Loading...
05-13-1968 - Regular Meeting - Minutesi MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE. CITY COUNCIL CITY OF WEST COVINA, CALIFORNIA MAY 13, 1968. SThe regular meeting of the City Council was called to order by Mayor Gleckman at 7: 30 p.m. , at the West Covina City Hall.. The Pledge of Allegiance wa.s led by Councilman, Ohapp'e11. The invocation was given by the Reverend D. Harrison, of the West Covina Church of the.Nazarene. ROLL CALL Present: Mayor Gleckman, Councilmen Chappell, Nichols, Gillum, Lloyd. Also Present: George Aiassa, City Manager George Wakefield, City Attorney Lela Preston, City Clerk H. R. Fast, Public'Services Director George Zimmerman, Ass't. City Engineer Owen Menard, Planning Director APPROVAL OF MINUTES _Motion by Councilman Gillum, seconded by Councilman Lloyd, and carried, that the •Council minutes of April 22, 1968 and,Aprill 29, 1968, be held over to the next meeting of the City Council. CITY CLERK'S REP CRTS PROJECT SP-68004 STREET'IMPROVEMENTS AMAN BROTHERS, INC. Location: California Avenue, Merced Avenue to Cameron Avenue. Motion by Councilman. Nichols, seconded by Councilman Gillum, and carried, that City Council accept street improvements and authorize the release of United States Fidelity and Guaranty Company performance bond No.. 14395 in the amount of $31,642.18. ------------- PROJECT SP-68005 Location: Badillo Street, from Lark Ellen APPROVE PLANS & SPECIFICATIONS Avenue to westerly City Limits STREET IMPROVEMENT Motion by Councilman Gillum, seconded by Councilman Lloyd,. that .Gity._CQuxiciil approve plans and specifications for street improvement from Lark Ellen;Avenue to Vincent Avenue and for landscaping from Lark Ellen.Avenue to westerly City Limits, on City Project SP-68005. Mayor Gleckman: Would you add - that the City Engineer call for bids? Councilman Gillum: Yes, I will accept that. Councilman Lloyd: Yes, I will second it. Mayor Gleckman: You have heard the motion, is there any discussion? None. Motion carried. - 1 - REG. C.C. 5-13-68 Page Two CITY CLERK'S REPORTS - Continued TRANSFER MAINTENANCE OF STORM DRAIN TO Location: East Side of Vincent Avenue, LOS ANGELES COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL South of Walnut Creek Channel. DISTRICT (PRECISE PLAN 514 R) RESOLUTION NO. 3788 ADOPTED The City Clerk presented: "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF WEST COVINA , CALIFORNIA, REQUESTING THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF THE LOS'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 SYSTEM KNOWN AS MISCELLANEOUS TRANSFER DRAIN NO. 181, IN THE CITY OF WEST COVINA, FOR FUTURE OPERATION, MAINTENANCE, REPAIR AND IMPROVEMENT, AND AUTHORIZE THE TRANSFER AND CONVEYANCE THEREOF. Mayor Gleckman: Hearing no objections, waive further reading of the body of said Resolution. Motion by Councilman Gillum, seconded by Councilman Chappell, that the Council adopt said Resolution. Motion carried on roll call vote as follows: AYES: Councilmen Chappell, Nichols, Gillum, Lloyd, Mayor Gleckman NOES: None ABSENT: None RESOLUTION NO. The City Clerk presented: "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF WEST COVINA DECLARING ITS INTENTION TO VACATE.A FUTURE STREET IN TRACT 28988 SUBJECT TO RESERVATIONS AND CERTAIN RIGHTS OF EASEMENT. " Mayor Gleckman: Hearing no objections, waive further reading of the body of said Resolution. Motion by Councilman Gillum, seconded by Councilman Lloyd, that Council adopt said Resoltition . Mayor Gleckman: Any discussion? I have a few comments. Mr. Aiassa, could you answer why we want to vacate this particular •street - didn't we have some legal complications with the people involved in the vacating of this street? Mr. Aiassa: Yes - I believe we have the map to show the area. (Mr. Fast displayed the map and explained.) Mayor Gleckman: My point is, what is the reason for vacating the street at this time? What advantage is it to the City, since at the time this tract map came in, or the previous one, we saw - 2 - ."'REG. C. C. 5-13-68 CITY CLEWS REPORTS - Continued Page Three fit to have that easement in case we would decide to put a street through - are you saying that the topography has changed since we put that tract map in and now? Mr.. Fast: No sir. Mayor Gleckman: I am just curious as to why we requested the street in the first place and now because the Southern Federal Savings & Loan requests to vacate that street, what makes it any different today than it was 2 or 3 years ago when we took dedication? Mr.. Fast: Only the current thinking with regard to the Traffic Consultant. Mr., Aiassa: There is another element. This map was laid out not in complete detail as to the topography and I think if the Council sees the area between lots 4 and 5..... also the grading has changed. This is why we now have what is referred to as a possible lawsuit.. Another element, there were two subdivisions, I believe, and this is the only one that survived. Mayor Gleckman: I can only say. that I can see where time and again when these tracts first come before the Council the party bringing in the subdivision for our approval is willing to dedicate anything to get the map approved and then when approved upon development they come back before a future City Council and then vacate the very thing that they dedicated in order to get the subdivision approved. This is the case in Hollencrest right now. We have a problem with the school bus because there is no through street in order for the bus to go around. If we continue to vacate streets the City is the one that will have to pay to get proper circulation. Are there any other comments? Councilman Chappell: Do we have to do this today or can we put aside and examine it more thoroughly? Mr. Wakefield: You may take whatever action the Council desires. You may postpone the adoption of the Resolution to vacate which simply sets it for hearing, or you may take it off the calendar and it can be restored at some future date. Mayor Gleckman: My only thought Mr. Wakefield - - according to this report it says Barneshill Drive in Tract 29126 will provide the access to the property the future street was proposed to serve.. I have a question, is Barneshill Drive in, Tract 29126 providing that access right now? Mr, Fast: Only as a future street in the event it is developed in that manner. Mayor Gleckman: If it is not developed in that manner, we have no street at all. • Mr. Fast: We will have no street ever unless it is subdivided. Councilman Nichols: Does staff have any idea of the basis for the request? Is there some proposed utilization for this right-of-way at this time ? Mr. Fast: It was just brought to my attention by Mr.. Menard, perhaps the reason the developer brought it to our attention at the Planning Commission level it was brought out that _3_ REG. C.C. 5-13-68 Page Four. CITY CLERKS REPORTS - Continued there is a very close setback line with respect to construction already existing and perhaps they are applying with respect to that condition. Mr. Menard- At the Planning Commission meeting it came out that it • appeared there was construction either very close to or on the future street, which undoubtedly was one of the reasons the request was forthcoming. This at least in the opinion of the Planning Commission did not indicate a clear reason why it should or should not be vacated but I think it was taken under consideration by the Planning Commission in their recommendation. Councilman• Nichols; The reason.I ask the question I think it is reasonable to state that we really don't know exactly what the nature of future development will be in the area. The street was dedicated to the City and it i-s^pos's'ibleiithat rA^fuAwe.