58 APPROVING A DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP CASE NO. Z-490 AND PM-1182; APPLICANT: BALDWIN BUSINESS CENTER ASSOCIATES: LOCATION: SPRING STREET, LOT 14 OF PARCEL MAP NO. 1142 12. Waive Further Reading and Adopt RESOLUTION NO. 89-59 AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION OF AN APPLICATION FOR STATE FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE UNDER THE NATURAL DISASTER ASSISTANCE ACT The following item was removed from the Consent ITEM NO. Calendar for separate consideration: Item No. 10 at 10 REMOVED the request of Mayor pro Tern Lowes. It was moved and seconded to approve Consent CONSENT Calendar Item No. S 1-9 and Item No. 5 11 and 12 as CALENDAR presented. M/S/C: MCNEILL/IZELL. There were no APPROVED objections. Mayor pro Tern Lowes explained that the City has had a ITEM NO. severe over projection of income and is in a period 10 of financial distress which has resulted in dissolving DISCUSSED the Code Enforcement Division. She further explained that the downtown area is not yet built up to receive sales tax. She stated that a five year utility tax at 3% would help the City get over this period of financial distress. It was moved and seconded to approve Item No. 10 of ITEM NO. the Consent Calendar. N/S/C: LOWES/IZELL. There 10 were no objections. APPROVED 00- PUBLIC HEARINGS Acting Director of Community Services Rangel PUBLIC introduced the Public Hearing on Z-488 & AGP-87, A HEARING request for approval of a zone change on approximately Z-488 & 98 acres of land from Ol Office Industrial) to KG AGP-87 Residential Garden) and a request to amend General INTRO- Plan Land Use designation from or to KG Applicant: DUCED Alicia E. Kittess and Irene E. Chacon; Location: 13042 thru 13048 1/2 Bess Avenue)". VERBATIM REPORT SEE ATTACHMENT A". VERBATIM It was moved and seconded to approve Resolution No. RESOLUTION 89-60, A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY NO. 89-60 OF BALDWIN PARK DENYING AN AMENDMENT TO THE GENERAL APPROVED PLAN PROM OFFICE INDUSTRIAL TO RESIDENTIAL GARDEN AND ZONE CHANGE FROM 01, OFFICE INDUSTRIAL TO KG, RESIDENTIAL GARDEN, APPLICANT: ALICIA ELKO KITTESS AND IRENE ELKO CHACON; LOCATION: 13042-13048 1/2 BESS AVENUE; CASE NO. Z-488 AND AGP-87)". N/S/C: LOWES/ IZELL. There were no objections. Acting Director of Community Services Rangel PUBLIC introduced the Public Hearing on Z-489, A request for HEARING approval of a zone change on approximately 99 acres Z-489 of land from PC Freeway Commercial) Applicant: INTRO- BIB] 37175-U01 CC-U02 MIN-U02 JUL-U02 19-U02 1989-U02 LG1-U03 LI1-U03 FO3794-U03 FO3837-U03 FO3861-U03 DO3863-U03 C4-U03 MINUTES1-U03 10/11/2001-U04 ADMIN-U04 BIB] 37260-U01 1989-U02 07-U02 19-U02 CC-U02 MIN-U02 LG1-U03 LI1-U03 FO3794-U03 FO8598-U03 DO3863-U03 C4-U03 MINUTES1-U03 10/11/2001-U04 ADMIN-U04 CITY-U05 COUNCIL-U05 MINUTES-U05 1989 07 19 CC MINòw @˜u‘CC MIN JUL 19 1989â›[H 8 REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL JULY 19, 1989 OF THE CITY OF BALDWIN PARK PAGE FOUR Alicia E. Kittess and Irene E. Chacon; Location: DUCED 1006, 1008, 10101 1012 Leorita Street)". VERBATIM REPORT SEE ATTACHMENT A" VERBATIM It was moved and seconded to approve Resolution No. RESOLUTION 89-61, A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY NO. 89-61 OF BALDWIN PARK DENYING A REQUEST FOR ZONE CHANGE FROM APPROVED FC, FREEWAY COMMERCIAL TO C-2, GENERAL COMMERCIAL APPLICANT: ALICIA ELKO KITTESS AND IRENE ELKO CHACON; LOCATION: 1006, 1008, 1010 AND 1012 LEORITA STREET; CASE NO. Z-489)". M/S/C: IZELL/LOWES. There were no objections. 00- REPORTS OF OFFICERS, COMMISSIONS AND COMMITTEES Acting City Manager Yelton explained that the City of STAFF Baldwin Park and other cities of the San Gabriel REPORT Valley participated in a joint public marketing study SAN and established a task force to begin the GABRIEL implementation of the plan. It was decided that each VALLEY City should designate their City Manager and a MARKETING delegate from their City Council to participate on the TASK implementation task force. He recommended that FORCE Council name a delegate to the task force. It was moved and seconded to designate Councilwoman DESIGNA- McNeill as a delegate to serve on the San Gabriel TION OF Valley Marketing Task Force. N/S/C: IZELL/LOWES. DELEGATE There were no objections. APPROVED Councilman Izell stated for the record that Mayor pro ALTERNATE Tern Lowes would serve as an alternate to the Marketing ASSIGNED Task Force. Acting Director of Housing Smith explained that an STAFF option agreement was executed by the Baldwin Park REPORT Methodist Church and TELACU to purchase property owned SENIOR by the Church for $10.75 a square foot to construct 75 HOUSING units of senior housing. The Department of HUD PROJECT appraised the value of the Church's land at $375,000, $7.95 a square foot). He further explained that the City would receive $115,151 from TELACU from the sale of two Pacific Avenue parcels owned by the City toward the senior housing project. Since the Church is asking more money than HUD will allocate, TELACU would have a $466,951 short fall. TELACU has proposed that the City provide a land-write down for the Church's portion by contributing the $115,151 as listed in the staff report. He recommended that Council authorize the execution of an agreement between TELACU and the Z City. Council inquired if the aesthetic aspects of the COUNCIL development would hinder the development, how are DISCUSSION applicants are selected and if residents of Baldwin Park would have priority in being selected. Anthony Souza, representative of TELACU, explained ANTHONY that the additional money being asked for is to SOUZA enhance the feature of the building, basically the TELACU project overall. He further explained that the BIB] 37175-U01 CC-U02 MIN-U02 JUL-U02 19-U02 1989-U02 LG1-U03 LI1-U03 FO3794-U03 FO3837-U03 FO3861-U03 DO3863-U03 C4-U03 MINUTES1-U03 10/11/2001-U04 ADMIN-U04 BIB] 37260-U01 1989-U02 07-U02 19-U02 CC-U02 MIN-U02 LG1-U03 LI1-U03 FO3794-U03 FO8598-U03 DO3863-U03 C4-U03 MINUTES1-U03 10/11/2001-U04 ADMIN-U04 CITY-U05 COUNCIL-U05 MINUTES-U05 1989 07 19 CC MINòw @˜u‘CC