Loading...
04-17-1967 - Regular Meeting - MinutesMINUTES OF THE ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL. , CITY OF WEST COVINA, CALIFORNIA APRIL 17, 1967 The adjourned regular meeting of the City Council was called to order by Mayor Krieger, at 7-35 o'clock P.M., in the West Covina City Hallo Councilman Nichols led the Pledge of Allegiance. ROLL CALL Present- Mayor Krieger, Councilmen Gillum, Nichols,, Gleckman, Snyder (arrived at 7 - 44 p o m . ) Others Present- George Aiassa, City Manager H. R. Fast, Public Service Director. Owen Menard, Planning Director R. E . Pontow, City Engineer Captain Wm. Ryan Ray Windsor, Administrative Assistant Lela Preston, Deputy City Clerk TRAFFIC COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES MARCH 29, 1967. • Mayor Krieger- Gentlemen, I suggest, because the minutes are long, that we take item by item to see if there are any questions or discussion. If not we can take affirmative action on the minutes. ITEM 1. RECOMMENDATION m Approved. ITEM 2. RECOMMENDATION - Approved ITEM 3. RECOMMENDATION _ Approved. ITEM 4. RECOMMENDATION - Approved. ITEM 5. RECOMMENDATION m Crosswalks Denied.' Sidewalk Location Disapproved. Councilman Nichols- I have no comment on the school crossing request and the staff recommendation, but a comment on the statement that it is further recommended that sidewalks should be installed, This would be a very difficult area for installation of sidewalks, there are a number of rather nice homes that abut ..Merced Avenue in that area but which front or, the various streets Butterfield Road, Robin Road, so there.Wbill-d be two houses siding on Merced Avenue between each of those blocks and with the side yards only parallel • to Merced Avenue and at least in one of those blocks there would be a very precipi- tous drop from the house level to the street level. It would be, obviously, not feasible to construct a sidewalk in that area unless very extensive retaining walls were constructed, so I would think tha t this recommendation should not stand here in the minutes to provide someone at a later time, ammunition or information that would convey that this council had gone on record by inference ,to -advocate. sidewalks, in that ar. ea Mayor Krieger- Does the Council concur in the recommendation that the request for cross walks be denied and the recommendam -I- ADJOURNED C.C. 4/17/67 Rage two. TRAFFIC COMMITTEE MINUTES - Continued tion as to sidewalk location be disapproved. So agreed. • ITEM 6. 6..A - Held Over, 6.B RECOMMENDATION - Approved. Councilman Gleckmano I think the staff will concur that they haven't: come up with the final report yet. That was the intersection. I made a complaint about. I think .if 1.3% of the cars turning left, turned illegally - that we have a problem. And their recommendation, after - talking with Mr..Aiassa, I understand is not complete, so I would therefore request that we hold over 6.A. Motion by Councilman Gleckman, seconded by Councilman Gillum, and carried, that Item 6.A be held over, Mayor Krieger requested that a report from the Traffic Committee on Item A be presented at the next Council meeting. ITEM 7. RECOMMENDATION - Approved. Mayor Krieger; Is there any discussion on these recommendations of the various crosswalks? Councilman Snyder- I have no discussion. I merely brought it up and I had • particular reference to Sunset Avenue and Del Norte School. and I am satisfied with their recommendation. The others I brought up as a safety factor because most motorists don't expect a cross walk in the m.hddl.e of the block and .it should be studied and if possible rearranged to the end of the block. It is particularly bad at twilight time. I am satisfied with their recommendation on Sunset as well as on the other, ones, but I do think where possible midblock -crosswalks' should be avod.ed and when possible removed. Mayor Krieger° Apparently it started them thinking in at least two locations about additional advanced roadside signs, so maybe the study was worthwhile insofar as looking at the whole subject. (A brief discussion regarding pre -early warning signs. Mayor Krieger suggested c:on- sider'eation be given to an advanced warning sign on the crosswalk just a.ppr`oved on S-unset. Councilman Snyder stated he thought all crosswalks should have advanced warnings . ) ITEM 8. RECOMMENDATION - Approved. ITEM 9. RECOMMENDATION - Approved. ITEM 10. RECOMMENDATION - Approved. • ITEM 11. RECOMMENDATION - Approved. ITEM 12. RECOMMENDATION - Approved. ITEM 13. RECOMMENDATION - Approved ITEM 14. RECOMMENDATION - Approved z 2. ADJOURNED C.. C. 4/17/67 Page Three TRAFFIC COMMITTEE :MINUTES - Continued ITEM 15. . RECOM°MENDATION - Approved . REVIEW BOARD MINUTES 'MARCH 31, 1967 '`Mayor Krieger. It might: be -well to take up ,in conjunction with this, Item 5, which is a -letter .from the -Planning Department recommending that a criteria be set on •Precise'Plans and .submission,to the Planning Commission instead of the Review Board. I assume that this was precipitated by the council's desire,to review this'Precise'Plan or at least take,a further look at the'Review Board minutes Mr..Aiassa, City'Man.ager. Yes "Mayor Krieger- It might be helpful, •Mr..Aiassa, if your., staff were to make a presentation on this.. M't. Menard Planning' Director We have not delved into a study yet, but we do have the Precise 'Plan. (Precise'Plan displayed, and .Mr. Menard briefly summarized with regard to the area involved.) -Mayor ­Kr eger: Are the conditions that the'Planning Department recommended to the Review -Board basically the,same in " . their report of the 31st and 27t:h? Mr. Menard Planning Director. Yes except in the :earlier