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