Loading...
09-27-1965 - Regular Meeting - Minutes• • • MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL CITY OF WEST COVINA, CALIFORNIA SEPTEMBER 27, 1965 The regular meeting of the City Council was called to order -by Mayor Nichols at 7:35 P.M. in the West Covina City Hallo-. Councilman Heath led the Pledge of Allegiance. -The invocation was given by Rev, Clifton Ditmore, South Hills Church of Christ. ROLL CALL Present: Others Present Mayor Nichols, Councilmen Jett, Snyder, Krieger, Heath Mr. Mr, Mr. Mr, Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. APPROVAL OF MINUTES August 30, 1965 George Aiassa, City Manager Robert Flotten, City Clerk & Admin. Assistant Harry Co Williams, City Attorney Herman R. Fast, Public Services Director Harold Joseph, Planning Director George Zimmerman, Assistant City Engineer Wallace Austin, Planning Assistant Philip Gatch, Planning Assistant (Joint Meeting) - Approved as submitted as follows: Motion by Councilman Krieger, seconded -by Councilman Heath, and carried, that the minutes of the joint meeting on August 30, 1965 be approved as submitted. August 30, 1965 (Adjourned Meeting) Approved as corrected as follows: Councilman Krieger: There should be a correction on Page 4 under the heading of Lease Option to Purchase Feasibility Report. The Minutes state'ac- tion.on Councilman Krieger's motion. -It was Councilman Heath's motion seconded by myself. Motion by Councilman Krieger, seconded by Councilman Heath, and carried, that the Minutes of August 30, 1965, adjourned regular meeting, be approved as submitted with the aforementioned correction. September 13, 1965 Approved as submitted as follows: Motion by Councilman Krieger, seconded by Councilman Snyder, and carried, that the Minutes of September 13, 1965, be approved as submitted. (Councilman Heath abstained), -1- C. C. 9/27/65 Page Two CITY CLERKS REPORTS TRACT NO. 27416 LOCATION: Southeast of La Puente ACCEPT REMAINING STREET, SEWER Road and east of. AND GRADING IMPROVEMENTS Forecastle Avenue, north Pickering Enterprises, Inc of Valley Boulevard APPROVED Review Engineer's report. Accept remaining street, sewer and grading improvement; subject to the receipt of new.- bond. Authorize release of following bonds: Street, No. 1200/0626/ 0068/63 in the amount of $239,,000; sewer,,No. 1200/0626/0069/63 in the amount of $71,000; and grading, No. 1200/0626/0067/63 in the amount of $2371000. Motion by.Councilman Heath, seconded by Councilman Krieger, and carried, to accept the remaining street, tsewer,, and grading improvements in Tract No. 27416 and authorize release of bonds No. 1200/0626/0068/63 in the amount of $239,000, No. 1200/0626/0069/63 in the amount of $71,000, and No. 1200/0626/0067/63 in the amount of $237,000, subject to the receipt of a new bond in the amount of $5,000. TRACT NO. 25913 • ACCEPT STREET IMPROVEMENTS F-ernwood Enterprises APPROVED LOCATION: Fernwood Street and Larkwood Street. Accept street improvements and authorize release of Continental Casualty Company bond No. 15 3 2643 in the amount of.$20,000.00. Staff recommends acceptance. Motion by Councilman.H'eath, seconded by Councilman Krieger, and carried, to accept the street improvements in Tract No. 25913 and authorize release of Continental Casualty Company bond No. 15 3 2643 in the amount of $20,000.00. PROJECT C-146 LOCATION: Merced Avenue Extension APPROVE PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS (East of Glendora STREET IMPROVEMENTS Avenue) and Glendora. APPROVED Review Engineer's report. Approve plans and specifications for City -Project C-146. Authorize City Engineer to call for bids. Partial budgeted item. - Motion by Councilman Heath, seconded by Councilman Krieger, and carried, to approve the plans and:specifications-for street improvements in Project C-146 and authorize the City Engineer to call for bids. • -2 r C. C. 9/27/65 Page Three CITY.CLERK'S REPORTS - Continued N 4 RESOLUTION.O. 32 3 T 1 he City Clerk presented: ADOPTED "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL (Gasoline Tax Money) OF THE CITY OF [VEST COVINA REQUESTING THE BOARD OF SUPER- VISORS OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA, TO PERMIT THE USE OF CERTAIN GASOLINE TAX MONEY ALLOCATED AS COUNTY AID TOWARDS THE IMPROVEMENT OF MERCED EXTENSION EAST OF GLENDORA AVENUE, INCLUDING STREET IMPROVEMENTS ON_GLENDORA AVENUE AND THE EXISTING MERCED AVENUE EAST .OF GLENDOR A AVENUE BY THE CONSTRUCTION OF P.C.C. CROSS GUTTER, P.C.C. CURB AND GUTTER, P.C.C. CURB ONLY, AND P.C.C..DRIVES AND APPROACHES, ASPHALTIC PAVEMENT ON AN AGGREGATE BASE, ASPHALTIC BERM, ADJUST SEWER MANHOLES, P.C.C. SEWER HOUSE CONNECTION, EXCAVATIONS AND REMOVALS" • Mayor Nichols: Hearing no,objection, we will waive further reading of the body of the resolution. Motion by Councilman Krieger, seconded by Councilman Heath, that said resolution be adopted. Motion passed on.roll.call as follows: Ayes: Councilmen Jett, Snyder, Krieger, Heath, Mayor Nichols Noes: None Absent: None Said resolution was given.No. 3243. PROJECT MP-6534 APPROVE PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS CURB IN WEST, COVINA CENTER PARKING LOT LOCATION: West Covina Center Parking Lot, south.of Garvey Avenue. APPROVED Review Engineer's report. Approve ,:5• plans and specifications for curb in parking lot under Project MP-6534. Authorize City Engineer to call for bids. Funded as shown in Engineer's report. Motion by Councilman Krieger, seconded by Councilman Heath, to approve plans and specifications for curb in West Covina Center Parking lot • in Project _MP-6534 and authorize the City Engineer to call for bids. Motion passed on roll call as follows: Ayes: Councilmen Jett, Snyder, Krieger, Heath, Mayor Nichols Noes: None Absent: None MIM 0 la C. C. 9/27/65 CITY CLERK'S. REPORTS - Continued • PROJECT SP-6614 APPROVE PROJECT STREET WIDENING, SIGNING AND SIGNAL MODIFICATION APPROVED Page Four LOCATION: Garvey Avenue (south frontage road) between Barranca Street and the Barranca Street ramps. Review Engineer's report. Approve Project SP--6614 for participation by the City, and authorize funds to be,budgeted in 1966-67 for this project. Motion by Councilman Krieger, seconded by Councilman Heath, and carried, to approve Project SP-6614 and that the -sum of $6,000 be considered for budget in the 1966-67 budget. PROJECT MP-6615 LOCATION: Citrus Street, south APPROVE PROJECT of Cameron Avenue. SEWER TRENCH REPAVING APPROVED Review Engineer's report. Authorize City Engineer to call for informal bids and proceed with the work of repaving of sewer trench on Citrus street. Cost of work done to be recovered from the subdivider. • Councilman Krieger: I notice the staff report is datedSeptember 23 and we have a letter received the following day from the.developer indicating their participation up to a certain figure. Why is it necessary now for the action on this? Public Services Director, Mr. Fast: The necessity for the action is that our verbal contacts with this contractor have been quite evasive and they continually put us off. We have been in contact with them as late as today and they are.still indicating they don't think they can get to it tomorrow but maybe the day after or ^the `next day-0 so .we a:n.ticipate we will _ give them one or two more days certain and then go in and do it ourselves and charge it back. Councilman Snyder: On Citrus south of Vine there are a lot of,chuckholes. Do you plan to do anything about that? Public Services Director, Mr. Fast: Due to the substandard conditions of that street there is no point of us getting into it now until the heavy traffic from that tract up there gets off of it. We will do the best we can until that time. Motion by Councilman Heath, seconded,by Councilman Krieger, and • carried, th approve the sewer trench repaving in Project MP-6615 and authorize the.Ei.ty Engineer to call for informal bids and proceed with the work of repaving of sewer trench on Citrus Street, the cost of. the work done'to_be recovered from the subdivider. -4- RESOLUTION NO. 3244 The City Clerk presented: ADOPTED "A'RESOLUTION-OF THE CITY COUNCIL (Rowland and Nora Avenues) OF THE CITY OF WEST COVINA DEDICATING CERTAIN CITY OWNED PROPERTY TO PUBLIC STREET PURPOSES AND ACCEPTING SAME AS A PUBLIC STREET" (Rowland and Nora Avenues) Mayor Nichols: Hearing no objections, we will waive further reading of the body of the. resolution. Motion by Councilman Heath, seconded by Councilman Krieger, that said resolution be adopted.- Motion passed on roll call as follows: Ayes: Councilmen Jett, Snyder, Krieger, Heath, Mayor Nichols Noes: None Absent: None Said resolution was given No. 3244 • RESOLUTION NO. 3245 The City Clerk presented: ADOPTED "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL (Puente and Lark Ellen Avenues) OF THE -CITY OF WEST COVINA DEDICATING CERTAIN CITY OWNED PROPERTY TO PUBLIC STREET PURPOSES AND ACCEPTING SAME AS A PUBLIC STREET" (Puente and Lark Ellen Avenues}, Mayor Nichols: Hearing no objections, we will waive further reading.of the body of the resolution. Motion by Councilman -Snyder, seconded by Councilman Heath, that said resolution be adopted. Motion passed on roll call as follows: Ayes: Councilmen Jett, Snyder, Krieger; Heath, Mayor Nichols Noes: None Absent: None Said resolution was given No. 3245. RESOLUTION NO. 3246 ADOPTED • (Flood Control District - Service Avenue) Mayor Nichols: The City Clerk presented: "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF WEST COVINA .AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION.OF A GRANT OF EASEMENT"'(Service Avenue) Hearing no objections,, we will waive further reading of the body of the resolution.- -5- 0 • IE C. C.- 9/27/65 RESOLUTION NO. 3246 - Continued Page Six Motion by Councilman Heath, seconded by Councilman Krieger, that said resolution be. adopted. Motion passed on roll call as follows: Ayes: Councilmen Snyder, Krieger, Heath, Mayor Nichols Noes: Councilman. Jett Absent: None Said resolution was given No. 3246, RESOLUTION NO. 3247 ADOPTED (Eichenbaum;- off site) Mayor Nichols: The City Clerk presented: "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF WEST COVINA ACCEPTING A CERTAIN WRITTEN INSTRUMENT AND DIRECTING THE RECORDATION THEREOF" (Eichenbaum, off site) Hearing no objections, we will waive further reading of the body of the resolution. Motion by Councilman Heath, seconded by Councilman Krieger,.that said resolution be adopted. Motion passed on roll call as follows: Ayes: Councilmen Jett, Snyder, Krieger, Heath, Mayor Nichols, Noes: None Absent: None Said resolution was given No. 3247. RESOLUTION NO. 3248 ADOPTED (Eichenbaum - on site) The City Clerk presented: "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF WEST COVINA ACCEPTING A CERTAIN WRITTEN INSTRUMENT AND DIRECTING THE RECORDATION THEREOF" (Eichenbaum, on site) Mayor Nichols: Hearing no objections, we will :waive further reading of the body of the resolution. Motion by Councilman Krieger, seconded by Councilman Heath, that said resolution be adopted.- Motion passed on roll call as follows: Ayes: Councilmen Jett, Snyder, Krieger, Heath, Mayor Nichols. Noes: None Absent: None Said resolution was given No. 3248. 0 C. C... 9/27/65 PLANNING COMMISSION REPORT ON "POLICE PROBLEMS AND ZONING", WITH RECOMMENDATIONS and RECOMMENDATIONS CONCERNING PUBLIC HEARING PROCEDURES Page Seven Motion by Councilman Krieger, seconded .by Councilman Heath, and carried, that these matters be held over .to the study meeting of October.4, 196.5. REVIEW PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION OF SEPTEMBER 15, 1965 So indicated by Mr. Flotten. The following items were called up. Variance-No.-569 Sugar - Approved_by Planning Commission Precise Plan No. 461 - Sugar - Approved by Planning Commission Mayor Nichols: The Council would like to call up these matters, to come along with the.approved Zone.Change No. 355. Councilman Heath: For the past four monthsI have_ been the Council representative at the Planning Commission meetings. I feel quite strongly at this time that in the seven years I have been acquainted with the Planning Commission and its actions that this is the first time that we have what I would consider an excellent Planning Commission. I see no. personal grudges being.battled; I see:nothing but good sound thinking and reasoning. I -think at this time we -have -the most matured and best working, fairest Planning Commission that I have seen in seven_ years. I think they should -be commended. Mayor Nichols: SCHEDULED MATTERS BIDS PROJECT C-139 STREET.IMPROVEMENT Thank you, Councilman. LOCATION: North Lark Ellen Avenue , ,from San Bernardino Freeway to Puente Avenue, and Puente Avenue along frontage of Palm View Park. Bids received in office of City Clerk a� 10:00 A.M., September 22, 1965. The bids received•are as follows:. -7- C. C._ 9/27/65 Page Eight PROJECT C-139 - Continued • F. W. RICHTER CONSTRUCTION 10% 0 Bid Bond on $ 87,101.36 JASPER N. HALEY 10% Bid Bond 89,794.96 D & W PAVING, INC. 10% Bid Boned 92,387.48 SULLY -MILLER CONTRACTING COMPANY 10% Bid Bond 95,494.19 LARJO COMPANY 10% Bid Bond 96,682.25 REX W. MURPHY 10% Bid Bond 108,817.03 W. R. WILKINSON COMPANY, INC. 10% Bid Bond 115,545.75 Motion by Councilman Snyder, seconded by Councilman Jett, that the bid for Project C-139 be awarded to the F. W. Richter Construction Company on the basis of their low bid in a total estimated amount of $87,101.36, and.,that the unsuccessful bid bonds be returned. Motion passed on roll call as follows: Ayes: Councilmen Jett, Snyder, Krieger, Heath, Mayor Nichols Noes: None Absent: None Motion by Councilman Snyder, seconded by Councilman Jett, that $2,500.00 be appropriated from the Capital Outlay Fund No. 125 for the construction of sanitary sewer laterals. Motion passed on . roll call as follows: Ayes: Councilmen -Jett, Snyder, Krieger, Heath, Mayor Nichols Noes: None Absent: None PROJECTS SP-6606 AND SP-6608 LOCATION: Vine Avenue, Glendora RESURFACING Avenue to Holly Place, and -Merced Avenue, Orange Avenue to California Avenue. Bids received in office of City Clerk 10:00 A.M., September 22, 1965. The bids received are as follows:, WARREN SOUTHWEST, INC. 10% Bid Bond $ 7,961.00 GRIFFITH COMPANY 10% Bid Bond 9,133.50 JASPER N. HALEY 10% Bid Bond 9,648.25 F. W. RICHTER CONSTRUCTION 10% Bid Bond 9.654.75 Motion by Councilman. Snyder., seconded by Councilman Jett, that the contract for Projects SP-6606-and SP-6608 be awarded to Warren Southwest, Inc. on the basis of their low bid items for a total esti- mated amount.of $7,961.00, subject to the approval by the State • Division of Highways, and that the unsuccessful bid bonds be returned. Motion passed on roll.