report it was discovered that there was an off street parking deficiency. .At that: time the applicant went back, revised thePrecise Plan and came up -with additional parking to meet our restrictions on the off street parking requirement-. .Above and beyond that the staff had not recommended, I don't believe, underground utilities. Therewere two -Precise'Plans submitted on the 27th date, one small one,for the facility and the remainder for the shopping center. The Review Board- requested that they be combined .into one Precise Plan,,. since they were connected together, as well as add on enough off street parking to meet our zoning ordinance requirement. Councilman: Snyder: Is there any specifications or requirements regarding a loading dock on these stores? (Answer. No - it is C-3) Since the remainder is C-3 is there a requirement for a wall or anything there? Mr. Menard Planning Director-, No. The only walls required were direct exposure to existingsingle family or future single family. .It would be anticipated that there would be no wall required in that area because it would just continue on into commercial. Councilman .Gleck.man. Where is the Fire Station going? (Mr. Menard pointed the location out on. the map .) Also, I brought. up about the bumper stops - I was going to make a big issue out. of it, then .I was handed a note earlier by the'Planning Director saying'I was right. There was some -inference made that the�Ordinance calls for .bumper stops and it doesn't and I was just curious as to whether this is the best we can do if we are 3u ADJOURNED C.. C. 4/17/67 Page -Four REVIEW BOARD MINUTES ® Continued going to require the wall. I can't seethe reason for. the bumper stops for the simple reason wherethey have been used in thepast in the City, the architect makes a good .-point, they haven't helped the situation at all. .I think clear lines will do a .lot more •than the bumper stops and:I think the trouble caused and the amount of insurance different companies have to be concerned with because of the damage they create,. I think we should take another look'at-it and come up with something else. .The same th ng.with poles. .1 think the idea is alright, but I can see them doing more harm than h-elp, because all we•are concerned with is running traffic across the parking -lot and if you.have •the lines clearly defined and there are cars there, I don't think you will run into that anyway. •I asked the question last time - we don't have it at Sun-FranShopping Center? (Answer. No, nor at Big T,) I have been in there several times and they don't seem to have,a problem Councilman.Nichols. I agree with Councilman Gleckman Councilman Gillum. I have seen occasions where they have had them and they still come across and hit somebody. Mayor Krieger: Councilman.Gleckman, what did you say your response was from Mr. Menard ® that they are not in the ordinance? (Answer. Yes) Well then how did they get . . Councilman Gleckman-. I think -we will ask._Mro- Menard that. Mr.. Menard Planning Director This is typical, as far as we could ascertain, in looking back through many Precise Plans - we do -have many areas that do have the bumper stops and admittedly they area problem. In the -Review- Board,. it was finally, . if I am not mistaken, required that the posts, as in the Broadway -parking lot, be established rather than the bumper guards. • The Ordinance, .I was referring to :Mr.. Gleckman, was that part of the Ordinance that requires if there -is not a fence or wall,alongside of an alley or street, bumper stops are required. It does not require them in the interior of parking lots. Councilman Nichols-. I can certainly see the commonsense to the requirement for bumper stops adjacent to buildings, walls or objects that could in themselves be harmed or damaged by bumping into them, but the,bumper stops that are in the middle of parking lots do not in fact act as a barrier where a vehicle is being driven improperly, that vehicle,will hurdle that as easily as it will hurdle anything else. .It does create a pedestrian hazard which obviously will increase the public liability problem to the tenant or owner of the premises. In my travels through the city in various areas where they exist or don't exist, •I don't find any greater hazard, let's say in the parking areas on the east side of the � laza as compared to the parking area at the Broadway or other locations. .It seems to me it is an unreasonable requirement imposed upon a developer to create artificial channelization •where •none is necessary. Finally, my point would be, where two vehicles are parking on opposite sides of thelane, such as you have created on this plan, the bumper stops in. no way prevent the two vehicles from colliding because'the two vehicles lap over the bumper - stops by various lengths and unless you have a physical steel post preventing them from touching -another vehicle they will continue to do so. So you don't prevent that type of situation. You simply create forced travel lanes for the public where the traffic may be much lighter and the parking lot is only a portion full which occurs a good many hours of the day, and days of the year. .,So,I don't favor this type of requirement. -4m ADJOURNED C. C. 4/17./67 Page Five • • REVIEW BOARD MINUTES - Continued Mayor Krieger. The condition that they impose, striped parking stalls or wheel stops - is the wheel stop the same thing as a bumper stop? Mr. _Fast, Public Service Director. Not really. The wheel stop is concrete on the ground, and the bumper stop is something that is fixed at bumper height, and the post.stops everything, I guess. We have used bumper stops and wheel stops inter=ch`angaWy but