Loading...
01-23-1967 - Regular Meeting - MinutesMINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL CITY OF WEST COVINA, CALIFORNIA JANUARY 23, 1967 The regular meeting of the City Council was called to order by Mayor Krieger at 7:30 o'clock P.M. in the West Covina City Hallo Councilman Gleckman led the Pledge of Allegiance. The invocation was.given by Rev. DeWitt J. Brady of the Congregational Church of theGood Shepherd. ROLL CALL Present: Mayor Krieger, Councilmen Gillum, Nichols, Snyder, Gleckman. Others Present: Mr. George Aiassa, City Manager Mr. Robert Flotten, City Clerk Mr. Harry Co Williams, City Attorney Mr. Herman R. Fast, Public Services Director Mr. Owen Menard, Planning Director Mr„ Wallace Austin, Planning Associate Mr. George Zimmerman, Assistant City Engineer i APPROVAL OF MINUTES January 9, 1967 - Approved as amended as follows: Councilman Gleckman: I would like to have the minutes amended to reflect an addition regarding Al Handler to be recorded in the minutes verbatim rather than scattered as they were, regarding section of discussion of the Councilmen in which I have taken the liberty to listen to on the tape. That insertion should be made on page fifteen. I would like comment taken out of after it says "Councilman Gleckman" and put instead in verbatim the remarks I made at that time, of which I have a copy here. Motion by Councilman Gleckman, seconded by Councilman Gillum, and carried, that the minutes of January 9, 1967, be approved as amended. SOUTHERLY ANNEXATION DISTRICT NO. 195 Ratification of City Council action taken at their adjourned regular meeting on January 16, 1967, to continue to May 8, 1967, the hearing of protests against this annexation, Councilman Nichols: What per cent of these protests repre- sent individual home owners protests? Mro.Flotten: They are all validated. Councilman Nichols: You misunderstand my question. The $179,000, does that represent many.pro- . tests from individual homeowners or fewer protests from large blocks of land? Mr. Flotten: There are 132 homes represented in these protests. Councilman Nichols: It would be my opinion that we should drop this annexation if we are receiving a percentage of protests to this extents I don't feel the City should go to the expense or effort to annex this area. It is obvious a very large number of people are not in favor or choose to be annexed and, • C . C � 1/'23 j6? Page Two SOUTHERLY ANNEXATION DISTRICT NO. 195 - Continued I: :a.m. afraid this amount of protest will swell to a larger extent sentiment in my mind that I: do not wish to go on record as favoring it or the continuation of. the ;annexation efforts in District 195. Councilman Gleckm.an: At the last adjourned meeting I: made a motion which was seconded and passed that the annexation be held over for 90 days in order to give the opponer..ts ample time. Am I to un3erstand Councilman Nichols now would like u-) make some type of motion over-riding- that? Councilman Nichols: Councilman Snyder: This would be my opinion I: am wondering if a letter will be sent to these people when the annexation booklet goes out. Councilm.:a.n Gl.eck.m,�n:. My only comment would be I would like to refer this matter to our citizens' annexa-• tion comm.i.ttee for their recommendation Councilman. Snyder: All I am saying is that the petition signers are al.re,ady out in this area,, Mis,inf.orm,tti.on is fl.yi..n.g. What sta.gge of the a.nn.exationdoes the ,.a nn(,x a t.i on booklet go out? Mayor Kr. i.ege.r.: If you wish to go forward with the protest hearing this evening, I: think you have placed. both t.hie proponents .and the opponents at a distinct dis;a,dv,a.n.t_. Age Coun.ci.,lm..a,n Snyder: 1, don't think my remarks were intended to be drifting, What, is important, whether Mr. Nichols makes the motion or not, I: don't intend to go ah.ead with it this evening, If it's held over to May, the booklet should not wait to come out at that time. I:t. should go out at this tirrie o The petition hunters are already out. Misinformation is flying Couricilm.a.n. Gleckman.:. I: share Councilman Nichols' opinion. some -- what at this time, but I think we have an obligation to 'the opponents and proponents to hold this over for 90 days. If there is no change in the amount of. protest I: feel proper action should be then. Councilman Nichols: 1 would go along with that. Motion by Councilman Gl.eckm,a.n, seconded by Councilman Nichols, and carried, to continue to May 8, 1967, the hearing of protests against Annexation District No. 195. Counci.lma.n. Nichols: My second is based upon feeling that any further Council action on this matter should only follow a special expression of greater interest in this annexation than we have seen so f.a.r. -2- i I Co Co 1/23/67 WEST COVINA BEAUTIFICATION COMMITTEE Page Three Councilman Nichols: ..It has been my pleasure to serve as a Council representative on that commit- tee. There has been.a large number of people representative of our citizenry labored many hours in dedication to this project. The results of this labor will be reflected in the formal report that will be presented to us here. Mr. Clardy: My name is Bill Clardy, chairman of the Citizens` Blue Ribbon Committee on Beautification of West Covina. This committee was formed in Septem- ber of. 1966 in liaison with Councilman Nichols. The purpose of our committee was to assess some of the beautification problems and make recommendations to the Council for improvement of these problems. Realizing that the subject of beautification is a very broad and diverse matter, we divided our committee into seven subcommittees:. parkway trees, medium strips, schools; public parks, freeway land- scape, commercial areas, residential clean-up, paint -up and fix -up, and publicity and education. The seventh is the Federal urban beautification and improvement program available to any governing..bodyo There were thirty-five people in all on the Blue Ribbon Committee including members and representatives of the staff. Mr. George Aiassa appointed one staff member to work with each of our subcommittees. Betty Plesko was in liaison with the Commission on parks, and she was very helpful, too. We have finalized the sub- committee report into the summary of recommendations in our final report along with the detailed reports of each subcommittee put together, so we feel you can read the summary and get the meat of all the recommendations in a very short time. We trust you will accept this report and find it very helpful, and I know my feelings are along with other members of the committee that we hope as many as possible of the recommendations can be implemented in the near future. Mayor Krieger: On behalf of the City Council we accept this report. It is subject, of course, to the opportunity by the members of the Council to study it in the detail and depth that it deserves. This is the second citi- zens' committee that has come forward.. From all the reports that we have had of the workings of this committee,ae number of hours they devoted to it; I am.looking forward to reading this report with great interest, Mr. Clardy:: Thank you, Mayor. It was a pleasure to work on it. Councilman Nichols: I move that the report before the Council be referred .t® staff �for,.:study and for a report back As soon, as . possible -to the ',Council:.upon completion of that study as to 'whaLt..areas the staff -would be. implemented and on what schedule, Councilman Gleckman: I'll second it. Councilman Snyder: It should be included in the motion that this should go to the General Plan Committee. Mayor