Loading...
07-10-1967 - Regular Meeting - MinutesMINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL CITY OF WEST COVINA, CALIFORNIA JULY 10, 1967. The regular meeting of the City Council was called to order by'Mayor Krieger at 7:30 p.m., in the West Covina City Hall. Councilman Gillum led the Pledge of Allegiance. The Reverend Roy R. Bullock of Delhaven Christian Church gavethe invocation. ROLL CALL Presents Mayor Krieger, Councilmen Gillum, Nichols, Gleckman, Snyder. Also Presents Mr. .H. Williams, City Attorney George Aiassa, City Manager George Zimmerman, Aselt. City Engineer Owen Menard, Planning Director Ray.Windsor_, Administrative Assistant Lela Preston, Deputy City Clerk APPROVAL OF MINUTES June 12, 1967 m Approved as corrected. - Mayor Krieger-, Page 36, motion on Collective Bargaining, Assembly Bill, should show Councilman Gleckman and Mayor Krieger voting "Aye."; Councilman Nichols abstaining; . and Councilmen Snyder and Gillum absents The motion on Police Compensation should show Councilman Gleckman. and Mayor Krieger voting "Aye"; Councilman Nichols voting "No"; and Councilmen Gillum and Snyder absent. Motion by Councilman Gleckman, seconded by Councilman Gillum, and carried that the Minutes of June 12, 1967, be approved as corrected. June 26, 1967 m Approved as corrected: Councilman Snyder: A statement attributed to me, Page 6, "I would like to commend our council representative, Mr. Gillum", add the words "said facetiously." Mayor Kriegers On Page 29, top of the page, motion by Councilman Gleckman, second line should read "as submitted by the city manager's instead of 4°city attorney". Motion by Councilman Gleckman, seconded by Councilman Gillum, and carried, that the Minutes of June 26, 1967, be approved as corrected. PRESENTATION OF GENERAL PLAN BLUE RIBBON COMMITTEE REPORT TO CITY COUNCIL Mayor Krieger: The -chair recognizes Dr. McColl as cochairman 'of the General Plan Blue Ribbon Committee. Dr..William McColl I am appearing today as co-chairman of the Citizens 1333 So..Hillward Committee for the General Plan revision. West Covina Mr. Mayor and members of the City Council, some months ago the Citizens Committee for the General Plan revision was activated. Approximately 100 citizens who originally y 1 C. C. 7-10-67 Page Two • GENERAL PLAN BLUE RIBBON COMMITTEE REPORT ® Continued indicated a desire to participate in this program as a result of the Mayor's survey once again answered the calls These citizens met for approximately 3 months ® 9 subcommittees. A comprehensive report, deal- ing with each facet of the development of the City is the result. It has been my distinct pleasure along with Mr. Kenneth Chappell Co-Ohairman, and who was unable to attend tonight, to present to you these reports which are the result of many long hours of study and analysis by a group of many hardworking citizens. In addition to these extensive reports there is also included an analysis of them conducted by the City"s Planning Consultant ®.Williams, Cook & Mocine, It is hopeful that this material will be helpful to you, the Planning Consultant and the City staff in guiding the future of this City. Thank you very much. Mayor Krieger: Thank you Dr. McColl. I know that Councilman Snyder served as liaison of the Committee. Councilman Snyder: The very nature of the Committee was that I helped get it started and after getting it started left it in the good hands of Dr. McColl and Mr. ChappeA knowing that we would eventually see the material. I have one question of Mr. Menard. Shouldn't these reports go to the Planning Commission too? Or is the council to refer them there? Mr. Aiassa, City Manager: The council should receive and refer them there. Councilman Snyder: It was a very hardworking Committee and was broken up into many sub -committees, also the staff worked very hard with the sub -committees. Mayor Krieger: I know I speak for the Council also when I say • I do thank you J)r..McColl and Mr. Chappell and through you the members of the Citizens Committee that worked on this plan. I know the Planning Consultant emphasized the importance of this type of committee. We are oing to ask them hers of this co�1m itttee to retu�zrn so s we m p en to tthem, as well as to you an FE. Chappell,the groutsa of Ke 8l�y ounci1. Councilman Snyder: One other point, committee members, although they submitted this report, when the General Plan hearings start at the Planning Commission level, then City Council, m at that time the members have a right to come ih and back up their findings and should before those bodies, if they are so interested. Mayor Krieger: This is the procedure we followed with other Committees, so they can see the work product brought to bear. CITY CLERK'S REPORTS PRECISE PLAN NO. 496 LOCATION: North Azusa Avenue between MOUNTJOY CONSTRUCTION CO. Workman and Garvey Avenues. APPROVED Accept Street improvements. Authorize release of Industrial Indemnity Comppare�r Bond No. YS621-1836 in the amount of U00. • Motion by Councilman.Gleckman., seconded by Councilman_ Gillum,,. and. carried, that Council...accept street improvements on Precise .Plan No. 496_and authorize release of Industrial Indemnity Company Bond No. YS621-1836 in the amount of 4700. ® 2 • LJ • C. C. 7-10-67 Page Three CITY CLERK'S REPORTS ® Continued TRACT NO, 26875 LOCATION: Rama Drive and Meeker Avenue, JOHN R. FIT.ZGERALD north of Yarnell Street, APPROVED Accept street improvements. Authorize release of Firemen's Insurance Co; of Newark, New Jersey, bond No. S-1665059 in the amount of $2,400,00. Motion by Councilman Gleckman,-seconded by Councilman Gillum, and carried, that council accept street improvements Tract No. 26875 and. authorize the release of Firemen's Insurance Co. of Newark, New Jersey, Bond No, S-1605059 in the amount of $2,400,00, RESOLUTION NO. 3609 The Deputy City Clerk presented: "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE ADOPTED CITY OF WEST COVINA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING CERTAIN SPECIFICATIONS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF 1964 STORM DRAIN BOND ISSUE PROJECTS 8401, UNIT 2 (LINE C) AND 8402, UNIT 3 (PORTION OF LINE B) IN THE CITY OF WEST COVINA, CALIFORNIA, AND AUTHORIZING USE OF PUBLIC STREETS FOR OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE OF THESE FACILITIES°" Mayor Krieger: Hearing no objection, waive further reading of the body of the resolution. Motion by Councilman Gleckman, seconded by Councilman Gillum, that Council adopt said resolution. Motion carried on roll call as follows: AYES: Councilmen Gillum, Nichols, Gleckman, Snyder, Mayor Krieger NOES: None ABSENT: None RESOLUTION NO. 3610 The Deputy City Clerk presented: "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE ADOPTED CITY OF WEST COVINA, CALIFORNIA, REQUESTING THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF THE LOB ANGELES COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA TO ACCEPT ON BEHALF OF SAID DISTRICT A TRANSFER AND CONVEYANCE OF STORM DRAIN IMPROVEMENTS AND DRAINAGE SYSTEMS KNOWN AS TD 201, IN THE CITY OF WEST COVINA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, FOR FUTURE OPERATION, MAINTENANCE, REPAIR AND IMPROVEMENT, Mayor Krieger: Hearing no objection, waive further reading of the body of the resolution. Motion by Councilman Gleckman, seconded by Councilman Gillum, that coji,hcil adopt said resolution. Motion carried on roll call as follows: AYES: Councilmen Gillum, Nichols, Gleckman, Snyder, Mayor Krieger NOES: None ABSENT: None RESOLUTION NO. 3611 The Deputy City Clerk presented: "A RESOLUTION OF THE"CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF WEST COVINA, CALIFORNIA, ADOPTED REQUESTING THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA, TO PERMIT THE USE OF CERTAIN GASOLINE TAX MONEY ALLOCATED AS COUNTY AID TOWARDS THE IMPROVEMENT OF CERTAIN STREETS DESCRIBED BELOW, BY THE CONSTRUCTION OF ASPHALTIC 3 Co Co 7-10-67 Page Four CITY CLERK'S REPORTS RESOLUTION NO. 3611 (Continued) Mayor Krieger: PAVEMENT ON AGGREGATE BASIS AND APPURTENANT WORK." Hearing no objection, waive further reading of the body of said resolution. Motion by Councilman Gleckman, seconded by Councilman Gillum, that Council adopt said resolution. Motion carried on roll call as follows: AYES: Councilmen Gillum, Nichols, Gleckman, Snyder, Mayor Krieger NOES: None ABSENT: None PLANNING COMMISSION PARCEL MAP NOo 31 LOCATION: 1416 Willow Avenue INAR HANSETH APPROVED 2 Lots - approximately .626 Acres Area District I. Approved by Planning Commission on July 5, 1967. Mr, Menard, Planning Director, presented staff report, along with diagram of property. Councilman Nichols: A comment for the benefit of the council as this Ltex— might be referred to again sometime in the future. Council may recall sometime back a request for a lot split was before the council on a parcel near this parcel. I believe it was on Meeker Avenue, approximately 4 block over from this lot, As I recall the geography of •the parcel wAs more or�less reversed relative to the street frontage and the vote of the Planning Commission and the Council at that time denied that lot split because it was given a substandard street frontages. Because of some comments made to me by citizens in that general area I am lead to believe there may be future efforts .to return for the original lot splits citing this lot split as a precedence.9 without debating the merits of it6 I wanted to keep this before the council so you would be aware of there two separate actions, Councilman Snyder: Wasn't there a problem of a building on the other lot split? Councilman, -Nichols: There were several problems, Councilman Snyder: I remember the lot split you are speaking about and _there was some controversy about it and this makes me hesitate on this one until we find out why we turned down the other one, (Mr. Menard was asked if he had any material regarding the other lot request or recollection of what transpired. He replied he did not. Discussion followed regarding sidewalks, driveway, etc Mr. Zimmerman stated that the recommendation of the Planning Commission calls.for sidewalks as a condition and that the applicant has five years in which to do it,) • Councilman Snyder: These are both standard sized lots. Whatever the merits of that other lot split were, this meets the area district requirements and I don't see how we can turn it down. Motion by Councilman Gleckman, seconded by Councilman Gillum, and carried, that Parcel Map 31 be approved subject to conditions 1 and 2 - A, B, C. — 4 — 9 Co C. 7-10-67 PLANNING COMMISSION - Continued Page Five Mayor Krieger: _Resolution No. 1964 of the Planning Commission pertaining to the interpretation of section 9219.4 of Municipal Code relating to amusement devices is not binding unless approved by the Council - is that correct Mr. Williams? (Mr. Williams agreed,) Mr, Menard, Planning -Director, read the Planning Commission Resolution No. 1964. Councilman Snyder asked what the distinction was between this device and the temporary devices like a merry-go-round, Mr. Menard stated temporary devices typical of shopping centers are allowed on a three day special event, whereas this structure would need an interpretation for a permanent amusement device if the permit is granted, Mayor Krieger: We have a matter of interpretation here, are there questions by the Council? Councilman Gleckman: Mr, Williams - regarding the interpretation, does this mean that under the Unclassified Use Permit - is there a business license involved? Mr, Williams, City Attorney: There would be a business license regardless whether it was covered in a zone or an unclassified use. permit; Councilman Gleckman: Does the City then set certain require- ments and do we have such requirements to protect the insurability?. Mr, Williams, City Attorney: If you approve this Resolution and an • Unclassified Use Permit is required you do have the opportunity to impose conditions as insurance, liability to protect the public, a bond to guarantee the removal of the structure if it was abandoned. If it was automaticall permitted you wouldn't have it. I don't believe in this a th t to an ar nt ev made t utomatical1y permi Read he aulomaic prof sions w�tnh regard o amusement devices,) This is not such a use. It is a free standing use., a use by itself. I don't think it is capable of any other interpretation, Councilman Gleckman: We would still have another go at this all we are doing now is interpreting whether it be an unclassified use or not? Mayor Krieger:. We are not passing on an unclassified use permit,.merely on an interpretation of the Planning Commission. Councilman Gleckman: I agree with the Planning Commission6 recommendation, Motion by Councilman Snyder, seconded by Councilman Gleckman, and carried, that Resolution 1964 of the Planning Commission be approved,. • REVIEW PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION July 59 1967 Mayor Krieger: The Planning Commission action of July 5 has only to do with the matter that we have just passed on, is that correct Mr,. Menard? (Mr, Menard advised it was,) - 5 - C. Co 7-10-67 Page Six SCHEDULED. MATTERS BIDS PROJECT PB-6400 LOCATION: Civic Center north of TEMPORARY PARKING LOT IMPROVEMENT Service Avenue west of HOLD -OVER to JULY.24 library building. Bids were received in the office of the City Clerk at 10:00 A.M.,l on Wednesday, July 59, 1967. AMAN BROTHERS 790.42.64 KROHL & LARSON. 