what we have always meant and administered was a wheel stop Mayor Krieger. Was the primary purpose of the Review Board to stop the cars or channel the traffic? Mr. Fast Public Service Director; Primarily to keep traffic from cross -cutting 'Mayor Krieger. Going back to the requirements recommended by the Planning Department. This study planA dated 3-27-67 is there a separate document or are we talking about this Precise Plan application dated January 19, 1967? Mr. Men.ard Planning Director. There was an original study plan A that actually con- sisted of two Precise Plans and this would have carried the date of 3-27-67. This was combined into one plan and this is the study plan A dated 3-31-67 that was approved by the Review Board. Mayor Krieger. Well then when you approved all of the conditions of the Planning Department you were approving the study plan dated March 31, 1967 and not March 27, 1967, is that right? Mr. Menard Planning Director This is correct. Mayor Krieger. You had better have it so reflected in the Review Board, otherwise you are going to have a study plan that has an incorrect date on it. What about the parking situation in this development - was it discussed very thoroughly? Mr. Menard Planning Director. Yes, I would say so. Evidently the discrepancy that arose - the applicant had thought he had complied with our ordinance and when we were checking offsquare footage on which parking area is tabulated, a small error was found that necessitated the enlargement of the parking lot. The parking lot as indicated on this plan meets the zoning ordinance requirements in the City of West Covina. If I am not mistaken there is a slight surplus at this time of 11 or 12 stalls. The requirement for parking in a .-sh.opping center of this size is one parking space for 150 square feet of gross floor area. This is a very liberal amount of parking space - a very liberal. parking requirement, Mayor Krieger: As contrasted with other communities ? Mr. Menard : As contrasted with a recent study by the Urban Land - 5 - ADJOURNED C. C. 4/17,./67 Page Six • • 11 REVIEW BOARD MINUTES - Continued Institute, etc. - we are getting very ample parking in our off street parking lots. Mayor Krieger: Your remarks, I assume, are addressed primarily to commercial rather than some of the others. Mr. Menard: Correct Mayor Krieger: If our experience in this community is any indication, I think our ratio is a little too liberal in terms of some of the professional developments. Mr. Menard: I have to agree with that. Mayor Krieger: For example, the Walsh-Forkett went in according to code and they had to go out on their own and provide more parking space, because they found out. there was not enough parking space. Councilman Gillum: I have a question. .On this underground utility - this was required by us? Mr. Menard: Yes, one of the conditions of the Precise Plano Councilman Gillum: Do we have, something on the books that requires this or is this something that each and every time it comes up we make a decision at that time? Mr. Menard: There is nothing En the books .in Ordinance form. Mr.. Fast Public Service Director: Historically, we have been requiring in commercial areas on new developments underground utilities, insofar as we are able, especially from the standpoint of California Edison and its PUC rulings will permit. Councilman Gillum: The point I am trying to make is out here it is fine, there is nothing else around it, but what concerns me is we have property here in the City that does not have underground utilities and if we don't put something on the books that either requires it or does not I can see instances on Vincent where we require underground utility and he says "well this gentleman next door has nothing. " I think either we should - from a certain point on - any commercial area, or even residential as far as that goes - in the city I think -we should consider underground utilities. I can understand it out here in the country, and it is the first development, but I think in the future we should have something on the books that any future development should be underground, because it is the coming thing. Mr. Mayor, is the staff working on an underground utility recommendation at the present time? Mr. Fast Public'Service Director: Yes Councilman Gleckman: The R-1 development to the west of this - - doesn't that have a 5' wall all the way down Azusa Avenue? Mr. Menard: II think you are probably correct. - 6 - ADJOURNED C. C. 4/17 /67 Page Seven REVIEW BOARD MINUTES - Continued Councilman Gleckmano Can those people see over that wall across the street? Councilman Nichols: I believe there is an old concrete wall, knocked down any number of times by vehicles rounding the corner, • which used to be Pass and Covina Road. For some distance down there it stretches as concrete block about six courses high, higher than the normal person could see over. Whether it extends clear down to that corner area I don't know. Councilman Gleckmano I was thinking about the wall on commercial areas that are facing a street as wide as Azusa with another 5' wall across. In other words I could see the idea of a decorative wall maybe as far as the street is concerned but to protect the R-1 development to the West - I am sorry, I just can't. Mr. Fast: This came up at the Review Board meeting discussions as well, and the discussion referred to other precedents in the City - the Capri center is commercial against commercial and it has block walls. We required some parking lot shielding from the street on the small Triple Check, so we have not been limiting screening from a wall standpoint, because this was not total screenipg,42" does not