MIN JUL 19 1989â›[H 8 REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL JULY 19, 1989 OF THE CITY OF BALDWIN PARK PAGE FIVE project would bring 75 units of Section 8 housing and is worth $500,000 a year as subsidized. He assumed majority of the residents do come from the city in which the project is located. Kristin Morrish, representative of TELACU, explained KRISTIN that tenants are selected by lottery. The Federal MORRISH Government does not allow priority to residents of the TELACU city. She stated that agencies and groups can be made aware that applications are being accepted and have these organizations have the residents of Baldwin Park apply and chances are they may get selected. Mayor pro Tern Lowes explained that the amount of money TELACU is paying the City for the two parcels was originally to be used to make the project more aesthetically acceptable and now the City is being asked to give the money toward purchasing the land. She stated that she feels the city could be left with an unacceptable four story building. Mayor pro tern Lowes made a motion to deny the request MOTION TO made by staff and Councilwoman McNeill seconded the DENY motion. REQUEST Council discussed the City's original purpose to COUNCIL contribute the money for aesthetic purposes. Now DISCUSSION the City is being asked to contribute the money to make up the differences between the land and the same aesthetic value would still be given. Council asked if there are exhibits available for review, if the money the City is being asked to contribute would decide whether or not the building would be built, if TELACU would be sole owner over the years. And if there was an urgency with respect to Council making a decision or if there was time to meet again. Acting Director of Housing Smith explained that by the first part of August, TELACU must submit the approved option agreement to HUD along with other documents. Kristin Morrish stated that renderings of the senior housing building can be made available for review at the next council meeting. Anthony Souza explained that if TELACU is not able to receive the money another site would have to be found. The total cost of the project would be approximately $4.3 million and under HUD guidelines HUD would only pay a certain amount for the land and would not pay any more unless there's an appeal. This appeal was made and HUD denied the appeal. HUD would also not pay for certain items such as offsites and amenities. He also explained that a separate non-profit organization is formed and that this organization is C' the owner of these projects. Councilwoman McNeill requested that copies of the first agreement be given to council for the next meeting. Motion and second were withdrawn. Council concurred ITEM to hold over this item until the next council meeting. HELD OVER Acting Director of Community Services Rangel explained STAFF that an extension of Paddy Lane and of Stichman, both REPORT east of Merced are shown as future streets on the ASSESSMENT General Plan and Zoning Maps and that staff had been DISTRICT working with property owners and potential developers FINANCIAL on these locations for possible street improvement GUARANTEE assessment districts. BIB] 37175-U01 CC-U02 MIN-U02 JUL-U02 19-U02 1989-U02 LG1-U03 LI1-U03 FO3794-U03 FO3837-U03 FO3861-U03 DO3863-U03 C4-U03 MINUTES1-U03 10/11/2001-U04 ADMIN-U04 BIB] 37260-U01 1989-U02 07-U02 19-U02 CC-U02 MIN-U02 LG1-U03 LI1-U03 FO3794-U03 FO8598-U03 DO3863-U03 C4-U03 MINUTES1-U03 10/11/2001-U04 ADMIN-U04 CITY-U05 COUNCIL-U05 MINUTES-U05 1989 07 19 CC MINòw @˜u‘CC MIN JUL 19 1989â›[H 8 REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL JULY 19, 1989 OF THE CITY OF BALDWIN PARK PAGE SIX He further explained the procedures and requirements for a street improvement assessment district that needs to be completed before the assessment district is complete. The expenses not including staff time can be in excess of $25,000. If the assessment district is completed, the property owners benefiting from the street improvements would pay the costs of establishing the district and the cost of certain street improvements as listed in the staff report. Unless assurances are made for reimbursement of cost by the proponents the City would absorb initial costs if the assessment district is not completed. Acting Director of Community Services Rangel recommended Council's approval to require financial guarantees whenever individuals wish to establish an assessment district that requires City expenditures. Jeanne Martens, 14847 Sierra Way, of Martens Real JEANNE Estate told of her clients requests that have been MARTENS presented to the City for development to their property and have been refused because of a future street going through their property. She asked Council the following questions: 1) What is the philosophy of the Council to overrule a majority protest? 2) Is the Council willing to vacate the future street if Council is not willing to overrule the majority protest? 3) How would an assessment district be initiated, if the majority of the owners are not in agreement and the people cannot present a petition to initiate an assessment district? 4) How long does a process take if an assessment district is successful? She requested a report on her questions for the next meeting. Council discussed the possibility of having a public COUNCIL hearing, allowing a majority protest and the Council DISCUSSION would decide whether or not an assessement district is wanted before spending any money and what the necessary percentage is for people to petition. City Attorney Flandrick stated that Council can hold a public hearing but at some point would have to direct the preparation of assessment and design engineering to have presented to Council in the assessment district form. He also stated that there is no particular percentage for a petition. Council has the power to overrule a majority protest and at a regular meeting, by motion, can commence to proceed. It has always been stated that at least 60% would eliminate a majority protest. Council concurred on staff's recommendation. Mayor King stated the City Council would schedule an informal hearing on the Paddy Lane issue. 