Krieger: I would suggest a separate motion to that effect. It will be referred to. staff for report back as soon as possible, regarding the recommenda- tion Councilman Nichols: I would.move that theCouncil direct the staff to notify by post card or other -3- Co. Co 1/23/C7 Page Four WEST COVINA BEAUTIFICATION COMMITTEE - Continued communication these citizens who served on this committee concerning the date when any staff report is due to be returned to the Council. CITY CLERK'S REPORTS PROJECT MP-670 11 AND LOCATION: Nogales Street, north of PRECISE PLAN 459 Valley Boulevard. ACCEPT STREET IMPROVEMENTS Crowell and Larson APPROVED Motion by Councilman Gleckman, seconded by Councilman Snyder, and carried, to accept street improvements and authorize release of The Western Casualty & Surety Company performance bond bond No 347615 in the amount of $4,391.80. PRECISE PLAN 346 LOCATION: Glendora Avenue between ACCEPT SIDEWALK AND DRIVEWAY Service and Herring IMPROVEMENTS Avenues, Ray Kilz APPROVED Motion by Councilman Gleckman, seconded by Councilman Snyder, and carried, to accept sidewalk and driveway improvements and authorize release of National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburgh, Pao, performance bond No. 57912 in the amount of $3,OOO. PROJECTS TS-67004 & TS-67005 LOCATION: Intersections of Califor- APPROVE PLANS AND nia at Cameron and Califor- SPECIFICATIONS nia, a,t:.Center Traffic Signal Installation APPROVED Motion by Councilman Gleckman, seconded by Councilman Snyder, and carried, to approve plans for Projects TS-67005 and TS-67004 for traffic signal installation, and authorize the City Engineer to call for bids. ESTABLISHMENT OF A TRUCK ROUTE ON AZUSA-AVENUE Councilman Gleckman: Mr. Aiassa: bridge is following the program. 0 Councilman Gleckman: LOCATION: Azusa Avenue between San Bernardino Freeway and South City Limits. Is it the policy of the City to establish truck routes prior to full improvements and full dedication? By the time this ordinknce dies into 'effect --the street .:will -.be open. The This would also determine the part that is under the jurisdiction of the County. Mr. Aiassa: This was recommended by the East San Gabriel Valley Planning group. It went to the Planning Commission. Mr. Fast: County portion is already a truck route, -4- 0 I • Co C. 1/23/67 Page Five TRUCK ROUTE ON AZUSA.AVENUE Continued ORDINANCE INTRODUCTION The.City Clerk presented: Truck Routes "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL.OF Azusa Avenue THE CITY OF WEST COVINA AMENDING SECTION 3140 OF THE WEST COVINA MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO TRUCK ROUTES Motion by Councilman Gleckman, seconded by Mayor Krieger, and carried, to waive further reading of the body of the ordinance, Motion by Councilman Snyder, seconded=by.Councilman Gleckman, and carried, that said ordinance be introduced. RESOLUTION NO. 3524 ADOPTED Project SP-6632, Phase 2 Los Angeles County Flood Control Mayor Krieger: 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_" (Project SP-6632, Phase 2 - Los Angeles County Flood Controi.Distri.ct) Hearing no objections, we will waive further reading of the body of the resolution. Motion by Councilman Gleckman, seconded by Councilman Snyder, that said resolution be adopted. Motion passed on roll call as follows: Ayesi Councilmen Gillum, Nichols, Snyder, Gleckman, Mayor Krieger Noes: None Absent: None Said resolution was given No. 3524 RESOLUTION NO, 3525 ADOPTED Project TS-6439 Robert and Marceline Mayer Mayor Krieger: 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" (Project TS-6439 - Robert and Marceline Mayer) Hearing no objections, we will waive further reading of the body of the resolution. Motion by Councilman Gleckman, seconded by Councilman Snyder, that said resolution be adopted. Motion passed on roll call as follows: Ayes: Councilmen Gillum, Nichols, Snyder, Gleckman, Mayor Krieger Noes: None Absent: None Said resolution was given No. 3525. -5- Co Ca 1/23/67 RESOLUTION NO. 3526 ADOPTED Civic Center Area Land.Exchange Los Angeles County Mayor Krieger: Page Six 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" (Los Angeles County - Civic Center area land exchange) Hearing no objections, we will waive further reading of the body of the resolution. Motion by Councilman Gleckman, seconded by Councilman Snyder, that said resolution be adopted. Motion passed on roll call as follows: Ayes: Councilmen Gillum, Nichols, Snyder, Gleckman, Mayor Krieger Noes: None Absent: None Said resolution was given.Noa 3526 SCHEDULED MATTERS BIDS PROPOSED SALE OF REAL ESTATE LOCATION: East of Glendora Avenue on the north side of Merced Avenue. No bids received. Mr. Aiassa: We had a meeting with.Mro Harrison Baker, Jr., who appraised the property. On our original proposal we made a minimum requirement of $2.00 per square foot which amounted to about $45,OOOo We feel we would like to readvertise for bids for the minimum price of $1.35. We will have takers at that price. Roughly the square footage is 22,957 sq. ft. Councilman Snyder: Is this the property where the house was? Mr. Aiassa: This is the property we moved the house out for the street of. Merced extension. It is vacant land now. Councilman Gillum: Where did we get the figure of $1.35 a square foot? Mr. Aiassa: From Mr, Harrison Baker who appraised this. If the Council prefers, we can start at $1.50. Councilman.Nichols: I would be quite sure that no property in West Covina has depreciated its basic value by that percentage point. As a.matter of selling it, just put it out to what is the highest bid. If it didn't sell it's because there is no demand for real estate at the present time. I hope the Council will see fit to hold this property until such proper time. Mr. Aiassa: We have three parcels of land, we're negotiating two on Sunset. Co Co 1/23/67 Page Seven PROPOSED SALE OF REAL ESTATE - Continued Councilman Snyder: Is the City allowed to sell this on terms or do we have to do this on cash? Mr. Williams: We are legally allowed to sell on terms Mayor Krieger: Was there an actual price fixed on the square foot minimum square foot? Mr. Aiassa: Yes. No bids have been received. Mayor Krieger: It is within the province of the Council regardless of the bids received to reject the bids, is it not? Mr. Williams: Councilman Snyder: Yes. Zoned R-3, isn't it? I mean R-Po Motion by Councilman Gleckman and seconded by Councilman Gillum to readvertise for bids with a basic minimum of $1135;> with the idea that Council at that time could accept or reject whatever bids are received; total price with this minimum is $30,750.,. Motion passed on roll call as follows: Ayes: Councilmen Gillum, Gleckm4n, Nichols, Mayor Krieger Noes: Councilman Snyder Absent: None TTV ® R T Vr_c PROJECT SP-6402 PROTEST HEARING ON ASSESSMENT 1911 ACT (SHORT FORM) LOCATION: Northeast corner Sunset and Service Avenues; Japanese Community property Hearing of protests and objections to cost of installation of curb, gutter and street improvements, set for hearing on this date by Reso- lution No. 3516 adopted by the City Council on December 27, 1966. Mayor Krieger: Mr. Flotten: Mayor Krieger: Mr. Flotten: Mayor. Krieger: • Mr. Fast: Mayor Krieger: Mr. City Clerk, do you have the affidavit relative to this hearing? I have the affidavit. Have we any written protests against these proceedings? I have not received any. Is there an Engineer's report. on this? Yes, there is a report dated January 20, 1967. Any additions? Mr. Williams: I believe a portion of this total project is to be borne by the City. I am talking