-- eT�ielopment might indicate to our city staff that at that time that an extension of Hollenbeck or some other street is really not feasible in terms of future developments , but if future developments would indicate that it is desirable to have this street..... . Now at that time when this future area begins to develop adjacent to that, if we then determine that it is in fact not necessary and staff comes back to us again and says we now see for sure that there is no need to put a street in there, then it would seem to me that would be the time for the request.. I would be inclined to accept the thesis, I think you are proposing, and that is what's the rush? Councilman. Lloyd: Mr. Fast - what would be the consequences if we don't • go through with this ? Wha t would be the ill effects ? Mr. Fast: There would be no ill effects whatsoever until the property above develops or Hollenbeck comes through, and if we guessed wrong in recommending that this street is no longer needed there would be only ill effects if in the future we would change our mind and say we would want a future street in there. Technically,I think the City Attorney better answer this, there might possibly be a structure on a dedication of a street and highway easement. Mr. Wakefield: This is a proposed street that has never been accepted by Council as a dedicated street, so the fact is that the property owners on each side of the proposed dedication continue to have the right to use the property subject to the fact that the City may ultimately accept the street, and that time they would be required to remove any improvements that they might have placed on the property, but in the meantime they may use it. It is technically not a street until accepted by the City. The encroachment that apparently exists is a legal encroachment so far as the property owner is concerned. From the standpoint of a lendingagency it would be desirable to have the possibility of the acceptance of dedication removed in order to clear the property. Other than that what has happened is legal. We are simply talking about a dedication a'nd as to whether there is or is not a possibility of the need of this street in the future • Councilman Gillum- I would like to know from the City Attorney, again, how we can either table this or withdraw the motion to approve the Resolution. Mr. Wakefield: You may do it by taking no action on the proposed Resolution before you and either continuing the matter indefinitely,or taking it off the calendar. Mayor Gleckman- But we have a motion and a' second to adopt? -4- REG. C.C. 5-13-68 Page Five CITY CLERK'S REPORTS Continued Mr. Wakefield: In that case someone would have to offer a substitute motion, or the motion can be withdrawn. Motion by Councilman Gillum to withdraw the motion made. Councilman. Lloyd sedonded • the withdrawal of the previous motion. Motion by Councilman. Gillum that this item be tabled to a future date of ninety days from today. Councilman Nichols: Mr. Mayor - I don't quite know the purpose of the Council's desire to bring it back in.90 days? Councilman Gillum: There has been a request made Mr.. Nichols, and I am not satisfied with what I see here, but possibly with the help of the staff we might be able to clear up the matter in 90 days and at that time either approve of disapprove the request. Seconded by Councilman. Nichols. Motion carried.. All were in favor. Mayor Gleckman: The Resolution will be held up and the item will return in 90 days. PARCEL MAP 660 Location: Southerly terminus of Meeker (FORMERLY PARCEL MAP 4) Avenue, northerly of Walnut Creek. Wash. LEWIS W . STARBLE Mayor Gleckman: We have an application from the applicant requesting a waiver of one of the conditions. Mr. Aia s sa ? Mr.- Aiassa: There is a staff report on this matter and the waiver is that they would like to have the Council waive the side- walk requirement, which was part of the requirement at the time the lot split was made. . I believe we have a map showing the parcel involved. (The Mayor requested Mr. Fast to display map.) It was known as lot split parcel map 4, tract 13865. Councilman Nichols: I think this is a reasonable request. There are no other sidewalks not only on that street but in the entire area, and therefore he would be the only property in the cul de sac street with a stretch of sidewalk, and the City's policy as stated in the report, has been for a secondary street and major streets. Secondly, the only time there ever could be any additional sidewalks would be if the City installed them or an assessment or improved district approved by the people. I would think it would be a reasonable request to waive it. Mayor Gleckman: I have a question of the City Attorney. Mr. Starble by written communication here has said in his letter and I quote - "that it is my understanding that the Master Plan for the City calls for their installation in the future (and I believe he is referring to sidewalks) at which time I will conform to the City's requirement per the Master Plan. " My question,to you is - is there anyway to bind Mr.. Starble in case there are sidewalks installed in there at a later date"loading to and up to his commitment? Mr. Wakefield: No, there is no way tor,( excopt'to .=retinue with the requirement now and postpone the time of the actual - 5 - REG. C.C. 5-13-68 Page Six 0 • CITY CLERK'S REPORTS - Continued construction work to some future date and post a bond to that effect but if the requirement is waived then he stands in the same position as every other property owner in the area. Mayor Gleckman: Am I correct, does he meet the minimum requirements with the lot split or will either one of the lots be below our minimum requirement in that area ? Mr. Aiassa: The Council has approved the lot split, and we actually made these items a condition upon the lot split. Mr. Fast, do you have any comments ? Mr.. Fast: Yes, lot split procedures follow a normal precise plan or parcel map procedures, which goes in accordance with our subdivision ordinance which says automatically that sidewalks, curbs and gutters, etc. , and that is why the condition.iS. in there. Motion by Councilman Nichols that because of the particular circumstances involved as outlined in the City Engineer's report, that the Council grant a waiver of the sidewalk requirements on the property on Meeker Avenue as requested here. Seconded by Councilman Gillum, and carried. RESOLUTION NO., 3789 The City Clerk presented: ° "A.RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPTED OF THE CITY OF WEST COVINA,. GIVING APPROVAL TO PARCEL MAP 660 (FORMERLY PARCEL MAP 4) AND THIS INCLUDES THE CONDITION NUMBER 2-C SIDEWALK CONSTRUCTION MAY BE DELETED FROM THE REQUIREMENTS. " Mayor Gleckman: Daring no objections, waivefurther reading of the body of said Resolution. Motion by Councilman Gillum, seconded by Councilman Nichols;, that the -.City Council adopt said Resolution. Motion carried on roll call vote as follows: AYES: Councilmen Chappell, Nichols,- Gillum, Lloyd, Mayor Gleckman NOES: None ABSENT: None RESOLUTION NO. 3790 The. City Clerk presented: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF ADOPTED THE CITY OF WEST COVINA,. GIVING APPROVAL -TO PARCEL MAP 622 (FORMERLY PARCEL MAP 9) . " Mayor Gleckman: Hearing no objections, waive reading of the body of said Resolution. Motion by Councilman Gillum, seconded by Councilman. Nichols, that Council adopt said. Resolution. Motion carried on roll call vote as. follows: AYES: Councilmen Chappell, Nichols, Gillum, Lloyd, Mayor Gleckman NOES: None ABSENT: None REG. C.C. 5-13-68 Page Seven 0 CITY CLERKS REPORTS - Continued "PRQJ*.ECT SP-68004 STREET IMPROVEMENTS 1911 ACT (Short Form) Location: California Avenue from Vine Avenue northerly. Motion by Councilman. Chappell, seconded by Councilman. Gillum, and carried, that Council accept the Engineer's report. RESOLUTION NO. 3791 The City Clerk presented: "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPTED OF THE CITY OF WEST COVINA, CON- -FIRMING THE REPORT OF THE SUPERINTENDENT