00- INITIATIVES Councilman Izell requested the following issues be looked into and enforced: 1) Amplified music out of vehicles being played too loud; 2) Bushes that block the view at the North East corner of Palm and Center; 3) Elizabeth Street cars parked on the street and not given tickets the day the street sweeper is scheduled and not able to clean; and BIB] 37175-U01 CC-U02 MIN-U02 JUL-U02 19-U02 1989-U02 LG1-U03 LI1-U03 FO3794-U03 FO3837-U03 FO3861-U03 DO3863-U03 C4-U03 MINUTES1-U03 10/11/2001-U04 ADMIN-U04 BIB] 37260-U01 1989-U02 07-U02 19-U02 CC-U02 MIN-U02 LG1-U03 LI1-U03 FO3794-U03 FO8598-U03 DO3863-U03 C4-U03 MINUTES1-U03 10/11/2001-U04 ADMIN-U04 CITY-U05 COUNCIL-U05 MINUTES-U05 1989 07 19 CC MINòw @˜u‘CC MIN JUL 19 1989â›[H 8 REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL JULY 19, 1989 OF THE CITY OF BALDWIN PARK PAGE SEVEN 4) Trucks on Baldwin Park Boulevard owners leaving notes for the police department to contact should anything happen. Mayor King requested that the following items be placed on the next council meeting agenda: 1) Endorsement of S1233 Implementing Drug Abuse Prevention and Intervention Programs; 2) A resolution in support of constitutional amendment to burning of the American flag. 3) A resolution in support of light rail and commuter rail for the San Gabriel Valley. 00- It was moved and seconded to adjourn the regular MEETING meeting of the City Council at 9:10 p.m. M/S/C: ADJOURNED IZELL/MCNEILL. There were no objections. 9:10 P.M. BIB] 37175-U01 CC-U02 MIN-U02 JUL-U02 19-U02 1989-U02 LG1-U03 LI1-U03 FO3794-U03 FO3837-U03 FO3861-U03 DO3863-U03 C4-U03 MINUTES1-U03 10/11/2001-U04 ADMIN-U04 BIB] 37260-U01 1989-U02 07-U02 19-U02 CC-U02 MIN-U02 LG1-U03 LI1-U03 FO3794-U03 FO8598-U03 DO3863-U03 C4-U03 MINUTES1-U03 10/11/2001-U04 ADMIN-U04 CITY-U05 COUNCIL-U05 MINUTES-U05 1989 07 19 CC MINòw @˜u‘CC MIN JUL 19 1989â›[H 8 ATTACHMENT A" REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BALDWIN PARK JULY 19, 1989 ZONE CHANGE Z-488 & Z-489) GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT AGP-87) Director of Community Services Rangel: This is a STAFF continued case from June 21, 1989, Z-488) and General REPORT Plan Amendment AGP-87). Z-488 & AGP-87 This report requests City Council consideration of RANGEL a request to amend the General Plan land use designation from Office Industrial to Residential Garden and for a zone change from 01, Office Industrial to RG, Residential Garden on approximately 98 acres of land. The properties in question consist of five contiguous lots immediately south of the I-10 freeway bounded by Dalewood Street to the north, Bess Avenue to the northeast and a public alley to the southeast and southwest. Three of the five lots are currently vacant. The property at 13042 Bess Avenue contains 9,000 square feet of area and is developed with four residential rental units. The property at 13048 1/2 Bess Avenue contains approximately 9,000 square feet of area and also contains four residential units. The adjacent properties to the west are zoned Freeway Commercial and are developed with a park and single family homes. The properties to the southeast and southwest are zoned Residential Garden and are developed with single family homes and apartments. The property to the northwest is zoned Office Industrial and developed with single family residence. Immediately north of the subject properties is Dalewood Street and the I-10 freeway. The subject properties are within the Sierra Vista Redevelopment Project area. The zoning of the properties was changed from R-3, High Density Residential to 01, office Industrial, in 1986. Prior to 1980 the zoning of the properties was Neighborhood Commercial. Prior to adoption of the Sierra Vista Redevelopment Plan, the City Staff and a private redevelopment consultant conducted in-depth studies to determine the best land uses within the freeway corridor area. Because of the site's proximity to the freeway, it was determined that office or possibly light industrial uses would be the most appropriate uses at this location. The zoning of the properties was subsequently changed from fl-a to 01, that's Office Industrial. C The Ol zone, along with the IC, Industrial Commercial and Freeway Commercial zones were established in conjunction with the adoption of the Sierra Vista Redevelopment Plan. These zoning categories include development standards that are intended to maximize the development potential of the freeway corridor areas. One such standard requires minimum lot areas for new projects, that means new development, in the Ol zone, and that's a two acre. This minimum lot area is necessary to achieve efficient, coordinated development and to prevent small under utilized infill development. Prior to the adoption of the Sierra Vista Plan, the City's policy of allowing small infill development had BIB] 37175-U01 CC-U02 MIN-U02 JUL-U02 19-U02 1989-U02 LG1-U03 LI1-U03 FO3794-U03 FO3837-U03 FO3861-U03 DO3863-U03 C4-U03 MINUTES1-U03 10/11/2001-U04 ADMIN-U04 BIB] 37260-U01 1989-U02 07-U02 19-U02 CC-U02 MIN-U02 LG1-U03 LI1-U03 FO3794-U03 FO8598-U03 DO3863-U03 C4-U03 MINUTES1-U03 10/11/2001-U04 ADMIN-U04 CITY-U05 COUNCIL-U05 MINUTES-U05 1989 07 19 CC MINòw @˜u‘ CC MIN JUL 19 1989â›[H 8 AGP-87, Z-488 & Z-489 ATTACHMENT A" JULY 19, 1989 PAGE TWO contributed to the current blighted condition of much of STAFF the freeway corridor area. REPORT CON'T) The applicants feel that this minimum lot area requirement would make future development of the site impossible and are requesting that the city reverse its 1986 decision and rezone the property to Ra, Residential Garden, in order to build multiple family residential units on the three vacant parcels. Approval of this request would allow the construction of up to six new apartments or condominiums as close as 75 feet from the San Bernardino Freeway. The block in which the subject properties are located is bounded by public streets and alleys on all sides and contains about an acre. The fact that the properties do not meet the two acre minimum is not, in itself, justification for the