about the portion to be borne by property owners. If that be the case, all we need is a statement you have just received from the Director of Public Services that installation is complete and that the costs are truly set forth in this report. -7- Co Co 1/23/67 PROJECT SP-6402 PROTEST -HEARING - Continued Page Eight Mayor Krieger: Do you incorporate these comments in your report verbally, Mr. Fast, as well as in the written report of. January 20, 1967? is Mr. Fast: E Councilman Gleckman: Mr. Fast: Councilman Snyder: The written report of this project is complete and true and accurate. Is the amount of what the property owner pays and what the City pays worked out on a percentage basis? (Read breakdown of details regarding payments) What about the three year period? Mr, Williams-. Information on this subject of three year pay period is to be attached to these minutes Motion by Councilman Gieckman, seconded by Councilman Nichols and carried, to file the report of the Director of Public Services, and to attach the report of January 20, 1967, and the exhibit attached, to this evening's minutes. "Pursuant to Council request, the Superintendent of Streets has completed curb, gutter; driveway approach, sidewalks, drainage facilities, and street improvements at the north- east corner of Sunset and Service Avenues. "The final cost figures and amount of assessment charged to the property owner is $11,699092, as stated in the report of. the Superintendent of Streets and confirmed by Resolution 3516 on December 27, 1966. This is the cost originally quoted to the owner. It is suggested that the $11,699.92, to be paid by the property owner, be collected over a three-year period with an interest rate of six per cent (6%) per year. It should be noted that no engineering and administrative costs have been charged to the property owner. "RECOMMENDATIONS: It is recommended th Council (1) Receive and file the affidavit of posting; (2) Receive and file the Engineer's report; and (3) Adopt the attached resolution confirming the report of the Super- intendent of Streets for construction done pursuant to Resolution No. 3412, and setting the sehedule of pay- ments and interest rate." Co C� 1/23/67 Page Nine PROJECT SP-6402 PROTEST HEARING - Continued Mayor Krieger: Persons present this evening desir- ing to make a protest will now come • forward at this time. Make any statement you wish to this Council on this matter. Mr, Richard Del Gurecio: My name is Richard Del Gurecio, 612 South Flower Street, Los Angeles. I'am an attorney representing the owner of the property that is in- volved in this particular assessment,proceeding. We have during prev- ious portions of this assessment°a vdi e the Council of our protest to the proceeding. This is a rather unique assessment proceeding as the property involved is the only property that is being assessed for the and street improvements. It is unique not':pnly tint ts:,the only-- Property, Walnut Creek Parkway which is the secondary street for which the improve- ments have been installed was installed on the balance of the route at City expense solely, So this is a situation, I understand,*hete this is the only property out of all the properties which abut this particular sire, , alled upon to pay a portion of the cost of the project:, , at rs This was not initiated by the owners of this property. It stems from the City's previous determination to open and improve Walnut Creek Parkway, throughout its widths, as you see on the map. We object .he manner in which the allocation was made. I think Councilman Gleck- man asked the question..as to the basis for the allocation of $19,000 total improvement costs, whereby the allocation has been made approxi- mately $11,000 to this particular property. I am not sure I understand the dollar basis of these allocations. The balance of the street has been installed entirely at the expense of. City. There has been an allocation on this property without any real understanding of that part of the property owner as how the City has determined a certain portion of it should be borne by the owner. So we would ask the Council to do this, that you not create a lien on this property by charging the assessment,.inasmuch as this is just as much a City responsibility for the basic street improvement for secondary as distinguished from the local street. Secondly, the allo- cation h ot__.b'e'accepted inasmuch as there is no basis other than an arbitrary basis, for assessing any particular portion of the cost to this particular property owner. Mayor Krieger: Is there anyone else present desiring to make an oral protest? Motion by Councilman Gleckman, seconded by Councilman Snyder, and carried, that the public portion of this hearing be closed. Mayor Krieger: The hearing stands closed. Let the record reflect there is apparently no one else here this evening who desires to make an oral protest on this proposed assessment. .Mayor Krieger: Mr — Del Gurecio has raised a question as well as Councilman Gleckmano Would you advise the Council at this time the basis of this improve- ment, and the basis of which the allocation was made? Mr. Fast: Because of the 1911 Act, a short form was required. Mr. Sorensen, our legal consultant, has approved it. Costs were from the improve- ments of curb and gutter along the applicant's property on Walnut Creek Parkway and on Sunset Avenue. We did not include the sidewalk on Walnut Creek Parkway at this time because demand was not there. We also included as part of the 1911 Act those portions of the street ME 0 C. C. 1/23/67 Page Ten PROJECT SP-6402 PROTEST HEARING - Continued contiguous to the property, in this case 30 feet from the easterly boundary of the property to approximately the edge of Service Avenue. The cost was determined on the basis of unit prices and quantities submitted by the low bidder on the project and is based generally upon drawing number two and drawing number three established with the con- sent of our consultant in regards to 1911 Act. This is the report. It described the allocation and money of $11,699.92. Councilman Gleckman: How many square feet were in that condem- nation that we paid $59,000 for? Councilman Snyder: The 30 feet of pavement, you don't mean 30 feet out into the street? Mr. Fast: At this point it is 30, at this point it is 10, and it tapers down to nothing at this point. Councilman Snyder: Is it customary to ask for this much par- ticipation in paving to go in on the secondary highway? Savings and Loan got it. Mr. Williams: It is customary to charge what would be the width of the normal residential. If this street happens to be wider than that, they charge up to 30 feet. Councilman Nichols: It would be more equitable if this property owner was not charged in excess of 20 feet. Councilman Snyder: May I ask the attorney, assuming the assessment is made, isthere any objection to the three year pay-off of the bond? Mr. Del Gurecio: We haven't gone that far with respect to finances. If this assessment is upheld, it is going to be the responsibility of the membership to find some way of paying the assessment. I don't know how they are going to do it, at this point. Mayor Krieger: Do you have the figures on this compu- tation? Mr. Fast: Yes, excavation and paving -and the aggregate base of $6,594.59, 726 per square foot, this would then arrive at a credit for the extra ten feet of $865.92. This is the total. Mayor Krieger: We have a proposed resolution which con- firms the report on the matter we are now considering. The proposed resolution incorporates the figures of the