179081.80 The recommendation is that the award of this contract be held over until next council meeting when funding negotiations should be completed. Motion by Councilman Snyder, seconded by Councilman Gleckman, that the report be accepted and held over to the next council meeting on July 24th. Councilman Gillum: The estimate versus what the bids actually came in at ® this seems to be quite a difference. Mr. Aiassa, City Managers This is the reason we are holding it over to discuss with the County Library. If they want us to go ahead we will, if they want us to reject the bids we will do so. (Discussion followed regarding whether the bids were actually valid. It was explained by -Mr. Aiassa and Mr. Zimmerman that they were actually •valid bids, that the error was made due to the fact that there were only two bids submitted which is a very small number and makes it extremely difficult to estimate a small job like this when it involves unusual work. The parking lot was not a standard parking lot construction and it was thought to be for a temporary period of time. Because of that it was not something you could apply past experience to in a routine manner and evidently this and not securing>a half dozen bids instead of only two caused the error in estimating.). Motion carried, all were in favor. PROJECT TS-67007-1 LOCATION:. Cameron Avenue at Valinda TRAFFIC SIGNAL IMPROVEMENT Avenue,'and Cameron Avenue at Lark Ellen Avenue. Bids were received in the office of the City Clerk at 10:00 A.M. on Wednesday, July 5, 1967. A total of four bids were received and reviewed. All were found to be valid proposals. WILLIAM R. HAHN 25,888.00 PAUL GARDNER CORPORATION 269250.00 SMITH ELECTRIC SUPPLY 126,5&1.18 STEINE & MITCHELL, INC. 4269667.00 The recommendation is that the low bid of William R. Hahn of LaHabra • be accepted. Motion by Councilman Snyder, seconded by Councilman Gleckman, that the council accept the low unit bid of William R. Hahn of LaHabra in the amount of $25,888.00 Project TS-6700-1; and that the Mayor and City Clerk be authorized to, -execute the contract and that the unsuccessful bid bonds be returned. Motion carried on roll call as follows: AYES: Councilmen Gillum, Nichols, Gleckman, Snyder, Mayor Krieger NOES: None ABSENT: None C. C. 7-10`=67 Page Seven SCHEDULED MATTERS ® Continued - PROJECT TS®6407m4 LOCATION: Amar Road and Azusa Avenue TRAFFIC. SIGNAL MODIFICATION Bids were received in the office of ADOPTED the City Clerk at 10:00 A.M., on Wednesday, July 5, 1967. A total of were found to be valid bid proposals, four bids received and reviewed, All STEINY; & MITCHEL; INC. 5035.00 PAUL GARDNER CORPORATION 1.5130.00 SMITH ELECTRIC SUPPLY $5157.37 WILLIAM R.HAHN $5158.00 The recommendation is that the low lump sum bid of Steine & Mitchell Inc,, be accepted. Motion by Councilman Snyder, seconded by Councilman Gleckman, that the Council accept the low lump sum bid of Steine & Mitchell of Los Angeles for Project TS-6407-4 and the Mayor and City Clerk be authorized to execute the agreement for the work in the amount of $5,035.00; and the unsuccessful bid bonds be returned. Motion carried on roll call as follows: AYES- Councilmen Gillum, Nichols, Gleckman, Snyder, Mayor Krieger NOES: None ABSENT: None • ASPHALT CONCRETE BIDS (67-100) FOR FISCAL YEAR 1967-68 Motion by Councilman Gleckman, seconded by Councilman Gillum, that the Ci-ty Council award the bid for the 1967-68 as haltic paving materials to Industrial Asphalt at their low bid price of 3.75 per ton F.O.B. their Irwindale Plant and that the controller issue an annual purchase order for the 1967-68 fiscal year for approximately 3000 tons of the 3/8ths" coarse graded Type D asphaltic paving material per 1964 Division of Highways specification at $3.75 per ton F.O.B. plant as needed upon the order of the Street Division Supervisor. Motion carried on roll call as follows: AYES: Councilmen Gillum, NOES: None ABSENT: None LEGAL ADVERTISING Nichols, Gleckman, Snyder, Mayor Krieger Bids received in office of City Clerk on June 28; 1967, at 10:00 A.M. Mayor Krieger: City Clerk Mrs. Preston, is there anything further you wish to add? (Answer: No.) Councilman Snyder: Does the newspaper that bids on these have to have a central office in the City? The Herald & Examiner doesn't but the Times does have a San Gabriel Valley section, are they interested in bidding on this? Mr. Williams, City Attorney: They are not qualified. They have to be printed and published in the City, which means at least one half of the work of the setting of type and the printing must be done in the City and the Times, of course, doesn't qualify on this, 7 C. C.o 7-10-67 Page Eight SCHEDULED BIDS - Continued Motion by Councilman Gleckman, seconded by Councilman Gillum, that the bid of the West. Covina Tribune regarding legal advertising bids be approved and accepted as submitted. Motion carried on roll call as • follows: AYES: Councilmen Gillum, Nichols, Gleckman, Snyder, Mayor Krieger NOES: None ABSENT: None HEARINGS ZONE CHANGE NO. 380 LOCATION:. 1128 and 1204 South Glendora UNCLASSIFIED USE PERMIT Avenue, at the easterly corner .NO, 116 - S,D.C,, INC. of Merced and Glendora Avenues,. Request to reclassify from Zone R-P to Zones 0-1 and R-3, Mayor Krieger: It would be the suggestion of the chair that these matters be separated for pur- poses of hearing and that the council separately hear and discuss and pass upon the Zone Change before hearing and passing upon the Unclassified Use Permit. Is there any objection on the council to that procedure? There being none, this is the time and place for the Public Hearing on Zone Change No, 380. ZONE -CHANGE NO, 380 • Mayor Krieger: Madam City Clerk do you have the affidavit of publication and mailing? Deputy City Clerk: Yes - Motion by Councilman Gleckman:, seconded by Councilman Gillum, and carried, 'to receive and file, Mr. Menard, Planning Director., read Planning Commission Resolution No, 1961 pertaining to the Zone Change, presented maps and staff report. MAYOR. KRIEGER THEN DECLARED THE PUBLIC HEARING OPEN, IN FAVOR Dave Easley, of S.D.C. Neighborhood Shopping Center Developers 2435 East Coast Highway Corona Del Mar Basically we are seeking this appeal because we have what we feel is a very strong argument in our favor. We have Leases with two major corporations that want to go into this location - Tic Toc, a convenience type market; and the other is a service station - Richfield Oil, They have made a survey of the area and feel there is definitely a need and would like to serve here. This would also provide a buffer zone between • what would be commercial and the neighborhood by providing for a C-2. I think we came in under R-3 in :the shuffle and it should have been R-2e Our argument is that we have made a survey of the area and we wish to come in and present a shopping and commercial area which is compatible with the community. We have never done anything that hasn't been compatible with the community. We have a number of shopping tatters going now in California and Arizona. We feel it is the highest and best use of the land and what we would put in represents several hundred thousand dollars. What with the other corners being C-1 we feel it is a logical request to make this C-1. We know there is a study underway but our feeling is that we have interested commercial concerns who want to go into this area - 8 - C. Co 7-10-67 Page Nine ZONE CHANGE NO. 38.0 ® Continued to serve the community. We have a plan for a very attractive develop- ment and feel that the other concerns in the area are commercial and they are established as such and no matter what studies come up they are probably always going to stay commercial. We don't plan to provide a quickie strip type commercial there as the Planning Commission felt. We simply want to present and prepare something very attractive for the community. Thank you, A. J. Pe.11egerni I am a real estate agent for Tic Toe 2584 Newport Blvd. Markets and we selected.,..this area. Costa Mesa They have developed about 87 shopping centers and we like to locate backed up by heavy residential, similar to this location. This shopping market is similar to the 7-11 Markets, There are several thousand of these markets throughout the country and they have found that middle of the block locations is not the best location for a convenience market. They like to locate on a corner but find that too expensive, and so they have found that next to the corner and alongside of a service station is the ideal spot, it opens up to a good view of the corner and it is easy to get in and out of. I would like to answer any questions that members of the council may have, IN OPPOSITION None, There being no further public testimony, public portion of the hearing closed. Discussion by Council. Councilman Snyder: I have a question of the staff, Under • the City Beautification or improvement of highways is there a center divider planned for either Glendora or Merced? Mr. Zimmerman, Ass't, City Engineer: Yes, Glendora is planned to have a landscaped median. Merced, however would remain as it now is without any median, Councilman Snyder: I bring this up because recently one Service Station who fought valiantly to get on a corner and now there is a center divider on both streets approaching the corner and they claim no one can get into their place. This has something to do with the zone change because it is access to commercial whether it is a service station or whatever it is. It is not important but it is something to think about, Councilman Gillum: On R®3 how many units per acre m 25? (Answer: Correct,) I think what you are talking about here is zoning part of it R®3 and part C®lo I myself would feel as guilty zoning R®3 right in residential as the council has been accused in the past of,strip zoning going down to 0-1. I couldn't see R-3 in that area. I know up the street and across the street I believe there is R-3 on Wescove but it is an area •that is not developed and was originally built behind commercial in an apartment area. It seems to me we would be starting something, I couldn't support R-3 in that particular area at this time. Mayor Krieger: Mr. Williams, the applicant has made some reference that they were really after Rm2 rather than.R®3, It is within the province of the council in their consideration and judgment on the zone change to grant a more restrictive use_ within the residential zono'. is.it not? Mr, Williams, City Attorney: It is where the more restrictive use includes every use that the higher use ® 9 Co C. 7-10-67 Page Ten L' • 11 ZONE CHANGE NO, 380 m Continued did and I think this is not true in the commercial zones but it is in the R zones ® you could grant a.R®2, Councilman Nichols: My recollection is that one or two years ago this parcel of land was before this council on a request for RmP zoning and I believe at that -time There was considerable concern that the residential areas adjacent to this parcel be protected from an intrusion of excessive traffic noises; the particular concern at that time was that Truman Place not become a sore point in the residential neighborhood and if I recall correctly the council stipulated in the R-P zoning to require a dedication of footage to the City, in order that access on to Truman Place not be permitted under any development of that property under R-Po Does anyone else recall that? Mayor Krieger: It seems to me there was a 1' dedication, Councilman Nichols: This was my recollection and the present applicant may not be aware of that. In any event the reason for that consideration is every bit as paramount in my mind tonight as it was -at that time. I could not justify the Rm3 zone, or Rm2 zone, When it came before the council -.the maximum relief I could justify at that time was the R®P zoning and that at least t'bxee members of this present council did grant. As far as the heavier commercial use there is vacant commercial land all the way up and down Glendora Avenue at the present time and I doubt if any person could indicate with justification the need for additional commercial zoning along Glendora Avenue at this time. And, as my understanding of the matter of zoning leads me to believe certain things ® is the primary conclusion is that a councilman must demonstrate in his own mind that there is a need for a particular type of zone and so since the last action of zoning on this parcel I have seen no conditions that have developed in our community that would indicate a justification either for a multiple housing type of zoning or a commercial zoning at this time, Councilman Snyder: There is some confusion here ® what is the present zoning on this parcel? Mr, Aiassa, City Manager: R®P, Mayor Krieger-. It is all restricted professional, Mr. Menard will you read the permitted uses in the Cml zone? (Read by Mr, Menard) Councilman Snyder: My