requested zone change. This minimum lot area requirement will not preclude the future development of the site with office uses. The Planning Commission has recently approved zone variances for new projects on similar sites where the developer had assembled the required amount of lot area. The Specific Plan process may also be an option available in the event that the remaining parcel at 13018 Dalewood Street cannot be acquired. In essence what I'm saying is that there are other development alternatives besides the zone change that's requested in this case. The requested zone change is in conflict with several Sierra Vista Redevelopment Project and General Plan goals, policies and objectives. Objectives of the Sierra Vista Plan include the following: 1) Increasing the amount of commercial and industrial activity in the project area. 2) Mitigation of the impacts of the proximity of the I-10 Freeway to residential uses. 3) Buffer residential neighborhoods from the intrusion of incompatible land uses and freeway noise. The City's General Plan contains the following goals and policies: 1) One is to strengthen the fiscal health of the City through the diversification of its economic base from a primarily residential emphasis to one more evenly balanced with commercial and industrial components. 2) Encourage development that will provide a wide and balanced range of goods and services while creating employment for the resident labor force. 3) Retain existing viable industries, attract new light, clean industries, and promote commercial office uses which provide employment for the resident labor force. The Noise element of the General Plan furthermore states that zone changes should be consistent with the compatibility of the projected noise environment. On May 2, 1988, noise measurements were taken at the subject property. An average noise level of 70 decibels, that's on the dB scale, and a peak noise of 73 dB were found to exist at the site. In the Noise BIB] 37175-U01 CC-U02 MIN-U02 JUL-U02 19-U02 1989-U02 LG1-U03 LI1-U03 FO3794-U03 FO3837-U03 FO3861-U03 DO3863-U03 C4-U03 MINUTES1-U03 10/11/2001-U04 ADMIN-U04 BIB] 37260-U01 1989-U02 07-U02 19-U02 CC-U02 MIN-U02 LG1-U03 LI1-U03 FO3794-U03 FO8598-U03 DO3863-U03 C4-U03 MINUTES1-U03 10/11/2001-U04 ADMIN-U04 CITY-U05 COUNCIL-U05 MINUTES-U05 1989 07 19 CC MINòw @˜u‘ CC MIN JUL 19 1989â›[H 8 AGP-87, Z-488 & Z-489 ATTACHMENT A" JULY 19, 1989 PAGE THREE Element sites noise/Land Use Guidelines produced by the STAFF Federal Highway Administration FHWA). The FHWA REPORT guidelines establish a maximum exterior noise level for CON'T) residential uses of 67 dB, as I indicated before the decibels at that location were 70. Noise levels exceeding 67 dB are considered unacceptable for residential uses. Since the noise levels at the site exceed this maximum level, approval of this zone change would also be in conflict with the Noise Element of the General Plan. The Planning Commission considered this request at its April 26th meeting. The Commission voted unanimously 7-0) to recommend that the City Council deny the proposed changes. Staff and the Planning Commission recommend that the city Council deny a request for Zone Change Z-488 and General Plan Amendment AGP-87 to amend the land use designation of the General Plan of the subject properties from Office Industrial to Residential Garden and change the zoning of the subject properties from Or, Office Industrial to RG, Residential Garden. This concludes the staff report. Mayor King: Any questions by Council? If not I'll PUBLIC declare this Public Hearing open on Z-488 and AGP-87. HEARING OPEN City Attorney Flandrick: Mr. Mayor, while Ms. CITY Stein approaches the podium, you might note that in ATTORNEY addition to the staff report and the environmental FLANDRICK documents, you do have correspondence from Ms. Stein representing the applicants, both in 488 and in 489. Attorney Stein: Good evening Councilmembers. My ATTORNEY name is Tamar Stein. I'm located at 2049 Century Park STEIN East in Los Angeles and I represent the applicants, Alicia Elko Kittess and Irene Elko Chacon. Basically what my clients are here asking for tonight is just fair treatment. I know that you all know that the Elko family has lived in Baldwin Park for a long time and has worked over the years with the City and certainly to this point has believed that the City has dealt fairly with it. However, with respect to this particular application for general plan amendment and redesignation and a rezoning of the site at issue. In spite of the report that we just heard, the bottom line is, with respect to these five small lots, three of which are vacant and which all together, put together if they were aggregated, which legally they are not, don't even constitute an acre. The Elko Family can do nothing with their lots as presently situated. In spite of everything we've just heard from staff, they can't do anything. We heard some policies stated and I agree that those policies sound good and the family doesn't disagree that the policies sound good. We're just saying that in this particular instance, applying them to this property is not fair under the circumstances, and therefore it should be rezoned. I went out and looked at the property today, wouldn't want to come in and talk to you without at least having taken a look at what we're talking about. The property is surrounded, at this point, by residentially zoned property. I think, again, the staff report candidly set that forth. And also set the history, that originally this property was to be an BIB] 37175-U01 CC-U02 MIN-U02 JUL-U02 19-U02 1989-U02 LG1-U03 LI1-U03 FO3794-U03 FO3837-U03 FO3861-U03 DO3863-U03 C4-U03 MINUTES1-U03 10/11/2001-U04 ADMIN-U04 BIB] 37260-U01 1989-U02 07-U02 19-U02 CC-U02 MIN-U02 LG1-U03 LI1-U03 FO3794-U03 FO8598-U03 DO3863-U03 C4-U03 MINUTES1-U03 10/11/2001-U04 ADMIN-U04 CITY-U05 COUNCIL-U05 MINUTES-U05 1989 07 19 CC MINòw @˜u‘ CC MIN JUL 19 1989â›[H 8 AGP-87, Z-488 & Z-489 ATTACHMENT A" JULY 19, 1989 PAGE FOUR anchor for a large Office Industrial zone to the west, STEIN but that over time most of that has just been deleted CON'T) and now my clients