OF STREETS RELATIVE TO THE COST OF WORK DONE PURSUANT TO RESOLUTION NO. 3742,, CALIFORNIA AVENUE FROM VINE AVENUE NOTHERLY. " Mayor Gleckman: Hearing no objections, waive further reading of the body of said Resolution. Motion by Councilman Gillum, seconded by Councilman. Chappell, that the city Council adopt said Resolution. Motion carried on roll call vote as follows: AYES: Councilmen, Chappell, Gillum, Lloyd, Mayor Gleckman' NOES: Councilman. Nichols ABSENT: None SCHEDULED MATTERS HEARINGS STREET IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT AD 1-67 PROTEST HEARING DEBT LIMIT REPORT - PROTEST HEARING Improvement of Barranca Street Location: Barranca Street, from Cortez Street to Walnut Creek Channel. Mayor Gleckman: Madam CCity Clerk do you have the affidavit of mailing relative to this hearing? Lela Preston., City Clerk: Yes,; I do. Motion by Councilman. Gillum, seconded by Councilman Lloyd, and carried, that Council accept and file. Mayor Gleckman: Mr.. Consulting Engineering, will you present the factual data of the report, please. • . Patrick Rossetti We have prepared the report under the direction of the. City Assessment Engineer Engineer. (Briefly summarized verbally the written report.) Redondo Beach, California Mayor Gleckman: Thank you. Madam City Clerk have you received any written protests relative to the written report? Lela Preston, City Clerk: Mr.. Mayor, I received two protests this evening. - 7 - REG. C.C. 5-1.3-68 Page Eight HEARINGS - Continued Barranca Street Protest Hearing - Continued Mayor Gleckman- I have just asked the City Attorney for a legal interpretation as to the legality of those two protests Legally they would have had to be in the City Hall by Friday of this past week to be accepted this evening. However, if the two people that sent the written protests are present this evening they may come before the Council during Oral Communications, if they so desire, Madam City Clerk will you now read any written statements in support, if any? Lela Preston, City Clerk- In favor; Mrs. D. H. Wallace., 3226 Whitebirch.Drive, W.C.; Mrs. F. J..Orsi, 19„8.65 East Lorencita Drive, Covina; R. N. Richards, 3025 E. Larkwood St., West Covina; Dr. & Mrs. W. P. Snider, 2657 East Charlinda Ave., West Covina; Robert & Ruth Trudeau, 1140 Spring Meadow Dr. , West Covina; J. B. Heytens, 2612 E. Larkwood, West Covina; W. E. Viney, I025 Spring - Meadow Drive,.-West(Covina; M_ R., Johnson, MD,'-4.0 .Campaha Flores Drive, West Covina; David.A.. Parker,, 19967'Lorencita Drive, Covina. Mayor Gleckman. A motion would be in order receiving the statements that the City Clerk stated have been received So moved by Councilman Gillum, seconded by Council- man Chappell and carried. • Councilman. Lloyd- I would like to ask Mr. Fast a question. How about the communications received in regards to this in initiating this action in 1967? Does that become a part of this record or not ? Mr, Fast:. I would have to ask the City Attorney for a ruling in regard to requests received by staff in the past two years. We have received no recent requests. (The Mayor asked Councilman Lloyd to wait until Council Discussion before pursuing further, and explained that the procedure is such that if there are any written protests that should have been read into the record they will be put in by the City Clerk and if more than half of the property owners in the area tb be assessed have filed a written protest then this Council will not proceed with this hearing. ) THIS JS THE. TIME AND PLACE FOR. ORAL PROTESTS REGARDING THE PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS IN OPPOSITION Mr.. Ott . I am not opposed to the widening of Barranca Street or 509 S. Barranca St. the curbs, gutters and sidewalks, but I am opposed of one thing. I think the estimated cost that thefew property owners is getting is away out of this world. I • heard by mouth and not written communications from the City that sometime ago two or three people along the street got a request'for a voluntary plan - only I never did hear of that. Under the voluntary plan I understand we can get by much cheaper. It is estimated that it will cost about $8.68 a running foot on mine. In. 1956 when I built my place I asked the City Engineers about ;putting a curb in then, and they said that due to the fact that there were no grade elevations, etc. , it would be kind of impossible for me to put a curb in there at that time. Then.I could have got it put in for $2. 50 a foot. This is a lot of difference. I have two children and- I live right on the corner and Cortez and Barranca is a very dangerous corner. We do need it but why should we give the land and then under the 1911. Act we are going to have to pay 8- REG. C.C. 5-13-68 Page Nine HEARINGS Continued BARRANCA STREET IMPROVEMENT - PROTEST HEARING as well for the curbs and gutters and that is what I am opposed to. M Sanovitch I am not opposed to the street widening or any i.mprove- 529 Soo Barranca ments along there. The thing I am opposed to is the cost presented to me. . I feel that Barranca is a secondary highway - it is a City street and it serves too many purposes other than the schools and the people living on that street. It serves traffic from the San Gabriel Valley clear to the beaches and various people that go to their employment in other parts. It serves 3 schools which are State supported. I feel that some of that burden should be paid by the School District instead of the individual property owners. Mayor. Gleckman.- Thank you. Any further oral protests? Before closing the hearing I would like to have discussion by the Council as to what their intent would be Councilman Nichols.- May I first direct one or two questions? I would like to ask our Assessment Engineer the number of properties that will be assessed? And the total assessment? Mr. P. Rossetti° 27 properties, at a total of $29,765.89. Councilman Nichols.- With your indulgence Mayor Gleckman and Councilman Gillum, as you are both familiar with my position,. I would like the opportunity to restate it tonight for the benefit of our two new councilmen, and after tonight on future matters of this type I will not have to go over it. . I also am entirely in favor of this project. I think it is very badly needed in our community. . I think it is interesting to note that all of the people who communicated to the Council in favor, do not live in the area that is being assessed. It does make a difference, as it is going to cost those people $1, 000 to be noble and help the school children. . My position is this - where we have a major highway and certainly Barranca is as major a street as any and serves not only the immediate residents but that of surrounding communities, I feel it is a very great injustice to levy a disproportionate share against those individuals who happen to front on that street. Where we live on our own private streets, where that street is basically there to serve ourselves and our neighbors only,. I can see the justice in that kind of an assessment, but I could not before and cannot now think in my mind when all of /Vest Covina benefits and the surrounding communities benefit that it is fine to assess 27 people $1000 apiece against their properties for this improvement. That is my position and that is how I felt in the past and continue to feel. When we are improving secondary highways then general funds of the City should totally support those improvements rather than a proportionate share and I say that even so a large part of this project cost is in fact being borne by the general funds of this City, but $1000 levied against a property owner because he lives on that street I think is an unreasonable assessment when his benefit is minuscule compared to the benefits the community realizes. • Mayor Gleckman: Thank you Councilman Nichols. I have a question - Mr. Rossetti. Of the $29,765.89 how much is for land acquisition owned by these property owners? Mr.. P. Rossetti. $ 19, 680. Mayor Gleckman.