comment would be this m I think any reference to the DMJM report does not carry too much weight, since that report was never adopted by this Council or the .Planning Commission, I think there is good evidence in the General Plan to keep the rear portion which fronts on Truman Plane as residential either Rml or possibly R®2. However, the area along Merced and Glendora - there is an old house on there now and it doesn't seem too conceivable that anybody would come in there and build a R-1 development between the R®P to the east and the old residential developments along Glendora to the north on this busy intersection. Now the question is ® has commercial been justified? If we are going to add any commercial anywhere this is one spot where I could see adding it because this is probably the best use for that corner. However, we appear to have a tendency when we don't want to give commercial and we know we can't make it residential we throw in RmP and get an over abundance of R®P for the City. I am not convinced that R-P is the proper zoning for that corner and that commercial isn't the highest and best use for the front portion with the rear portion remaining as R®lo There is no- reason you can't put R®1 back up against commercial as well as R-2o It appears to me that the corner is more a commercial corner than a special or R-P, Mayor Krieger: So there is no confusion on this point, I don't know whether there was in your last -remarks Dr, Snyder - this entire 10 C. C. 7-10-67 Page Eleven ZONE CHANGE NO. 380 - Continued property is now zoned R-P. (Mr. Menard explained the zoning of the property presently using the maps and pointing out the zoning boundaries.) • Councilman Snyder: Speaking -to the request and if I am correct, the pink and brown map is the outlines of the request? (Right) I would rather see the brown part return to R-1 and there was a map shown that this could be cul de saced or triangular lots built and the front be granted commercial. It seems to me the best use for this corner is commercial and not R-P. We have more of an over abundance of R®P than we have an over abundance of commercial. Mayor Krieger: Mr. Williams - does the council have this legal option in this application to take a portion of the property which is R-A and a portion of the property which is R®P and change the zone to R-12 Mr, Williams, City Attorney: No.,. you couldn't change the portion to R-1. You could, in this application according to what Dr. Snyder said, grant the C-1 and deny the R-3, but you could not grant R-1. You could initiate a change if you wanted to but not in this proceedings. Councilman Gleckman-, Mr. Williams, the request for C-1 takes in a particular boundary line so indicated on this subdivision map, if the approval for C-1 was to be effective it would have to take in the entire • parcel as the applicant is so submitting for. Mr. Williams, City Attorney: You can grant as much or less but not more. Councilman Gleckman: I would believe that there might be some merit to the idea of the front part of this being C-1, but as it presently exists on the zoning map I don't feel the necessity has been shown here for the location of C-1 as submitted and at the same time I hesitate to introduce C®1 located next to R-P and R-1 as presently exists and I think the R-P zoning given on this property sometime ago is the best and highest use on this particular.plece of property - as It presently exists. Is the R®A all owned presently by the same property owner? Mr. Easley: Yes the whole parcel Is owned by the same party. Councilman Gleckman: Thank you. Does somebody on the council recollect why you would zone some of it R-P and leave a parcel R-A? Councilman Nichols: My initial recollection this evening as you will recall was a comment on a desire to protect the R-1 residential, I believe now that our act of zoning, leaving the om- strip -abutting Truman Place was. • to prevent the use of that portion fronting on Truman Place from gainina, a -commercial use and commercial entrance. I thought we did it -by 4tetain- 1 ing a V lot but I.don't believe we did, I believe we retained that zoning which also aligned it with the R-1-property on other alignments and we left the R®A as it was. Mayor Krieger: I sense a conse4pus having to do with that portion of the zone application which pertains to the R-P and R-A to R®3 and I would agree. There certainly has been no need shown to make such a Co Co 7-10-67 Page Twelve ZONE CHANGE NO. 380 - Continued change, having to do with the C®1 from the R-P and I particularly asked for the type of uses from the Planning Director to see what possibilities we would have if the zone, change was granted. I would rather agree with Dr. Snyder's comments having to do with probably the highest and best use for that corner going to C-10 Certainly the present condition of the property suggests an indefinite deterioration and if there is a possibility to.develop that corner for C-1 purposes talking strictly among all the purposes and uses as indicated by the.Planning Director, I think I would be .-.-,.disposed to vote for the zone change, merely on that portion of the property having to do with the C-1. Certainly there has been no showing at all having to do with the less restricted residential use. Councilman Nichols: It would seem that if the thesis that you posed was implemented at some point in the development of the land that there would be at least one parcel of land, that is the remaining R®P portion that is now requested for R-3, would be. in fact land locked. It would in fact be bordered on the west by a C-1 par-cel and on the east by a R-4 parcel leaving a small narrow area of R®P and with no access to it. The only other observation I.would make would be that I would be very reticent to see the council give consideration to the zoning on land based on a deteriorating aspect. I am afraid tdo often that someone who has their heart set on some other type of 'asage begins with intent to allow a piece of property to. deteriorate and to use that fact in itself as a weight of argument.or a lever to attempt tb obtain some other use. I would rather instead that the City use its normal devices for the upgrading of areas and the maintenance of deteriorating areas rather than attempt to reimprove those areas by changing the zoning. Councilman Snyder: That Is not the only reason ® I think the other reason was that I feel strongly that we have more than enough R-P and again when we can't quite be convinced to grant 0-1 we make another R®P and that is how we got a lot of it. I agree with you that the back part should be kept what it is except possibly the R-P by initiation of zoning be zoned back to R-1 or residential. Mr. Williams, is it allowable to park on R-P zoned properties for O.-1 usages? (Mr. Menard answered 11nott') Mr. Williams, City Attorney: You can't use R®P for 0-1 uses. Councilman Snyder: However, it is not entirely land locked because it is accessible from the R®P on Merced. Mayor. Krieger-. The whole configuration of that property suggests the possibility at any future date as far as the land locked development, of the. property, it was an inherent problem that we, discussed at some length at the time that this zoning came in and when it came in, as I recall, it had to do with the extension of Merced Avenue and we were faced with that problem at the time. Looking at the zoning map that we • have here we have three corners in 0-1 backed up against R-P. Asfar as the possibility of development of the rear portion that might retain a R®P character or another character that this council might attach to it - I think that is the problem of the owner of the property. Our decision right now has to be based on whether or not there is any portion of the zone change or all of it that we can agree with. All I am saying is I can agree with a portion having to do with the zone change but not all ofAt. I think this whole thing was a legacy as far as that zoning was concerned, - 12 - Co 0, 7-10-67 Page Thirteen ZONE CHANGE.NO. 38o ® Continued Councilman Gleckman.,0 When you talk about going along with part of this property going to C®1 that was my question to the City Attorney, because I felt if C-1 was to be considered at all it should line up with the 0-1 across the street, And if it did that it would leave an odd shaped piece of property remaining and I see nothing but a problem there as to the usage that would be later put on that parcel of land because ofthesize of it and we come right back to some.of the things that are in our 0-1 zoning that I couldn't go along with zoning this 0-1 becauseofthe possibility of that usage going on that property. Councilman Snyder: But you still have the same problem on the property in -the back no matter what. Even if you leave R®P the property in the backineffect is land looked and -it has been shown that you can put three residential lots on there.- triangular. Councilman Gleckman.- Again I think this.problem was created by the past city council and the. particular owner of that particular property in order to put Merced through and I don't feel any obligation to give the property owner relief now that we have Merced just because something was done in -the past. The. need for whatever zoning is. being requested here has not been shown. The problem that may exist in the future with the land locked piece of property because of something that took place in order to get this street through is not at this particular time my obligation nor do I see it as for the betterment of the City. Councilman Snyder-, The past. City Council didn't create this problem, it was created in the way the City grew. We tried to avoid it. Mayor Krieger,-. It wasn't a question of obligation, it was the question of a fact of,applLca- tion, and 'the restrictions as to what the council could do at that time in terms of what the application was. We are operating within the same restrictions on this council as to within what zone we can change it„ This was the problem we were faced ifith then and I am afraid we are going to be continued to be faced with it. Councilman Snyder,,, it has to be solved whether to be solved by their coming that is acceptable there. Mayor Kriegerso Certainly the piece of property in the rear, even though you leave it partially R-P and partially R-A is not insolvable, the property remains R-P or not, but it has back with a new application for something Is there anything that hasn't been said on this that the council desires to say? If not a motion would be in order. Motion by Councilman Nichols, seconded by Councilman Gleckman, that the council deny Zone Change application No,, 380. Councilman Gillums. Mr,, Mayor,, it denies both the 0-1 and R-b? Mayor Krieger-, Correct. Councilman Gillum-, Is it possible to grant the C®1 separate? Mayor Kriegers Only if the motion is defeated, Is that correct, Mr, Williams? (Answer.- Correct.) - 13 C. C. 7-10-67 Page Fourteen 9 ZONE CHANGE NO.380 - Continued Motien defeated on roll call as follows: AYESo Councilmen Nichols, Gleckman 0 NOES. Councilmen Gillum, Snyder, Mayor Krieger Motion by Councilman Snyder, seconded by Councilman Gillum, that Zone Change No. 380 - S.D.C. Inc., be granted for C-1 with respect to that property in Exhibit A on the land use map that portion requested for C-1 as described in the property description shown on Map #3 be granted and that portion requested for'R-3 be denied. Councilman GleckmanS I believe that the way the present 0 zoning is being requested that if this particular application is approved regarding that,I think In order that this council might look to the future,that the R-P piece across the street whith would be directly across from C zoning would probably be in the future realm of commercial coming into this City and you are.now starting encroachment upon all other areas by spreading the.C-!:-l. The C-1 I.discussed in this particular discus-slon vas to line up with the property line of the C-1 directly across the street to the south. I just brought that to mind because again you are doing exactly what you just discussed, by zoning C®1 you are definitely land looking the rest of the land. Councilman Snyder.