are sitting with a very small Ol zoned property. Again we're talking about five iddy- little lots and even if they were aggregated, by my clients, they do not meet the two acre minimum lot size. Telling these people they have to go and buy property owned by someone else, practically speaking that's not an answer. I know you all understand how you'd feel if you were told to do that and I guess you could pretty readily figure out what the economics of that would be if the other property owner knew you were o put in that position. So practically speaking it is not a good alternative. Legally, for the reasons that I set forth in my letter to you, I also think that it is an illegal thing to ask of my clients and I'm also very concerned, as I may not have made clear in the letter, that putting them in that position is going to tend to keep the value of the property artificially low in a manner that may also, and I think, would not be legal. I heard the staff report suggest a variance as another alternative to the predicament that my clients, admittedly, are in. I think a variance is a bandaid if the zoning's wrong. It should be changed and not just dealt with piecemeal at some later date. I think variances can be hard to get in a General Law city. To say that a variance will take care of the minimum lot size problem doesn't, to me, seem to be consistent with the statement of the policies we just heard. It's just telling my people to go away and try and come back later if they can buy someone elses property or maybe get a variance. when in fact policy in that area does seem to be to preserve the residential that's there. I also believe, although no one has had a chance to fully investigate this, that through design features the noise impacts can be mitigated. In any event if they could not be, I know that your Council and your Planning Commission and your staff through the environmental review process would retain control over that issue. And certainly by granting the application today, you would not be giving up control over that issue by any means. So, I don't want to run through my five minutes too quickly or bore you, but basically, one, the bottom line is, we've got five little lots, if they were aggregated they're under an acre. There's no way they can, even if those lots were aggregated, no way they're any where near the two acre minimum lot size. They're sitting in a sea of residential because the City seems to have backed off since 1986 from its' original plans and left them sitting there with this little island, which again I think could be, and probably is in my mind, illegal spot zoning. Even if they acquired the neighbor's property they still wouldn't meet the two acre minimum lot size. They would just have a bigger substandard lot. And it is, in my view, unfair and illegal to force them to try and buy this neighboring parcel. when effectively they would be force to do it. No one else would be interested. That's just not fair. It would keep the value artificially low on their property and to tell them, again, to go away and come back with a variance application. BIB] 37175-U01 CC-U02 MIN-U02 JUL-U02 19-U02 1989-U02 LG1-U03 LI1-U03 FO3794-U03 FO3837-U03 FO3861-U03 DO3863-U03 C4-U03 MINUTES1-U03 10/11/2001-U04 ADMIN-U04 BIB] 37260-U01 1989-U02 07-U02 19-U02 CC-U02 MIN-U02 LG1-U03 LI1-U03 FO3794-U03 FO8598-U03 DO3863-U03 C4-U03 MINUTES1-U03 10/11/2001-U04 ADMIN-U04 CITY-U05 COUNCIL-U05 MINUTES-U05 1989 07 19 CC MINòw @˜u‘ 1989 07 19 CC MINòw @˜u‘ CC MIN JUL 19 1989â›[H 8 AGP-87, Z-488 & Z-489 ATTACHMENT A" JULY 19, 1989 PAGE SIX out and be a Redevelopment Agency and buy the land from KITTESS the City. CON'T) The street. Are you going to give up your dedicated street? So we can build. Even if we bought your dedicated street. Even if we bought the house next door. We still wouldn't have two acres. My point is, it was when you passed the original General Plan and you had a large industrial office location. The property was an anchor. It was a good idea. You backed off because all of the residents to the north, probably some of these same people, that said, Wait a minute we like our residential neighborhood." I sat right here and listened to them. It isn't blighted, back off." And you did back off. You did back off, you dropped them off of the boundary. And you left us with one acre. And now you're telling us to wait for the creeping Kaiser plan to come and buy us. And then will you give Kaiser the right to use the one acre, because they're Kaiser and they're doing so much for the community. That is not fair and you know it. Mayor King: I might add that, first of all that is KING between you and Kaiser, not the City, and secondly, the gentleman that spoke does not work for the City. Bruce Kittess: Good. KITTESS Mayor King: Is there anyone else wishing to speak KING under this hearing? City Attorney Flandrick: Mr. Mayor, excuse me, FLANDRICK before this public hearing is closed, just a brief comment. As you are aware from your material that you have with you tonight and from the comments made, Ms. Stein has raised several legal points. obviously the City does not agree with those legal points. She certainly makes a good case, but, just want it clear that we do not concede the issues that she has raised. As a matter of fact, just in summary of Mr. Rangel's comments there is no prohibition regardless of zoning of the development of the property. There are available the devices indicated, a zone variance, as well as a Specific Plan. Mayor King: Thank you, Mr. Flandrick, for the KING record. With that I will close the Public Hearing. Comments by Council? Mayor pro Tem Lowes: I feel that we worked very MAYOR PRO hard and long for a whole year to revise our General TEN LOWES Z Plan. I don't recall this coming up at that time. But we went over this City piece by piece and parcel by parcel and put a lot of time, effort and money into those decisions as to how we would revise our General Plan. That's what I feel, I feel that it's satisfactory. Mayor King: Well, I feel similar to you, Mrs. KING Lowes. We did work very hard. And I remember Ed Elko from many years ago, as a