report as well as the terms of the report. From the comments that have been made among the Council, I want to clarify the procedure for any motion they may care to make on this matter. The confirmation of the report may.be the total or any changes in the report acceptable to theCouncil at this juncture. Is that correct? Mr. Williams: You would have to, in effect, amend the report. The portion borne by the property owner must be indicated. This report should be so amended as to reflect that, and should be accepted and approved by the City Council. Then you would adopt the resolution which reflects the figures of the amended report. -10- Ca Co 1/23/67 Page Eleven PROJECT SP-6402 PROTEST HEARING - Continued Councilman Nichols: I.move that the amount of the assess- ment as listed in the report in the is sum of $11,699.92 be amended to be $10,834 and that the period for pay- ment be amended from three years to five years, with the interest rate per annum remaining the same, E� • Councilman. Snyder: I second the motion. Mr. Wi.11.:dms: I think the motion is good except that I would suggest this. In making the motion reducing the amount from $11,699092 to the amount you made, M:ro.Nichols, you express the reason for that and that items two and three be reduced to reflect a cost of the maximum of 20 feet of the pavement rather than 30 feet maximum of pavement and therefore reduce the amount by $865.92. Councilman Nichols: Let me amend my motion and preface the motion that it is based upon a reduction in charges to the owner in areas 1, 2 and 3 of the .report, to -wit: that a section of pavement approximately 100 feet by 10 feet has been deleted from that portion being charged to him. Councilman Snyder: I second the amendment. Motion passed on roll call as follows: Ayes: Councilmen Gillum., Nichols, Snyder, Gleckman, Mayor Krieger Noes: None Absent: None RESOLUTION NO, 3527 ADOPTED Confirm report - construction Sunset and Service Avenues The City Attorney presented: "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF WEST COVINA CONFIRMING THE AMENDED REPORT OF THE STREET SUPERINTENDENT FOR CONSTRUCTION DONE PURSUANT TO RESOLUTION NO. 3412, NORTHEAST CORNER OF SUNSET AND SERV ICE . AVENUES" The City Attorney read the Resolution in full. Motion by Councilman Snyder, seconded by Councilman Gleckman, that said Resolution, as amended, be adopted. Motion passed on roll call as follows: Ayes: Councilmen Gillum, Nichols, Snyder, Gleckman, Mayor Krieger Noes: None Absent: None Said Resolution was given No. 3527 C o C e 1/23 /67 Page Twelve VARIANCE NO. 599 LOCATION: 1117 South Glendora Avenue, Mr. & Mrs. David Robinson DENIED is Request to allow a drive-in restaurant in Zone C-1 denied by Planning Commission Resolution No. 1937; appealed by applicant on January 9, 1967. Mayor Krieger: Mr. City Clerk, do you have the affidavit of publication and mailing? Mr. Flotten : I do Motion by Councilman Gleckman, seconded by Councilman Gillum, and curried, that the affidavit of publication and mailing be received and placed on file, Mayor Krieger: IN FAVOR This is the time and place for the public hearing. Mr. L. K. Euler My name is Louis K. Euler of the law, 281 East Workman Street firm of Garvey, Ingram & Baker. Covina Mr. Mayor, members of the Council, it is a privi,legpto be here represent- ing the owners a,ndthe prospective users of subject property, I think it is significant first that we identify for you the proposed use of the property so that for whatever value you may consider it you have that before you. You should note that the precise plan has been approved by Planning Commission pending the granting of the variance. I offer a picture of the proposed plan. It is a restaurant facility of the Jack in the Box Corporation with 240 of these outlets in Cali- fornia and throughout the Western states. This is a drive -through con- cept in restaurants which we think is to be distinguished from a drive- in concept. They have had a good record of successful management. It is family cri.entedo They spend $30, 000 per month to advertise and promote their facilities and products directing it to the younger age group. . I wish to raise now a preliminary question for your consideration. In the ordinances of this City, C-1 classification restaurant is set forth as a permissible use, but it is stated this does not include a drive-in. In C-2, permitted use is a drive-in. Nowhere in the ordin- ancc-s of the City are the terms of restaurant or drive-in defined. We would encourage that you consider the definition, that we make the determination as to the nature of this kind of facility as. a first and preliminary consideration. I believe the commonly accepted definition is the kind in which you drive in with your automobile, you are served by the carhop or waitress, she brings your food, you consume it in the automobile. This is to be distinguished from consumption of the food within the confines of the physical premises or the acquisition of the food mn. tfie. prem and carry it away in the car or foot. The kind of use.' that is proposed on these premises is a two -fold • use. . Adhere is a confined or enclosed area that seats 24 persons, There are 9 parking spots that have been set a.sid,§Wflyom the facility so that the people may park, enter and consume the food on the premises. However, the major thrust of utilization o-Mmises would be a drive - through to pick up the food, by entering in the car and going to the talk box to order food and ttri.ve on around to where your food is dis- pensed, pay and drive on out. There is at no time consumption in the vehicle. This is substantially distinguished from the drive-in restaurant. -12- C. C. 1/23/67 VARIANCE NO. 599 - Continued Page Thirteen When a building permit was applied for, it was denied on the basis that this had in the minds of the building department overtones of a • drive-in. They felt it fell into C-2o But based upon the facts we show here we ask this be distinguished from the drive-in restaurant to be a restaurant. We offer a view of the new facility adopting this modern use of the drive-in concept, at the Citrus National Bank. Now, we are not pre- senting this because the zoning is si.milar,because the zoning is actu- a.11y . C-3 , but this .is _ a C-1 use, the banking facility. We would of fer. fo.r your viewing the dive -through concept that has been incorporated with an outside teller's window to conveniently service the customers of the bank and improve the attraction for their customers. We would point out this is a very modern means of merchandising and would be the very concept that the prospective users of this property have adopted. You will note the drive -through window and the transactioom there does not in any way change the nature of that facility. It is still a bank. Now, on the points for the variance. The four we must establish. There -have been circumstances applicable to this piece of property which are not generally applicable to other property or classes of use in the same zone. That the variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of the su.bstanti.al property rights possessed by other property in the same vicinity and zone, but which is denied to the property in question. These are the two main ones I wish to address my remarks. In terms of the first point, the exceptional circumstances, this par- ticular piece of property contains now an obsolete and non -used service station facility. It is only 125 feet by 125 feet in dimensions. The modern facilities for service stations would be larger these days. This is one