- I might comment that you had an opinion and I had an opinion regarding that triangular piece to the south and that developed as a rather, again this is opinion, ridiculous application of so called buffering where they put a filling station 40 and then buffered that from R®1 by R-P which of course is a sliding scale of buffering but it just didn't make sense to me at that time and it doesn't make sense to me now, the way that occurred. Councilman Nichols: I could conceive with some thought and if someone would demonstrate to me that there was a need for the zoning, some relief in the terms of C-1 zoning. I certainly don't want to appear over dramatic because very few dramatics on a council ever convinced anyone of their vote but I would ask you sincerely to give very thoughtful consideration to this matter of zoning, although you say these zones have to be solved as they come up, in reality I think we are setting a trend here and an action that is going to find this council hardpressed to deny other similar types of zoning, which in my opinion is a small -parcel of zoning which encroaches unnecessarily into a residential area and which I believe in time will prove correct the assumption that that remaining R®A parcel that this council so zealously labored to leave R®A to protect that residential area, will inevitably be rezoned to some other usage in order to make a functional parcel out of that remaining land. I believe in all sincerity that this council, by rezoning that entire C-1 area as requested C-1, is making a serious mistake. Councilman Snyder-, I like a little dramatics once and awhile because it makes the meeting similar application on which less dull, but there was a very I.voted just the opposite and that was the Barranca Street property and in many respects it was similar in request but there are a different set of circumstances here and I don't think you can say because we grant C=l here we have to grant it everywhere. Councilmen Gleckman: Could I just bring -up this thought ® - if you would go ahead with the mot -ion the way it is proposed, am I correct that the parcel that we are not acting on then becomes land looked, Mr. Menard? 14 - El C. 0. 7-10-67 ZONE CHANGE NO. .380 m Continued Page Fifteen Mr. Menard,Planning Director., The parcel would remain R-P (pointed it out on the map) although it is still. part of the property ownership and would have legal frontage to the street. 1 think it could be said to be zone locked. It would have a very minor, -very short space of frontage to Wescove Place. Councilman Gleckman: Thanks, I couldn't vote on that. Mayor Krieger: What is your comment Mr. Williams? Mr. Williams, City Attorney: I think under the former action, and a 1e lot that prohibits access. Mr. Nichols mentioned this, there is Councilman Snyder: It may be zoned land locked right now, but the man has recourse to relief by coming in and asking for something else. Mayor Kriegero If the applicant desires relief because of the condition imposed upon by the Council, the Council can also come in with a more restricted zoning. The conditions were imposed because we did not want R®P fed into Truman Place. I didn"t vote for that restriction on the condition that was going to be developed as Rml, I voted on it 'o prevent R-P from feeding into it. Mr. Menard, may we have the action of the council having to do with the prior zoning change? At th timetheproperty was rezoned R-1 and a portion RSA what was the ac ion of the council.? Mr. Menard, Planning Director: In 1961 the Planning Commission denied reclassification from R®A to Cml. .In 1965 the remaining portion of the subject property was zoned R-A. Going further back, a certain portion in 1961 was reclassified to R-P by the Council and in 1965 the remaining portion of the subject property zoned R-A was denied R-P zoning by the Planning Commission although approved by the guy Council. .Mayor Krieger., Will you show us that portion of the zoning map that is still R-A? Mr. Menard pointed out the areas and gave the amount of footage in each zoning. Mr. Aiassa advised that there was a 1_' dedication on Wescove Place to the City of West Covina and the 11 boundary was pointed out on the map. Mayor Krieger-, Mrs..Preston may we have a roll call vote? Motion carried on roll call vote as followsa AYES: Councilmen Gillum, Snyder, Mayor Krieger NOES., Councilmen Nichols, Gleckman ABSENT: None UNCLASSIFIED USE PERMIT NO. 116 S.D.C. INC. Mayor Krieger-, Madam City Clerk do you have the affidavit of publication and mailing? Mrs. Preston, Deputy City Clerk: Yes sire Motion by Councilman Gleckman, seconded by Councilman Snyder, and carried, that council receive and file. 15 C.-C. 7-10-67 Page Sixteen UNCLASSIFIED_ USE PERMIT NO. 116 ® Continued Mr. Menard read the Planning Commission resolution on the Unclassified Use Permit No. 116. (Mayor Krieger asked Mr. Williams if the council in considering the •Unclassified Use Permit, where the council has not called up the Precise Plan, may take that testimony evidence offered by the staff from the applicant on the Precise Plano Mr, Williams stated ® not if it isn't before you - if it wasn't called up- the Precise Plan is effective if you approve.) Mayor Krieger-, This is the time and place for the public hearing on the Unclassified Use Permit No. 116. The Council is only interested in why they should grant an Unclassified Use Permit for a gasoline station in a C®l zone° IN FAVOR Dave Easley ® of S.D.C. Inc, Here again, gentlemen, we have an 2435 East Coast Highway agreement with Richfield Oil, who is Corona Del Mar not represented along this avenue at the present time and they want to be. They have made a survey of the area. One point I would like to make is that they have an extremely attractive new neighborhood type of station which we would like to see go into this area and make it fully landscaped as the station is across the street. They have made a survey of the traffic on Glendora which has increased greatly and they feel the need exists and they want to serve the •community and obviously we feel they wouldn't: be interested if the need wasn't there because it represents a tremendous expense as you know. The only other thing I can say is that we know that Richfield will do everything in its power to put in an extremely attractive service station meeting all the conditions set by the City, IN OPPOSITION None MAYOR KRIEGER DECLARED THE PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED, DISCUSSION BY COUNCIL, Councilman Snyder: I have a question and before the question I have a statement, The Planning Commission_'-s only comment in denying this Unclassified Use Permit was that there were 16 service stations to the north and south. It seems to me a rather fActitious and shallow reason because they don't go further and state how many is too much - 16 m 10 - 20. My question is we do have a report criteria for service station locations and I am wondering if the Planning Commission or staff has any comment from this report regarding the need for a service station at this point? Mr. Menard9 Planning Director: I think you are referring to the report on a model ordinance submitted by the East San Gabriel Valley Planning Committee, This report did not allude to any requirements as far as population. I sat oq the commitee that formulated this report. It was discussed and decided that the clientele of a service station are of such far ranging areas that in attempting to determine population figures, etc. as to how many service stations should be provided on a major travelled versus secondary street would perhaps be a very difficult thing to do, Mayor Krieger: Didn't the r-eport have -a comment though as Jo the nu' bn of service stations at an ntersecton 16 C. C. 7-10-67 Page Seventeen UNCLASSIFIED USE PERMIT NO. 116 - Continued Mr. Menard, Planning Director: It certainly did, From the point of view of traffic circulation and in an publlo it was indicated it attempt to be of service to the general was desirous to put not more than two service stations on the intersections of a major or secondary street. Mayor Kriegers, You have two going service stations and one abandoned station across the street on this.corner now. Mr. Menard, Planning Director: Yes and an application is in the office for a permit on the abandoned station to reopen as a service station. (Further general discussion by the Councilmen, comments indicating Councilman Snyder more or less favored the permit whereas the comments of Councilmen Gillum, Gleckman and Nichols did not favor.) Motion by Councilman Gleckman, seconded by Councilman Gillum, that Unclassified Use Permit No. 116 application be denied. Motion carried on roll call as follows.- AYES* Councilmen Gillum, Nichols, Gleckman, Mayor Krieger a NORSO 0 Councilman Snyder ABSENT-0 None MAYOR KRIEGER DECLARED A 10 MINUTE RECESS TO 900 p.m. AMENDMENT NO. 81 CITY INITIATED Sign Ordinance Revision request approved by Planning Commission .Resolution No. 1966. Motion by Councilman Gleckman, seconded by Councilman Gillum, and carried to received and file the notice of affidavit of publication. Mayor Krieger-,. Mr. Williams, the Planning Commission Resolution No. 1966 is 14 pages in length. The chair would prefer to dispense with the reading of the resolution by thePlanning Director,, is there any legal requirement that the entire re.solution be read? Mr. Williams, City Attorney: Mayor Krieger: interested parties - Mr. Menard? Mr. Menard, Planning Director,: Mayor Krieger. - IN FAVOR None IN OPPOSITION Phil Wax 1014 W. Garvey and effort into trying to No - as long as copies are available. Let the record reflect that copies of the Resolution are on the front table and I assume were circulated to Yes. This is the time and place for the public hearing. First, I would like to take the opportunity to thank the city staff, the Planning Director, and the :-Chamber of Commerce peorple__., Nbo did put in a lot of time bring this Sign Ordinance into a concept we 17 C. 0. 7-10-67 . Page Eighteen AMENDMENT NO. 81-(Sign Ordinance) Continued could all live with and at the same time give us the opportunity to go out and clean up some of the existing bad signs in the community and with this in mind I would like to bring to your attention that there are one or two issues that we feel should be discussed tonight. With the exception of that, we go along with all the recommendations that Mr. Menard and the Planning Commission has__adopted. 0-2 and C-3; Page 9, No.,5 the major problem is the free standing signe and the double faced sign in particular, ,::tit has always-. be.en., a i)prablem. The problem we feel is unfair when a man that cannot put a sign over his place of business but has --to use a detached sign would be under the restrictions of the Planning Director, Planning Commission and Council as to location in his Precise Plan as well as under their jurisdiction if he even qualifies for such a sign, which in itself makes it an entirely different situation than theaverage man who comes along and if he qualifies in footage gets a permit and has the sign installed. And based on this you can only see one side of the sign at a time which creates a -problem. We saw slides of Von's Market with only four letters and again we are back to the old story of four letters against maybe Howard Johnson's Restaurant where you would have a multiple amount of letters, and it is not really fair to penalize a man for showing the exact same name on the both sides rather than force him to cut his sign in half. An ordinary sign, from a -standpoint of cost you can do quite a `bit cheaper than a fre-e standing double faced sign so the man that would qualify for that type of sign would certainly give you a much better sign than some of the handpainted or types you see in some areas that we all object to. This we feel is one of the major points that we oppose. The second point would be the control of abandoned signs. We agree at this point but there seems to be legal problems on how we may accomplish controlling abandoned signs.- We had it spelled out but in the final spelling out in here - Page 10 - 17 it Just says "Shall further be the responsibility of the property owner of the land and/or improvements to remove any sign or signs on premises abandoned for periods over 60 days.". Now in all probability this sign may not belong to the landlord, so this could be questionable as to how you could enforce this. It was theopinionof the Chamber staff whoworkedon this particular program that the landlord should be signed in on the permit when they originally apply for the sign and in that way he would have to have the, responsibility of the removal whether it belonged to him or not. It is not spelled out in here. The third issue that we had was on the Barber Poles, which is a conventional moving type of sign and the Time and Temperature type which is a public service. We requested this and there was no decision made for or against. However, the old existing ordinance was against so we don't know if it wasadoptedfor or against. Thank you gentlemen. John Gardner 1018 W. Garvey As the Chairman of the Chamber of Commerce Committee that the council requested to study the Sign Ordinance in hopes of bringing up a more workable one, we did come forth with a recommendation to the City Council with 16 points. After spending many months and many hours with the staff we did come to a lot of compromises. I.do think it would be to have a list of all those 16 points, I don't any big advantage to the Council to •really exactly how we did come out, know unless they would like to know. The compromises and the. working final proposal that came up out of them worked out very good with the through the staff and the Planning Commission. However, once again we would like to Point out that our purpose and direction frok the City Council was to PUt,out a more workable sign ordinance. In doing this in our studies we found out not only the number of applicants for a variance but actually the ones that you never heard about, that came to the counter and backed away saying