- In other words if they would dedicate the bill would be reduced by $19, 680. Is that correct? - 9 - REG. C.C. 5-13-68 Page Ten BARRANCA STREET IMPROVEMENT - PROTEST HEARING - Continued Mr. P. Rossetti-. That is correct. Mayor Gleckman. I just wanted to clear the air because of the inference made in the past and my position opposite of Councilman Nichols. • My position in a few words is that basically if we would get the dedication from the people in order to do the improvement that is so necessary to protect our children and widen these streets we wouldn't have to go to the 1911 Act. It is only necessary where we can't receive that dedication and we must get the job done in order to protect our children and to widen the streets. The people within our City along Lark. Ellen Avenue, along Cameron Avenue, and along some of the other streets, and I know Councilman Nichols position was the same then, and they use the other streets to get to and from their homes and on many of the other streets within our City the people have dedicated or have paid for curbs and gutters and in this particular case sidewalks are needed to protect our children.. So as far as I am concerned. we are not talking about $29, 765. 89 or as referred to by Councilman Nichols - a $1000 per property owner, we are talking about $10, 000 difference, which unfortunately because the people living on this street have not dedicated the amount to the figure you speak about Councilman Nichols. . Now that is my position. Councilman. Nichols. At the moment you are playing the role of an advocate rather than a presiding officer and I don't want: to abridge the other Councilmens' desire to contribute, I don't want to get engaged in a debate with you. I stated my position and you differ from it very strongly and that is your privilege and I would not want to add anymore to it. . Councilman. Lloyd: Mr. Mayor - I happen to believe strongly in the issue - that this street has to be made safe for the children going to school and the point I was trying to make before is that there was communications to the City from the Homeowners' Association several years ago pointing out the dangers that exist on this specific street and I can't state strongly enough that every property owner has been contacted by the. City and private citizens asking them to dedicate and of course the decision is up to the .indi.vidual, but the danger was more than apparent, and I think at this point the question here is the service to the City. We were talking about curbs and gutters and I note most of the streets surrounding do have curbs and gutters and Barranca going south from the Freeway in many areas does not have curbs and gutters, therefore I think it is incumbent upon the Council to insure the safety of the children going to school and I think this can be done only by carrying this through. Mayor Gleckman. Mr. . Ott? Mr. Ott-. I just want to refer back to your remarks and also Mr. Lloyd's. I have never been asked as a voluntary plan, which you said all. the residents had been contacted. One more thing, my land is your land. I have already given it to you. In 1949 the City of West Covina since then has had an easement for road purposes, sewers, water lines, etc. , anything they want and I am still getting assessed $1267. after giving you 10' as easement to widen that road and put in the sidewalks and out of • this I know good and well that I am paying for someone that hasn't given the land and you are going to buy it. There are two on the corner that I know will be bought. Therefore I think the voluntary plan should have been asked of everyone and I should have heard about it. Mayor Gleckman. Thank you Mr. Ott. You brought up a very good point. Mr. Rossetti, if I remember correctly, the last time we went through an 1911 Act we gave credit to the people that had dedicated. Am I correct? - 10 - REG. Co Co 5-13-68 Page Eleven • C BARRANCA STREET IMPROVEMENT - PROTEST HEARING - Continued Mr. o Rossetti° Yes - as a credit per se, We call it an adjustment. But the law has been revised, (Explained the previous law in effect and as it is now.) I would like to comment on the statement made regarding 27 parcels and each one will pay $1, 000 - - that is not true Some are 100' lots and the two c'.lots in question, one is 325' frontage. There are other parcels of land that only paid $244. and they are 90' of frontage, so the size of the parcel has something to do with it, However, I agree with Mr. Ott that he is going to pay for some of this acquisition, however some others have their curb and gutters and they are not being charged Mayor Gleckmano Is there any further discussion by Council? Councilman Lloyd-, Weren't all of the property owners notified of this voluntary plane? Mr. Fast° The 1911 Act required notification of all property owners If you are referring to the voluntary plan the City did contact the interested parties such as the School District in the area and we determined there were certain parcels that had to be acquired and this is the basic inequity the staff has reported to the Council in previous 1911 Acts, that the entire District has to share to a certain extent in the acquisition of right-of-way, It was determined we would contact the property owners where right-of-way had to be acquired and in the event a voluntary prof ect was not to be consumnated with the dedication of right-of-way that was the cost that., had to be shared amongst all members of the District, so once the voluntary plan fell because the right-of-way was not dedicated then no further contact was made in the District because at that time the only thing left to volunteer would be things such as curb and gutter which were going to be assessed in any event against individual property owners. So the voluntary portion rose and fell on the basis of whether the right-of-way could be acquired and it would have to be 100% Councilman Lloyd. Everyone was not notified then? This is what I am asking. Mr. o Fast, This could verywell be, insofar as this particular project is concerned today. I am not familiar with the 1957 or 1958 attempt, but in 1968 he was probably not contacted anymore because when we found the right -of -way could not be ob`tat..�iQ, that was the key point so far as distribution of costs versus no distribution of costs. Mayor Gleckmano " Any further comments by Council? Yes - Mr, Casler? Don Casler I would hate to see this Council miss the boat on a 1733 Alaska St. possible improvement here where we might be sorry for. At the present time we have Barranca Street which . is two lanes, one each way and we are going to widen it to four lanes. I have heard no talk of signalization at this intersection and at the present time it is an absolute bear to get across Barranca Street with two lanes. I would like very much to refer you to some studies made by the Chamber of Commerce in the past two years that referred the Council with the County, on this intersection and asked that they look. on this intersection insofar as to installing stop signs here, to avoid accidents. I know several have happened already. Signals or at least stop signs must be put in here if we are going to widen this boulevard to four lanes. It is fast now and will be faster when widened. Other than that I am in favor of it. Mayor Gleckmano Thank you. Further discussion by Council? If not, I will entertain a motion to close the hearing man.Lloyd, and carried So moved by Councilman Gillum, seconded by Council- REG. C.C. 5-13-68 Page Twelve • • BARRANCA STREET IMPROVEMENT - PROTEST HEARING - Continued THIS HEARING IS NOW CLOSED Mr. o Wakefield.