screen a walla Our screeming you could still see over, it was more from the standpoint of the develop- ment and the total overall approach to the project. Councilman Gleckman: Aesthetic standpoint, • Mayor Krieger, I hope it will be more aesthetic than the Capri, Is there any significance in the difference in the condition imposed by the Review Board other than the 18" difference in height? They talked about a decorative adobe type block not to be solid more than 3' in 'height, and you simply said not to be more than 42 a" decorative type block wall. In other words it could be a solid 42" wall. Mr. Fast: Yes it could. Mayor Krieger: What is the significance of the word "decorative"? What makes it non -decorative? Mr. Fast: From an administrative standpoint. - if they chose a pattern block at random points, or use screen block, or screen block alternately, etc. , there are many different methods of doing this as compared to the Capri, not decorative, which is just, straight running bond straight. ;course Councilman Gleckman: Wouldn't you get the same effect though with the greenery that you are putting in there? Mr. Fast: Not in the opinion of the Review Board. • Councilman Nichols: Where is the block wall to run - on the outside of the greenery, so the public can't see the landscaping? Mr. Fast: That was another reason for the average height, so if they wanted to vary it or so on. That is not the final land- scaping plan. Their landscape architect, or whoever they have to do this, will submit a detailed plan and it might: vary slightly from this. 7- ADJOURNED C. C. 4/176/67 Page�Eight REVIEW BOARD MINUTES --Continued Councilman Nichols: Where is the wall to go? `Mr. Menard pointed the wall line on the map and explained. To question asked regard- ing sidewalks; he advised sidewalks were required on -both sides of Azusa Avenue. • Councilman. Gillum: You said the wall was the decision of the Review Board - is this correct? (Answer: Yes) What did the Review Board base their opinion on? Why.a wall? Mr. Fast: . Aesthetics... . Councilman:.Gillum: - The only reason? Mr.. Fast. No. .Also shielded the parking from the street generally. Councilman Gillum: Why do we put up a wall every time we put up•a commercial building? Is it a state law? I am concerned - every time you see a wall in this town in a commercial area, you find trash, etc. , in back of it. -If you, gentlemen, could figure out a way to eliminate that..... Mr., Fast. Wellit is also a problem to keep landscaping growing and with puny landscaping and a sea of asphalt being viewed from a street or major intersection that is the forerunner of a very important section C-3 we are very concerned,:with- — , giving this a good start from the standpoint of being •appealing and establishing something in a commercial area that is good and going down a different path than what we have seen. -I believe this was the Review Beard's intent. If this doesn't accomplish it then we would certainly like to have something else that would accomplish it, but this was the approach. Councilman Gleckman: I am looking now at the Center, the Plaza, for example, with no wall around it, with a fast moving street like Azusa, in fact I think Azusa will have more traffic then what we have on our Service Roads and California, and I am trying to think of the decorative idea, in other words of putting a wall in that area and then that landscaping inside. What are you doing about watering? Are you putting in a sprinklering system? Mr.. Fast: Yes, all landscaping installed must have a permanent source of water, it is part of the, Precise Plan and it is in the Ordinance. Councilman: Gleckman. We do have landscaping and greenery.. o . . Mayor Krieger: It seems to me that there is a certain inconsistency between the wall and the landscaping, because if the landscaping is very nicely done then you have the wall that hides it. . The most pleasing, and this is just subjective aesthetics, the most pleasing developments I have seen are those that have proper landscaping, well kept up, and no wall, so • you can appreciate the idea of the landscaping. Councilman Gleckman: That is what I was getting at Mr. Mayor. If they do have the proper watering - - in the past the biggest problem regard- ing landscaping has been watering, but: if you have the proper, watering, I agree with exactly what the Mayor said. I don't see why you put in a wall to hide the landscaping when you are going to have the proper watering ADJOURNED C. C. 4/17/67 Page Nine REVIEW BOARD MINUTES - Continued Mayor Krieger: Mr. Johnson, let's justify your presence tonight. What is your thinking, as the architect. on this project, about this wall bus ines s ? Mr. Johnson: The wall has become somewhat critical in my opinion. I dial Architect bring the preliminary grading plan. (Plan displayed and Mr. Johnson explained the different grading levels between street and elevation of buildings.) I am somewhat concerned that a person sitting in a car. on Azusa would not be able to see the center if there is a wall, because the grades do fall off away from the center. When you put up a 42" high wall, seated in a car you would not see the stores. When you talk about a 42" high wall, it is out of the cost concern, it is now into the area of merchandising. Mayor Krieger- How far have you gone in your planning, as far as the land- scaping ? Mr. Johnson- We have not engaged a landscape architect as yet, the Bank is just about completed as far as the working drawings are concerned and we are just really getting started on the market center. Councilman Snyder- The wall, regarding the R-1 property across the street, that not only has their own wall but they