of the reasons I am sure the facility. became obsolete, because it didn't allow for the function of ..a. service station on this corner. The Planning Department stated in their report to this effect as well and we believe that the size and character of this property is therefore --- it meets the test that is set forth in the first point we must establish before you to identify and substantiate the request for variance. Second point, as to whether or not this property deserves a variance in the zoning because to deny same would be to deny a substantial pro- perty right to the owner or users of this property. Now, I would like to offer in order for youati on of uses in the same zone and vicinity :facilities thatq:,pva1HPNI -tf'e same kind of service that the intended use of this property will provide, -and to show that in C-1 these same kinds of things are being offered and as a result we should have an opportunity to provide the same kind of use on this property. This is on Glendora Avenue south of Cameron, the new Dog House restaurant being developed, You will note that they provide both indoor services and a window at which the transactions for outdoor service can be obtained. They denote that window as a drive-in window with a sign. Similarly on Glendora Avenue north of Vine on the west side of Glendora, is the Orange Julius stand. On the south side of that facil- ity is a window, again the same kind so that persons can drive in and obtain service there. They would have to park, get out and come back. Is that different from the kind of service to be provided on this par- ticular piece of property? Now, I offer those as specific "examples of A use in the same zone and vicinity but without the variance would be denied to the subject property. -13- Co Co 1/23/67 Page Fourteen VARIANCE NO. 599 - Continued I would like to offer at this time four views of the respective cor- ners of the property in question. Analyse this in respect to other lots along Glendora Avenue, and the nature of use attendant to corner lots all up and down Glendora Avenue. On the northeast and southeast • corners of Glendora and Vine are service stations, and across the street is- a Standard station, again all on C-1 property. North, there is a Gulf station right across from newly zoned C-2 section. When you look at the unclassified use permit ordinance, it talks about the use of a service station on C-1 or C-2 property, and that you have to come in and specially justify that. It is fundamental that we have this variance for this C-2 kind of function and use. We believe this is justification for the variance, in terms of the Dog House, the Orange Julius and similar use allowed to theme Also, consider point two regarding corner lots. We must also consider the adverse effect on surrounding property. There should be none because of all the property owners contacted in this area, there were no objections. Will it be good for the entire community? Market survey analysis shows that it will. Third, will it comport with the general character of the boulevard? I think defin- itely it will. The Planning Department's own study offered in mid-1966 indicated that Glendora -Avenue's nature is changing. With the information thus presented, we feel you should first consider this C-1 use in any event, and if you do not, that the grounds for substantiating our variance have been provided because of similar uses in the vicinity and heavier uses on comparable corners; and that it comports with other general considerations that this body has here- tofore placed in determining the welfare of the community. We implore that you give serious consideration to the granting of a variance for this property. Mayor Krieger: Is there anyone else present to speak in favor of this variance? Is there anyone desiring to speak in opposition to the variance? There being no one present to speak in opposition, the proponents will not have the opportunity for rebuttal. We will declare the hearing closed. Council discussion. Councilman Gillum: I have a questione.Mre Euler. This is a beautiful artist's conception, but it differs from everything I have ever seen in Los Angeles County. Mr. Euler: Mr. Gillum, I should have outlined that. This is the new facility being erected. The first one is being constructed now. There is a glass enclosure, entirely enclosed. Councilman Gillum: Have they retained this Jack in the Box symbol? Mr. Euler: They have retained the sign concept that comports with the sign ordin- ance of the community. • Councilman Gillum: There are various places in the City where we have restaurants with outside tables for eating. In what zones have these been permitted, and are they there by right or variance? Mr. Fast: Generally speaking, this outdoor eating is in violation of the current ordinance. There are some of these in violcation of our Code. Councilman Snyder: outdoor sales for merchants. They are not allowed in any zone. It seems inconsistent not to allow -14- C o C o 1/23/67 Page Fifteen VARIANCE NO. 599 - Continued Councilman Gillum: Mr. Euler brought up this point. This is not a drive-in but a drive -through, IsIs it a vending machine or is it a structure? How do we determine whether according to the ordinance restaurants are allowed in C-1 and a drive-in restaurant in C-2? Who has to make this determination, the City Attorney or we? • Mr. Williams: In the C-1 zone, all uses must be conducted indoors, except those few listed separately. Based on previous decisions and the fact that there is a difference in restaurants from banks, etc., and this has a drive -up provision and service to the automobile, I would be inclined to think it would require a variance, and they have applied for one; I don't think it is a permitted use Counci,lma.n.Gleckman: I feel the Code spells out drive-in restaurants as not being allowed in C-1 ;zone. As for the variance in C-1 zone, the only problem there would be that whatever we decide we would make for that area would have to apply for every C-1 zone in the City of West Covina. I would not like to see drive-in or drive -through restaurants in the C-1 zone. Councilman Snyder: I think that if we look on the drive- throughs and drive-ins in the C-1 zone, which is the similar type use under the Health Code, that on the basis of this we may have grounds for the variance. Councilman Gillum: Again, we do have a restaurant. It does seat 24. By putting a window over here it is not a drive-in restaurant. In the minutes of the Planning Commission it was asked if the people would consume the food on the premises, and it was said that management would see that it would not. It would be difficult to police. I am not quite sure if this is a drive-in or a drive -through or a restaurant. Mayor Krieger: There doesn't seem to be any dispute that it is a restaurant. There doesn't seem to be any dispute in the mind of the applicant that it is a drive -through restaurant. Planning Commission feels this requires a C-2 use. This Jack in the Box was before us on another location on Glendora Avenue. It was a C-1 piece of property and we got into the same dis- cussion, and it was denied. Councilman Nichols: Mr. Euler is a very persuasive speaker and created a favorable impression on the Council. The property has some unique circumstances where it could not be utilized. I think clearly it is a C-2 zone. Mayor Krieger: I think this is a C-2 use. I don't believe there is a showing for var- iance. Motion by Councilman Snyder, seconded by Councilman Gillum, that Variance No. 599 be denied. Motion passed on roll call as follows: Ayes: Councilmen Gillum, Nichols, Snyder, Gleckman, Mayor Krieger Noes:. None Absent: None -15- C � C e 1 j23 l67 VARIANCE NO. 599 - Continued Page Sixteen Mayor Krieger: The interpretation by the Planning Commission of the C-2 use of the drive -through restaurant, I think should receive some statement by this Council as to whether or not it does constitute our interpreta- tion. Councilman Snyder: I move that the resolution of the Planning Commission defining the drive -through restaurant be accepted being in the C-2 zone. Motion seconded by Councilman Gleckman and carried. Motion by Councilman Snyder, seconded by Councilman.Nichols, and carried, that the Planning Commission be directed to interpret and decide where drive-in dairies should be located. Councilman Gleckman: I would like to offer the suggestion to the enforcing department, Building Department, and City Clerk as far as permits are concerned, that where a .restaurant is built in a C-1 zone that if a window is allowed for a drive-in window, that the usage be eliminated as not being a part of the usage permitted by the usage in that zone. PLANNING COMMISSION Reviewed Planning. Commission action of January 18, 1967. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS LETTER FROM SENATOR ALFR.ED Ho SONG REGARDING SENATE BILL 54 Motion by Councilman Snyder, seconded by Councilman Gillum, and carried, to receive and place on file letter relating to distribution of proceeds of forfeiture sales LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S OPINION REGARDING NEW PRIMARY ELECTION SYSTEM Motion by Councilman Gleckman, seconded by Councilman. Snyder, and carried, to receive and place on file. CITY OF LOS ANGELES RESOLUTION REGARDING SOCIAL SERVICE DEPARTMENT Motion -by Councilman Nichols, seconded by Councilman Snyder, and carried, to refer this to the staff for analysis and report to Council, WEST COVINA VS. VALENCIA WATER CO, FINAL ORDER -AND JUDGMENT IN CONDEMNATION Motion by Councilman Gleckman, seconded by Councilman Gillum, and carried, to place on file, -16- C o C . 1/23/67 LETTER FROM LYLE A. TAYLOR REMOVAL OF POPLAR TREES Page Seventeen Motion by Councilman Gleckman, seconded by Mayor Krieger, and carried, to refer this matter to the staff. LETTER FROM M — Ha.EDWARDS REGARDING POUND SERVICE Motion by Councilman Gleckman, seconded by Mayor Krieger, and carried, to refer this matter to the staff for report back to Council. LETTER FROM LOS ANGELES CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT REGARDING SCHOOL FINANCES Motion by Councilman Gleckman, seconded by Councilman Nichols, and carried, to receive letter and place on file. EXECUTIVE SESSION Motion. by Councilman Gleckman, seconded by Councilman Gillum, and carried, to adjourn to executive session for the purpose of discussing the appointments to the West Covina Civic Center Public Authority. (Council adjourned for executive session to discuss appointments to Itthe Public Authority) RETURN TO OPEN MEETING Motion by Councilman Gleckman, seconded by Councilman Gillum, to unanimously appoint Mr. Jess Do Harper and Mr. Walter Laband as our two appointments to the Public Authority. Motion passed on roll call as follows: Ayes: Councilmen Gillum,,Nichols, Shyde.r;,.Glec_kman, Mayor Krieger Noes: None Absent: None CITY ATTORNEY ORDINANCE `INT.RODtCT'ION The City Attorney presented: Uses permitted in C-1 Zone "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF WEST COVINA AMENDING A CERTAIN SECTION OF THE ZONING CHAPTER OF THE WEST COVINA MUNICIPAL CODE" (Amendment No. 78) Motion by Councilman Snyder, seconded by Councilman Gillum, and carried, to waive further reading of the body of the ordinance. • Motion by Councilman Gillum, seconded by Councilman Snyder, and carried, that said ordinance be introduced. -17- Co Co 1/23/67 Page Eighteen CITY ATTORNEY - Continued ORDINANCE NO. 987 The City Attorney presented: ADOPTED "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF Badillo Street improvement THE CITY OF WEST COVINA CONSENTING TO THE IMPROVEMENT OF PORTIONS OF BADILLO STREET IN SAID CITY BY THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES" Motion by Councilman Gillum, seconded by Councilman Snyder, and carried, to waive further reading of the body of the ordinance Motion by Councilman Snyder., and seconded by Councilman Gillum, that said ordinance be adopted. Motion passed on roll call as follows: Ayes: Councilmen Gillum; Nichols, Snyder, Gleckman, Mayor Krieger Noes: None Absent; None Said ordinance was given No. 987. RESOLUTION NO. 3528 The City Attorney presented: ADOPTED "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF Zone Change No. 371 THE CITY OF WEST COVINA DENYING A Albert Handler REQUEST FOR CHANGE OF ZONE" (Zone Change No. 371 — Albert Handler) Mayor Krieger: Hearing no objections, we will waive further reading of the body of the resolution. Motion by Councilman Nichols, seconded by Councilman Snyder, that said resolution be adopted. Motion passed on roll call as.follows: Ayes: Councilmen Nichols, Snyder, Mayor Krieger Noes: Councilmen Gillum, Gleckman Absent: None Said resolution was given No. 3528. RESOLUTION — ANNEXATION 199 The City Attorney presented: Held over to 2/14/67 "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF WEST COVINA ACKNOWLEDGING RECEIPT OF NOTICE OF INTENTION TO CIRCULATE PETITION" (Annexation No, 199) Motion by Councilman Gleckman, seconded by Councilman Snyder, and carried, to hold this matter over to February 14, 1967. • REPORT ON NEW COUNTY LOITERING ORDINANCE Council has the reports The Mayor Krieger: necommendktion is the definition of loitering and making a misdemeanor. Councilman Snyder: I don't think it is the proper police power to recommend this type of ordinance. I" Co Co 1/23/67 Page Nineteen LOITERING ORDINANCE - Continued Discussion followed. Mr. Williams asked Council to note Section 4114 of. Code before them and compare with County Ordinance Section 1 and 2, • which is almost word for word. Motion by Councilman Snyder, seconded by Councilman Gillum, and carried, to receive and file letter of January 5, 1967, from Los Angeles County. CITY MANAGER GARBAGE COLLECTION IN NEWLY ANNEXED AREAS Motion by Councilman Nichols, seconded by Councilman Snyder, and carried, to hold this matter to February 6, 1967. DEL NORTE PARK ADDITION Mr. Aiassa: I have an opportunity to acquire an additional piece of property. This Council authorized me to have an appraisal made. I did get an affira- ative offer to purchase. I would like to add this one to the other two if possible on a lease -back or some arrangement. It's the 65' x 139.9' parcel. Motion by Councilman Nichols and seconded by Councilman Gleckman that the Council authorize the City Manager to enter into an agreement for the purchase of the property at 443 North Sunset Avenue in the amount of $13,000, subject to his ability to arrange financing within the budgetary limits of the City. Motion passed on roll call as follows: Ayes: Councilmen Gillum, Nichols, Snyder, Gleckman, Mayor Krieger Noes: None Absent: None REPLACEMENT OF RESCUE UNIT FOR FIRE DEPARTMENT Motion by Councilman Gleckman and seconded by Councilman Snyder to accept report and authorize purchase of a rescue vehicle needed not to exceed $3,500. Motion passed on roll call as follows: Ayes: Councilmen Gillum,Nichols, Snyder, Gleckman, Mayor Krieger Noes: None Absent: None 1965 ANNUAL CITY AUDIT Motion by Councilman Gleckman, seconded by Councilman Gillum, and carried, to accept and file the auditor's report of July 1, 1965, to June 30, 1966. Motion was made by Councilman