it just isn't any use. We do find that toe computation that Mr. Wax pointed out, which are in C-2 and C-3v paragraph 4 and 5, in each - 18 - C, C, 7-iG-67 Page Nineteen AMENDMENT NO. 81 (SIGN ORDINANCE) Continued one and also the M zone 4 and 5, the computation of the double faced signs was one of the leading deterrents actually discouraging businesses from locating in this City. You will notice we did nat in- clude Cmlo. We are aware of the fact that Cml is a neighborhood type of •sign and we are very happy with the control written into this. In other words there is a control as to whether there is even a need for a detached sign or double faced sign here, It must go through the Planning Commission or the City Council, We are also very much aware that you can only see half of that sign at one time and to leave the computation of the footage to include the entire amount of the sign is actually giving the man one-half the sign he would be entitled to -if the conditions were such that he was able to have it on the front of his building. The way it is proposed the only way he can have it detached, as a for instance, is that he would have to show the need to the Planning Director or Planning Commission or City Council and nobody can see more than one side of a double faced sign at a time. Prior to 1963 you only computed one side of a sign, so therefore it was not a particular problem, but it is a problem as it is today and will continue to be a major problem in this existing Ordinance if it were not changed to read so.that a computation of a double faced sign would read "per face",. Also as Mr. Wax pointed out, it does not include Barber Poles and Time and Temperatures so the only thing I can assume is that they would not be allowed. Time and Temperature is a public service, something that doesn't change rapidly as to location so it wouldn't become something in the way of a traffic problem as far as traffic safety and I think this is something that could be allowed and most Barber Poles are very close to the building and they are very effective. We would like to call your attention to paragraph 17 again with regards to the landlord's signature, As I recall it seems to me when I had to come up here for a variance I had to have a landlord's signature even to get that variance, so there are times where you realize the landlord's signature°is necessary. And having the landlord's signature is one major control ® there is always that possibility m who says it is abandoned ® who has a right to take it down m who does the sign belong to? And with the landlord's signature you have put in a definiteform of responsibility. If a guy picks up and moves out at -midnight m at present the sign may not even belong to the landlord, it may be a leased sign but with the landlord's signature there is an area of responsibility if someone left as to who is responsible for the removal of that sign, consider them, I think you will findtthato o changes, if you will y you have a very workable sign ordinance, it does have good control and one which will do, we hope, come the closest we could find to preserve the aesthetics of a sign. THERE BEING NO FURTHER PUBLIC TESTIMONY IN FAVOR OR IN OPPOSITION, THE HEARING WAS CLOSED, DISCUSSION BY THE COUNCIL, (Mr, Menard passed out charts pertaining to the sign Ordinance. Councilman Snyder suggested it might be well to o over the chart and the resolution and the Chambers recommendations .I • Councilman Gleckmano First of all the Chamber of Commerce and the staff, I am sure, have spent many long hours going through this particular revision and maintaining what we presently have and where there were areas. of compromise on decisions and recommendations made to this body, they are more or less contained within the report, not specifically what the changes were, but I think the Council used their good judgment in assigning this particular task to the two bodies that were probably most qualified in order to come up with the recommendations and they are both to be complimented, specifically the Chamber of ,Commerce ® 19 C. C. 7-10�67 Page Twenty AJUNDKENT NO., 81 (SIGN -ORDINANCE) Continued for the amount of time they have taken and of course our staff, which -is their job, but they still did an excellent job. For my part I. don't believe it is necessary to ,go through these specific changes, unless some of the others do. •(Mr-; Menard explained the chart stating that the chart passed out was made up with the original Planning Department revisions on it, the document in Resolution Form incorporates those changes from the Planning Department revisions made by the Planning Commission. Basically, there was one.change, The Planning Department recommended a ratio of sign square footage to building frontage: 0-1, two to one; C-2, two and one quarter square foot for one square foot of building frontage; Cm3, two. point five square foot to one. The Planning Commission changed this. They left C-1 at two to one; changed C®2 and C-3 to a three to one ratio. This is basically the only change plus requiring that the stat-ement on. the responsibility of the landlord be incorporated into the 0-1, C­2 and C®3 section, These are basically the only changes from the staff recommendation at that time and the Resolution that was ultimately adopted by the Planning Commission.). Councilman Snyder: One point of order. This is then a major revision in some ways after a long study and I don't see how we can sit here tonight and make a decision on it. We have to take it home and read it and it should be held over. Mayor Krieger: It is a hearing item, Dr. Snyder, The hearing has been held and closed. It is the perogative of the majority of the council to take whatever action they want on this matter. So it is not a • point of order, it is just our regular procedure, Councilman Snyder: Alright, but I am not ready to vote on it. Councilman Gillum-, I spent about 3 hours going over the Resolution and the Planning Department minutes and with the one excepption of the double faced signs I feel I could vote on the issue toni ht, I have taken the time to review all the material .given to us w1th the exception of the double faced sign. I for one do not wart:.to.go over this individually because I have read it and informed myself on it. Councilman Nichols: As a council representative to the Planning Commission I have had the physical opportunity recently with regard to this,.including the hearing before the Planning Commission, I believe I am prepared to discuss and vote on the.matter in all its aspects. However if there is even one councilman .present who would life additional time for study I certainly would defer to that request and I am perfectly willing to go along with a motion to hold the matter over and the hearing closed. Mayor Krieger: I would be similarly disposed as far as procedure is concerned. Although I would hope that we would get into some of the discussion tonight so if there is a hold -over we could focus on • some -of the comments made on this particular matte-r. The Chamber, who did give testimony, seemed to focus on 1 ® 2 ® 3 basic points.. The double faced sign, the control of the abandoned signs, and the flashing signs. (COUNCIL DECIDED TO DISCUSS.) Councilman Gleckmano Continuing my previous remarks, as far as Time and Temperature.signs, I think, in the City of West Covina we have. only ® 20 Co Co 7-10-67 Page Twenty-one AMENDMENT N0. 81 (SIGN ORDINANCE.) Continued one location involved and if we did have additional locations of that -type, I would think this would be of a public service nature to the citizens of West Covina, as well as its visitors and in no way do I (feel that in the reasoning behind the Sign Ordinance that those . specifics were indirectl anywhere the intent to keep this type of i usage on the high plane t is now, out of the City of West Covina,. So therefore as far as I.am concerned the intent I don't believe was to discontinue or not allow this type of sign. Regarding Barber poles I feel the State in -some way has pre-empted us. This is an American institution, if you will, and all of the Barber Poles throughout -the U,S., have a similar nature and have a similar use and in most cases it'signifies whether the place is open or closed for business and it does have a definite means for a particular business, and I think it would be a deterrent for that business to continue with the existing Sign Ordinance or prohibit for this particular sign. I don't consider it a flashing sign. I don't know of any place along the Freeway that we have a barber shop that uses this particular sign that would be of a hindrance to the drivers up and down the Freeway, but nevertheless regarding barber poles I believe it is an American institution, It is not a case of where you allow a barber pole you allow Ether rotating or moving signs ,.so I think this is the exception rather than the rule. When it comes to the other question, the maximum amount of signage and the detached sign, whether it be 1-1/2 'to 1, or 3 to 1, I would like to ask Mr. Menard, if the council would so choose tonight to have it 3 to 1 maximum on both sides, do we have a maximum amount of square footage that you would recommend, .so in case the building is 150' and sets back so that you don't have 450' allowable on each side of the sign. Mr. Menard, Planning Director.- The Resolution would take care of that, in that the advertising sign is restricted to a maximum of 300 sq. ft. and the identifying sign a maximum of 150 sq. ft., and the detached sign as well. It could be further stated with regard to 'the detached sign - "that in no way shall exceed that amount allowed on the front of the building" © which would be 300 a and an identifying sign would be 150'. Councilman Cleckman.- I would like to know that if a detached sign, as to location and even 'the allowance of the detached sign is at the option of the Planning Director, the Planning Commission or the City Council - where the maximum of a 3 to 1 on each side would be allowed in what respect it would 'be of a hindrance to the City of West Covina? I know where it would be of help to a particular business and again I say under the specific auspices of the Planning Director, the Planning Commission and th�,C°ty Council I can't see making the determination as to whether 1-1 2 10 1, or 2-1%2 to 1, or 3 to 1, is right. My only thought would be to keep it standard and still at the discretion of the Planning Director, Planning Commission or City Council, My other comment is regarding the •landlord and I think this is a good thing `that you have added as to the property owner, but I feel it should be continued to the point of having the property owner sign the application for the sign and in the application for the sign from hereafter that we have some legal terminology that by signing this particular application that he take responsibility for what we are actually building into our Ordinance. Outside of that I think it is a tremendous job that both parties have done. I am reserving my judgment on the.maximum size of 3 to 1, but I feel that the barber pole, time and temperature and the landlord element is something we should include in our future; Sign Ordinance. 21 0. C. 7-10-67 Page Twenty-two E 0 AMENDMENT No. 81 �SIGN ORDINANCE) Continued Xr, Menard, Planning Director-, Two or three examples regarding the detriment to the City. I think the best example we have is right in the City of West Covina, the sign that was brought up before the City Co-uncil-s.ome--manthe ago, shortly after I came, here. The Triple Check sign on 'the Income Tax Buildinthat went up four., five or six months age. This sign was and quite inadvertently, the size of it was placed an that particular site because of a long standing . -, misinterpretation by the Planning staff of what the existing ordinance really said, That sign is approximately, taking the square footage that would 'be allowed on the front of the building and putting on both sides of the sign - and only from a point of view of the necessity of the sign, how well it identifies the business or advertises the business, is visible for approximately a half mile,, recommendation and the Planning recommendation when they adopted sign is perhaps unnecessary for and that is -to tell the customer adequate traffic changes to get Mayor Krieger: It was the Planning staff's Commission went along with this this Resolution, that this size of doing what a sign is supposed to do where the business is so he can make into the business. .Are you saying that sign is a 2 to 1 on each side? Mr., Menard, Planning Director: The interpretation is very complicated, but as far as the square footage of that sign compared to the lineal frontage of the building and was inadvertently permitted, it is approximately a 3 to 1 ratio on both sidea. If approximately one side of that sign could have been placed back on the front of the building it would have been a conforming sign, Councilman Gleckman.