tend to be down in the hole too - down grade Mr. Johnson: And we are also down in a hole-- so that the street is acting • as a ridge separating the commercial . Mayor Krieger- I am wondering whether or not: we might re serve judgment on this condition,, until the applicant has reached the point of hiring the landscape architect and is prepared to submit to the City their proposal for landscaping and then determination can be made whether or not the landscaping would be satisfactory, or the wall would have to be imposed as a condition. Councilman Gleckman: How does the applicant feel about that? Mr. Johnson: Would it be subject to the City Council°s approval then? Mayor Krieger: The council would have to decide whether it wants to review this, or the Review Board. The jurisdiction has been in the Review Board on these matters, Mr. Johnson, but this involves a .large commercial development and that is why we wanted to hold over and discuss in greater detail. Mr. Johnson- There is no objection. We fully intended to submit a land- scaping drawing as required and it will be no problem, but it is just in whose opinion is this proper? This is the area • that sometimes becomes a little sticky. Mayor Krieger: For example, if the Review Board would approve your landscape plan, the council receives all the minutes and the reports of the Review Board, and if the council is satis- fied with the action of the Review Board that is the end of it. - 9 - ADJOURNED C. C. 4/17/67 Page Ten, REVIEW BOARD MINUTES - Continued Mr. Fast- Actually the landscape plan is approved administratively, the Review Board never approves landscaping per se, and except in the Civic Center when the Planning Commission approved it and other elements of •architecture, So from a standpoint of making a subjective decision as to whether landscaping or wall is the best; in this area, at this moment if it were just: to be approved it would ,just be the staff administering a landscape approval and we normally only are concerned generally with an approach insofar as percentage coverage and the utilization of some greenery into the area and leave the delegation of planting, etc. , to the professional the owner has approved. Unless the council has specifically said it shall be so high in' so many }ears for screening purposes Councilman Nichols: Of course the same matter was before us very recently, Mr. Mayor: where this council at least very strongly in its majority vote indicated a certain philosphy regarding the planting and landscaping on a Precise Plan, and then was turned over to the staff to implement: and the result was not exactly as the council intended. I am referring toan apartment development over on the other side of town. So sometimes evidently the minutes of the council get lost in the shuffle in the normal procedure,so.at:the very least the council should direct the staff to flag this matter and do a little more than they might normally do when it comes to the post guidance of the landscaping plan. Mayor Krieger: That .is why .I commented the council might. want to reserve judgment, that is why I used exactly those words "to reserve judgment on this matter" so we retain the jurisdiction and if we are not satisfied with the report that comes before us .. I don't think this would follow the normal. . procedures that Mr. Fast has outlined, the normal procedure would be after, action is finalized on the Precise Plana Councilman Nichols- The only point not clear in my mind is these minutes come to us from the Review Board and it seems to me we either approve or disapprove and if we disapprove any portion of this it is simply disapproved., and it is not held in abeyance, I don't understand that we have the authority to approve some portion and then just wait. Mayor Krieger: It is no different than when the Planning Commission used to hear these things. We can hear it all, approve it all, or approve it in part, or disapprove it all or in part, change any conditions we want. We are not bound by every .condition of:.the Review"Board Councilman Nichols: I can understand approving or disapproving but to hold off acting indefinitely ---- you intend, here in this body that we would approve the Review Board minutes except for that portion of such and such, which will be held off to the meeting of 1987 or what? Mayor Krieger- I didn't have that date in mind. What we are talking about is condition number 7. If the council is disposed to approve the Precise Plan with the exception of Condition Number 7, then we could say the •action of the council is to approve the conditions on the Precise Plan with the exception of Number 7 and with respect to Condition Number 7 this matter is referred back to the Review Board for a further study to such time that the applicant has submitted a landscaping plan with a recommendation by the Review Board to the council as to whether or not the original Condition Number 7 is being imposed or not or an alternative landscaping plan. Councilman Nichols- I will second that. Councilman Gleckman- With one addition, that Condition Number 6 also be limited to striped parking 10 - ADJOURNED C. Co 4/17/67 Page"Eleven REVIEW BOARD MINUTES - Continued Councilman Snyder: Is the total. C-3 all in one ownership here? Mr. Johnson: No not the total C-3 • . Councilman -Snyder: Does the location of these stores take into account the development of the total C-3 ? Mr. Johnson: Yes, it does. It is impossible at this point to know what will come in the future development, but we have kept in mind that there will be future development and have means of adding on. Councilman Snyder: .. You ° have the rear of the stores to the south - - there is C-3 