+call as follows: Ayes: Councilmen Jett, Snyder, Krieger., Heath, Mayor,Nichols Noes: None, Absent: None -8- C—C., 9/27/65 BIDS - Continued PROJECTS NOS. TS-6427, TS-6428, TS-6442, TS-6532, TS-6533, TS-6610,-AND C-173-1 TRAFFIC SIGNALS Page Nine LOCATION: Azusa and Vine Avenues; Azusa and -Merced Avenues; Vincent and Puente Avenues; Vincent and Workman Avenues; Sunset and Puente Avenues; Azusa Canyon Road and San Bernardino Road_; Glendora Avenue, south of Christopher Street; Sunset Avenue and Sunset Place; Glendora and Vine Avenues; and interconnect signals on Citrus, Street. Bids received in office of City Clerk 10:00 A.M., September 22, 1965. The bids received are as follows: STEINY & MITCHEL, INC. 10% Bid Bond $ 73,978.20 PAUL GARDNER CORPORATION 10% Bid Bond 76,510.20 SMITH ELECTRIC SUPPLY 10% Bid Bond 76,679.00. FISCHBACH AND MOORE 10% Bid Bond 79,990.00 A.E.C. EAGLE ROCK 10% Bid Bond 80,870.00 Motion by Councilman Krieger, seconded by Councilman Heath, that the bid for Projects TS-6427, TS-6428, TS-6442, TS-6532, TS-6533, TS-6610, and C-173-1 be awarded to Steiny and Mitchel, Inc. on the basis of . their low bid in the amount of $73,978.20, and that the unsuccessful bid bonds be returned. -- Mayor Nichols: The City of West Covina is expending for its budget a great deal of money attempting to improve our streets and provide signalization, and this one bid represents extensive signalization throughout the City. This will be of immense value to our community in providing a safer community in which to live. Action on Councilman Krieger's motion: Motion passed on roll call as follows: Ayes: Councilmen Jett, Snyder, Krieger,.Heath, Mayor Nichols Noes: None Absent: None, HEARING 1966 WEED AND RUBBISH ABATEMENT PROGRAM Protest Hearing Intention No. 3227 adopted August 23, • Mayor Nichols: City Clerk, Mr. Flotten: This date set for hearing of.pro- tests or objections from property owners and other interested parties by Resolution of 1965. Mr. City Clerk, do you have the affidavits of -publication and posting as required by law? I do. • • C; C. 9/27/6.5 Page Teri . 1966 WEED AND RUBBISH ABATEMENT PROGRAM -.Continued Motion by Councilman Krieger, seconded by Councilman Heath, and carried, that said affidavits be.filed.- Mayor Nichols: City Clerk, Mr. Flotten: Mayor Nichols: Council in protest of this matter? Mr. City Clerk, have you received any written objections against the work being done? No protest, either written or oral. Is there anyone present -who may have a desire to address the This is the time for that protest. There being no public testimony, the,_public portion of this hearing will be closed. Motion by Councilman..Krieger, seconded by Councilman Heath, and carried, ordering the abatement of weeds and removal of rubbish on those properties indicated in the 1966 Weed and Rubbish Abatement Program. BIDS (Continued) 1966 WEED AND RUBBISH ABATEMENT PROGRAM LOCATION: Citywide. Bids received in office of City Clerk 10:00 A.M., September 22, 1965. The bids received are as follows: HAROLD WATTS COMMERCIAL LOT CLEANING, INC. RESOLUTION NO. .3249 ADOPTED (Weed abatement contract Harold Watts) Mayor Nichols: 10% Bid Bond $ 6,115.00 10% Bid Bond 6,160.00 The City Clerk. presented: "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE -CITY OF WEST COVINA AUTHORIZING AWARDING OF•A CONTRACT OF HAROLD WATTS, CONTRACTOR, TO.ABATE WEEDS AND RUBBISH ON PRIVATE PROPERTY IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF TITLE 4, DIVISION 3, PART 2, CHAPTER 13, ARTICLE 2, OF THE GOVERNMENT CODE" Hearing no.objections, we will waive further reading of the- body,of'the resolution. Motion by Councilman Heath,,seconded by Councilman -Krieger, -that said resolution be adopted.. Motion passed on roll call as follows: Ayes:- Councilmen Jett, Snyder, -Krieger, Heath; Mayor Nichols, .Noes: None Absent: None Said resolution was given No. 3249. -10 C. C. 9/27/65 Page Eleven HEARINGS - Continued • ZONE CHANGE NO. 352 LOCATION: Easterlyside z of Azusa Emil Galster Avenue, approximately HELD OVER 1600.feet southerly of Francisquito Avenue. Request to reclassify from Zone A-1-5 (County) to Zones R-2 and R-3 (City) approved by Planning Commission Resolution No. 1826. City Clerk, Mr. Flotten: The notice of this public hearing appeared in the [.west Covina Tribune on September 16, 1965, and two notices mailed to owners of property in the area.- (Read Planning Commission Resolution No. 1826.) Mayor -Nichols: IN FAVOR This is the time and place for the public hearing. Mar. James Hutchison As you can see on the map which was 127 North Lang Avenue presented by Mr. Flotten, the West.Covina area in question is adjacent to. Galster Park, the proposed Azusa Avenue which will be under.construction in late December, Tract 28988 • to the north. There is commercial which Mr. Brutaoco, I understand, is in the market for a buyer and we will have a shopping center in there very shortly. To the south is Home Savings and Loan property, which is R-1. But, there is quite a ridge separating the Galster property from the Home Savings and Loan property. There is a difference of one to two hundred feet between the top of the ridge and the pads that would be developed on this site. The zoning is proposed as a further development of the existing commercial and multiple family which exists in a fairly natural bowl. We have made a study of R-1 lots available in this area. There are 242 acres in the immediate vicinity that is under construction or have approved maps for R-1. This is about 469 lots, according to the tract maps, ranging in value from fifteen to twenty thousand dollars. A very high type development is proposed there certainly but it seems to us that the R-1 lots in the area are a little overdeveloped right now. We have made studies for the type of development in,there and we are considering several -items, condominium development.with cluster or other type of step housing. Nothing is definite. We feel since the property is being developed on the north quite rapidly we want to make sure that the Galster property can be integrated into this and present a good development.in the future. In order to do this, we should know how the -area can be developed. If you have any questions on the.engineering of this proposal I will be glad to answer them. Mrs. Helen Gbre I would like to speak in favor 1445 East Dexter of this proposed zone change. Covina (Read letter addressed to the City Council dated September 22, 1965, re this matter, and signed by Emil Galster.) -11- C. C. 9/27/65 Page Twelve ZONE CHANGE NO. 352 - Continued • I think this letter states very clearly what Mr. Galster has in mind and I have known him for about fourteen years and I know the quality of his, enterprise. For the past five years I have done a great deal of research regarding multiple dwelling. While the area is over saturated with the cheaper R-2, R-3, there is a definite need for this type of development. A recent article estimated populations and this is out of 34 cities in this area, and West Covina is the only one with a drop in population. I.personally can name at least 25 families who have moved, many to Glendora, where there is a development on.a much higher level than anything close to this area or to the beach areas because West Covina has nothing to offer in multiple dwellings such as the ones under discussion. The age group that would be prospective tenants would certainly not increase the number of school children nearly as much as a residential area of homes in the lower income bracket. A precise plan, if this is granted, can assure that the R-2 and R-3 are taken care of the way they should be. 0 IN OPPOSITION Mrs. Marjorie Gaines I am speaking for the Home 914 West Barbara Owners' Federation of West West.Covina Covina, as are the rest of the people who would like to give testimony. The West Covina Home Owners' Federation joins the City Planning Department in asking why the 61 acres of property belonging to Mr. Galster should be given multiple zoning when the application fails to meet City standards regarding zone changes. The first requirement is for the applicant to show a need within the City for the change. At the present time there are 184 City acres of land already zoned for multiple development which are lying vacant. In addition to the multiple which is not developed, there is an extremely high vacancy rate in the apartments already completed. The City staff has studied the proposal very thoroughly and have pointed out that more -multiple in the area would -throw our City General Plan significantly out:of balance. There is a complete lack of access to any street. The staff stated during Commission hearings that it would be contrary to public policy to create 61 acres of apartment house zoning without access to an existing public street. During Planning Commission hearings, the staff requested material from the applicant relating to topography and access roads. They were not forthcoming. The.staff pointed out the fact that the granting of this application would place multiple against high quality R-1 land in the Home Savings and Loan tract. This was ignored. In the immediate area of this land there is zoning for 1,265 multiple dwellings already. If this application is granted the number.will increase to 21,400 apartments capable of being built. This is material from the Planning Department report. SIPM n • • C. C. 9/27/65 . 20NE CHANGE NO. 352- Continued letter to the Planning Commission school children would necessitate district. This was dismissed as granted? Page Thirteen The school district sent a warning that a higher density of building another school in the school. irrelevant. Why was this zone change Mr. Ralph M. Goldstein I notice the arguments put forth 1546 East Cameron by the Planning Commission report West.Covina were not answered by any of the Planning Commission members. In fact, the main argument made in the very brief Minutes, Commissioner Adams talking about this said, "As far as the amount of zoning and the need for additional zoning, I know this always comes up in our considerations. The fact we do have this type of zoning and it isn't_ all developed and that the areas that have developed, I think there is a market for it or else they wouldn't be developing and still being proposed". And Chairman McCann: "I,agree. In general, I think economics will take care of any areas which we might.think are in -excess of the General Plan from the standpoint of R-3 and R-2." We either have a General Plan here or we don't have, and wehave a General Plan. Because Mr. Galster got some commercial and R-2 and R-3 zoning a few years ago now he says one reason he should get a thousand more units authorized is because he is adjacent to R-2 and R-3 -- his own. I think that is highly shocking. We are interested in good zoning for West Covina and this doesn't conform. We want this developed as a City of beautiful homes. This is such a substantial change from the General Plan I am sure none of you will go along with -this. I believe we have enough apartments in West Covina, and I don't think we need any more. This is too much to even give consideration. This is in an area where if you allow these apartments with the attendant commercial in this, you. will have a general infiltration up north from Azusa Avenue into.areas that are one hundred per -cent residential and you're doing -the wrong thing for West Covina. Mrs. Dorothy King I oppose this application because 1612 South Belmont Avenue it is not in accordance with West Covina West Covina's General Plan._ The owners of single f amily homes in West Covina are becoming increasingly more, concerned with the detri- mental zone changes. In.fact, there is great nationwide concern over zoning as our population increases and the supply of desirable land grows smaller. (Read article from Look magazine entitled "The Battle That Threatens Your Home. And Your Pocketbook". Read article relating to.zoning that appeared in Holiday magazine, October issue.) • Our General Plan was adopted less than three years ago and has already been distorted in the areas of commercial and multiple zoning both in quantity and location. Granting this application would only make it worse. The General Plan reflects the City's ultimate goals and designed to achieve the greater health, safety, and -welfare and convenience of the people and efficiency in the:, finctions of the community. -13- • • •C. _ C. 9/27/65 ZONE CHANGE NO. 352 - Continued Page Fourteen It is apparent that our General Plan as.prepared by Simon Eisner and Associates is designed to further the desired headquarter City concept and at the same time provide sound healthful and attractive residential areas. This is what most of us say we want so I hope that you gentlemen of the Council will uphold our General Plan and refuse this application. Mr. Chuck Dowding With respect to demand for R-1 1605 South Belmont and multiple, there is more demand West Covina for R-1 in West Covina than multiple by a long way. I don't know where Mr. Hutchison gets his statistics. He says nothing definite is planned and that this can be done in the future. Obviously, there are no plans. On the General Plan, it extended one quarter mile around the existing City limits as of 1962. The General Plan took in this area. It proposed four acres of neighborhood or convenience commercial. It -didn't show any R-P. There was a commercial park of approximately six acres, a special park adjacent of 12 acres. It.had 11 acres of R-3, 13 acres of R-2, and 146 net acres remaining for R-1. Now, let's see what we got -existing before we consider this particular application. Right now we have ten acres of commercial and six acres of R-P. If you -combine that as being generally commercial, we have gone from four to sixteen acres of a commercial type; an increase of 400%. As far as the park is concerned, we have had a net gain. We had a total of 18 acres proposed and we have an increase to 30 acres so we've gained 160%. As of the existing zoning, we have 29 acres as opposed to the initial 11 proposed, 264% increase over what