- Mr. Menard, you are using as an example something in my estimation, not what you would have approved as to location either. If you would have taken that same sign under this particular perolgative of this Sign Ordinance, you yourself, as well as staff, have told me that they never would have allowed that sign at that particular location, which would have been your p.,erogative regardless of the size of the sign. It isn't the size that is disturbing in the example you are using, it is the location of that particular sign. Mr. Menard, Planning Director.- This is true. Admittedly, if that request for a sign had come in 30 days later I would have denied it. The size I would have denied for that sign because it was not in accordance with the existing Ordinance but it does portray approximately the size of sign versus the frontage of the building that you would have If you had a 3 to 1 ratio on both sides. One other point in answering your question and which was the opinion of the Planning Commission (Mr. Menard used the blackboard to illustrate this pointpertainingto detached signs c�ti�g Pl9c0d'*Ut *M the strut When It was not possible for the sign to 10�6 Sec ft*31 the Etr*bt on the front of the businos-so This lead to a disc uissi*n 0#u:vjc�,Llman Glt_­,oY,,,mzn amad Mr. Menard pertaining to the #f dots -,hood signs. Caunc�ilman Glackman stated the example used by MSC, Monaxd for dataahatd b5igns was not &,Wwh5r6 in the Oity and never would be ysrrdttad with regard t* location.) Mayor YXI*g6r3 Councilman xichols� Obtaining landlord participation I think Mr. Menard was using the Triple check Sign as an exact example of what a 3 to 1 size sign would loot like. On the removal of abandoned signs, I would concur in the need to modify the Resolution to incorporate a method of and therefore lindlard responsibility. - 22 - C. C. 7-10-67 Page Twenty-three UMNT N. 81SIGN ORDINANCE) Continued On the Barber Pole and Time and Tcamp, srat z,9, the council has historically 'taken the position that they did not want to approve the rotating types of signs in the City and where those were some particular rare cases those matters could be •handled by variance and I am of the opinion that if every Barber Shop in West Coovina, could put in operating signs there wound be no more heads to out in the City and it wouldn't increase the business of any of them averts a little bit, it wound only require all of them to spend the funds to got these poles. So I would concur in the Planning Commisaid, o 'recommendations in leaving that portion of the Ordinance as it Le recommended and leaving the avenue for another Savings Ingtitu~t`14ion that might want to put in a Time and Temperature sign, leaving, that 7,'tca to come in under a variance. On the two faced signs, it has been my understanding of the foa tage of the sign ordinance that the use of the detached siggn that was allowed on the basis of a hardship imposed upon tha Ind, v�idlua,l who coup not gain an equal public exposure with a building frontage sign. That is, who could not gain such an exposure on a basis of Rquality with other bus:hessas and it was my understanding that the intent of the legislation and the reason that there is some administrative latitude permitted to implement that wiseness in judgment and would place suet detached signage only in such a position to achieve equity with, other bu sasses rather than any advantage. Therefore, I would thAnk that on any detached sign that would achieve such a display a.s this that it would be a poor use of administrative pierogative iU t getting such placement. I would think the detached sign should be used only to the extent to create equal situations. With that thought in mind you bring me to m' position in this matter. If in fact the basis for a detached sign is to enable that person in business whose. •bttr;ssress is hidden, to achieve the same advantage as any other business mar' has b , moving that sign just to a. roximity where that advantage can be a,c ni,evc5,,dl we are in, effect negating the advantage or the equality that we are trying to achieve when we say o alright we can't see your sign on the building so we are letting you bring it to a Position where we can see it, but now it • ban only be half as big. I don't see the logic in this. Certainly if we accept the thesis that any detached sign is going to be away out in front of the pack o is going to have visual advantage of hundreds of feet, then I can see some restriction Involved 'butt in implementing the program it is up to us to 00M,% of that aspect. Assuming therefore that it would be placed corrOctly relat vse to our other signs, I feel that you can only see one side at one time and if you don't put anything on the back of that sign, the sign is still there and the same size,in effect then what we are saying is if we put something just on one side only we can get oomewha't of a larger bulgy: looming up then we can if we go to the Permitted footage on a more compact sign. I feel that it makes sense to allow the individual to have what would be in theory double the footage of a, building sign but in visual practice the same as the front building sign. The bunk of the sign structure itself could not or would not be any larger,, The fixral pclut cf my comments K*hich indicats the way I will vote Onthese matters o is a question that I would like to ask. Sometime ago a Steak Rouse in West _Covina opened its doors and the building was on a angle to the street9 it anded up •a long narrow bui,ldizig with a detached sign that was computed on the basis of the side of the building as being _a-ccepted as being the front of the building. I way a,va overlooked it but I don't detect any specific means of -absolutely determining when a building is fronted and when it is sided. (Mr. Menard read Item 3 under Definitions pertaining to this problem.), Mayor .Krieger s The Center Market m how do we cover that situation?. (Mr. Menard read Item 10 on Page 9 covering this situation,) 0230 Go Go 7 -10-67 Page Twenty -Four IVEENDMENT NO. 81 SIGN ORDINANCES Continued Mayor Krieger.- Mr. Williams, your assistant at the Planning Commission meeting said this, do you concur? P9I have my doubts that Your saying you in the barber profession can have a rotating sign but • nobody else can." Mr. Williams, City Attorney.- The legal point is good, the trouble is it is mixed up with facts and law as to whether or not there is another sign comparable to a. barber poke, if there is and you permit the barber pole and not the other comparable one then he is right and there is dis- crimination. I am trying to think in my mind what would be comparable. The theatre marque with the light that appear to run around I think is entirely different than a barber pole. 'The windmill; this may be similar. The decision of the council would be presumed to be correct. YOU, are allowed to classify as ]Long as you classify reasonably within the, Masses comparable to one another and where one is permitted and the other is not therm must be a real distinction. Things that flash lights, rotate ligrats, seem to move o o these I think you can prohibit. I think you can permit, if you can describe it accurately without saying Barber Pole, a certain type of sign such as the windmill, time and temperature o doesn't a clock move? Do you prohibit clocks? If you can get down to `the degree of movement.- It is better to be generic than to be specific. I don't have a great fear of the ordinance failing if you permitted barber poles. (Discussion followed. Councilman Gleckman pointed out that the particular barber pole does not rotate, it is what is within the pole that rotates.). Councilman Snyder-, May I say _I agree with Councilman • Nichols on the barber pole. I don't tink it is going to bring them anymore business but merely forge them all busy go out and get these things. How- I do g fl go along with the Time and Temperature sign. I have one question - if this new Sign. Ordinance, if there are any non conforming signs after this new sign ordinance is adopted, are there provisions in, here for abatement? Mr. Morardi, Planning Director.- We have another Resolution that didn't get printed yet © it was only adopted Cast meeting by the Planning Commission. explained.). (Xr.. Menard read the resolution and Councilman Snyder.- May I ask the City Attorney o what effect this would have on signs obtained under.. a Variaw e ? Mr. Williams, City Attorney.- I think by the use of the word "non,con- rming89 they don't mean to include those non-cOnfcrming as the word is®technically used a variance. Only Mr. Meniard, Planning Director.- That is correct„ MayorKriegers This question of the landlord signing in on the permit o does that raise any particular problem From your office's standpoint, Mr. Williams? Mr_. Williams, City Attorneys. No, I don't see any legal problem. Councilman Snyders. May I suggest Mr. Mayor, that we really need to ® m particularly regarding the to ratio, maybe there is someconsensus of on other things, but we have another meeting before weocanion need adopt it� o24m C. C, 7-i0-6'c7 Page Twenty-five AMENDMEN`I NO. 81 (SIGN ORDINANCE) Continued �ed Mr, Williams, City Attorneys May I mention one very minor thing, however it relates to something you discussed © the double faced sign. On the very firs-t page - definitions, it says - P8a sign with no more than two fares." I think that would include a sign with one face, iI think the wording should be revised. It should read "a sign with two faces only." Also I am a little bothered because there is no real distinction, between an advertising and identifying sign. I don't think -it is sufficiently clarified, for example the word "service" appears in both signs. What is Stevenson's Hardware Store m identifying or advertising? Mayor- Krieger s Advertising is supposed to be the product of service and the identifying sign the name? Is that correct? Mr. Menard, Planning Director: Yes, this wo uld be correct. Like Mr. Williams example = Smith's Hardware Store, you could also put m authorized dealer for such and such products, whereas you could not do this on the advertising sign but you could identify a business with an identifying sign. J4. Jones, Public Accounting Service" is an identifying sign, but you would not be able to go on and Bay "I am in income tax, etc." Mayor Kriegero. Mr. Williams, City Attorneys • Mayor Kriegers Councilman Snyder: Mayor Krieger. - actions by the council. Councilman Gleckmans far as terminology, for our we are holding it over that Mayor Krieger: We have had this for so long make a difference In the body of the resolution does it become a matter of form or a matter of substance? Something in the matter of substance. Then I.agree with the City Attorney that we had better draw a clear line betweeen which is which, May I say I don't think we can draft a motion here tonight to make the necessary changes. Unless there is further discussion, a motion by the council would be.in order to hold this over to a date for further discussion with the hearing closed, and I would like to ask what we are not prepared to vote on? I.can understand where we could vote -on the particular changes and then give to the City Attorney to work out with the Planning Director as approval, but is there something specific why we want to talk abortf Well one councilman has indicated he wants a .further opportunity to study this matter and historically we extend this. that I can't imagine two weeks is going to Motion by Councilman Gleckman, seconded by Councilman Gillum, and carried, that the Sign Ordinance Amendment No. 81 be held over until the next Monday night, our adjourned regular meeting, until after 8 o'clock p.m.,. with the hearing closed, (Councilman Nichols left during the above discussion,) m25m 0 o 0 e 7-10-67 Page Twenty -Six • r: RECREATION & PARKS COMMISSION REVIEW ACTION OP JUNE_279 1961 Motion by Councilman Gleckman, seconded by Councilman Gillum, and carried, to receive and File, PERSONNEL BOARD Motion by Councilman Gleckman, seconded by Councilman Gillum, and carried,. that the action of the Personnel Board of June 23, 1967, be received and filed. HUMAN RELATIONS COMMISSION Motion by Councilman Gleckman, seconded by Councilman Gillum, and carried that a Joint meeting be held with the Human Relations Commission at the Council's adjourned regular meeting of July 31sto Motion by Councilman Gleckman, seconded by Councilman Gillum, and carried, that the Annual Report of the Human Relations Commission be held over until the Joint meeting on July 31st, Motion by Councilman Gleckman, seconded by Councilman Gillum, and carried that the request from the Human Relations Commission for 'verbatim minutes be held over for discussion.at the Joint meeting of July 31sto GENERAL MATTERS ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Bob Herring I own the Plaza Pet Shop in West Covina 431 Darwood at 1108 W. Garvey and we are having a San; Dimas little trouble with the Municipals Code #94, Section 4300, Chapter 3. I believe the reason we are having some difficulty with it - it is a pretty good code and I agree one that should be passed, '[,ut a little ton broad and it could be interpreted from everything from mice to goldfish. We have a citation now on monkeys in the pet shop. It