frontage on Azusa to the south, is the rear of these stores going to be an affront to some development that might want. to go further. south? Mr. Johnson: No (Explained briefly with regard to future development.) Councilman Snyder: And you feel it will fit in? Mr.. Johnson: Yes. I do have the design plan with me if you would care to see it. (Council did. Mr. Johnson explained the layout) Mayor Krieger: The action of the Review Board is not to be construed as an approval of signage, is it? • Mr. Fast: No Motion by Councilman Gleckman, seconded by Councilman Gillum, that the Precise Plan Number 520 Revision I be approved as the Review Board minutes of March 31, 1967, with the exception of Condition 6 to read striped parking stalls, and Condition 7 to be held over to such time that `he developers = can produce their landscaping plan for approval by the staff and further approval from the City Council Councilman Snyder": You are not sending that portion back to the Review Board then? Councilman Gleckman: No, just administratively. Let them look at it and make their recommendation to us and at that time we can insist on a high wall, if needed Councilman Snyder: I think what the Mayor had in mind, that they submit it again to the Review Board and we could read the Review Board minutes and either approve or disapprove Mayor." Krieger: The difference would be strictly a matter of procedure, whether you would have it come to the council as a matter of course, which would be your motion; or whether" you would want to invest the • jurisdiction back in the Review Board Councilman Gleckman amended motion to read "to the Review Board"; accepted by Councilman Gillum. Motion carried, all in favor. Councilman Nichols. Mr. Menard how many parking spaces involved? Mr. Menard: 428 provided. Councilman Snyder: Although fully in accord with these areas and landscaping, - 11 -- ADJOURNED C. C. 4/17/67 Page Twelve REVIEW BOARD MINUTES - Continued we should bear in mind this kind of landscaping is costly to small landscaping plots. It is harder to keep up th.am a full lawn. Mayor Krieger: It is understood by the Review Board then that the Review Board has continuing jurisdiction in the matter of Item Number 7, and that there has not been an imposition or waiver of this condition, it is simply subject to further study and action by the Review Board. Is this understood by the applicant, Mr. Johnson? Mr. Johnson: Yes. LETTER TO COVINA RE. HOLT AVENUE INTERCHANGE FREEWAY AGREEMENT Mayor Krieger: I understand the Covina staff is waiting for the disposition on this matter before bringing It toAIh'e-CoVIria 'Ci.fy�'Coia:ncil Motion by Councilman Snyder, seconded by Councilman Gillum, that the recommenda- tion of March 27, 1967, recommending that the city council authorize a letter be prepared to the City of. Covina to be signed by the Mayor, indicating that the City of West Covina has no objection to the City of Covina executing a freeway agreement pertaining to the Holt Avenue Interchange. Councilman Gleckman. As I previously stated and I; am restating it, I feel if the City of Covina wants to help us in anyway, shape or form, • we should accept their help rather than reject. Councilman Snyder: This motion in no way.rejects their help, it merely says they can do what they want to do. Again I can see no merit in obstinateness for the sake of obstinateness or for tilting windmills for the sake of tilting windmills. In effect we are saying - go ahead and do what. you. want to do. Councilman Gleck.man: Alright Doctor, the next time we want their help we will tell them the same thing. Councilman Gillum: Although I was not at the meeting this was originally. discussed, .I have read the minutes and listened to the gape. This is a small problem, and if we stand together this time, I think we are all going to be faced with the Huntington Beach Freeway and my only feeling on that is if we don't all stand together, and get the things we have to have we are going to be faced with the same things the City is 'face�i.wfth':'-today.--A,nd-as I'interpret.ed this the Covina staff., they are asking us in a sense do we prefer them to wait until we come to an agreement with the State, or would they want us to say go ahead and sign the contract if you feel it won't do any harm with your dealings with the State. Mayor Krieger: I think that is basically the point. And the discussion we engaged in was whether tactically'this :mazy. be --something to • hold back whether or not it has any tangible value to it in end result. Councilman Gillum: We started out with a small deck of cards and everytime l can add a card to it I would prefer doing it that way, and if it is with the help of a neighboring city in anyway, shape or form, even if its through their efforts in not engaging in any contract with the•State in any small area, I: feel it would be of help to us in the overall picture. Mayor Krieger: Maybe I am confused - why did you second the motion then? - 12 ADJOURNED C., C. 4/17/67 Page Thirteen LETTER TO COVINA —Continued Councilman Gillum- Just to bring it to a vote. Councilman -Snyder- If you .i.n effect tell them not to sign the Freeway Agreement you are saying you don't approve of their drainage alignment • You have nothing to hang your hat on to, tell them not to sign the agreement. It is really up to them. Councilman .Gillum: If they weren.'t concerned about our- feelings they would have gone ahead and signed without sending any kind of a communication to this City. Councilman Snyder: . Again you,are being obstinate for the - sake -of being obstinate. -Mayor, Krieger- The point is it is a marker and they will always say you had it, whether you used it