- The Consulting Engineer should be asked to compute the percentage of the protests and report to the Council. Mayor Gleckman, Mr. Rossetti. Mr. Rossetti, In a normal presentation where you do not have more than 50%, the comment is usually less than.50%. . I can only go by front footage. I have 19,678 of lineal footage and 660' have protests, which is less than 50%. Mayor Gleckman, Thank you. Madam City Clerk may we have the reading of the heading of the Resolution? RESOLUTION NO. 3792 The City Clerk presented, "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPTED OF THE CITY OF WEST COVINA, MAKING FINDING OF FEASIBILITY OF ACQUISITION OF NECESSARY'RIGHT-OF-WAY AND WAIVING ASSESSMENT LIMITATIONS IN ASSESSMENT DISTRICT -AD 1-67 FOR THE IMPROVEMENT OF BARRANCA STREET. " Mayor Gleckman, Hearing no objections, waive further reading of the body of said Resolution Motion by Councilman Gillum, seconded by Councilman: Lloyd, that the City Council adopt said Resolution. Motion carried on roll call vote as follows, AYES, Councilmen Chappell, NOES, Councilman Nichols . ABSENT, None Gillum, Lloyd, Mayor Gleckman HEARING OF PROTESTS AND OBJECTIONS TO FORMING 1911 ACT ASSESSMENT DISTRICT Installation of street improvements in Barranca Street improvement district AD 1-67 Set for hearing on this date by Resolution of Intention No.. 3763 adopted by the City Council on March 25,. 1968. Mayor Gleckman: Madam City Clerk do you have the affidavits of publication, posting and mailing relative to the hearing? Lela Preston, City Clerk. Yes, I do Motion by Councilman Gillum, seconded by Councilman, Lloyd, and carried, that City Council receive and. file Mayor Gleckman, Madam City Clerk have you received any written protests against the proposed improvement? Lela Preston,. City Clerk, No, I have not Mayor Gleckman. Is there anyone here who wishes to speak in behalf of the protest? If there are no protests, the Resolution ordering the work to be done- Mrs. Preston? - 12 - REG.. Co Ca 5-13-68 Page Thirteen FORMING 1911 ACT, ASSESSMENT DISTRICT -. Continued RESOLUTION NO. 3793 The City Clerk presented: "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPTED OF THE CITY OF WEST COVINA ORDERING WORK -TO BE DONE ON BARRANCA STREET IN ACCORDANCE WITH RESOLUTION OF INTENTION NO. 3763. " Mayor Gleckman- Hearing no objections, waive further -reading of the body of said Resolution. Motion by Councilman Gillum, seconded by Councilman Chappell, that the City Council adopt said Resolution. Motion carried on roll call vote as follows- AYES-. Councilmen Chappell, Gillum, Lloyd, Mayor Gleckman NOES: Councilman. Nichols ABSENT. None PRECISE PLAN NO. 531 - HARRY SOBELOFF Location. 725 South Glendora:Avenue (Harry Hill Volkswagen) Request for automobile sales and service; in. Zone C-2 approved by Planning Commission Resolution..No, 2042, • with conditions o . Appealed by applicant on April 22, 1968. Mayor Gleckman. Have the notifications been sent out Mrs. Preston? Lela Preston, City Clerk: Yes they have (Mr. Menard, Planning Director, presented a verbal summary of the report presented to City Council, and read the Planning Commission Resol.utibn.Noo 2042.) Mayor Gleckman. Mr., Menard, does the applicant have a copy of the report you are reading? Mr. . Menard: Yes he has been provided with a copy of the Resolution and we can answer any questions relative to the items of conditions. The request for waivers from the applicant, I think have been well spread in the Resolution, however there is a two page letter from the applicants architect to a fuller degreeoexpla_ining why they felt the waivers should be granted. (Mayor Gleckman requested the letter be passed done through the Council. Mr. Menard presented two site plans and explained.) THE CHAIR ANNOUNCED THIS :IS THE TIME AND PLACE. FOR, THE PUBLIC HEARING ON PRECISE. PLAN NO. 531. AND EXPLAINED THE PROCEDURE is IN FAVOR George E. Moss We are here this evening to appeal this decision set 1007 East State Street forth by the Planning Commission. We would like to West Covina commend Mr. . Menard and staff on their effort as to what they thought would be a suitable plan for this property, however on their plan they have placed more emphasis upon policy and, far less consideration for our needs and requirements and above all our desire to implement a plan that we felt was ably executed by our licensed architect and fits - 13 - REG. Ca, Co 5-13-68 Wage Fourteen PRECISE PLAN NO. 531 - Continued in with our overal program, First of all I want to make it clear to you gentlemen that we are not here to minimize our desire to put forth the best possible project, on the contrary we are investing in land and building, well over one million dollars and we. are here this evening to point out to you that there are certain deficiencies in the Study Plan.A that we feel should be rectified for the benefit of the project and the community. We have four objectives in setting up our facility- I —Generate the most business for this. type of product, this will help the City and help us. 2 - We want a facility that will supply the best possible service and accommodation for customers in West Covina. 3 - We want our facility to fit the people in this area We are now bringing in the best facility seen on the street, and we hope it will be the forerunner for other developments and we want todo it right. Not only from our point of view but from the point of view of bringing to the City a better type development and that,. I am sure we all want. 4 - we want, and not least, to end up with something that will be aesthetically pleasing not only functionally but something that will be beautiful. . Our plan calls for a building well over 30, 000 .sq. ft. If I may - this building really is like a beautiful lady. We have a design that has good floor lines and is pleasing to look at. We view the land- scaping as part of the clothing and accessories, and with clothing and accessories on a. beautiful women you can do one of two things. You can either put clothing and accessories on a woman and she looks very gaudy, or you can put on too few clothes and she will look skimpy and cheap. What we feel about our plan as we presented it is it gives our beautiful lady the optimum amount of clothing and • accessories.. That is the optimum amount of landscaping and decoration. I would like to go through some of these points for your benefit, if I may., (Stepped to the board and used the maps for explanation as to objections to Study Plan,A with regard to landscaping.) Mr. Robert Brown (Mr. , Brown asked permission to use the plans (Architect for the Client) displayed on the board, and pointed out two items they 530 No. Orchard Drive wanted waived that Mr. . Moss missed in his presenta- Burbank tion o ) THERE WAS NO FURTHER PUBLIC DISCUSSION. HEARING CLOSED. COUNCIL DISCUSSION. Councilman Gillum, Mr. Moss - let me say to you first of all I was raised in the automobile business so I know what you are faced with. But I also know in the past in this. City and I have lived here for 15 years, we have made great mistakes and errors in not re- quiring landscaping. . I feel a couple of your requests might be justified. The idea behind this is not to restrict business, we desire and want you there and we want something that will be designed and built and be a credit to that corner, but the problem has been in the past that we end up blacktopping everything and we have a beautiful building and all you see is blacktopping and building, The dealerships.' we have in the CiBty today iha;secomplied with the landscaping requirements and I believelheyhal4eome objections, just as you ' do . I believe in the location of some • of this, it may not be desirable but I do believe there is an area that is needed, especially on that corner, as heavily travelled as that corner is. I can support your. thinking on the area on the backside as ,far as reducing the landscaping, but I am afraid.I have to go along with the staff°s recommendations on the