the General Plan proposed for R-3. In R-2, we had 13 and now we have 14, so we.are just about even. On.R-1, we dropped to a net of 77% as of today if we don't grant this particular zoning.. If you include what is proposed tonight-, we still have the 16 acres of. commercial, so that 400% figure holds. The park figure holds. Now, we increase the R-3 by 64.4 acres and this would bring up the R-3 on design of the General Plan of 585% of the General Plan. As far as the R-2, there is another increase of 39.7 bringing up to 305% of design on the General Plan. This reduces the net left for R-1 development to 57% of design. I would like to make a few remarks about Bru-tocaoo At the time the application was made, the Planning Commission proposed less R-3 zoning than was granted by the City Council, and it was proposed by the developer at the time that the R-3 was justified in, a bowl. The Galster property is out of the bowl. It is up on the side and it is quite significant. Mr.Brutocao at the time promised a high class development right down there in the bowl and a little while later he sold itto somebody else and the area is still -vacant. Some of the Home Savings and Loan property slopes toward the Galster property. There is a little bit of that on the ridge. Some of it slopes down.to the Galster property so that argument doesn't hold water. In our present zoning on the Home. Savings and Loan property we. have Area District III. We are going to bring that right up against R-2 and R-3. You know what Area -14- C. C.. 9/27/65 Page Fifteen ZONE CHANGE NO. 352 - Continued • District III is. That is 14,400 square foot lots,.minimum area on the homes 1,500 square feet, et cetera. There is just no buffering at all. In R-3 we have boarding houses, lodging houses, up to 20% of the space can be used for eating and alcoholic beverages, 25 units to the acre, four to five stories. Mr. Willy Neece I hope there isn't any feeling 717 South California Avenue of obligation towards this West Covina applicant for his land gift that he has given to the City for a.park site. The citizens of West Covina greatly appreciate this but with no strings attached._ After following the testimony given here tonight it seems quite clear that if you are considering this plan on zoning merits alone then obviously you cannot approve this application. REBUTTAL, Mr. James Hutchison:: Regarding the comments as to the street pattern, the streets as proposed by the Brutocao development, and he is still the owner of the commercial, R-2 and R-3 property in the bottom of the bowl, he plans to have a drive which is a sweeping curve which goes up to the park area some time next year. Mr. Goldstein made a few misstatements but one in particular regarding Mr. Galster. Mr. Galster has never applied for multiple family zoning on any of his property.. The property which he sold to Mr.Brutocao had been sold quite a long time before it came up before this Council. He has had R-1 developments to the north. 1,200 was given as the approximate number of units to be developed.- We have studied this and feel that probably around 825 is a more realistic figure because of the topography. Mr. Galster, as you well know, is not a speculator. He has been a resident of this area for quite a long time and his main desire here is that a plan be set up so that the land bounded by the natural topographic features can be developed into a well designed plan, a plan that generally fits the General Plan and cannot be measured off by acres by scaling on the m ap which has to be,developed by the land_ owners in that particular area. Mrs. Helen Gore: I would like to mention about more children coming from this proposed zone change. I disagree. I -am sure statistics will prove that.in the type of luxury apartments we are talking about you will find hardly any small children and I agree you have lots of vacant apartments all over but they are usually the variety that are along the freeway or something like that, not the kind to go into a development such as we are talking about. I think each particular -thing that comes up is a special thing.. ,You have to.pass on it. I feel whoever is directing this traffic when it is time fo do this can take care of that situation. iSome one said they hadn't done anything about it. They can't until they know what.kind of zoning they are going to get. It takes money, time,.engineering, financing to do this. It would be foolish for them to go ahead and do anything before the zoning is set.' There being no further public testimony, the public portion of -this hearing was closed. -15- C. C. 9/27/65 Page Sixteen ZONE CHANGE NO. 352 - Continued • Councilman Heath: Mr. Joseph, the previous Council originated and approved the recommendations of the Planning Commission in a R-2 zone.If I am not mistaken, at that time the motion was made by -,a previous Council member that the R-2 zoning was to.be used for handicapped property. Do you recall this? Planning Director, Mr. Joseph: I remember a general conversation that the R-2 is unique in West Covina and that it would be placed on properties that would be difficult to develop as single family due to developmental cost, topography, or some other feature, and the increased density would help defray the cost of excessive development on the land.. - Councilman Heath: I don't meant to put you on the spot, but I believe it has been the general feeling,concensus of many people in the City government that the General Plan was completed, I believe, in 1962, and at that time the R-3 for the City, the projection was set at a certain level and since that time I believe that among this group of people in City government and staff have realized that the predictions set forth at the time of the General Plan were erroneous and that they were far below what they should have been calculated as. In otherwords, the multiple dwellings recommended on the General Plan have been proven to be inadequate to serve the City.. I won't ask for your comment on that. I'll let that go by. Councilman Krieger: I have a question for Mr. Hutchison or Mrs. Gore. In the Planning Department report.of September 1st, there are two specific points that I would like to have your response to. One is the question of need. Can either one of you direct some remarks or answers to me as. to the need in this area for this type of zoning? Mrs. Helen Gore: Of course, when you say this type of zoning, R-3, it can be anything.from a dingbat up to the most luxurious apartment. Councilman Krieger: Mrs. Helen Gore: zoned R-3 then whoever is the Council time can take care of this situation. for luxury apartments in this area. area. I know others who would- move. i Councilman. Krieger: Let's talk about zoning. If you zone it R-3 it takes a precise plan. I believe if it is -passing on the things at . that I believe there is a great need know many people leaving this there were anything. Department report, and that is whether premature. You state there is a great type or luxury type apartments. What question as to whether or not this is You naturally lead me to the second point raised in the Planning or not this application is need in this area for high about your response to'the a timely application? Mrs. Helen Gore: I think it is timely because as Mr. Galster states, it .will take quite some time to develop this and I think it is a logical place.. The land lends itself to a -beautiful development. . -16- C. C. 9/27/65 ZONE CHANGE NO. 352 - Continued • Mayor Nichols:. population? I was not aware of that. Page Seventeen. Could I see the article where it states about the drop in (Mr. Galster presented said article to the City Council.) Mayor Nichols: We .just recently received a report which authorized us to place a sign on our streets at 63,000, which was done in an inte.rim.report by the State of California. This article is by the Planning Department of Los. Angeles County. Councilman.Snyder: I think for the record it should be stated that our records, and we had a recent report by the Bureau of Finance on a census,.that this is not completely accurate. Councilman Heath: The question I would bring up, even if this were true, I.hardly feel it was because of the fact we put -apartments in the City.. I would like to know what the reason is, if it is true. I would be interested to know. • Councilman Krieger: I would like to ask Mr. Goldstein a question. In your testimony in opposition you used the figure 1,200 units on this property. Where, did you get that figure? Mr. Ralph M. Goldstein: I understood the original was between a thousand and 1,200 and that there was another 1,200 units proposed for these 61 acres.. I believe that it is in the Planning Department report. Councilman Krieger: We are not talking about Oschin • and Brutocao Is there anything in the Planning Department report, the Minutes, or in the application that talks about the number of units? Councilman Jett: It is on page one of the Planning Department report dated September 1, 1965, third paragraph,.about the middle. Councilman Krieger; Mr. Joseph, where did you arrive at such a figure? Planning Director, Mr..Joseph: We arrive at the figures by taking .the acreage, by multiplying the number of dwelling units per acre and coming out with a factor at this point. Councilman Krieger:. If you took 60 acres and multi- plied itby20, you would come. out with 1,200 units and, as I understand, you have 35.4 acres of'R-3 and 25.7 acres of R-2. Public Services Director, Mr. Fast: Well, 35 acres at 25 units is.880 and 28 acres at 10 units is 280 for a total of 1',160. -17- C. C. 9/27/65 ZONE CHANGE NO. 352 - Continued Page Eighteen Councilman Krieger: Is there any computation made as to usable acreage there? Planning Director, Mr..Joseph: The amount of units was based on the gross acreage. When you arrive at a multiple family development.there is no telling just how much is going to be.used in public streets as opposed to.private access, so the computation was based on a gross acreage. Councilman_ Krieger: On August 4 in his testimony Mr..Walsh.indicated, "By the time .we take out the area for slopes and roads we actually have 33 acres of usable property, which is about 55% of 60 acres." Was there any justification -before the Planning Commission that isn't reported in here or to your Department as to the amount of usable acreage there? Planning Director., Mr. Joseph: On the reports we made mention of. the fact that there really should. be more information submitted as to how much land is actually going to be available for development, how much will be,used up in slope, how much will be available for pad area..- We suggested a topographic model or some other suitable device be presented to show the amount • of land to be devoted.to building purposes. Councilman Heath: I think it makes a measurable difference, if Mr. Walsh is right, that 550 of this land is going to be'usable. It makes.a substantial difference between the 1,100 and some units and possibly 600 units. By the same token, it.also makes quite a difference in the calculations on the presently -zoned land. I know that you have requested a topographical model and it would be beautiful, but we are talking possibly $10,000 for this manto spend not knowing whether he is going to.get zoning at this time. If he spends $10,000 on a sure thing, that is different, but I don't think we can expect him to gamble that kind of money. - Councilman Jett: I would like to comment on the street situation. 'I would like to point out:that one of the very important aspects of this request is that they be given the zoning at the present time which would enable them to plan their development as the property to the north is being developed. Now, there has been a tenative plan proposed. but I don't think the street alignments have -been finalized at this time. I think each member of the Council is very much concerned about access to the Galster Park and any road that would go into this area, the park area, would certainly feed some of the traffic that would be going into any development in this area. So, I would think that this • would be a very important consideration at.the present time in granting something like this, to allow the developers the opportunity to study this street alignment.. 