Planning Commissioner. At that time I worked with him as well as others to enhance the development of the saddle shop over there, the Broken Horn development. He did do a lot for the town and so did his wife. And we respect them a great deal. BIB] 37175-U01 CC-U02 MIN-U02 JUL-U02 19-U02 1989-U02 LG1-U03 LI1-U03 FO3794-U03 FO3837-U03 FO3861-U03 DO3863-U03 C4-U03 MINUTES1-U03 10/11/2001-U04 ADMIN-U04 BIB] 37260-U01 1989-U02 07-U02 19-U02 CC-U02 MIN-U02 LG1-U03 LI1-U03 FO3794-U03 FO8598-U03 DO3863-U03 C4-U03 MINUTES1-U03 10/11/2001-U04 ADMIN-U04 CITY-U05 COUNCIL-U05 MINUTES-U05 1989 07 19 CC MINòw @˜u‘CC MIN JUL 19 1989â›[H 8 AGP-87, Z-488 & Z-489 ATTACHMENT A" JULY 19, 1989 PAGE SEVEN We did zone the property for a purpose and it's a KING shame that things always don't work out with respect to CON'T) properties. Eventually they do. we just hope no one is hurt in the process. Anyone else? Mrs. Loves was that your motion for MOTION denial? FOR DENIAL Mayor pro Tern Lowes: Yes. Mayor King: That would be Re solution No. 89-60? City Clerk Gair: Correct. Mayor King: Is there a second? Councilman Izell: Second. SECOND Mayor King: Seconded by Mr. Izell. Any RESOLUTION objection? No objection. So ordered. NO. 89-60 ADOPTED Next Item, Mr. Rangel. Director of Community Services Rangel: Mr. Mayor STAFF and Members of the Council, this item associated with REPORT the last was also continued from June 21, 1989, Zone Z-489 Change Z-489). This report requests City Council consideration of RANGEL a request to change the zoning of approximately 99 acres of land from FC, Freeway Commercial to C-2 General Commercial. The properties in question consist of three contiguous lots at the west corner of Leorita Street and Bess Avenue. The property at the corner contains 13,607 square feet and is vacant. The two properties to the north contain 12,505 and 16,882 square feet and are developed with two residential dwellings each. The adjacent properties to the northwest are zoned FC and developed with single family homes. The properties to the northeast are zoned FC and developed with an equestrian supply outlet. The vacant property to the southeast is zoned Freeway Commercial and is the site of the future Kaiser Hospital. The properties to the southwest are zoned RG and are developed with apartments. The subject properties are within the boundaries of the Sierra Vista Redevelopment Project area. The zoning of the properties was changed from CM, Commercial Manufacturing to FC in 1986. The residential units on the properties have been nonconforming uses since 1980 when the properties were rezoned from High Density Z Residential, R-3, to Commercial Manufacturing. The FC zone, along with the IC, Industrial Commercial and 01, Office Industrial zones were established in conjunction with the adoption of the Sierra Vista Redevelopment Plan. The Sierra Vista Plan includes objectives aimed at eliminating blight by, among other things, as before, facilitating land assembly and development which will result in employment opportunities and an expanded tax base. These zoning categories include development standards that are intended to achieve this objective and maximize the development potential of the freeway corridor areas, Again, one such standard requires minimum lot areas for new projects in the Freeway Commercial zone of four BIB] 37175-U01 CC-U02 MIN-U02 JUL-U02 19-U02 1989-U02 LG1-U03 LI1-U03 FO3794-U03 FO3837-U03 FO3861-U03 DO3863-U03 C4-U03 MINUTES1-U03 10/11/2001-U04 ADMIN-U04 BIB] 37260-U01 1989-U02 07-U02 19-U02 CC-U02 MIN-U02 LG1-U03 LI1-U03 FO3794-U03 FO8598-U03 DO3863-U03 C4-U03 MINUTES1-U03 10/11/2001-U04 ADMIN-U04 CITY-U05 COUNCIL-U05 MINUTES-U05 1989 07 19 CC MINòw @˜u‘CC MIN JUL 19 1989â›[H 8 AGP-87, Z-488 & Z-4Z9 ATTACHMENT A" JULY 19, 1989 PAGE EIGHT acres minimum for commercial projects. These minimum STAFF lot areas are necessary to achieve efficient, REPORT coordinated development and to prevent small infill CON'T) development that do not relate to one another. Prior to adoption of the Sierra Vista Plan, the City's policy of allowing small infill development had contributed to the current blighted condition of much of the freeway corridor area. The applicants are requesting that the zoning of their properties be changed from Freeway Commercial, FC, to General Commercial, C-2. These zoning categories are similar in that they allow essentially the same retail commercial and office uses. The most significant difference between the two zones is that the C-2 zone only requires 5,000 square feet of lot area in order to develop. Since the three lots combined contain only 99 acres, the four and two acre minimum lot area requirements of the Freeway Commercial, FC, zone are considered, by the applicants, to be a hinderance to developing or selling the properties. The minimum lot area requirements of the FC zone may make development of the subject properties more difficult. However, the requirements will not, as the applicants have stated, make the properties unbuildable. Staff does not feel that the requested zone change is an acceptable solution to this problem. Again, a few, more desirable alternatives for development are still available for consideration. These alternatives are listed in the order in which they must be considered as follows: 1) Lot consolidation. To obtain a sufficiently large development parcel, a developer can either purchase the necessary properties either with or without Redevelopment Agency assistance) or work with adjoining property owners in a joint venture development. 