front as far as the trees and planters. My question to you is do you feel our 8% landscap- ing requirement is .. excel si�ae ? Mr. Moss, In all honesty I might say that in some instances perhaps 20% would be more .logical, but in this case the 8% is unreasonable because of the size''of our facility. - 14 - REGa C.C. 5-13-68 Page Fifteen 0 Is • PRECISE PLAN NO. ,531 - Continued We could have very easily done this with half of the area involved, but rather than skimp and put in a facility that would be second best we went into an area twice the size of our needed requirement in order to bring in something a :little' better to West Covina. And in so doing you are now saying because of your larger area we are now going to penalize you. In other words if we had half the area all that would be required would be 4/® because our main building and frontage would not have changed. In some instances 20% would be logical and the dealer you just mentioned was far in excess of the 8% figure, so I might point out as far as using that for a comparison I don't think that one would be a very valid one Councilman Gillum- My question was do you feel that 8% is too much to put into landscaping? Mr. Moss- Yes. In this instance I would say it is far too much considering the type of facility, I can show you a rendering of the facility, it might give you a better perspective of what the finished product would look like from our concept. Councilman Lloyd. - Mr. Mayor - I would like to see the rendering. (Mr. Moss presented a rendering of the proposed facility, and explained.) Mayor Gleckman- Thank you Mr. Moss, Is there any further discussion by Council? Councilman Chappell- Is this going to be a chain link fence or a block fence? I have heard both terms used Mr. Menard- A chain link fence by Ordinance is not allowed in this particular location. This is residential property and requires a concrete block wall and a change can only be granted by a variance of the Planning Commission Councilman Gillum: Mr. Moss - this Study Plan A, was this discussed with you by the staff ? Mr. Moss- We submitted an entirely different plan. This was their concept submitted to the Commission, We were not in accord with this plan at all and it was not discussed with me. If you will wait a moment I will make sure if it was discussed with the architect Mr.. Brown (Architect)- It is a question of what was discussed? Councilman,.Gillum.- Is tonight the first time either of you gentlemen have seen Study Plan A? Mr. Brown (Architect)- No, I saw it at the Planning Commission meeting. We held a premeeting before the Commission meeting Councilman Nichols- At the time that I voted in favor of changing the zoning on this piece of property from R-1 to C-2 I did so only in relation to what I knew to be the increasingly desirable requirements for developments in our commercial areas. I think there is some legitimate room for debate between the builder -developer and the Commission as to the precise location of certain aspects of landscaping, but in general terms I do not feel that I could go along with reducing the general overal landscaping requirements on this project. There is some question in my mind about the - 15 - REG. C.C. 5-13-68 Page Sixteen PRECISE PLAN NO. 531 Continued desirability of green plants of landscaping in areas in sections that are neither accessible to the public or .vvewabl.e by the public, and I would think that might be an area of some possible modification. _. As far as the rest .is concerned I would rather feel that this Council has over required a great belt in landscaping on a • commercial development than under required. Because if we under require we will never get it, if we have over required it, it certainly should not be harmful to the community. Mr. Menard the area along the westerly border of the property where the block wall will be required by law, is that area going to be view- able by the public from the street? We are told by the applicant at one time that it is a storage area and later he would like to see it viewed by the public as they come along. My understanding of a storage area is where you store new cars with hub caps off, etc and not a particularly desirable area for viewing of the public. Mr. Menard-. The area you are talking about I assume is here. . In order to properly answer I should probably refer back to why the Planning Commission approved this This is residential zoning, the attempt of this landscaping strip is not beautification or for viewing from this street or this street. . The intent of this kind of landscaping_. around a concrete block wall is material that grows up so the residential area is shielded from noises and the intense development on the other side of the concrete wall. . Councilman Nichols-. That certainly refreshes my memory in that area Mr. Menard. The Planning Commission spread in the minutes that it was their intent that the landscaping in these particular area.a s would be required by the new S- C zone, and I was charged with the responsibility of making sure it was material that would grow to a considerable height. Councilman.. Nichols. Again in summary, the City Council increased the use on this land from residential land to C-2 and made it extremely valuable as compa red to R-1, but there is a component with that and that is that the Council owes a great deal of responsi- bility to those surrounding properties that they be thoroughly protected. I would, except in areas that the staff would wish to make modification in progress of development., I would vote to uphold the staff's position in this matter, Councilman Lloyd. Mr. Mayor, I would like to ask Mr. Moss a question? Were you aware of the fact on the northeast and north- west side in that 10' strip that the foliage was to be high shrubs. Mra. Moss. No one discussed the type of shrubs. Again we don't question the fact thatthere should be a block wall and even on the north side since it is abutting residential property, we are only concerned about maintaining a 10' planting strip that really serves no useful purpose. Even on the other side you will find that it is residential now but really transistional o In the immediate future this could go commercial, and there is really no need to put in a landscaped area that will provide a maintenance problem and an eventual eyesore. This is how we view it. No one will see it. I can't appreciate the logic of putting in plantings. I can't appreciate the .logic of putting in plantings alongside of a vacant lot. Who is going to see it? We are not adverse to doing anything to beautify it but when there is no one there to benefit by the plantings ® - and on the other side you have some small homes that ultimately will be developed commercial. That is our contention. We are not adverse to doing anything to enhance our structure but we don't like to see an eyesore develop and that - 16_ REG. Co Co 5-13-68 Page Seventeen PRECISE PLAN NO. 531 Continued is what will happen in your effort to oppose a hardship on us we are going to end up with a 10' area that will be a litter and dump region ° Councilman, Lloyd- What is your objection to the two islands in the middle? Mr.. Moss. It will obstruct the visibility to our. showroom. We want a certain amount of visibility for the people and cars that go by to be able to see our showroom. If it was a question of putting up a divider we could put up a decorative wall but to have a landscaped area that will require maintenance and really doesn't beautify anything it isn't logical, not: when you have the entire perimeter of the building that will be well landscaped and make the structure look beautiful; again you will be detracting from it: Councilman Lloyd-, Mr. Menard, would you comment on two things? One, the prospects on future considerations regarding residential to the west, and also what the height of the