doesn't mention it specifically in the Ordinance but the Police Department gave us a citation last week and we have 30 days.to get rid of them. I am woncnering if the Council could take a look at the Ordinance amid study it and if it couldn't be changed or some interpretation put on it Be that we would know bow to operate. The date of the Ordinance is 11-28-66. Mayor Kriageroo Mr. Hawing s Mayor Krieger-, o Williams, City Attorney-, They will not enforce , ito Mr. Herrin',g$ Yes.Mr. Herring we can ask for a further report on this matter. Ig there some way we can heap so we don't go to jai7l, on this matter? As I remember we did have a. public hearing on it and did take public testimony on it. I had a conference since these citations were issued and I think the Police Department will reverse its citation. Are we going to have to go down the line on every animal? Because how are we to interpret this law? - 26 - C. C.. 7-10-67 Page Twenty-seven ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - Continued Mayor Kriagers Mr. herring, I would suggest you check with the Vest Covina Police Department, determine what your problem is., if there is a problem, and address a communication in writing to the council having to do with this issue if you desire further -information on it. Mr. herriargo I. can see where we will have one problem after another on it. Mayor Kriegero You would have to be more specific as to how this law .... . herrings The law is not very specific. Mayor K�iegers This is why we held a public hearing on it. Mr. Herring-0 yes, but now the law is being inter- preted. They have outlawed monkeys and next might come along and outlaw mice. Can we clear this up now before they put us out of business? Mayor Kricgero The question first of all is what is the objection to the ordinance? If there is a,n .abJection the council would have to be specifically directed under the terms of what your objection is. The fact that the ordinance is vague and i,nd-efinits may be a conclusion that you have, but apparently isn't shared by our staff or the City Attorney or the council wh6n it was adopted. So the question is, is it vague and indefinite in application to your business and if it is there you should address something in writing,to the council in that regard. Mr. Herring. I think the law itself would have to be considered vague because you can't interpret it now. This is the first time it has been put in operation and they are having problems already, so I wound think you would have to consider it vague. The Police Department is apparently reversing itself so this is an indication that they are vague on it. Mr. Williams, City Attorney. We have had a great many interpretations, but you are not aware of it, and this is the first time we have had any difficulty and I can see where some monkeys would fall under the dangerous classsification. Councilman Snyderg Or even a white rat. Mr. he,rringa We needed a law hike this in West Covina and we had hoped to go along with it but the interpretation that it is getting down the line will put us out of business. Mayor Kriegero Perhaps it would be within your responsibility to. suggest to the council in this area of draftmanship any objector s that you have to our existing law and then we can focus speci,fie'ally on what the objections of the pet shop owner are and I would suggest you do this. We have no objection to following this Mr. herring, but we have to have some guidelines. Motion by Councilman Snyder, seconded by Councilman Gillum, and carried, that this matter be referred to the staff for some guidelines to the enforcing officers on what are dangerous animals and if the law is not specific on this that they have recommendations for changes. 27 r-1 LJ 0 u C a ( —io - 67 ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - Continued Page Twenty-eight Ru& Bauman I have the Flair Pet Shop at 1118 E, Fla r Pet Shop Garvey, manager -owner, Under this 1118 E. Garvey provisions article 4300, we do find loop holes for the City as well as for the private individual and being a member and the only member in the .City of West Covina of the Western Pet Shop Associations which is also in Sacramento at the present time with the -State officials from Games Health Department, Field and Services and a couple of other offices, trying to revamp some of the State Laws and if through our organization we can help the City in making this a little more clear for everybody concerned our shop is more than happy to help. Not only would this be of help to us but I already understand from the Chief of Police that there are two people that are ready right now to go to curt over pet monkeys. We feel there are certain monkeys fit for pets and we know definitely that there are monkeys not fit for pets and which probably should not be in the City and are dangerous. If we can =help our services are there at anytime to help clarify this. We don't necessarily sell monkeys in our shop but we do sell other animals. I have a monkey in our shop on exhibit and it has been there for 3 years and they hit us all of a sudden with this. We weren't expecting this, we thought it was an ordinance more or less against the undomesticated cats. Again if I can help in anyway to clarify, my services are here, Mayor Krieger-. Councilman Snyder-. Mrs Williams, City Attorney-. I suggest both you and Mr. Herring contact the City Managers @an we have a sort of moratorium on police enforcement on this until we can have it clarified? I think we already have, (Mr. Aiassa agreed.) LETTER FROM A. Po TAYLOR COMMENDING FOURTH OF JULY PARADE Motion by Councilman Snyder, seconded by Councilman Gleckman, and carried, that this letter be received and filed. LETTER FROM WINTER ASSOCIATES REGARDING B.K.1. CO. Motion by Councilman Gillum, seconded by Councilman Snyder, and carried, that this letter be received and filed, CITY ATTORNEY ORDINANCE INTRODUCTION The City Attorney introduced° "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF WEST COVINA AMENDING SECTION 4135 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO CERTAIN OBJECTS AND MATERIALS PROHIBITED IN CERTAIN YARDS." Motion by 0 auncilman Snyder, seconded by Councilman Gleckman, and carried, that the council waive further reading of the body of the Ordinance. Motion by Councilman Gleckman, seconded by Councilman Gillum, and carried, that the Ordinance be introduced, (Mr. Williams explained that this Ordinance is a 'that was done a few months ago. When it came to it was a little uncertain in some respects, the accordance with the comments of the judges.) rewrite of something the Court the judge felt changes were made in \� -28m Co C, 7-10-67 Page Twenty-nine 0 CITY ATTORNEY = Continued RESOLUTION NO. 3612 The City Attorney presented: "A RESOLUTION OF THE'CITY COUNCIL OF ADOPTED THE CITY OF WEST COVINA, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 2570 GRANTING UNCLASSIFIED USE PERMIT NO. 719 REV, 2 (B,KoK, 00.) Mayon Krieger: Hearing no objection, waive further reading of the body of the resolution. Motion by Councilman Snyder, seco.aded by Councilman Gleckman, that said resolution be adopted. Motion carried on roll call as follows: AYES: Councilmen Gillum, Gleckman, Snyder NOES: None ABSENT: Councilman Nichols ABSTAIN: Mayor Krieger RESOLUTION NO. 3613 The City Attorney presented.: "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL iOF ADOPTED THE CITY OF WEST COVINA, CALIFORNIA, DENYING AMENDMENT NOe 80 TO THE ZONING CHAPTER OF THE WEST COVINA MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO USED CAR SALES," Mayor Krieger: Hearing no objection, waive further reading of the body of the resolution. Motion by Councilman Snyder, seconded by Councilman Gillum, that the council adopt said resolution. Motion carried on roll call as follows: .AYES: Councilmen Gillum, Gleckman, Snyder, Mayor Krieger NOES: Name ABSENT: Councilman Nichols RESOLUTION NO,, 3614 The City Attorney presentedo "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF ADOPTED THE CITY OF WEST COVINA RELATING -TO THE COMPENSATION OF THE CITY MANAGER." Mayor Krieger: Hearing no objection, waive further reading of the body of the resolution. Motion by.Councilman Snyder, seconded by Councilman Gleckman, that the council adopt said resolution, Motion carried on roll call as follows: AYES: Councilmen Gillum, Gleckman, Snyder, Mayor Krieger NOES: None A.BSENT: Councilman Nichols .RESOLUTION NO. 3615 The City Attorney presented: "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF ADOPTED THE CITY OF WEST COVINA RELATING TO THE POSITION OF WELDER'IN THE STREET DEPARTMENT AND TO THE PERSONNEL SECRETARY," Mayor Krieger: Hearing no objection, waive further reading of the body of said resolution. Motion by Councilman Gleckman, seconded by .Councilman Gillum, that the council adopt said Resolution,.- Motioa,�,;_earried on roll call as follows: AYES: Councilmen Gillum, Glokma.n, Snyder, Mayor Krieger NOES: None ABSENT: Councilman Nichols m29- C. C. 7=10-67 Page Thirty 40 CITY ATTORNEY © Continued RESOLUTION NO. 3616 ADOPTED Mayor Krieger: The City Attorney presented: "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF WEST COVINA APPOINTING JAMES ROBERT DAVIS TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION " Hearing no objection, waive further reading of the body of the resolution. Motion by Councilman Snyder, seconded by Councilman Gluckman, that the council adopt said Resolution. Motion carried on roll call as follows: AYESs Councilmen Gillum, Gluckman, Snyder, Mayor Krieger NOESo None ABSENTo Councilman Nichols RESOLUTION NO. 3617 The City Attorney presented: "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF ADOPTED THE CITY OF WEST COVINA APPOINTING FRED H. ANGIER TO THE RECREATION & PARK COMMISSION" Mayor Kriegaro Dearing no objection, waive further reading of body of said resolution. Motion by Councilman Gleckman, seconded by Councilman Snyder, that oounoll adopt said resolution. Motion carried. on roll, caul as follows-, AYES- Councilmen Gillum, Gleckman, Snyder, Mayor Krieger NOES0 None ABSEN'T8 Counoilman Nichols RES014UTION NO. 3618 The City Attorney presented: "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF ADOPTED THE CITY OF WEST COVINA APPOINTING HERBERT 0. TICE TO THE PERSONNEL BOARD.99 Mayor icg(wITo Dearing no objection, wai'vu e further reading of the body of the resolution. Motion 10) C uiac ilman Gluckman, seconded by Councilman Gillum, that council &dtPt said resolution. Motion carried on roll call as follows, AYES: Councilman Gillum, Gleckman, Snyder, Mayor Krieger NOES o None ABSENT-0 Councilman Nichols RESOLUTION NO. 3619 The City Attorney presented: "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF ADOPTED THE CITY OF WEST COVINA APPOINTING DOROTHY L. CASSON AS A MEMBER OF THE HUMAN RELATIONS COMMISSION.. T0 6/30/68." MMayorKr1ag rs Hearing no objection, waive further • reading of the body of the said resolution. Motion by 00=0ilman Snyder, Seconded by 0ounci7lman, Gleckman, that the Council, adopt said resolution. Motion carried on roll call as fol,lowso AYESs Councilmen Gillum, Gluckman, Snyder, Mayor Krieger ABSENTs Councilman Nichols �3�� 0, 0, 7-10-67 Page Thirty-one CITY ATTOR Y o Continued RESOLUTION NO, 3620 The City Attorney presented* "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF ADOPTED TIM CITY OF WEST COVINA APPOINTING FRED 0. SHRADER AS A MEMBER OF THE • HUMAN RELATIONS COMMISSION TO 6/30/68, 99 Mayor Krieger* Hearing no objection, waive further reading of the body of said resolution. Motion by. Councilman Snyder, seconded by Councilman Gleckman, that the Council adopt said resolution. Motion carried on roll oa.11 as follows* AYES* Councilman Gillum, Gleckman, Snyder, Mayor Krieger NOBS* Nonea ABSENT-0 0. o unc i.lmam Nichols RESOLUTION NO, 3621 The City Attorney presenteds "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF ADOPTED THE CITY OF WEST COVINA. APPOINTING JOHN OVERHOLT AS A MEMBER OF THE HUMAN RELATIONS COMMISSION TO 6130169,94 Mayor Krii tiger * Hearing no objection, waive further reading of the body of said resolution. Motion by Councilman Snyder, seconded by Councilman Gleckman, that the Council adopt said resolution, Motion carried on roll call as followss AYESo Councilmen Gillum, Gleckm�an, Snyder, Mayor Krieger •NOES o None ABSENT* Councilman Nichols RESOLUTION NO, 3622 The City Attorney presertedg "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF ADOPTED THE CITY OF WEST COVINA APPOINTING -WILLI.A,M BEEM AS A MEMBER OF THE HUMAN RELATIONS COMMISSION TO 6/30/68o P9 Mayer Xriegern Hearing no objection, waive further reading of thebody of the resolution. Motion by Councilman Snyder,seconded seconded. by Councilman Gleckman,, that the Oou,nail adopt said resolu.ti,on. Motion carried on roll,. call as follows g AYES* Councilman Gillum, Gleckman, Snyder, Mayor Krieger NOES8 None ABSENT* Councilman. Nichols .,.RESOLUTION NO, 363 The City Attorney presented* ADOPTED "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF WEST COVINA APPOINTING ELAINE MA,NSELL AS A MEMBER OF THE HUMAN RELATIONS COMMISSION To 6/30/69.99 • Mayor