2) Specific Plan, which we spoke of in the previous case. If control over adjacent parcels is not possible at this time, the specific plan process can be used to allow phased development, on parcels smaller that the minimum FC lot areas, consistent with an overall master plan for a larger area. The three parcels under consideration could possible be designed and developed as one phase of such a plan. So that would not then require that they go out and purchase adjacent property. It just means that they come up with a master plan for their particular portion of the site, that included a larger area that someday would develop as a total unit. 3) Zone variance. If the previous alternatives prove to be infeasible, a zone variance could be considered to allow a development on the 99 acre site. Staff feels that the requested zone change, which would allow developments on 5,000 square foot lots, could result in the same types of development that have contributed to the current blighted condition of much of the City's prime freeway corridor land. Approval of this request would set a dangerous precedent and result in a major setback in the City's efforts to implement the Sierra Vista Plan. The Planning Commission considered this request at its April 26th meeting. The Commission voted 7-0) to deny the proposed changes. BIB] 37175-U01 CC-U02 MIN-U02 JUL-U02 19-U02 1989-U02 LG1-U03 LI1-U03 FO3794-U03 FO3837-U03 FO3861-U03 DO3863-U03 C4-U03 MINUTES1-U03 10/11/2001-U04 ADMIN-U04 BIB] 37260-U01 1989-U02 07-U02 19-U02 CC-U02 MIN-U02 LG1-U03 LI1-U03 FO3794-U03 FO8598-U03 DO3863-U03 C4-U03 MINUTES1-U03 10/11/2001-U04 ADMIN-U04 CITY-U05 COUNCIL-U05 MINUTES-U05 1989 07 19 CC MINòw @˜u‘CC MIN JUL 19 1989â›[H 8 AGP-87, Z-488 & Z-4Z9 ATTACHMENT A" JULY 19, 1989 PAGE NINE Staff and the Planning Commission recommend that STAFF the City Council deny the requested zone change, Z-489. REPORT CON'T) That concludes the staff report. Mayor King: Thank you, Mr. Rangel. At this time KING I will open the Public Hearing on Z-489, that was continued from June 21st also. And ask for any testimony either for or against. City Attorney Flandrick: Again, Mr. Mayor while FLANDRICK Ms. Stein approaches the podium, the same comments that I made earlier are applicable here. You have the environmental material, staff reports and letters from Ms. Stein. Attorney Stein: Tamar Stein, again, Ladies and STEIN Gentlemen, 2049 Century Park East, Los Angeles. I think that you heard the justified emotion that my client expressed in the last case. Frustration on behalf of his wife and her sister and outrage at what's happening. But in my view, with respect to this case that's before us now, the gentleman who spoke against the application in the last case, may inadvertently have hit it on the head. I think what's happening here is that my clients are being put in a position where they have to negotiate with Kaiser at a disadvantage and where the value of their property is being kept down in order to give Kaiser an advantage. I have to tell you bluntly that that's how I see it. Again, I think this case is, if anything even clearer than the last case. It's admitted by all that as these small lots stand nothing can be done with them under the applicable zoning. They cannot be developed. The zone that we're asking for also admittedly calls for similar uses to the zone it presently has. So were not talking about any uses that are going to outrage any policy of your City. The staff listed three alternatives that they thought would be more desirable. My questions is, three alternatives more desirable, but more desirable for who? Again, lot consolidation, your telling them they have to sell to Kaiser, or they have to joint venture with the Broken Horn, or they have to go spend their money and somehow buy more property. And I don't believe that's legal. I've given you the case laws. I see it in my letter and I know you're going to consult with your City Attorney. That's not fair. It's not legal in my view. The next alternative proposed is a Specific Plan. Well, that's really within the City's control. It can take years to implement, as you know even better than I, and again it involves a larger master plan area. Who's going to put that together? And how are Mrs. Kittess and Mrs. Chacon, who really are ordinary people, they're not Kaiser, they're not even the Broken Horn, how are they going to do that and how long will it take while they can't use their property? The third, which was suggested only if the prior two didn't work out again is a zone variance. Now if a zone variance can be considered, allow development on 99 acres and a C-2 zone would allow that without a variance, I don't see that it is consistent or fair to tell these people that they have to come back with a zone variances application to get a use that would be a matter of right if there were rezoning at this time. BIB] 37175-U01 CC-U02 MIN-U02 JUL-U02 19-U02 1989-U02 LG1-U03 LI1-U03 FO3794-U03 FO3837-U03 FO3861-U03 DO3863-U03 C4-U03 MINUTES1-U03 10/11/2001-U04 ADMIN-U04 BIB] 37260-U01 1989-U02 07-U02 19-U02 CC-U02 MIN-U02 LG1-U03 LI1-U03 FO3794-U03 FO8598-U03 DO3863-U03 C4-U03 MINUTES1-U03 10/11/2001-U04 ADMIN-U04 CITY-U05 COUNCIL-U05 MINUTES-U05 1989 07 19 CC MINòw @˜u‘CC MIN JUL 19 1989â›[H 8 AGP-87, Z-488 & Z-4Z9 ATTACHMENT A" JULY 19, 1989 PAGE TEN So, again, I made all of the points that I did STEIN before. They can't develop it, we know that. They're CON'T) asking for similar uses, same uses that they'd have under the FC zone are available under C-2. And they're just asking for fairness so that they won't have to go out and start trying to sell their property at a disadvantage. I might add, they don't intend to do that. They intend to hang in there for as long as necessary and they're confident that things will work out for them in the end. Mayor King: Is there anyone else wishing to speak KING on this subject? Bruce Kittess: Me name is Bruce Kittess, 1600 KITTESS Cervato Circle, Alamo, California. I'm here representing my wife, Alicia Kittess, and my sister-in- law, Irene Chacon. First of all, I believe that most of what Mr. Rangel read was planning poppycock. I think your General Plan is not inscribed in stone and that's why the State permits three times a year to amend your General Plan. Because it is natural. We're not accusing you of making a terrible General Plan. All we're saying is, is that the fine tuning must continue, and it will continue. We believe that the City and/or the Agency is conspiring with Kaiser to suppress the properties in our neighborhood. And when the neighbors wake up to what is happening they will be surprised. I wonder how many people in this chamber have owned two one acre parcels over thirty-five years free and clear. And then