shrubbery is supposed to be in the island structure? Mr. Menard. In regards to this location, the property is developed at the present time and with reasonably high quality single family homes, and I don't anticipate that these homes will be in a transistional area for less than 10 to 15 years. This particular property is zoned multi -family and I would anticipate that a logical, and normal zoning pattern from Glendora moving to the west is already in existence. Commercial Rm3 and R-2 • and eventually some R®1 on to the west- -.My opinion at ithis Um-e,that inul:ti-family zoning located on the bulk of this is probably appropriate Councilman Lloyd.. How does that fit in with our core area concept? Mr. .Menard. This is out of the core area. In regard to the exact location. or kinds of materials that are indicated in any of these areas, whether it .be in the customer parking area or not, we anticipated or received the notice that this was the area, therefore we landscaped it... The landscaping plan represented on. Study Plan. A is totally visible from the point of view of the developer, and he must submit prior to a building permit, the landscape plan showing the finite locations of where the material. will be, what kind. it will, be,, the permanent watering system to be placed on the facility, main- tenance of landscaping is also a requirement of our zoning ordinance. The landscaping need not be in this particular location, this is flexible. The landscape architect that does the final plan can alter this around. . This is an attbempt by the Planning Commission and staff to attempt to show approximately 8% of landscaping that we felt might be appropriate. I might point out that walk throughs are considered landscaped areas, this is beautiful as well as decorative and would apply towards the 8%0 Councilman Nichols. The belt that you show is a 10' belt. . In your concept if trees were planted basically in that area,. would that in your mind meet the requirements of the landscaped area? is Mr. Menard. First, I am not a landscape architect, but I could anticipate that there are certain species of trees that would certainly create the solid mass of planting which is the intent of this landscaping, between the residential and the commercial. The kinds of plants that most appropriately serve this purpose are the kinds you find along the freeways. . They are the type that grow to a height of 10' - 12 ° m 14 e , and yet do not require a great deal of watering, if any. Mayor Gleckman. I have a few comments. I think the Planning Department and the Planning Director did what we asked and that is 17 REG. Co Co 5-1.3-68 Page Eighteen PRECISE PLAN NO. 531 - Continued follow the 8% requirement. However, I feel that if this was all this body had to do was follow what was required we would just hand down the .lines and say go ahead and administer them and don't bother us. I don't think that is the problem. I think here you have an unique situation. . I, too, cannot understand the 10' of . landscaping other than the idea of fulfilling the 8% requirement. It looks to me like we took the outside perimeters first and then saw that we did not have the 8% and picked it up.. I don't think this is what we are looking for. I am not speaking for the Council but for myself. . I feel if you are going to require a block wall all the way around the property or at least on the west end I cannot possibly see the value of a 10' strip of landscaping if you are going to put cars in there. If you are going to put up a chain.link fence or something that they can see through I can see the idea of the 10' of landscaping so they can view it through the fence, but I can't see anybody looking through a block wall to look at 10' of landscaping. I can't possibly go along with the Planning Director's idea of the residential homes being there another 15 years. I can't possibly understand it - with commercial on the east, north and south all abutting these 8 or. 10 homes, where it would be in the manner of good planning to recommend that those 8 or 10 homes remain residential except if the desire of the residents living in the homes was such. But I am sure if the automobile agency is going to develop here and we get another commercial on the Fern Merry property that in the interests of good planning I don't think this City would sit back and say these should remain residential for the next 15 years. I think it is shortsightedness on. our part. I think the applicant.by_°.pu.tting in a block wall, as required by law is just another step of making the City of West Covina an area of block walls. Everytime we put a project in this community instead of putting up a 6' hedge which.would give you the greenery required we require a block wall.. 1: don't see the beauty of it myself.. I can't for the life of me understand why we require 10' of landscaping between two commercial areas that abut each other. We have never required it anywhere else in this. City. . I go along with the perimeter of the trees, the 5' landscaping on the Narducci property looks excellent, and I can understand the greenery around the showroom, but I cannot understand the greenery on the wash rack. If they are going to put in a decorative wall and doors for cars to go in and out and cars parked in front of it ® - what did you have in mind there Mr. Menard? Or did you have trees in mind there? You have the parking spaces and if you have cars parked there, who is going to see the landscaping by the wash rack? Also aren't there doors that you have to get in and out of? How would you propose them to get in and out with landscaping in front? I am just curious because looking at the particular plan I have before me I think you have thrown in greenery where it is not easily accessible. . Now 1: am not, saying that you did anything that we didn't ask you to do, such as give us the best plan that you could if you had a free hand but I think on the other hand we have to be practical .in this kind of a development. If you can show me the necessity and where the City would benefit by this greenery or who would see it, I could understand the requirement but just to fulfill an 8% requirement and not taking into consideration the type of development with the amount of land that it i:s beingjspread over ® I think you are creating a hardship on the developer because he has so much land. • Mr. . Menard. The Planning staff when the Precise Plan was submitted, saw that it did not meet the requirements of the Planning Commission and there were two choices. The staff recommendatipn of denial to, the Planning Commission or a recommendation cbasedi_dn an attempt to bring the Precise Plan into compliance with the Planning Commission's policy Resolution 1988. Rather than recommend denial because it did not meet with standards, the Planning Staff because it did not have an appropriate plan before it, attempted to show in certain- locations where landscaping could be provided and I will reiterate that this is a totally flexible plan. This is a plan that indicates approximately 8% landscaping over the site and placing it in front] of the wash rack or another 18 - REG. Co Co 5-13-68 Page Nineteen • • PRECISE PLAN NO. 531 - Continued particular area is only an indication of the amount: of space that would be needed and that a landscaping plan drawn by the applicant must be submitted to the Planning Department for my approval prior to building permit being issued. If I may go one step further - as to why the Planning staff indicated this amount of landscaping or why the Planning Commission in accord with what the Planning Commission had adopted and which we took as a guide on this particular plan, number 1, we took the Planning Commission Resolution 1988 and number 2, we took as a guide the requirements as incorporated into the newly revised office professional zone approved by