1 feel this is a very important part of this consideration. I. would like to call attention to something that I just. recently was concerned about on the Council; and.Mr. Joseph's letter of September lst to the Planning Commission and his remarks again on page one, he makes quite a point here. "At the presenttime throughout the entire City of West Covina there are 3,382 units which could bebuilton zoned land added to 2,902-units now built. All this does not include the figures for the imme,diat.e vicinity." I don't think 30 days has gone by since Mr. -18- C. C. .9/27/65 Page Nineteen ZONE CHANGE NO. 352- Continued. Joseph proposed zoning or the City proposed zoning and this was entirely on Mr. Joseph's proposal that this zoning be granted without any effort or any attempt to determine the need. Now, this may be a good, way of determining zoning; I don4t know. However, I would think if this is a consideration in one area it certainly should be a consideration in another area and if we felt that it wasn't necessary to determine need for zoning in one portion of the City, I donit think we should question a builder who is willing to invest his money to develope something like this. He certainly must feel that there is a need or he wouldn't. Where on the other basis we had no attempt to justify a need. I would think this piece of property being landlocked as it is certainly is going to have to be considered in the street develop- ment in conjunction with the other area and I think they are going to have to have time in which to consider this and it is going to have to be in advance, not at some later date after the streets are already' in the other areas. - Councilman Snyder: I think there has been a lot of discussion tonight in an attempt to arrive at a solution to this. I think the discussion should be limited to the zoning and its relationship to the General Plan. I think there has been a lot of talk about ratio and need, but when it comes right down to it basically, what do we want and what do we think • the citizens of West -Covina want is the question. I think as far as the zoning and the merits of the zoning that the Planning Commission's report has not been completely answered by the arguments of the proponents. I agree with Mr. Jett that the zoning probably should not be granted at this time. I can't predict when the time would be or whether it should be granted. Councilman Jett: I said just the opposite. I think it should be granted now. Councilman Snyder: I think if the zoning -subject is a subject of merit and not personalities that it was in poor taste to di-scuss whether Mr. Galster will be here to develop this property. I certainly would hope. whether it is developed R-1, R-2 or whatever, that he will be around to help do it. Councilman Heath: The"property we have before.us is a difficult piece of property to use. The reason I asked Mr. Joseph about the intent of R-2 zoning was purely to bring out,and refresh the memory of the members of the Council and the audience what the original intent of R-2 zoning was and that was to be put on handicapped pieces of property. I feel this property is handicapped. It is handicapped because it has a large ravine through the center. There are about two and a half million • cubic yards of dirt to be moved on this piece of property. If that is true, you can be well assured that there is well over a million dollars in grading alone to be done here. You can't take this property and develop it in inexpensive dwellings because the cost of your development of the land, even if -the land was free,. would be such a tremendous amount that you couldn't afford to put anything cheap on there. -19- C..C. 9/27/65 Page Twenty ZONE . CHANGE NO. 352 - Continued. The best proof is proven by the area to the east that the engineer referred to. I,.am giving this information second-hand, but I.feO1 it is quite accurate. To the east there are 242.acres under construction.' There are nine subdivisions, I am led to believe, in.that area,.working out.to 469 lots. I am led to believe further the price -of these lots start at $17,000 per lot. I feel this is quite accurate because I have looked into it myself. A $17,000 lot justifies about a $75,000 house, and if you would go to the Realty Board and find out the number of $75.,000 houses sold per year, I.think you will find of the 469 lots we.have here by simple calculations you have enough single family R-1 hillside lots to last us for a few years to come. To ask to have this developed °into R-1 would be just, increasing the problem we have at the present time and R-2 zoning was .created specifically for handicapped pieces.of property. I think the General Plan was antiquated as far as multiple dwellings was concerned before,it was adopted. In light of this, I feel.there is a justification for multiple family zoning in this area combined with the fact that twosides of this property are bounded by multiple_ family and a park on the third side. I feel this R-2 zoning and to the east where it is specified for R-3 zoning where it is much rougher, that these zonings are created for these purposes. • Councilman Krieger: I would agree with Councilman, Heath when he says that it would be foolish to ask Mr. Galster to develop this property as R-1, but I don't think that is the pure question here. Mr. Galster doesn't want to develop the property as R-1 and as I understand the applicant's position, the property isn't in the developmental stage except in plans and.programs and drawing boards. It is six years away, apparently:, from fruition. The quandry that I find myself in is the age-old one that we do not zone by precise plan; we.zone.by our ordinance, and it may be naive, but I think I can distinguish the case that Councilman Jett mentioned on the R-3 zoning along Cameron, that somewhere we must find need. To turn the point around, I don't think it would be fair if we were to say to Mr. Galster,-"You should develop R-2 and R-3" because here, again, we don't have any justification in my mind from the'�figures we have before us,.that show a need for R-2 or R-3 or R-1. I don't know what need we have in that area. What we are being asked to do is look into a crystal ball and say, "Now, four, five, six years hence", -assuming there is,a need now, which I believe is just a conclusion and hasn't been factually supported, "you are going to have a greater need.". I.think we have to look at zoning in .the, pure sense, even though ..it is a very difficult proposition to do so- When I say "pure sense", I don't mean the applicant any more,. than I mean the opponents. Because, if.those factors were taken into consideration, I wonder how objective we could be at all in these zoning matters. I think we necessarily, even though our personal • inclinations might be otherwise, must divorce ourselves completely, from the personalities of the people appearing before us either for or against. Without digressing any further into that subject matter and looking at it within the context of purity as much as it can be,applied, I find that one element missing here and I have looked hard,and long.at the.Planning Department's. report. of September lst and the Planning Commission's Minutes.of August 4 and again on September lst, to find some real analysis of this question -20- C.`C. 9/27/65 ZONE CHANGE NO. 352 - Continued Page Twenty -One as to need, and I was hoping that in the presentation by the applicant tonight there could be presented to the Council a justification for this element..and I find it still lacking and finding it lacking, I can't in my own mind go along with the application in requesting a zone change to R- 2 and R- 3 . Councilman Snyder: I agree about need except I don't think this is the whole factor. I think in many of these developments there is an element of salesman-. ship in the development itself. The need is sometimes difficult to show in advance. I think they are going to have a hard time to show need. at the present time. I.am not ready to act on it under the present I onditions. I don't think any need is shown right now. I can see many problems associated with this with multiple sight now.. City Attorney, Mr. Williams: Need is not the word in the ordinance or the State law. It is a public interest and welfare. Councilman Jett: This is true and I think this is exactly what the zoning ordinance points out. The attempt to prove the need for zoning is something that is as ambiguous as it could possibly be. However, if we believe the ,statistics given to us by the thousands and thousands of dollars we have spent for professional consultants to come in and advise us, then we must -assume that the City of West Covina is going to grow and going to develop and there are going to be more people here. If this is true, then we are going to have to have more residential units of some kind. I can't help but feel there is a - need for multiple development right along with single family development if it is in the right areas, and I feel this is because it is bounded by a natural divider on the hill on the south, a State highway on a portion to the west, with multiple zoning, a park and commercial zoning to the north. The topography certainly warrants doing something here in the way of allowing an orderly development, orderly use of the land that would warrant a type of zoning that would allow economically the area to be developed. As far as the need now, I think we are going to have to look at it in this sense. A few years ago when West Covina started to grow, I was one of those who went out and tried to induce people to move here, tried to sell them land to develop and build homes, and I was successful in convincing a lot of those people that this was a good area in which to move to build their homes, to build their businesses, to invest money. I had no way of proving the need was there other than a belief, honest, sincere belief, that the City of West:Covina was going to grow, that it was actually going to be the hub of the area, the center of homes of culture, art. I was convinced years ago and when I was elected president of the.Chamber of Commerce, I mentioned that some day we would have a skyline in West Covina.. We have the highest building in the entire San Gabriel Valley going up; we have many other buildings going up. This is progress and this is going forward.and I.don't think we can stand still. -21- C. C. 9/27/65 Page Twenty -Two ZONE_CHANGE NO. 352 Continued,` ' Councilman Snyder: If we are going to stick to the technicality of public interest and welfare, I don't think the proponents have proven this is within the public welfare and interest, and I don't think the opponents have proved otherwise. Planning Director, Mr. Joseph: We think,questions that should. be answered as set forth in our memo of August.4 is the public need and necessity for the amount of zoning,.the access to the property, the topography, relation to other zone changes, topography of the subject property, elements inherent in the,Brutocao zone change, arguments applicable to the subject property, the relationship to the surrounding lands, particularly Home Savings to the south, effect on the Home Savings General Plan. These are generally the questions we had. Also -there is the question of schools, the correspondence we have with the school district... Councilman Snyder: I would like to see this held. over. Councilman Heath: I relate need and best interest to the area together because if, a need is satisfied it is in the best interest of the are.a. When I • said there were two and a half million cubic yards of dirt, I meant to bring out that this land would have to be developed with a tremendous cost.and whatever is put on this land would have to be of a. high caliber to justify this expense.. I say that there.is a need for high caliber executive type apartments and I_would ask anyone:in the area, anyone in the room to try to make,a study of this and find executive apartments. The apartments in the. City run up to $165 a month and for that money they are well worth it. But, sometimes there are executives who come in here and want more than this and I understand the nearest place they can go is in Glendora up on Bennett Avenue. There definitely is a need. Councilman Snyder: You hear this argument all the time but nobody builds them. Mayor Nichols: Looking at the map over here on the wall at the time of zoning that has been granted surrounding this property and noting that except for the possibility of the southerly end this property is pretty well insulated from any potential single family traditional type of development, one of.the bigger concerns I have about multiple type developments is removal. Also, I,would speak from the standpoint of absolute fairness, I doubt.very much if anybody here in this audience owned that particular acreageiand looked at the.particular uses around it and examined the topography and looked at what the costs are of developing land and making it productive, I doubt very • much.if they would look forward to tackling that on a R-1 basis, and so I really can't conceive that when this land develops, unless there is a tremendous amount,of inflation and land becomes cheap land somehow temporarily, I doubt if it can be developed in any other way, and to say to an owner that .he can't develop it in any other way than R-1 and R-1 forever, I . can' t buy that. On the other hand, and I have the greatest personal esteem for this applicant, I am forced,to say that this, in my opinion, was;a very very poor presentation before -22- C. C. 9/27/65 Page 'Twenty -Three ZONE CHANGE NO. 352 - Continued this Council requesting a zone change. I cannot understand why a request.for a.zone,change has come before this Council.with so little justification. There have been days and days that have gone by since .the staff of this City suggested the areas that would be needed to be clarified and we have received nothing except statements that we need this kind of development and yet we are not passing upon this kind of a development. We are passing upon only the zoning. We have no way of knowing precisely what kind of development we will be getting and yet -.if I had the information before me now on the cost of development of this land, the amount of fill that would-be necessary, the amount of usable land that would be available, then I might be able to make a justification or a.just decision as to the utilization of this land, but I could not at this moment, at this hour with the informa- tion that I have in.front.of me make any decision other than the request has not been justified. Motion by Councilman Snyder, seconded by Councilman Jett, and carried, that Zone.Change No. 352 be held over to.the meeting'(5f November 8, 1965, and that appropriate personnel, proponents or staff, be asked to submit the following items: 1) The cost of grading.and fill. This should be the pro- ponents. • 2) The amount of _usable land. Again, this should be the. proponents. 3) In relation to the topography, the suggested access, practical and possible access to the property. 4) The staff to present report on -the elements in the Brutocao zoning which are applicable here. 5) The relationship of.this zoning to the Home Savings and Loan General Plan. 6) A report to be obtained from the school district, regarding this density Further that the public hearing is reopened and to remain open until the date this matter is being held. ZONE CHANGE NO. 354 LOCATION: 245 North -Azusa, on the George Aschenbrenner southwest corner of APPROVED Azusa and Workman.. Request to reclassify from Zone R-A to Zone C-1 approved by Planning Commission Resolution No. 1827. City Clerk, Mr. Flotten: Notice of -this public hearing appeared in the West Covina Tribune on September 16, 1965, and 26.notices were mailed to the property owners in this area. (Read Planning Commission Resolution No. 1827.) Mayor Nichols: This is the time and place for the public.:.hearing. -23- C.