be told, you can go out and buy more land, or we could buy Kaiser's eighteen acres and we could buy the Broken Horn. What a nice thing after thirty-five years. I heard you say that your revenues were slipping. Well, I guarantee, if you follow the policies that you're talking about now you're revenues will slip. At an earlier hearing Mayor King intimated that these, Out-of-towners, Get-rich-quick people" were coming to town. And... Mayor King: I think you misquoted. I usually say KING absentee landlords." Bruce Kittess: Absentee landlords. KITTESS Mayor King: Thank you. KING Bruce Kittess: Fine. Okay. I don't know of too KITTESS many people who have made a fast buck in Baldwin Park. When you come to Baldwin Park and you've owned land for thirty-five years in the family, that's hardly, fast buck." We want to use our property. Why would you want to deliver land to Kaiser, a non-profit corporation. Your charge with the Redevelopment Agency is to create taxes, a tax base. Why not let us build you a beautiful office building on our one acre? Let us enjoy the fact that we've waited all these years for something nice to come. The good news is you brought us Kaiser. The bad news is we cannot share in that now, because we are being forced to sell to Kaiser. That is not fair and you know it. BIB] 37175-U01 CC-U02 MIN-U02 JUL-U02 19-U02 1989-U02 LG1-U03 LI1-U03 FO3794-U03 FO3837-U03 FO3861-U03 DO3863-U03 C4-U03 MINUTES1-U03 10/11/2001-U04 ADMIN-U04 BIB] 37260-U01 1989-U02 07-U02 19-U02 CC-U02 MIN-U02 LG1-U03 LI1-U03 FO3794-U03 FO8598-U03 DO3863-U03 C4-U03 MINUTES1-U03 10/11/2001-U04 ADMIN-U04 CITY-U05 COUNCIL-U05 MINUTES-U05 1989 07 19 CC MINòw @˜u‘CC MIN JUL 19 1989â›[H 8 AGP-87, Z-488 & Z-4Z9 ATTACHMENT A" JULY 19, 1989 PAGE ELEVEN Mayor King: Thank you. And this council is not KING delivering land to Kaiser. Is there any one else wishing to speak on this subject? Please step forward. Hearing none I'll declare the public Hearing closed. Council? Councilman Izell: Mayor King. Being a builder I MOTION don't usually carry these kind of issues. It gets into FOR both of these things where we're getting into the matter DENIAL of condos. And we get into the matter of more shopping centers or what ever. So I'm going to make a motion that we concur with the Planning Commission. Mayor King: In other words then you're moving Resolution No. 89-61 for denial? Councilman Izell: Yes. Mayor King: All right. Moved by Mr. Izell. Councilwoman Lowes: I'll second it. SECOND Mayor King: Seconded by Mrs. Lowes. No objection. RESOLUTION So ordered. NO. 89-61 ADOPTED BIB] 37175-U01 CC-U02 MIN-U02 JUL-U02 19-U02 1989-U02 LG1-U03 LI1-U03 FO3794-U03 FO3837-U03 FO3861-U03 DO3863-U03 C4-U03 MINUTES1-U03 10/11/2001-U04 ADMIN-U04 BIB] 37260-U01 1989-U02 07-U02 19-U02 CC-U02 MIN-U02 LG1-U03 LI1-U03 FO3794-U03 FO8598-U03 DO3863-U03 C4-U03 MINUTES1-U03 10/11/2001-U04 ADMIN-U04 CITY-U05 COUNCIL-U05 MINUTES-U05 CC MIN JUL 19 1989â›[H 8 AGP-87, Z-488 & Z-489 ATTACHMENT A" JULY 19, 1989 PAGE FIVE I think again, it's a bandaid, it's not a good STEIN policy issue for your City and it's not a permanent CON'T) solution for my clients. And with that I thank you. Mayor King: Thank you. Is there anyone else MAYOR wishing to speak on this subject. KING Ed Huetinck: Ed Huetinck, 13059 Amar, I've also ED looked at that property for about thirty-five years. HUETINCK And there's several reasons that I'm against the Residential Garden going in there. First, the last apartments they built on the southeast corner there, there's so much parking in the street now that the school buses used to be able to pick up the children at the curb. Now they have to pick them up in the center of the street. And the more apartments and this type of building into there, the worse it's going to be. The main thing is that Kaiser is starting, October and November of this year, they're starting construction. As soon as they start construction I'm sure there's going to be a lot of interest shown in this parcel, these pieces of property that are adjacent to it. Already around the corner now they are buying up the property. There was one fellow in there that has bought the big empty lot in there and two other pieces of property adjacent to that. So they are accumulating this property and I'm sure the same thing will happen here. I think it will be in the City's benefit and the residents of Baldwin Park to leave it as it is. I don't think it's really going to hurt these people in a short while I think they will get their funds out of it. There's other ways of accumulating this property. They could take part of that street and add it to it when it is all put together. That's about all. I think we should leave it as it is. Thank you. Mayor King: Thank you. KING Bruce Kittess: My name is Bruce Kittess. I'm a BRUCE resident of Alamo, California, Northern California. I'm KITTESS here representing my wife, Alicia Kittess. Mayor King: would you give your address, too. KING Bruce Kittess: 1600 Cervato Circle, Alamo, KITTESS California. I'm here representing my wife and her sister who are the owners of the property. I wonder if the gentleman that just spoke, I bet if we looked he probably works for the City. There's one acre there, what difference does it make whether the property is owned by Kaiser, by Mr. X, it is one acre. Nobody according to your rules can utilize the property. It is not large enough. If the people voted for your Redevelopment Agency, which is a good idea, and you've done good things. But what we feared has come to pass. Because it isn't the redevelopment process that's wrong. It's the people that implement it. If you want it as an Agency. It's your duty to buy it. You assemble it, but don't ask the heirs of the Elkos, who owned it for almost forty years and cannot use it, cannot sell it. Don't ask us to go BIB] 37175-U01 CC-U02 MIN-U02 JUL-U02 19-U02 1989-U02 LG1-U03 LI1-U03 FO3794-U03 FO3837-U03 FO3861-U03 DO3863-U03 C4-U03 MINUTES1-U03 10/11/2001-U04 ADMIN-U04 BIB] 37260-U01 1989-U02 07-U02 19-U02 CC-U02 MIN-U02 LG1-U03 LI1-U03 FO3794-U03 FO8598-U03 DO3863-U03 C4-U03 MINUTES1-U03 10/11/2001-U04 ADMIN-U04 CITY-U05 COUNCIL-U05 MINUTES-U05