or. didn't luse ito . The net: effect to us is still the -same. Councilman: Snyder: Again, the motion in no way i.s a slap at the .City of Covina, or failure to cooperate, it just says what you are doing has no effect to us and actually •it is rather silly to think that holding off this one quadrant of the interchange ,is going to have any effect on the'Division of Highways or our signing a: Freeway Agreement. .Your thinking escapes me, really. Mayor -Krieger: : Any, further. discussion? A roll call vote,, Mrs. Preston? • Motion failed on roll call vote as'follows: AYES: -Councilmen, Nichols,, Snyder. NOES: Councilmen -Gillum, Gleckman, Mayor -Krieger. ABSENT: None Mayor Krieger: May we have -some direction to the -staff on this matter? Motion by, Councilman- C3 eckman, seconded by, Councilman. Gillum, that a .letter be sent by the City Council authorizing the `Mayor to •sign 4t, to be,sent to the- City of Covina indicating the City of West Covina appreciates their consideration in holding off executing the Freeway,Agr-eement pertaining to the Holt Avenue interchange at this time . Mayor Krieger: I gather from the -motion there ,is a two fold .purpose . One is to ,express .our appreciation that they asked our opinion and the second is that we would appreciate their holding off executing the agreement Councilman. Gleckman: . Right. Motion carried on roll call vote as follows: .AYES: Councilmen :Gillum, ,Gleckman, Mayor -Krieger. NOES: Councilmen Snyder, , Nichols. LETTER FROM PLANNING DEPARTMENT RECOMMENDING CRITERIA • BE -SET ON PRECISE PLANS AND SUBMISSION TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION INSTEAD OF THE REVIEW BOARD Motion by Councilman.Nichols, seconded by, Councilman.Gleckman, and carried, that council. accept the staff recommendation and direct that they follow their recommenda- tion to us . (Mayor -Krieger asked-Mr..Menard how soon the report would be available, -Mr. Menard stated probably the first meeting in May.) - 1.3 - ADJOURNED C., C. 4/17/67 Page Fourteen .(The'Mayor called a 10 minute recess.) LARK'-E LLE N .IMPROVEMENT RIGHT OF WAY ACQUISITION • Mayor Krieger- I hbpp the council has had an opportunity to review the material the.City Manager has on appraisals. The question is whether or not to authorize the staff to proceed on this matter. Councilman Nichols- - I have not reviewed the material but it was by choice, because of the position I have on it. Councilman Gillum- I have. Councilman .Gleckman- I have not reviewed it. Councilman Snyder. I have not reviewed .it. City Manager, Mr..Aiassa- One thing I want to clarify with the council while on the subject. -We discussed this matter with the appraiser- Mr.. H . .: Baker and we find the appraisal he gave is the best market appraisal. He also gave us an alternative, for example' say the price was 10� more per square foot than exactly offered, he -feels we -should evaluate -it on this basis and settle,it out of court instead of going into condemnation proceedings. He suggested we keep a kind of a uniform value--as-far-as the appraisal, for example on most of our appraisals we allow usually -10 or 15% of those going to condemnation, because when you figure out that there is only $7600. in -total and if we get one lawsuit in condemnation we will spend_$1200 or $1500. We are going to make -the offer of the appraisal about 10� more on a square foot basis. we are going to try each individual case and if they take the offer -fine. If not we will come back and renegotiate. Mayor Krieger- I understood your recommendation was to just approve appraisal prices. If you submit an offer to them and they come back within the range and you .want to bring it back to the council, that's one thing. City Manager, Mr..Aiassa- I wanted.a little leeway. - Say I only get one or or two or none. . If it is the council ° s wish I will bring it back, but if they take the appraisal they would not have to come back. Mayor Krieger; The Council would have to approve the contract regardless. City -Manager, Mr. Aiassa. I No this is under the 1911 Act. Mayor Krieger: I must misunderstand it then. City -Manager, Mr. Aiassa-, Under the 1911 Act the appraisal that you have here , they -will go ahead and file that and then we go ahead and proceed ..... but we still have an acquisition to go through. .And what we did on two other acquisitions we utilized the staff to go out and make an offer (explained) . Councilman -Snyder. What do you want in your motion? City Manager, Mr..Aiassa- I want a motion from the council to go ahead and accept the appraisal as proposed by Harrison Baker and that the staff be ,authorized to proceed and meet with the property owners and see if we can acquire this property as outlined in the appraiser's report subject toa 10� limit adjustment: as stated in his appraisal. 14 - ADJOURNED C., C. 4/17/67 Page Fifteen LARK E'LLEN IMPROVEMENT --Continued Mayor -Krieger: 10� or 10%? City Manager, Mr..Aiassa.