-C., 9/27/65 ZONE CHANGE NO. 354 - Continued 0 TN FAVOR Page Twenty -Four. Mr. -Don Perryman We are the designers on the 15733 East Amar Road building that will be going La Puente in. We are not asking anything more really, than to add parking spaces to what is already used as.a driveway. We are.asking to maintain really what we have had for some time. There being no further public testimony, the public portion of the hearing was closed. Motion by Councilman Krieger, seconded by Councilman Heath, and carried, that Zone Change No. 354 be approved from Zone R-A to Zone C-1. PRECISE PLAN NO. 462 (R) Joseph Squillace, M.D. HELD OVER LOCATION: 715 South Glendora between Cameron and Service. Request for approval of precise plan for a professional office building in Zone C-1 approved by Review Board on August 30,, 1965. • Called up by Council on September 13, 1965. City Clerk, Mr. Flotten: There was no publishing required in this matter. There were, however, 29 notices mailed to property owners in the area. Cop-ies of the memo from Mr. Pontow and Mr. Fast dated September 23, 1965 have been given to the City Council which also includes a recommendation. (Read conditions of approval.) Mayor Nichols: This is the time and place for the public hearing. IN FAVOR Dr. Joseph Squillace. When I purchased my property 715 South Glendora it was zoned C-1 and the,City West Covina had already been deeded the - sidewalk and the street area by the former owner. I opened a medical office in the existing structure. I expect to develop this property to its full potential. I am not sure exactly when I will remove this structure and build a new one. It is difficult to determine at this time when conditions, will permit it. From the very beginning the .City contacted me to inform.me they contemplated widening Glendora • Avenue. At that time I_went on record that I was not in favor of participating in the street improvements. My reason was'I only used my office. about nine hours a week and the cost just did not warrant this participation. T also felt that this large cash layout would normally be expended only when I build orimprove the property. I was told that the improvements would be put along Glendora Avenue as a bond.was already posted by an adjoining property owner. This was told to me by a member of the Planning. Department or the Engineering Department. -24 .C. C. 9/21/65 Page Twenty -Five PRECISE PLAN NO. 462 (R) - Continued: Subsequently, I received a call and a visit from someone from the Engineering Department telling me that unless I agreed to participate and pay for the improvements that my property would be excluded from the street project and I agreed to have excluded. Some time afterwards I spoke to Mr. Zimmerman, who also told me my property would be excluded and that I would have to have the. improvements put in at a later date and at a greatly increased cost when I built. The City had the street improvements installed and now they want me to pay for them as a condition for my continued use of my property as an office. I was then asked to submit a plot plan, which I did, to the Planning Department. Later I asked that,this matter be held over. for 30 days. At that time I would ask to reinstate it and set a hearing date that was mutually acceptable. The extension was granted but the hearing date was set without.my knowledge.. I wrote to Mr. Joseph and spoke to him on the phone but I was not permitted to hold over nor withdraw my application., A meeting was held without me since I was out of town. Prior to this administrative meeting, I met with the City to work out a compromise or some working plan to our mutual satisfaction. I am appealing to this Council for help in creating a more equitable situation. • Lf all of the following pro- posals are accepted I will agree to pay for the curbs, gutters and street paving portion that was the street improvements. I will install the sidewalks and driveway approach when the City cuts the driveway approach where it was originally. I will pay my fair .share of water when I apply for building permit to develop my property to its fullest potential. I will pay for hook-up of sewers also when the building hermit is granted. I do not want to pay for the relocation of the La Puente Valley Water Company line and I don't feel that I should have any restrictions placed on me upon use of this structure as an office and thus forced to develop at a time that it,may not be feasible. I want my precise plan accepted. I have paved my front for parking and I will have bumpers installed and I .will have it striped. Many of the requirements imposed upon me by the letter of September 3 from the Planning Department will create a hardship on me and seem to be of the type of a requirement imposed when a building permit is obtained. The require- ment of sanitary sewers is a case in point. It would cost me several hundred dollars for temporary hook-up and then.when I finally build the.building maybe in a different location, I would have to redo all this work. If these costs were.to be,paid by me for such limited use of this structure I would move and use it as a home rental in which case none of these conditions would have applied. These are my proposals. I hope -you agree with me that.they are just and • equitable. There being no further public testimony, the public portion of this hearing _was closed. Councilman Snyder: (Read portion of memo from Mr. Pontow re this matter and dated September 23, 1965.) Mr. Kilz, have you paid your share of the ,street improvements? -25.- • C. C. 9/27/65, Page Twenty -Six PRECISE PLAN NO. 462 (R) - Continued: Mr. Ray Kilz: My money is on deposit. The street improvements are all paid. There is an overage of $600 which is sufficient to pay the water company. Councilman Heath: Could you refresh my .memory, Mr. Williams, on why these property owners were required to pay for the lowering of a water line that was located in the property that does not belong to them and they are -not using? City Attorney,.Mr. Williams: I don't know that I know all of the facts, but as I recall this water line.is ahead of the City's street easement. The water line was there first. They did not join in dedicating the property to the City. Therefore, their easement, whether they acquired it through grant or through simply prescription,,is ahead of us. We can require a utility to change the grade.of Ihstallations if they come into the street after we have the street, if they join in dedicating the street, but where they were there first and they didn't dedicate their rights are ahead of our rights and if we want to lower a grade, we do it at our expense. • Mayor Nichols: The widening of the street is really in a public interest. It is not in the interest of the property owners abutting that. When a property owner dedicates a portion of a street, he is dedicating that to the public interest and convenience. Just because the municipality is stuck, and that is really what it amounts to because the water company got there first, so the City can't require the water company to do something, then you use the device of the precise plan to attempt to pass this burden onto the individual property owner abutting this area who gains no advantage from this whatsoever: It is not.in their interest and I would question the legal basis for assessing a property owner and I would like your comment upon this. City Attorney, Mr. Williams: I would, too.I would question the legality. I think the extent a city can qo in requiring an improvement is very largely demonstrated by the -Subdivision Act and it states that the City may require the adjacent -land owner to install such improvements as will be principally used by and principally to accomodate those that will be in the subdivision.. Now, when we talk about a building adjacent to a major or secondary thoroughfare, I have taken a position for years similar, I think, to what you are saying, Mr. Mayor, that you can only require of the adjacent owner that degree of participation that would be required of him if it were .not a major street but only that which • serves his property. I think you can require of an adjacent owner, in fact, I know you can, such things as curbs, gutter, sidewalk, and the degree of the street.that.is necessary to serve his property. When you get beyond that point, all I -will say is yes, I wonder, too. Councilman Snyder: What do you do about the other property owners, neighbors, who have voluntarily paid this amount? -26- C. 9/27/65 Page, .Twenty -Seven- PRECISE PLAN NO. 462 (R) - Continued: • CityAttorney, Mr. Williams: We have gotten b preciseplan, Y. g Y P I presume, millions of -dollars in property, similar or dissimilar to this type:of requirement that we might not have.'gotten in a court action. Councilman Snyder.: There has been much talk around here about how tight our budget is. If the City had to pay for these improvements itself certainly it would involve either a tax increase or we wouldn't have them and the developer is in a position to pass this cost along to his buyer or to amortize it over the use of the property and it is not altogether unfair. Councilman Heath: This sounds good, but the. burden is being put on the developer by block walls, landscaping, et cetera. It sometimes breaks the developer's back and I think that we too easily say we will require it of the developer and he has no recourse. In this case I would -question this the same as Mayor Nichols. City Attorney, Mr. Williams: Cases depend on facts. Suppose you have a water line that would have made a six-foot barrier between the street and the property. This particular case if you have this barrier, we can leave it there but if they want it ,removed and to have access to this street and they want patients or customers or clients to come in there, and -if it is in the public right-of-way, it .is to their advantage to remove it. I don't know if we can compel them to remove it but we don't have to do it ourselves. . Councilman Krieger: I don't see where that is the issue before us tonight. Apparently back in 1963 there was a reference to the precise plan of that area and what is now being suggested is that the applicant receive the same burden as was imposed upon contiguous property owners. They have all come forward and complied with the requirement as I understand it from the report. The real question in my mind is when it.should be imposed, not should it be imposed, and I think particularly about the water hook-up or the lowering cost._ The street improvements, as such, I feel the applicant is receiving the immediate benefit from. There may be some validity to his comment as to the total developmentof his property, may have to be a relocation and a certain duplication of charges.. Perhaps there may be some amelioration on that particular timing, but I don't think that goes to a matter ,of substance, I think it goes to a matter.of form. I am concerned as to this approval of the precise plan for a maximum period of two years. Could someone enlighten me as to the applicability or enforcibility of that provision? • Planning Director, Mr. Joseph: The matter was set for public hearing on July 14 and Dr. Squillace asked for a 30-day continuance. The Review Board at its meeting of July 20th then agreed with the continuance and on August 2 a letter was sent out saying that the Review Board would hold the matter over to its regular meeting on August 30. On August 30 the.Review Board acted and came'up with the conditions.as set forth here. -27- C. C. 9/27/65 Page Twenty -Eight PRECISE PLAN N0. 462 (R) Continued: • Now, as to the two years, the precise.plan procedures state that whenever a building permit is issued, before a building, permit is issued and/or a use is commenced a precise plan shall be filed.- The use has been in effect for quite some time. Dr. Squillace has been informed that he has been advised that.a precise plan should be filed with the City. This has gone on for quite some time. Dr. Squillace has indicated that the building on the property is going to be removed. It is an older house.. He is using it temporarily and he doesn't see any reason why he has to put - in a lot -of improvements required on a normal precise plan which would demand a considerable outlay of expense. The Engineering and Planning Departments discussed this with him quite thoroughly and we agreed with Dr. Squillace that.if the building is going to come down and a new structure is going to take its place there is no reason for this improvement at this time. However, there appear to be minimum improvements that the staff now deems necessary to install. There- fore, it is recommended at the time of the Review Board hearing that we would refrain from imposing certain conditions for a period of two -years. _ It was an arbitrary figure chosen by two routes. First of all, and primarily, by discussing with Dr. Squillace. Secondly, the two-year period on precise plan as set forth in Resolution No. 567 as adopted by the -Planning Commission and finally adopted or approved by the City Council whereby two year periods • were the maximum periods allowed for precise plans before any further action took place so for these .two Teasons the two-year period was chosen. Councilman Krieger: Could you read me Section 567? Planning Director, Mr. Joseph: (Read Section No. 567.) Councilman Krieger: That was to implement a precise plan. Aren't you saying in this condition that this precise plan that is approved is only good for two years and then it will terminate? Planning Director, Mr. Joseph: That is correct. The primary consideration was the discussion between Dr. Squillace and ourselves. Councilman Krieger: I find some difficulty in concluding that there was a meeting of the minds with respect to this two years either from what Dr. Squillace stated or from my review of the minutes itself. But, I think the application of Resolution 567 to this application is a bootstrap type of, argument. I think it is meritorious on the facts of this situation or it is not. Mayor Nichols: The thing that concerns me here • is appar ntly the staff has gone _beyond anything that they are -empowered to do in the ordinance with respect to precise plans. Where did you gain the authority to establish a two-year precise plan? Planning Director, Mr. Joseph: The authority, I would imagine, would come from an examination of precise plans }y the Review Board which are followed up by review in itself by the Planning Commission and the City Council for further action if it is deemed necessary. The two-year time • C. C. 9/27/65 PRECISE PLAN NO. 462 (R) Continued: Page Twenty -Nine limit is something that the Review Board has not imposed before. The only reason we did in this particular case is that there has been a considerable amount of discussion and we were trying to assist the applicant in arriving at a suitable solution. Perhaps