Gleckman and seconded by Councilman Gillum to pay $1,700 to Cotton & Francisco for 19665-66 annual audit, Motion passed on roll call as follows: Ayes: Councilmen Gillum, Nichols, Gleckman, Mayor Krieger Noes: Councilman Snyder Absent: None -19- Co Ca 1/23/67 Page Twenty CITY MANAGER - Continued WEST COVINA SISTER CITY FOUNDATION • Motion by Councilman Gleckman, seconded by Councilman Gillum, and carried, t,o accept and file the quarterly report of West Covina Sister City Foundation. t Motion by Councilman Nichols and seconded by Councilman Gillum to release $500 of the $1,000 budget. to West Covina Sister City Foundation. Motion passed on roll call as follows: Ayes: Councilmen Gillum, Nichols, Snyder, Gleckman, Mayor Krieger Noes: None Absent: None LETTER TO PROPERTY OWNERS CONCERNING 1911 ACT STREET IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT LARK-ELLEN AVENUE Councilman.Gleckman: In this letter proposed to go out to the property owners, I am primarily concerned with showing the difference of the $17,500 and how it is spread over the property owners, against had the eight parcels of land been dedicated *hat their obligation would be. Mayor Krieger: They have right of way cost of $11,800 spread over private ownership. Councilman Gleckman: The point I am making now is that the total amount that we are asking them to pay, the people living on Lark Ellen, is the $17,500? I don't think these figures are correct. I was under the impression that $14,500 of the total was attributed to the people not dedicating their property. Mr. Fast: right of way not acquired. now been reduced to $11,800. Councilman Gleckman: Yes, that is true. The City has to assume a certain portion of the That $14,000 from the public hearing has $17,500 due to the acquisition of Mr. Fast: that would still spread across. If the right of way case was not there they would still.have to pay right of way costs? No, if we had all the right of way, it would be approximately $15,700 Councilman Gleckman: That wasn't the information given to me at the time of the hearing. The point in the letter was that the majority of that cost was due to the fact that right of way was not acquired and that their neighbors had not dedicated. I would like the letter of Mr. Young to be introduced into the minutes. I think this letter should be held over until the facts are researched and reviewed. -2 0- Co Co 1/23/67 Page Twenty -One 1911 ACT LARK ELLEN AVENUE LETTER - Continued Letter from Robert Oo Young: • "I own property situated at 809 South Lark Ellen and, to my knowledge, no dedication has been made for the proposed improvement there. Further, to my knowledge, I have never been asked to dedicate. "I note the City Council Minutes of December 27, 1966, and January 3, 1967, castigate property owners who have not dedicated their property for street purposes and who appear to desire payment for such property of theirs as is taken for the street improvement... "I assume that the improvement is intended to benefit the entire city and not just the property owners along the street to be improved. "The use of Lark Ellen as a secondary highway diminishes its value as residential property. The contemplated im- provement will increase traffic to the detriment of all property owners. This reference is in response to Council- man Nicholls statement on Page 16 of the December 27, 1966 Minutes. "I believe if investigation is made, it will be seen that most of the .property dedicated along Lark Ellen Avenue has been done so because of a city requirement of one kind or another based on the desire of a property owner to obtain zoning variances or lot splits or something similar amount- ing to a quid pro quo for the dedication. "I take strong exception to Councilman Gleckman's statement on Page 11 of the January 3, Minutes suggesting that property owners who have not dedicated and who also expect a quid quo for their property should be made an example of bad citizen- ship and thus absolve the City Council from responsibility. I believe such action would be an outright libel and I strongly protest as much comment as has already been made without determining just what the exchange was for the dedication and without determining who has "refused" to dedicate, who has done so voluntarily, and who has done so in exchange for a consideration. "My wife and I have served this city for ten years through active church, school, civic, and business participation. We have cooperated with virtually every worthy activity with a special emphasis upon youth activities. It concerns me greatly to have been included in a readily identifiable class accused, I think most unjustly, of virtual misconduct. If any wrong has been done, it has been by past requirements that a property owner desiring some favorable consideration from the city was forced to dedicate his land in order to get that consideration. We have never asked for such a ' favor and hence have never been strong-armed into dedicating. "I respectfully request that the Council take another look at Lark Ellen and present all the facts, not.j.ust those designed to place blame upon a property owner who believes in the concepts of free enterprise that most of our present City Councilmen have often expressed themselves on so eloquently." -21- C7 r • Co Co 1/23/67 Page Twenty -Two 1.911 ACT LARK ELLEN AVENUE LETTER - Continued Councilman Nichols: As long as we are informing these people of all of the facts of the situation, I think it would be very appropriate to excerpt the verbatim minutes of the Council discussion leading up to and including the vote on this and include that in the mailing to the property owners. Councilman Gleckman: I am talking about the allegation as made in this letter by Mr. Young. The quotes are: "I believe if investigation is madei.t will be seen that most of the property dedicated along Lark. Ellen Avenue has been done so because of a city requirement of one kind or another based on the desire of a property owner to obtain zoning variances or lot splits or something similar amounting to a quid pro quo for the deducati.ono I: would like the staff investigate and see if these things are right. Mayor Krieger: I have one objection on this matter, one statement I do object to is in the first paragraph, in explanation of the project, and then it goes on to state the City Council's position. -Any time we send .letters out explaining our position we better have second thoughts about positions. It wasn't a sales job, it was a factual presentation. Motion by Councilman Snyder, seconded by Councilman Gleckman, and carried, that this letter be referred back to the staff for rewriting and consultation with the Mayor. This will be held over to February 1.4 , 1967. DEL NORTE SCHOOL PARKING LOT - FOLLOW-UP REPORT Motion by Councilman Snyder, seconded by Councilman Gillum, and carried, to inform the Council when the project is completed. Council- man Nichols voted "no". RETIREMENT DINNER APPROPRIATION AND RESOLUTIONS Mr. Aiassa: We estimated $150 with an orchestra. We can do it for $90 without one I would like appropriation from the City for $90, for flowers and miscellaneous things; also, decorations, invitations and mailing. Motion by Councilman Snyder, seconded by Councilman Gillum, to approp- riate $90 for the retirement dinner for Robert Flotten and Ben Rueggeo Motion passed on roll call as follows: Ayes: Councilmen Gillum, Nichols, Snyder, Gleckman, Mayor Krieger Noes: None Absent: None RESOLUTION NO. 3529 The City Mana.ger'presented: ADOPTED "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF Commending Ben A. Ruegge THE CITY OF WEST COVINA COMMENDING BEN A. RUEGGE FOR SERVICES TO THE C ITY" Mayor Krieger: Hearing no objections, we will waive further reading of the body of the resolution, -22- 171 8 0 C. Co 1/23/67 RESOLUTION NO. 3529 - Continued Page Twenty -Three Motion by Councilman. Snyder, seconded by Councilman Gillum, that said resolution be adopted. Motion passed on roll call as follows: Ayes: Councilmen Gillum, Nichols, Snyder, Gleckman, Mayor Krieger Noes: •None Absent: None Said resolution was given No. 3529 RESOLUTION NO. 3530 ADOPTED Commending Robert Flotten Mayor Krieger: The City Manager presented: "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF WEST COVINA COMMENDING ROBERT FLOTTEN FOR SERVICES TO THE CITY" Hearing no objections, we will waive further reading of the body of the resolution. Motion by Councilman Snyder, seconded by Councilman Gillum, that said resolution be adopted. Motion passed on roll call as follows: Ayes: Councilmen Gillum, Nichols, Snyder, Gleckman, Mayor Krieger Noes: None Absent: None Said resolution was given No. 3530 TRAFFIC COMMITTEE MINUTES - 1/20/67 Motion. by Councilman Nichols, seconded by Councilman Gillum, and carried, to approve the Traffic Committee Minutes of January 20, 1967. 1967-68 CENSUS SURVEY Motion by Councilman Gleckman, seconded by Councilman Gillum, and carried, to appropriate $325 to conduct 1967-68 census survey by the Department of Finance, State of California, Motion passed on roll call as follows: Ayes: Councilmen Gillum, Nichols, Snyder, Gleckman, Mayor Krieger Noes: None Absent: None STUDY SESSION ON FREEWAY WIDENING Mr. Williams: I think motion should be made that we accept all of the frontage roads and whatever the Division of Highways offered to us in the letter of September 19, 1958. Mayor Krieger: Can they widen the Freeway to.four _ lanes without a Freeway agreement from the City of West Covina? Mr. Williams: They can widen it if they don't have to use the frontage road. They cannot permanently close a city street. If the frontage road is a city street, they cannot close it. -23- Co Co 1/23/67 Page Twenty -Four FREEWAY WIDENING - Continued Mayor Krieger: This Council is being asked to accept the responsibility for a • major decision and I don't want a bunch of ifs, ands and buts. I want the answer. It is not the staff that is going to take the responsi- bility, it is the five men up here. Can you or can you not answer the question? Can they widen the Freeway to four lanes without an agreement with the City of West Covina? If you can't answer it, say so. Mr. Aiassa; Now that I have the written opinion of the City Attorney, the staff is going to do their job to see what we can do with the State right of way, and then we will have a fixed report for you, and then we will answer the ifs, ands and buts. Mayor Krieger: We met with the State people a week ago. I don't know of anything that is facing this city that is more. impoartant'than this question at this particular moment. Councilman Gleckman: What harm would be done to the city if we sent them a letter accepting those streets? We're maintaining them now. Mr. Williams: I can't see any.harm in it. Mayor Krieger: If the State can go ahead and widen that Freeway to four lanes with the acceptance of the street, then the effect of accepting the street system doesn't preclude them from doing a thing. I can't see rushing into accepting these streets. There is some reason why this city hasn't accepted them before. Mr. Ai.assa: We have a letter dated September of 1958, also a letter of April 20, 1962, regarding relinquishment. To accept these streets will put is in a better negotiating position with the State. Councilman Gleckman: As far as I am concerned, I under no circumstances will agree to any type of agreement with the State Division of. Highways that gives us inade- quate interchanges at the expense of the people of the City of West Covina. Motion by Councilman Snyder, seconded by Councilman Gillum and carried, to hold this matter over to the meeting of January 30, 1967. CITY CLERK ABC APPLICATION OF SEVEN/ELEVEN FOOD STORE Motion by Councilman Gleckman, seconded by Councilman Gillum, and carried, that the Council recommend no protest on the ABC application • of The Southland Corp,, dba Seven/Eleven Food Store at 2880 East Valley Boulevard ABC APPLICATION OF THEODORE WORTH Motion by Councilman Gillum, seconded by Councilman Gleckman,.and carried, that the Council recommend no protest on the ABC.application of Theodore Worth at 516 South Glendora Avenue. -24- • • L-] Co Co 1j23/67 MARCH OF DIMES SOLICI:.ATION Page Twenty -Five Motion by Councilman Nichols, seconded by Councilman Gillum, and carried, to approve this action during January, 1967. CITY OF HOPE SOLICITATION Motion by Councilman Nichols, seconded by Councilman Gleckman, and carried, to approve this action on June 4, 1967. C ITY TREASURER Motion. by Councilman Gleckman, seconded by Mayor Krieger, and carried, to hold the City Treasurer's report for December, 1966, over to February 14, 1967. MAYOR'S REPORTS FOSTER HOMES WEEK PROCLAMATION Mayor Krieger: We have been asked to proclaim the week of February 14 through 20, 1967, as Foster Homes Week. If there are no objections, I will so proclaim. (No objections voiced) So proclaimed. LETTER :FROM WANDA EVANS Mayor Krieger: We have a letter from Wanda Evans dated January 27, 1967, asking the Council to consider the bridge on Azusa Avenue and the amount of foot traffic by youngsters that will be going over that bridge, and the possibility of being subjected to some danger. We will refer this, to the staff for investigation. COUNCIL COMMITTEE REPORTS Mayor Krieger: I think it appropriate that the staff prepare a letter or resolu- tion to Marilu for her fine work as reporter for these meetings• I think we should express our appreciation for the job that she did. Motion by Councilman Nichols, seconded by Councilman Gillum, that the Council direct the staff to prepare a suitable letter for the Mayor's signature and under his direct supervision to Marilu acknowledging her period of service and expressing the personal appreciation of. each of the Councilmen for her outstanding services. Councilman Gillum: The Blue Ribbon Committee met last Wednesday and selected Dr. Madden and Mrs. Knudsen as co-chairmen, and our next regular meeting will be held on February 3rd at 7:30 P.M. -25- C. Co 1/23/67 Page Twenty -Six COUNCIL COMMITTEE REPORTS Continued Motion by Councilman Snyder, seconded by Councilman Nichols, and carried, that the study on the plan unit development now being done by the Planning Department be expedited and completed as soon as possible and submitted to the Planning Commission for review and recommendation. Councilman Gleckman: I have been appointed to the League of California Cities committee on planning the next seminar May 18 to 20, 1967, and I will be attending a meeting tomorrow to plan for that sessions DEMANDS Motion by Councilman Gillum, seconded by Councilman Gleckman, to approve demands totaling $350,972.83 as listed on demand sheets B280 through B282 of payroll demand sheet. This total includes purchase of time deposits totaling $200,OOO. Motion passed on roll call as follows: Ayes: Councilmen Gillum, Nichols; Snyder, Gleckman, Mayor Krieger Noes: None Absent: None There being no further business, motion by Councilman Snyder, seconded by Councilman Nichols, and carried, that this meeting be adjourned at 11:50 P.M. to Monday, January 30, 1967, at 7:30 P.M. ATTEST: City Cler APPROVED _ la, / % 6 7 -26- Mayor