- Well, I prefer 10, per square foot. -Actually in total .it doesn't amount to over $1200. if we give everybody that. -M-otion`by Qouncilman Snyder,. &e.conded by`Coi rrciTman.Gledkman, that the council authorizes the City Manager to accept the appraisal as proposed by Harrison Baker, and .further authorizes the staff to proceed and meet with the individual property owners. and attempt to acquire the property, as outlined .in the -appraiser's report subject to a 10� per square foot limitationadjustment as stated in his appraisal. Motion carried on roll call vote as follows, .AYES- Councilmen.. Gillum,, -Snyder,: Gleckman, Mayor Krieger. NOES: : Councilman Nichols ABSENT. None EXPIRING COMMISSION TERMS Mayor Krieger: This is a reminder to Council that the4oilowing vacancies are coming up on June 30, 1967. . Personnel Board -z Robert Young; Recreation & Park.Commission - William H-Johnson; Planning Commission - Paul McCannP and the five members on the Human.Relations-Commission. • Councilman Gleckman: I would suggest that we sit in May and our -decision should be -madeby the first of June, if. for no other reason but to give proper notification to those that might be ,reappointed or the ones that are appointed, so people can plan their vacations, etc. Councilman Gillum: Do we still have a list of the people that applied for appointments last year? City Manager Mr. •Aiassa Yes, I have the file . Last term I guess - the -Mayor was given the -alternative to contact each, of the candidates whose term was expiring tocheck to )see ,if they were willing to serve again and we then .reported back to the council. . The ,reason this was done, because we at one time considered a reappointment of a candidate and then he -decided .he did not want to Councilman.Snyder: I think it is proper that between now and May these people be asked .if they wish to be reappointed and this does not imply that they will be, but if they -wish to'be . considered for reappointment. Mayor Krieger: Is that the feeling of the -Council, and if so, who do you want to. do it. • . Councilman :.Snyder: It involves a little'bit of work. Motion by -Councilman -Snyder, seconded by Councilman .Gleckman, and carried, that the City -Manager or his administrative assistant be authorized to contact the people involved and ask if they wish to be considered for reappointment to this Commission. Mayor Krieger: How about the interviews with the -Council, should that be in the month .of May? (Discussion followed.) - 15 'ADJOURNED C. C. 4/17/67 Page'Si.xteen EXPIRING COMMISSION TERMS - Continued It was agreed that the:Council would concern itself with the available -pool of applicants, that the staff circulate 'a list of all the applicants previously inter- viewed and the councilmen were to •indicate on .the list their first and second • preferences, and write in the name of someone not on the list if they -had someone else •in mind . .After the list has-been circulated then the -date -would be set. COUNCIL COMMITTEE REPORTS Councilman Gillum reported that the car he drove in the name of the City of West Covina finished fifth in the,economy run; was well received in all cities; and the plaques from the City and the recognition from. the:Chamber of. Commerce, were greatly. appreciated by all the Mayors of the Cities . Councilman Gleckman: I would like to ask -when your next meeting, Mayor -Krieger, is With the State'Divi.sion of. Highways ? Mayor Krieger: Mr.. Hoy -is supposed to get back with ..me in "May with the feasibility report on the South Vincent and the underpasses. We weren't setting up a meeting until. I got a report back. Councilman Gleckman: I would request of this council with your permission, that at the next meeting of the'Highways -I would like -to sit in at the -discussion. • Mayor Krieger: Speaking only for myself - I only went because the councilauthorized me to go. . The more the merrier. Recognizing, of' course, that if' you have more then two councilmen then you -will not be complying -with the •Brown:.Act . Councilman .Snyder: I have no objection to your going- as long as your, comments are in line "with the recommendations of the council. Mayor'Krieger: I have no,objection. I would feel greatly relieved to have somebody observe the •type of discussions we have. Councilman Snyder: The motion authorizing the Mayor to negotiate, as -1 recall it,, specified in at least broadoutlines what we wanted in the -Freeway Agreement and any negotiation,to depart from that shouldrequire approval of the council. Motion by, Councilman .Gillum, seconded by. Councilman Gleckman, .and carried, that Councilman .Gleckman or one other councilman be approved to attend meetings with the'Mayor and the State'Division of Highways Department. Councilman .Nichols: One comment. . You have already attended one meeting and .I would hope,that Councilman Gleckman benefits from your previous experience before you join in a meeting. again. • Mayor"Krieger: I have asked:.Councilman Gleckman if he would cover the Harvey Johnson testimonial dinner, because I have the ,Little'League to attend on:Friday night. :We sent a letter as suggested in our discussion and it has been further suggested that we authorize one of the City Seal plaques. This is consistent with what we did previously when we sent a plaque toAssemblyinan 86h4barum`- -T think this was a' fine suggestion ma'de%y Mr. Councilman .Nichols moved that the council authorize the presentation of a City Plaque toAssemblyman-Johnson, seconded by -Councilman lGillum, and carried. - 16 Windsor] ADJOURNED C o . C o 4/17/67 COUNCIL COMMITTEE REPORTS - Continued PROCLAMATION • Public School Week - 4/24 to 4/29/67 C, Page Seventeen Mayor Krieger: If there are no objections, I will so proclaim (No objections voiced.) So proclaimed Mayor Krieger: I was contacted by the staff, and asked whether or not the Council would entertain a movie tonight on Planned Unit Development from the Planning Department, and I indicated there would be no objection, with the thought in mind that it be at the end of the agenda and if any councilmen did not wish to stay they would not need to stay. The meeting will adjourn and then .Mr. Menard will show the movie. Motion by. Councilman Gillum,. seconded by. Councilman Gleckman, that there being no further business the adjourned meeting of April 17, 1967, be adjourned, at 9. 20 p . m a . Motion carried ATTEST: CITY CLERK APPROVED MAYOR - 17 -