we overextended ourselves in order to facilitate a solution. Councilman Heath: Planning Director, Mr. Joseph: Councilman Heath: Wasn't there an office building there prior to the street improvements? There is a house. Why does he have to file a precise plan? Planning Director, Mr. Joseph: When the property was zoned from - its old R-A classification to a C-1 classification, a use commenced as an office use. The City staff ascertained the fact that the us-e was no longer single family but office. At that time they went to the property owner and advised him of the requirements of the ordinance and suggested he file a precise plan in order,to conform to the City's requirements. • Councilman Heath: After the commercial zoning was put on then he did move in and used that building as an office, is that right? Mr. Ray Kilz: That's correct, under the assumption that he was going to be strictly remodeling, which would be very minor remodeling, painting a wall and as such he did not come under the precise plan. Councilman Jett: I have talked to Dr. Squillace about this. There is one question I would like to ask. In a case like this where they buy a piece of property that is zoned that would permit -the use that the purchaser was intending to put in there, can this building be remodeled and used without coming in with a precise plan? What would the precise plan accomplish? The,building is going to stay where it is. City Attorney, Mr. Williams: The ordinance states that no structure shall be built or a use commenced other than a single family use or structure until a precise plan is filled, so under strict compliance with the ordinance there would have to be a precise plan filed. As to the reason why, you may havea parking situation or -requirement to impose if a house is used as an office that you wouldn't have imposed if it is used as a dwelling; curb cut locations, how many parking spaces, et • cetera. Councilman Jett: In the event a precise plan was approved for that building and it was remodeled, can we then place.a time on the use of that building in.. that respect? City Attorney, Mr. Williams: The ordinance on a precise plan states certain things: Might; bulk; parking area; entrance and exits; setbacks; et cetera. It says a precise plan may be approved, disapproved, or approved -subject to -29- 0 C..C: 9/27/65 PRECISE.PLAN NO, 462 ft) - Continued: conditions. The subject to conditions is the where you could put a time limit on it but the to the factors that you pass upon in, approving plan. Pa[ge.Thirty only point that I can see conditions must relate or disapproving a precise Councilman Heath: I can't see requiring this man -to pay for the moving of, the water line. The man -said to leave the water line the way it was. The line was moved. He didn't agree to have it moved and didn't agree to accept the,charges for having it.moved at that time and I don't think we can legally make him pay for it. Councilman Snyder: Is the City legally required to move the water line, and my understanding is the curb and gutter could not have been put in without the water line being moved? Therefore, the man would not have had access to his property from the front and here the City is doing something here which they weren't required to do and the other people along here voluntarily entered into the improvements because they felt it was for the good of.their property. I think we are.not asking any more of him than we have asked of the other applicants and which they freely and cheerfully gave. Public Services Director, Mr. Fast: The sale of this property was consummated during the time the street was being built. We.have - a communication from Dr. Squillace that would intimate he was in favor of it although it was not spelled out in legal format. The City went.ahead in good faith on that basis and put in the entire street improvements because only this one space was lacking and holding up ?the entire project of Glendora and Cameron.. The City put in this portion of -the total project at its own expense. In regard to the two-year moratorium, the conditions do not.state there is a termination of the precise plan. It is a two-year waiting period and was only taken because the applicant -stated that he,would not be.able to improve the property at this time and he was in a position of wanting the use only partially. There are certain conditions he.would have .to comply with on a precise plan approval on his property. If he was to comply there were many conditions that were not imposed. He -would -not comply with the parking requirements. The argument was stated by the applicant,he was only using a portion of this house so therefore a portion of parking required to put in was only that portion of the house he was using because it -was a temporary use. Specifically stated in the.requirements normal for:this type of precise plan was - the sanitary sewer section, was the grading and drainage plan, was the private.alley.and.driveway improvements, was the charge for an eight -inch water main for fire protection purposes, was the fee to reimburse the City for a sewer lateral installation. All these. were deleted because of -the temporary use which would not be appli- cable in the event they wanted -the full review of a precise plan which was required -by ordinance.- This is what.is behind the application and the considerations that were given to this application.. It was this.or a choice of a.denial of the precise plan which had been under actual use for several years. Councilman,Snyder: In view.of this clarification, I think it is the way you stated this approval.of the precise plan for two years. -30- 0 C. C, 9/27/65. Page -Thirty -One PRECISE PLAN NO 462 (R) _ Continued: Councilman Krieger: I take exception because I don't believe the justification for Condition No. 2,in the conditions imposed by the Review Board. I.would think that taking cognizance.of certain conditions that the Review Board itself said it may be in the interests of this application to defer the imposition of certain conditions until such time as.the applicant must bring in a precise plan for the.total reconstruction that he contemplates on the subject property. I would like to see this matter held over with the comments of the Council tonight and mine and get a report back from the Review Board as to conditions that may properly and equitably be imposed upon the applicant at this time. without.stipulation as tb the -term -of the precise plan but taking cognizance of the.fact-and the representation that the applicant, proposes to some time -in the not too distant future redevelop the property. Councilman Snyder: In effect, you are telling them to impose conditions upon.a temporary plan without saying how long it -is going to be temporary. You can give a permanent temporary plan with minimum conditions and this is what they were trying to avoid with this two-year moratorium. Councilman Krieger.: I think they reached out in • order to solve the problem and in the process overreached This was not a precise plan that falls within the definition of the jurisdiction of the Planning Commission. It.fell within a slight modification. Planning Director, Mr. Joseph: No, City Attorney, Mr. -.Williams: A precise plan not accompanied by a zone change, variance, or unclassified use permit can -go -before the Review Board. - Councilman Krieger: We.haven't heard actually what changes.were implemented in the property other than the testimony or the representation by Dr. Squillace as to some painting or some wall changes or something like that. Councilman Snyder: He indicates he refuses to put in the full parking requirements, et cetera, and it seems to me if you really examine this that the Review Board has bent over backwards attempting to help the applicant. - Mayor Nichols: I would like to.know how many specific instances, historically in the City has the City required the lowering of'a water line in a public right-of-way at the property owners' expense and development.. I would like to have this information before I could make a -decision here . tonight. City Manager, Mr. Aiassa: We have one in front of the Corporation Yard for $8,000. -31- • C. C: 9/27/65 PRECISE PLAN NO. 462 (R) - Continued: Page 'Thirty -Two Councilman Jett That is a very similar case whereby we were unable to pave the street,to its full width because -the water line originally was put in so .close to the surface that in the event any crossing could very easily rupture the,line and put us in real trouble. I would say the question here is whose responsibility is it for lowering that ,line costwise. In the first paragraph of the letter of September 22, you say: "Familiarize yourself with the conditions since all must be complied with prior to the issuance of any building permit. Now,'does that mean that none of these conditions would be imposed until_such-time as he asked for a building permit? Public Services Director,.Mr. Fast: In this case I don't.think a building permit is required-. because he is already in the house and has made all the changes he has deemed necessary. It,was normally a requirement prior to changes. Councilman Jett: This is a condition that was extracted from the normal planning conditions and at this time or in this case.would be administered with the use of the property. Councilman Heath: Public Services Director, Mr. Fast: there is no building permit here. Did he renovate the inside of -the building without -a building permit? We don't know the extent of renovatation. We do know Councilman Krieger: I would make a motion that this matter be held over to the next regular meeting of the Council and that at the time this matter next..appears on the.Council agenda the Review Board submit to the Council.their recommendations for conditions to be imposed upon the precise. plan with the exception of -a limitation as to period. Dr. Joseph Squillace: Point of order.. There are several statements that have been made that require me to.say something further. Mayor Nichols: That is not a point of order. Councilman Heath: I will second the motion. Councilman Snyder: Without a time limit there can be no consideration of a emporary facility. It is a permanent.facility. Action on Councilman_Krieger's motion: Motion carried. (Councilman Snyder voted "No".)- -32- • • C.:C. .9/27/65 HEARINGS' - Continued HEARING ON PROPOSED ORDINANCE ADOPTING BY REFERENCE THE UNIFORM BUILDING CODE, 1964 EDITION Mayor Nichols: City Clerk, Mr. Flotten: Page Thitty-Three Hearing of protests set for this date by the City Council on August 23,.1965. Mr. City Clerk, do you have the affidavits of publication as required by law? Yes, I do. Motion by Councilman Heath, seconded by Councilman Krieger, and carried, to receive and file -the said affidavits. Mayor Nichols: Mr. City Clerk, have, you, received any written protests or objections against this proposed ordinance? City Clerk, Mr. Flotten: No protests, either written or oral. Mayor Nichols: This is the time and place for the public hearing. There being no.public testimony, the hearing was closed. ORDINANCE NO. 936 ADOPTED (Uniform Building Code, 1964) The City Attorney presented: "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF WEST COVINA AMENDING THE WEST COVINA MUNICIPAL CODE TO ADOPT BY REFERENCE THE UNIFORM BUILDING CODE, 1964 EDITION, VOLUME I" Motion by Councilman Snyder, seconded by Councilman Jett, and carried, to waive further readi-ng of the body of the ordinance. Motion by Councilman Snyder, seconded by Councilman Krieger, and carrie d,-that.said-ordinance be adopted. Motion passed on roll,call as follows: Ayes: Councilmen. Jett, Snyder, Krieger, Heath., Mayor Nichols Noes: None Absent: None Said ordinance was given No. 936:. -33- • 0 C. -C 9/27/65 HEARINGS - Continued HEARING ON PROPOSED ORDINANCE ADOPTING BY REFERENCE THE UNIFORM PLUMBING CODE, 1964 EDITION Mayor Nichols: City -Clerk, Mr. Flotten: Page `Thirty -Four Hearing of protests set for this date .by the City Council on August 23, 1965. Mr. City Clerk, do you have the affidavits of publication as required by law? . Yes, I do. Motion by Councilman.Krieger,.seconded by Councilman Heath, and carried, to receive and file the said affidavits. Mayor Nichols: Mr. City Clerk,.have,you received any written protests or objections against this proposed ordinance? City Clerk, Mr..Flotten: Mayor Nichols: No protests, either written or oral. This is the time and place for the public hearing. There being no public testimony, the hearing was closed. ORDINANCE NO. 937 ADOPTED (Uniform Plumbing Code, 1964) The City Attorfley presented: "AN ORDINANCE OF.THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF WEST COVINA AMEND- ING THE WEST COVINA MUNICIPAL CODE TO ADOPT BY REFERENCE THE UNIFORM PLUMBING CODE, 1964 EDITION" Motion by Councilman Krieger, seconded by Councilman -Snyder, and carried, to waive .further reading of the body of the ordinance. Motion by Councilman Krieger, seconded,by Councilman.Jett, that said ordinance be adopted. Motion passed on roll call as follows: Ayes:. Councilmen Jett, Snyder, Krieger, Heath, Mayor.Nichols Noes: None Absent: None Said ordinance was given No. 937. -34- •. 