KTIsger* Hearing no objection, waive further reading of the body of the resolution. Motion 0y Councilman Snyder, seconded by Councilman Gleckman, that the Council, adept said resolution. Motion carried on roll call as follows. AYES* Councilmen Gillum, Gleckman, Snyder, Mayor Krieger NOES * None LBSEATTo Councilman Nichols 0 31 0 C. C.7-10-67 Page Thirty-two CITY ATTORNEY - Continued Mr. Williams, City Attcrney- I was requested by the City Engineer to draw up an Ordinance providing a decrease in the speed limit on Azusa Avenue and Nogales Street. This is only an Ordinance introduction, ORDINANCE INTRODUCTION The City Attorney,Presentedo. "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF WEST COVINA AMENDING CERTAIN PROVISIONS IN THE MUNICIPAL CODE DECREASING SPEED LIMITS ON CERTAIN STREETS." Mayor Krieger,,, Any obje-otions by the council to add this item to the agenda? No objection,, so ordered. Motion by Councilman Gillum, seconded by Councilman Snyder, and carried, that the reading of the body of the Ordinance be waived. Motion 1,�y Councilman Gleckman, seconded by Councilman Gillum, and carried the the said Ordinance be introduced. (Councilman Snyder left.) CITY MLNAGER, ANNEXATION BOOKLET REVISION Motion by Councilman Gleokman, seconded by Councilman Gillum, and carried,., that the council approve the Annexation Booklet revision. CHAMBER OF COMMERCE 196Z-68 CONTRACT APPROVAL Motion by Councilman Gillum, seconded by Councilman Gleckman, that the Council approvethecontract between the City of West Covina and the Chamber of Commerce for the year 1967-68 and authorize the Mayor and the City Clark to.execute the contract. Motion carried on roll call as follows ,Q) AYES- Councilman Gillum, Gleckman, Mayor Krieger 0 NOES - None ABSENT- Councilmen Nichols, Snyder Mayor Krieger-, I have previously expressed myself on the total amount and with that reservation in mind I vote "aye" on the contract. Councilman Nichols asked me to express his views, that if he had been present he would have voted in the affirmative. WEST COVINA'S 5 YEAR CAPITAL WORKS PROGRAM Notion by Councilman Gleckman, seconded by Councilman Gillum, and carried, that the 5 Year Capital Works Program as outlined in the report dated June 12, 1967, be approved by council. SISTER CITY 4TH QUARTER REPORT AND FINANCIAL STATEMENT FOR FEBRUARY THROUGH MAY, 1967 Motion by Councilman Gleckman, seconded by Councilman Gillum, and carried, that this report and financial statement be accepted and filed. � 32 — 0. C. T-10-67 Page Thirty -Three CITY MANAGER - Continued CITY `BARD LANDSCAPING STAFF REPORT tion by Oouncilman Gleckman, seconded by Councilman Gillum, that the City Couiracili authorize the City Manager to utilize approximately • $2,000 from funds originally authorized on Project MP67008 for the purcbt,se of plant materials, sprinklers, road gates, etc., for implementation of these plans covered in the report dated July.6, 19679 for City Yard Landscaping. Motion carried on roll call vote as follows AYES- Councilman Gillum, Gleckman, Mayor Krieger NOES0 Nora ADSENTo Councilman Nichols, Snyder CITIZEN COMPLAINT RE. WEEDS (Dan Ca.sler Mayor Kriegero We have a report from staff pertaining to this, dated June 21, 1967. Motion by Councilman Gleckman, seconded by Councilman Gillum, and carried, that no further action be taken on this matter. (Mayor Krieger inquired of Mr. Aiassa if Mr. Casler had received a copy of the staff report. Mr. Aiassa said he thought he had been contacted personally but would ohcck and attend to.) REQUEST FOR LEA _ Off' ABSENCE WITH PAX KJ,oh= Jacob. Mr. Aiassa.s Mr. Mayor, I would like to change the request from 30 days to 35. It will be up on the 25th of July. Motion 'bra Councilman Gleckman, seconded by Councilman Gillum, and carried, that the oounoil, grant additional sick leave up to a maximum of 35 days to Mr. John Jacoby, with the additional stipulation that should his automobile, Insurance claim be rejected that the sick leave be charged against future accumulated sick heave and that Mr. Jacoby not be ro-tun�sned to work until he has received a qualified medical approval from hie doctor which will be forwarded to the County for their recommendation. Mayor Krieger,- And you did name the "County" m Mr. Aiassa? Mr. Aiassa,, City, Managero Yes. COUNTY SAVITATI.ON DISTRICT ANNEXATION NO. 22 Motion by Co%noilman Gleckman, seconded by Councilman Gillum, and carariedg that Mr. Dance's annexation to the County Sanitation District N;o. 22 is acceptable to the City of West Covina. • SUBURBAN WATER SYSTEMS SPECIAL MEETING OF STOCKHOLDERS Motion by Councilman Gleckman, seconded by Councilman Gillum, and carried, that the Council authorize Mr. Zimmerman and Mr. Aiassa to attend the special meeting of stockholders on July 14th of Suburban Water Systems, and further authorize Mr. Aiassa to cast a vote on behalf of the city of West Covina. - 33 - C. C. 0 -10-67 CITY MEAGER - Continued TRAFFIC COMMITTEE MINUTES June 3O, 1967 Page Thirty -Four Motion by Councilman Gleckman, seconded by Councilman Gillum,and •carried that the Traffic Committee Minutes of June 30, 1967, be received and filed. Mr. A.iassa,, City Manager, called council°s attention to Item 5 pertaining to the new street signs. The new and old street signs were displayed and explained. Mr. Zimmerman advised that the proposal was to replace only as needed. LETTER FROM SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON CO. ICE CHANGES FOR ENERGY CHARGES & STEEL ELECTROLIERS Motion by Councilman Gleckman, seconded by Councilman Gillum, and earried, that this be referred to staff for a report. WILLIAMS, COOK & MOCINE - STATEMENT FOR JUNEO 1967 Motion by.Councilman Gleckman, seconded by Councilman Gillum, that the statement from Williams, Cook & Mocine in the amount of $2347.50 for services rendered be paid. Motion carried on roll call as follows AXES,, Oounioilmen Gillum, NOES,, None RESENT,, Councilman Nichols, NEPTUNE & THOMA.S INVOICE NO, 67 - Z9 REVISED Gleckman, Mayor Krieger Snyder. Motion. by Councilman Gleokman, seconded by Councilman Gillum, that the invoice #67 from Neptune & Thomas in the amount of $582.81 for service reendered and materials, be paid. Motbn carried on roll call as follo soo AYESo Councilman Gillum, Gleckman, Mayor Krieger NOES,, None ABSENT,, Councilman Nichols, Snyder CA.MERON & HOLLENBEOK NORTH EST QUADRANT Mr. A.iassa,, City Manager,, This is one I have in negotiation with the 0wner. We have a tentative agreement but I don't have legal authorization by the Council to negotiate with these property cases - there are two. One on the northwest corner of Hollenbeck ,.,and the other is on the south. Motion, by Councilman Gleckman, seconded by Mayor Krieger, and carried, authorizing the City Manager to proceed with right of way negotiations at ..Cameron. and Hollenbeck. PROGRESS REPORT ON CITY°S MAJOR IMPROVEMENTS Mayor Krieger,, I think this information would be a marvelous thing to distribute to the the papers would mike use of it. news media and I would hope that each of Motion by Councilman Gleckman, seconded by Councilman Gillum, and carried the progress report on City's major improvements be received and filed. m 34 - 0. C. 75-10-67 CITY MANAGER - Continued ANNEXATION NO. 17 CITY OF DALDWIN PAS Page Thirty-five •Motion by Councilman Gleckman, seconded by Councilman Gillum, and carried that the report on the final actin regarding Annexation No. 17 be received and filed. LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES ANNUAL CONFERENCE 'ATTENDANCE AND RESERVATION The cotwiai,l was polled regarding attendance at League of California Cities Conference. Councilmen Gillum, Gleckman and Mayor Krieger indicated they were going. Mr. Aiabsa advised that Councilmen Nichols and Snyder said they would be unable to attend. _In addition to the councilmen, there would be four attending from the Planning Commission and three and a half from staff. Mayor Krieger-,. the City Attorney and 1 extra, attending. Does the council want to authorize representation for llm� m includes 4 Planning Commission, 3 staff, 2 for cost not to exceed $175.00 each person Motion by Councilman Gillum.. seconded by Councilman Gleckman, that council authorize the attendance of 11 and 2 persons not to exceed the cost of $175.GO;each-for the League of California Cities annual confer- ence. Motion carried on roll call as follows.- AYESo Councilmen Gillum, Gleckman, Mayor Krieger 40 NOES.- None ABSENT.- Councilmen Nichols, Snyder CITY CLERK HOSPITAL CHARITY FUND, INC. The City Clerk advised that this was the first request received from this 1reputmble association. Motion by Councilman Gleckman, seconded by Mayor Krieger, that the request from the Hospital Charity Fund, Inc., to conduct a fund raising campaign in the months of August and September, 1967, in the City of West.Covina, be granted. Motion carried on roll call as follows.- AYES.- Councilmen Gillum, Gleckman, Mayor Krieger NOES0 None ABSENT-0 Councilmen Nichols, Snyder CITY' TREASURER None. MAYOR'S REPORTS Motbn made and carried to adopt Resolution commending Paul M. McCann for his services to the City, Councilman Gleckman then asked if it would be possible to hold over the resolutions until the councilmen were all present. Mr. Williams, City Attorney, said this could be done. Motion was then withdraw pertaining to Paul M. McCann. Motion made by Councilman Gleckman, seconded by Conncilm:an Gillum, and carried, that Items 1 m 2 - 3 and 4 of the Mayor's Reports be held over to the Council meeting of duly 17th. -35® 0 G. C. 7-10-67 MAYOR'S REPORTS - Continued Page Thirty -Six Mayor Krieger: The Fourth of July parade I thought was a tremendous effort by a number of private citizens and I think.it would be appropriate if we were to get a list of those people that were most active, preferably from Councilman Nichols and Mrs. Dorothy TeVault, for the purpose of preparing appro riate resolutions to be presented to these people. Council agreed. Staff requested to so arrange.) ANTI -CRIME PROGRAM REPORT Mayor Krieger.- I think it would be appropriate to schedule.for next Monday night's adjourned meeting the report of Chief S111 pertaining to the Anti -Crime program. (Council agreed m July 17th.). COUNCIL COMMITTEE REPORTS Councilman Gillum: Last week Mr. Aiassa and I attended a dinner given by the General Telephone Company. It was a delightful meeting, it boiled down -that if Pacific gets a rate increase, General is going to request the. same thing. Sometime in the future the City Manager will pass on to you the notes taken at that meeting. The letter I received from the Postal Department today spells out in no uncertain terms that they couldn't take oare of this. I received a call at my office today from Mr. Wiggins local representative, he advised he was going to get in touch with Mr. Aiassa and go over this with him and also the request from the City for the Federal Grant for the Beautification program. Have they contacted you Mr. Aiassa? (Answer: Yes.) After reading the letter I think the City should pursue this. I don't accept their explanation that it is difficult to go over a zip code line, etc, Mr..-Aiassa, City Manager: I think it is strictly political.... Councilman Gillum: Covina m to get these services, other Congressmen and I think it I agree. I.think we should seriously pursue this. This is one of the reasons people want to annex to the City of West I think we should.communicate with the should be done now. Mayor Krieger.- We discussed this when Mr. Wiggins came down for the Junior Chh ber f Commerce parade. agree. I t in.k those people have a legitimate complaint, having been annexed to the City .and then not getting service. Is it a consensus of the council that a communicatian be sent to Congressman Lipscomb and Senators Murphy and Kuchel. (Council agreed;) SAN GABRIEL VALLEY TRIBUNE Councilman Gleckman: I think in all seriousness that very often we are quick to criticize but very slow to pay compliments when they are deserved, and I would like to take this opportunity as one councilman who criticized them in the past to compliment the San Gabriel Valley Tribune on the excellent coverage and positive coverage they have given us. I.think in the past 60 days we have received a tremendous amount of publicity through the local efforts of our publisher, editor and our local reporter, and I want to take this opportunity to thank them and let them know I.appreciate it very much, ®36® • C. C. 7-10-67 Page Thirty -Seven DEMANDS Motion by Councilman Gleckman that the council approve payment of Demands totalling $42,265.13 as listed on Demand Sheets B314 and B315 and 0550, also reimbursement of the payroll account $89,908.81, and interfund transfer of 0368,565.88 as listed on Demand Sheets 2JO04 through TJ006. Seconded by Councilman Gillum. Motion carried on roll call as follows: AYES: Councilmen Gillum, NOES: None ABSENT: Councilmen Nichols, Gleckman, Mayor Krieger Snyder Motion by Councilman Gleckman, seconded by Councilman Gillum, and carried, that the council meeting adjourn at 11:30 p.m., to Monday, July 17, 1967, at 7:30 P.M. ATTEST -,- Deputy City Clerk APPROVED _37_ MA OR