0 n U C. ,C. - 9/27/65 HEARINGS - Continued AMENDMENT NO. 71 City Initiated APPROVED portion of the hearing closed on August to this date. Page Thirty -Five Request to amend Section 9217.8 of the Municipal Code redefining the Civic Center area approved by Resolution No. 18-17. Public 23, 1965, and matter held over Councilman Heath: One correction in this letter. In Item No. 3 it gives the owner as Mr. Becker of the triangular piece of property, four and a third acres south of Cameron Avenue, where.he gave his unqualified support. It.is myunderstanding that Mr. :Becker does not own.that land and has not owned that land for two months. Councilman Jettz I would like.to call attention to the letter of the Planning Director dated September.22, and I would like the Minutes to include this letter in full. This contains a -statement that the Planning Department has no intention of requesting the pole lines to be removed in the existing areas and this was my big point and my objection to it, was that those people who have.already built and have gone underground from the poles into -their buildings at.considerable cost would now be -forced to bring in these utilities, but apparently the -intent of the Planning Department -and the Commission, I assume, is that inasmuch as these properties are already built, the lines are, existing, an,d the properties have complied with the underground servicing from the poles in, which is a distance of approximately 300 feet, at their own expense, that they not be compelled to remove those poles or will not be forced to bring in the major portion underground. I would like this letter spread in full.in the Minutes. . (The following is a City memorandum directed to the City Manager-, from Harold Joseph, re.Amendment No. 71, dated September 22, 1965.) "9. Arthur L. Sanborn - Gave unqualified agreement with the proposal. Offered to submit letter or appear in support.. "10. First Federal Savings and Loan,- Supported the proposal. "Messrs. Mossberg.and .Roelle expressed concern that additional expense may be accrued by expansion of the Civic Center should the pole lines show existing approximately 358 ft. southerly of Service Avenue have to be removed at the expense of the property.owners. Section 9218.3(c) states that the Planning Commission and City Council may take into account, among other items, location and type of public utility facilities. The existing pole lines are hidden from Service Avenue as.they are from Cameron Avenue. The buildings now existing in the Civic Center. on,Service Avenue use the pole lines but drop down and come underground from the poles to the buildings on Service Avenue. The property owners have indicated they would be -willing to continue the same practice of -35- C. C. 9/27/65 Page'Thirty-Six AMENDMENT NO. 71 - Continued • underground utilities from the- poles. The same poles would also serve Mr. Kaplan's property. The.Planning Department. has no intention of requesting the.pole lines to be removed. The cost would be exorbitant: The property on the south side_of Cameron Avenue would take -access from poles existing along the rear lines of single family homes on Sawyer Avenue. They too would transmit underground -service from the poles. "Without exception, the several property owners noted that the increase in property value in the general area was influenced greatly by the controls inherent in the Civic Center. The Department reports that on .the basis .of its discussions with the property owners there is total agreement with the philosophyof the Civic Center Area as recommended by the Planning Commission by means of Amendment No. 714" Planning Director, Mr. Joseph: I don't.know if the Planning Commission would commit themselves without an application before -them. This is the staff's feelings and shared by.the Engineering Department. • Mayor -Nichols: Mr. Williams, can the Council stipulate or add a stipulation such as has been suggested here without a referral back to the Planning Commission? City Attorney, Mr.. Williams: I don't think you can do it in either event. All this does. is define the exterior boundaries of the Civic Center Area. To build within, .the Civic Center Area requires the filing of.a precise plan. Under State law certain.architectural,-features may be applied within this area. Mayor.Nichols: A statement -that this expansion had no intention of-creating.a new precise plan requirement at a later date is only as binding as a given City Council wants to -make it? City Attorney, Mr. Williams: That simply means if they came, before you with a precise. plan at the present..time,on the vacant lot between Barker Brothers and:Roelle's that -you would not require them to put the utilities underground even though they are nine feet inside. It would be a statement.of your intent. The ordinance says "within the Civic ._Center Area, utility lines may be required to be,placed underground". • Mayor Nichols: There are existing developments within this proposed area where the utility lines are,not underground. To require them to go. underground actually would require a different action of some kind other than is in this? City Attorney, Mr. Williams: I don't know of any way you can do that at the present time, You would -do it,in connection with a precise plan so those that are already there are probably not in any particular danger.' There are several vacant lots. When they come in to build, the ordinance says "you may" require the utilities to be underground. -36- 0 C� • C. C.- 9/27/65 AMENDMENT NO. 71' - Continued Mayor Nichols: does this create anything on the books has an existing use to go underground? City Attorney., Mr. Williams: Page Thirty -Seven There is nothing on at the present time that would require That is right. the books nor somebody. who Councilman Heath: I am not in favor of this Civic Center plan as to architectural overlay and consequently I am not -in favor of extending the zone. I would like to point out to the Council where they have imposed this architectural overlay, what have they got, .to show for it? If you go in, front of Barker Brothers and take a look inside their planter and see the weeds growing knee-high, the lack of water to the land- scaping has proven evidently that the thing is not enfor("pible or is not being enforced. As far as the building is concerned, I don't think you have.gotten anything outstanding due to the architectural overlay and therefore,if it is not workable or not going to pay off, what is the sense of putting this added burden on the people. Now, if this was a good ordinance and it was workable, fine. Then why is it -extended only.in one direction and why isn't the property to -the east for the same distance as important as it is to the west? Why don't we extend it across the freeway if it is this important? In other words, you have a Civic -,Center triangle'the.re and you are extending this Civic Center boundary approximately 2,OOO feet -in one direction, 300 feet in a pos sible poor direction, and nothing at all on the side toward the freeway. I think we are a little bit out of balance. I would say that the property over by the Broadway at 400 feet from the Civic Center has more bearing on the Civic Center than that -,along Cameron Avenue which we .are including in this amendment. Councilman Snyder: I think one reason is the area to the east is already built and there would be little likelihood;of changing things already built. I don't think the architectural design was ever meant to design the area for anybody but I do feel and I think that the buildings that are already. there, although they may not -be outstanding, in your words, are a little more outstanding than some of the other offices in the City. Councilman Krieger: On the report of September 22 you state on Item No. 8-, Roger Roelle supported the proposal. Has there been a retraction of his letter of September 9th sentto the Council? Planning Director, Mr. Joseph: I don't think there was a retraction I talked to Mr.. Roelle and I do not have any letter of retraction.. The letterwas sent out primarily because he -was opposed to the rezoning of the property on the south side of Cameron to R-P. I indicated to him that that was already completed, that _the rezoning was done.. At that point,we entered into a discussion about what the Civic Center expansion was and that is what related to me, Councilman Krieger: We have a letter of September 9� stating he opposes any expansion. All I am asking is has the man changed his mind? c, Councilman Snyder: I think that has -been -answered: -37- • C. C. 9/27/65 AMENDMENT NO. 71 - Continued Councilman Krieger: Page Thirty -Eight. Your representation verbally is that he has changed his mind? Planning Director, Mr. Joseph: My representation is that wehave clarified his mind. He -was primarily concerned with the amount of zoning and that was the intent of his letter as to the expansion of the Civic Center. He has related to me on the phone that he has no objection to it provided that the question of utilities remains constant. Councilman Krieger:. Planning Director, Mr. Joseph: So he. now favors it? He does not -object to,it. Motion by Councilman Snyder, seconded by Councilman Krieger, and carried, that -Amendment No. 71, City Initiated,_be approved. (Councilmen Jett and Heath voted "No".) RECREATION & . PARKS None GENERAL MATTERS ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS LETTER RE CROSSING GUARD AT VALINDA AND MERCED City Ciexk;-Mr. Flotten: The Council has copies of the letter from Mrs. Kent Huckstep and Mrs. -.Richard Sarver of Merlinda School PTA regarding reinstatement of the crossing guard at the intersection of Valinda and Merced.. You also have copies of a report from the Traffic Committee and the report of the principal of the school.. Mr. Pricket: Mayor Nichols: because of my own occupation service for children. I think our communication by letter) will be adequate at this time. I am going to abstain from the discussion on this matter and mybias relating to crossing guard Councilman Jett: This is one I'm quite concerned about. I feel that where these little children are attending school, at that particular corner I have, witnessed some pretty speedy cars going along.. Ilthink this is one spot where we could use a crossing guard. ME • n U C. C., 9/27/65 Page Thirty -,Nine LETTER RE CROSSING GUARD AT VALINDA AND MERCED - Continued Councilman. Krieger:. I certainly would be; most, pleased if -I could join with Councilman - Jett -.in that position. I would like to, but I.cannot. Where do we possibly have the justification for installing a crossing guard where. we have four-way stop signs and not install crossing guards in other locations where we.also have.four-way-stop signs? I can appreciate the desire of the people with youngsters going to school to have.a body there rather than.a sign but if we do it:here we have to honor these, requests in other locations.- I can't see any' justification in violating the principle in this situation. Councilman. Snyder: Councilman Heath: precedent here which will go places where we have four-way here -we had better make plans stops where we have children Councilman Snyder: least we are not necessarily is a good justification for from the school. Would it be possible to post "school crossing" signs or paint the street? I agree with Councilman Krieger.. We. are setting a all over the city. There are many stops and if we are going to start.that for doing it at all thesefour-way crossing.. My intention was that that probably would occur but at putting.crossing guards. I think there it. The,crossing is right up the street Motion by Counci-loran. Krieger, seconded by. Councilman Snyder-,- and carried, that the Traffic Committee be instructed to initiate the necessary procedures to have the streets in a north/south and east/west direction at the corner of Valinda and Merced painted with."school crossing" designation. (Mayor Nichols.abstained...) Voice:: 'I think you're missing the point., We need a crossing guard... Unfortunately, the crossing guard was taken away and the four-way stop was put -in. I think the premise to the four-way stop, the answer in the first place, was a.mistake. City Manager, Mr. Aiassa: I want the -record to,show that.we don't put four-way stops anywhere in -the City unless -they are warranted.. CITY ATTORNEY ORDINANCE NO.:938 • ADOPTED (Valinda Avenue speed limit) The City Attorney presented: "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF WEST COVINA AMEND- ING SECTION 3190 OF THE WEST COVINA MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO THE SPEED LIMIT ON VALINDA AVENUE" Motion by Councilman- Heath, seconded, by Councilman- Kriege.r, and carried, -that the _reading of said ordinance be waived. -39- C. C. , 9/27/65 Page Forty ORDINANCE NO. 938 -.Continued • Motion by Councilman Heath, seconded by Councilman Jett, that said or-dinance be adopted. Motion passed on roll call as follows: Ayes: Councilmen Jett, Snyder, Heath, Mayor Nichols Noes.: Councilman Krieger Absent: None. Saidordinance was given No..938. ORDINANCE INTRODUCTION The.City Attorney presented: (Relating to yards) "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF WEST COVINA AMEND- ING CERTAIN PROVISIONS OF THE WEST COVINA MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO YARDS" Motion by Councilman Heath, seconded.by Councilman Snyder, and carried, to waive further reading of the body of the ordinance. Motion by.Councilman Snyder, seconded'by Councilman Heath, and carried, that said ordinance be introduced... (Councilmen Jett and Krieger voted • "NO".) ORDINANCE INTRODUCTION (Relating to curbs, gutters and sidewalks) The City Attorney presented: "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF WEST COVINA AMEND- ING CERTAIN PROVISIONS OF THE EST COVINA-MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO CURBS, GUTTERS, AND SIDEWALKS" Motion by Councilman Snyder, seconded by Councilman Snyder, and carried; to waive further reading of the-.body.of the ordinance. Motion by Councilman Krieger, seconded by Councilman -Snyder, -and carried, that said ordinance be introduced. (Councilmen Jett -and Heath - voted . "No" ..) ORDINANCE NO. 939 The.City.Attorney presented: ADOPTED "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL (Zone Change 348 and 351) OF THE CITY OF WEST COVINA AMENDING THE WEST COVINA MUNICIPAL • CODE SO AS TO REZONE CERTAIN PREMISES TO ZONE R-1" (ZC 348 & ZC 351) Motion by Councilman Krieger, seconded by. .Councilman Heath, and carried, to waive further reading of -the body of the ordinance. -40- • C...C.- 9/27/65 ORDINANCE NO. 939 - Continued Page Forty -One Motion by Councilman Krieger, seconded by Councilman Heath, that said ordinance be adopted. Motion passed on roll call as follows: Ayes: Councilmen Snyder, Krieger, Heath, Mayor Nichols Noes Councilman Jett Absent: None Said ordinance was.given No. 939. ORDINANCE NO. 940 The City Attorney presented: ADOPTED "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL (Zone Change 348 and 351) OF THE -CITY OF WEST COVINA AMEND- ING THE WEST COVINA MUNICIPAL CODE SO AS TO REZONE CERTAIN PREMISES TO ZONE R-P" (ZC 348 & ZC 351) Motion by .Councilman Heath, seconded by Councilman Krieger,`and carried, to waive further reading of the body of the ordinance.. Motion by Councilman,Krieger, seconded by Councilman -Heath, that said ordinance be adopted. Motion passed on rollcall as follows: Ayes: Councilmen -Snyder, Krieger, Heath, Mayor Nichols Noes:, Councilman Jett Absent: None Said ordinance was given No. 940. ORDINANCE NO..941 ADOPTED (Zone Change 348) The City Attorney presented:. "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF WEST COVINA AMEND- ING THE -WEST COVINA MUNICIPAL CODE SO AS TO REZONE CERTAIN PREMISES" (ZC 348, Puppi) Motion by Councilman Heath, seconded by Councilman Krieger, and carried, to.waive further reading of the body ofthe ordinance.` Motion by Councilman -Heath, seconded by Councilman Krieger, that said ordinance be adopted. Motion passed on roll callas follows: Ayes: Councilmen:Jett, Snyder, Krieger, Heath, Mayor Nichols Noes: None Absent: None Said ordinance was given No. 941. -41- • • C. C. 9/27/65 CITY ATTORNEY - Continued Page Forty -Two RESOLUTION NO. 3250 The City Attorney presented: ADOPTED "A RESOLUTION OF THE -CITY COUNCIL (City Manager compensation) OF THE CITY OF WEST COVINA RELATING TO THE COMPENSATION OF THE CITY MANAGER"' Mayor Nichols: Hearing no objections,.we will waive further reading of the body of the resolution., Motion by Councilman Krieger, .seconded by Councilman Snyder, that said resolution be adopted. Councilman.Jett: I have been on the Council now for four ,gears and I want it, understood.that I do not object to salary increases as such or remunerating those people that I feel warrant and deserve an increase in salary, but if in my opinion and I am called upon.in approving a salary increase and if in my opinion I.don't-,think that the party is performing his duties efficiently and I have to,answer to my constituents for this action, then I don't think I can in all good conscience vote for a.salary increase. Action on Councilman Krieger's motion: Motion passed on roll call as follows Ayes: Councilmen Snyder, Krieger,Mayor Nichols. Noes:- Councilmen Jett, Heath Absent: None Said resolution was given No. 3250. LOS ANGELES COUNTY REVISED HEALTH CODE City Attorney, Mr. Williams: About every year the County asks us to adopt this book. It consists of 108 printed pages,of regulations. It is no trick to adopt it. We do it,the same as we just adopted the Buildintj Code by reference, but you do put into effect 108 pages, printed pages, of red tape, rules and regulations, effective upon the people of this City. -So far the Council has not felt that we were suffering from the lack of this code. There is one change that will have.to be, made if you -don't adopt the code and that is now we have a duplicate charge for collection service. Mayor Nichols: I think it would be an . excellent idea. It is the concensus of this Council. that you draw up an ordinance making this County Health Code applicable to this City and repealing our, section that this would take care of.. -42- C. C. 9/27/65 CITY ATTORNEY - Continued 0 CONDEMNATION OF. PROPERTY Page Forty -Three City Attorney, Mr. Williams: You adopted a resolution of convenience necessitating condemning the Water company property at Azusa and Walnut Creek Wash. I would like you to give me authority to file this case. Motion by.Councilman Snyder, seconded by Councilman Jett, and carried,. that the City Attorney be authorized to file suit to condemn the necessary property of the Valencia Heights Water Company for the widening of Azusa Avenue at Walnut Creek Wash and Azusa and to obtain an immediate order of immediate possession., CITY MANAGER REPORTS ECONOMIC STUDY Chamber of Commerce Motion by Councilman Snyder, seconded by Councilman Heath, and • carried, that the Mayor and the City Clerk be authorized to execute this agreement, as revised, with the Chamber of Commerce. CITY CLERK REQUEST OF JEWISH WAR VETERANS WOMEN'S AUXILIARY FOR PERMIT TO SELL POPPIES ON 11/5/65 & 11/6/65 Motion by Councilman Heath, seconded by Councilman Krieger, and carried, to approve the request of the Jewish War Veterans Women's Auxiliary for permit to sell poppies on November 5th and 6th, 1965. REQUEST OF ALSAC Motion by Councilman Heath,.seconded,by Councilman Krieger, and carried, to grant permission to ALSAC (St. Jude Children's Research Hospital) to solicit for funds on October 24, 1965. • SISTERHOOD OF TEMPLE SHOLOM REQUEST Motion by Councilman -Heath, seconded by Councilman Krieger, and carried, to grant permission to the Sisterhood of Temple Sholom for permit to hold rummage sale on premises on October 28-29, 1965: -43- C. C., 9/27/65 CITY CLERK - Continued • ' CITIZENS COMMITTEE FOR WATER LETTER Page Forty -Four City Clerk, -Mr. Flotten: We have a letter from the Citizens Committee for Water inviting you to a grand opening of their headquarters on October 2, 1965 from two to four. Mayor,Nichols: I hope you will make every effort to put that on, your calendar to show the Committee the Council's interest in the project. That is 1553 West Garvey. UNITED•NATIONS DAY City Clerk, Mr. Flotten: We have two letters, one. from Ramona Gale -Sublet and one from the League of-Women's Voters requesting the Council to observe October 24, 1965 as United Nations Day. Mayor Nichols: I would suggest that you inform the people who have communicated that matters of proclamations in West Covina- are made by the Mayor • normally with the concurrence of the Council and that it is not a Council responsibility to issue proclamations.• I think that a proclamation is an honorary function that the.Mayor proclaims. I suppose the Council could direct -the Mayor to issue a proclamation - and if the Mayor did not see fit to do so they could rapidly achieve a new Mayor to do.the bidding of the Council in that sense. Finally, the Mayor in the absense of any direction to the contrary by the Council, the. Mayor is maintaining the Isame position this year that the majority of the Council has taken in previous.years with respect to this request. MAYOR'S REPORTS WATER COMMITTEE REPORT Mayor Nichols: I have a quick report from the Water Committee.- They are doing the following things at the present time: They have established their headquarters at the address as mentioned earlier.. Their telephone number is EDgewood 8-8919. They are lining up speaking engagements at the present time and have 16 dates presently on their calendar. They have adopted a budget of $7,900 to prorhote the election. They -have art work in process at the present time for some • mailers that will be telling the story of the water need in the City according to this Committee. They have editorial publicity in process. They are in the process of receiving group endorsements. I believe they have received endorsements from the P.T.A. Council and the League of Women Voters. They have raised and have on hand at the present time contributions in the amount of approximately $6,000, and that is in addition to the, funds that they raised to meet the requirements for the election. They have also obtained their bulk mailing permit to do their mailing. They Aare having printed flip charts prepared for use by their speakers bureau. They;are moving on the assignment. The election is November 2, 1965. IM1[0 C. C. 9/27/65 Page Forty Five MAYORS' REPORTS.Continued • MYRTLEWOOD TREE PROBLEM Mayor Nichols: The Council mail today contained a communication from Mr. Bloom regarding the trees on Myrtlewood, that they needed clipping. I drove over there and up and down the street, and-tree'after tree scraped the top o.f'my car as I drove down the street, and I feel as one member of the Council'that somebody is not doing their job as effectively as they should. If you would look into that,'that'might save a lot of problems, City Manager, Mr. Aiassa: All right. TRAFFIC COMMITTEE MINUTES Mayor Nichols: There will be some. Traffic Committee Minutes coming up next week for the Council approval and one of the items on the September 13th Traffic Committee Minutes is a denial of a request for a crosswalk at Workman and Broadmoor, and the recommendation says that the request is denied since school children are instructed • not to cross this intersection unless accompanied by parents or the school bus driver. Now, bus drivers have been told not to escort children across the street at all so there is some confusion between what the City staff is saying and what the School District is saying to the parents. I hope the Council would agree that the staff should look back into this matter and be a little more consistent with the facts in their findings. CITY TREASURER Motion by Councilman Snyder, seconded by Councilman Heath, and carried, that.the City Treasurer's report for the month of August, 1965, be received and placed on file. COUNCIL COMMITTEE REPORTS GENERAL PLAN Councilman Heath: I was checking and we have about seven months left before the next election. I feel that we have a General Plan that needs • .upgrading tremendously. I think it would be to our advantage to have an experienced Council approve the revised plan even though this full Council will be here after the next election. Move that the City Manager be instructed.to determine at the earliest possible date the amount of time that it would take to upgrade this General Plan and the amount and bring it back to the Council for their action -and determine whether we go ahead with revising this General Plan now or wait until two years from now. I feel this General.Plan is way over due for revision. -45- 11 0 • C. C. 1 9/27/65 GENERAL PLAN - Continued Page Forty -Six Councilman Snyder: Will you include in that motion that the entire City, including the Home Savings and Loan property which does not have a general plan? Councilman Heath: Action on Councilman Heath's motion: Snyder, and carried. PLANNING DIRECTOR ASSISTANT I will so amend my motion. Motion seconded by Councilman Councilman Heath: I would like to ask this Council to review the require- ments for a Planning Director Assistant. Mr. Joseph went out of town this past week and from my observation, the -operation of the'.. Planning Department stopped. With all due respect to the people in there, they don't have the experience and I think we should have someone directly under Mr. Joseph who can take his place when he leaves so that that Department can continue to operate and that should Mr. Joseph leave permanently we have someone to slide in his place, someone to work closely with Mr. Joseph. Mayor Nichols: Actually, he does not have an assistant who is paid as an assistant director. The position has been held open for examination so what are you suggesting? Councilman Heath: I am suggesting if we have held it open until January that we don't hold it open any longer, that we immediately proceed to procure someone in that capacity. Move that we instruct the staff not to wait any longer than January and start procuring this assistant for Mr. Joseph immediately. The motion was not to wait until January to start procuring Mr. Joseph's assistant. Mayor Nichols: The motion dies for lack of a second. City Manager, Mr. Aiassa: FREEWAY SCHEDULE He will be in position on January 1st. Councilman Snyder: This schedule on the freeway says October lst, submission to the Division of Highways of official Council approval. _We are not making that. City Manager, Mr. Aiassa: That is only a tentative schedule. -46- C. C. 9/21/65 Page Forty -Seven FREEWAY SCHEDULE - Continued • Councilman Snyder: I am wondering if' we shouldn't review our approach to the Division of Highways by having another meeting of the Council and all persons downtown and go in again with leadership. I think we should have a spokesman but with the thought in mind that it was the State that fouled us up to a certain degree on this freeway and they owe us a little more than we are getting. City Manager, Mr. Aiassa: I think it might be a good idea. • RAP I D TRANSIT Councilman Snyder: I went to the rapid transit meeting the other day where they elected a new Board of Directors and everything was unanimous. I am not impressed with the Rapid Transit Board, their system, or their accomplishments, and I personally think the whole thing is a farce and there is little likelihood of rapid transit in Los Angeles -until some changes are either made in:the law or some initiative is taken by people with ability to take it. I think the City of Los Angeles, including the Mayor and the Council, have not done anything. I think the Board of Supervisors have not done.anything. TRACT DEVELOPMENT Councilman Snyder: I don't want to name any names, but I was approached by a citizen. There is a tract development in a section of town which was started and abandoned or went into receivership when it was about three -fourths developed and the man set up a new corporation and started a new tract while he abandoned the previous one. It is being foreclosed. Is there anything in our ordinance that would prevent this sort of thing? Councilman Heath: There is nothing you can do about it. PALM SPRINGS MEETING If he is under corporation, he can start as many as he wants. Councilman Jett: I would assume that at this hour you gentlemen would rather not hear my report on the meeting down at Palm Springs. It is quite lengthy. Mayor Nichols: Can we cover it next Monday night in detail? Councilman Jett: Yes. -47- CJ • C. C. 9/27/65 COUNCIL COMMITTEE REPORTS - Continued BUDGETED MONEY Page Forty -Eight Councilman Jett: I was after some information this past week from the Finance Director.. The information that I was requesting is that I would like to have a list of the items and amounts of money budgeted for each item over the past four years that have not been completed. When I see this report from the.Treasurer's Office, some $2,300,000 inactive, and I know there are many items that have been budgeted and once they are budgeted the money cannot be spent for something else. I would like to know what happened to this money, where it is, what'has happened to these projects that.they haven't completed. Mayor Nichols: City Manager, Mr. Aiassa: DEMANDS Mr. Aiassa, would you prepare a report for the Council on this? All right. You can have it for next Monday night. Motion by Councilman Krieger, seconded by Councilman Heath, to approve demands totalling $23'5,966.70 as listed on demand sheets B208, B209 and payroll register. This total includes fund transfers of $190,621.61. Motion passed on roll call as follows: Ayes: Councilmen Jett, Snyder, Krieger, Heath, Mayor Nichols Noes: None Absent: None There being no further business, Motion by Councilman Heath, seconded by Councilman Krieger, and carried, that this meeting be adjourned to October 4, 1965 at 7:30 P.M. The meeting was adjourned at 12:15 A.M. ATTEST: CITY CLERK MAYOR