the Planning Commission and City Council in the past several months, and we took as a guide the S-C zone approved by the Planning Commission which had incorporated word for word verbatim the 8% requirements, the wall requirements, the general disbursement requirements of the Planning Commission policy Resolution 1988. I might add in that particular zone the S-C zone has now been adopted by the City Council and will become effective in approximately 2 weeks. The requirements of the Planning Commission. Policy Resolution 1988 and the requirements of this particular Precise Plan are in absolute accord with the S-C zone recently adopted. -Mayor Gleckman: But Mr.. Menard am I correct in assuming that a C-2 zone is a much more flexible zone than a S-C zone? Are you saying the S-C zone is exactly the same as a C-2? Mr. Menard: No Mayor Gleckman: Would you ask then that an applicant that has C-2.zoning develop with the S-C zoning and step down because you have introduced a new S-C zone but he has C-2 zoning on his property? Mr. Menard-, I would suggest Mr. Mayor that the appropriate zoning for this property is S-C zoning. Mayor Gleckman: I Alright, but the zoning on there now is what? Mr. . Menard-, It is C-2 Mayor Gleckman-, Now correct me if I am wrong, but you made a couple of statements here and I don't intend to put you on the hot spot, but you made some statements - - and that is that the particular greenery that you have on this plan is not necessarily the greenery that you feel we should have in the proper location as to where it is stated but because of the 8% requirement it is where it is. Mr. Menard: No, I think this is perhaps a misunderstanding or perhaps I have been confusing the situation, There are certain locations where the landscaping would be required by the Planning Commission resolution 1988 which is on the perimeter, the other locations of landscaping (pointed out on the map) where put in to indicate how it might fit in. Mayor Gleckman: I don't mean to be a dead horse here but I still. am not sold on the idea of the W_ strip because it meets minimum requirements and I think we are penalizing a man for having too much property, If he cut the property in half then he wouldn't have to put the 10 ° strip in Councilman Chappell-, My impression on this west wall is that the greenery is put there to°buffer the sound from the people that will eventually be living in those apartments and not just to conform to the 8%. And I would say if I wanted to live in the apartments I might like - 19 - REG. C.C. 5-13-68 Page Twenty PRECISE PLAN NO. 531 - Continued a sound buffer to protect my living. quarters. Mayor Gleckmano Let me go a step further. Would you say Mr.. Menard that a 10' strip is necessary to plant a tree? • Mr. Menard. The requirement under this Precise Plan is not a tree. The kind of landscaping stipulated by the Planning Commission is a heavy high growing shrub such as oleander, etc. . The Park Department requires 4-1/2 ° to plant a tree, I believe. Councilman. Nichols The Planning Commission went into this in great detail. . I think we either hold to the standards we are trying to place on this street or we start playing footsie and picking and choosing with each developer that comes in. I don't feel, these requirements are excessive at all. I: want to reiterate once more that this Council voted to change that R-1 to C-2 land, there is residential land abutting and we owe the -maximum protection to that .land.. I believe we should accept this resolution with the conditions suggested by the staff. .I think it is in the best interests of the community and any other point of view is not. Mayor Gleckmano In other words you believe the 10' strip abutting commercial is proper? Councilman Nichols. There is only one area and that is up there where it is already zoned commerical - - I would certainly go along with that. The Planning Director has stated there should be some flexibility in developing and. I would hope that would be one of them. I certainly would vote to exclude that one portion but' the' rest I. would not Councilman Lloyd. There is a question which is not clear in my mind. Mr. . Menard, what is the height of the wall as an appendage to the building and goes north? Mr. Menard: I would anticipate that this must be 10 to 121. (Mr. . Brown, Architect - advised 15° o) Councilman Lloyd-, Well I would have to say then that 15 ° would eliminate the view along the northside and that I would have to question the necessity of the 10' strip for at least some distance. I think we have two things going here. One is the beautification and two the buffering situation. As far, as the beautification is concerned it obviously will not be seen along the north wall as stated by Mr. Moss. I do however feel that it will be seen along the northwest side and I thought that might be retained. I realize also that a lot of time has gone into it and we are taking a lot of time now, but I think it is important because we are going to be facing a similar situation probably very shortly and I wanted to adhere to the requirements of the City, but I also want it to be reasonable.. If we are putting up a 15' wall and then 10' of greenery that abuts another, r-ommercial development it doesn°t seem logical to me . at that point. There seems to be a separation. Would you comment on that? Mr.. Menard: If I could put out the discussion and comments by the Planning Commission --- it was their desire to see the landscaping continued a short distance and they did not specify the exact distance beyond the end of the block walla . So some sound barrier would be created for the intense use being beyond the residential area but they also indicated that this particular landscaping along here was flexible and could be placed elsewhere on the,. site to meet the minimum requirements of the City. - 20 - REG. C.C. 5-13-68 Page Twenty-one PRECISE:PLAN NO. 531 - Continued Councilman. Lloyd- When you use the term "flexible" I don't think you and I are talking about the same thing.. "Flexible" means the 8% overall, or does the "flexible" mean that the percentage is flexible, that they can take off part of this or they must meet the requirement of the 8%? Mr. Menard: The Resolution and Ordinances being adopted are generally flexible from the point of view of requiring 8% of the entire site being landscaped specifying what will apply toward that landscaping and then it states that such landscaping with the exception of the perimeter here and shrubs by the residential areas, will be generally dispersed throughout the entire facility so we do not have seas of asphalt, etc. , as we have in most other shopping areas in West Covina. However in automobile agencies the obvious intent is to store cars in the least amount of space and they are generally shielded, as I am sure this one would be, by buildings or other walls so the landscaping would be normally dispersed throughout a parking lot such as in shopping centers but because of the intensity of the kind of use of an automobile agency and the amount of expanse of four, five, six or eight acres, that a considerable amount of greenage is necessary to break up the expanse, but on this particular location it has been taken completely out of the parking area except for where anticipated cars will be parked, and that is flexible. . The location'i.s flexible. If a landscaping plan is submitted to myself, for my signature, which shows the requirements of the Ordinance, a 5' perimeter and a concrete block wall and 10' of landscaping here and here and through this area, that • is totally at the discretion of the designer, it will be signed off and approved by myself. Movement of planted areas from one to another _ if you meet the requirements of the site and the kind of land use, it will be approved by me and I have a landscape architect on the staff to assist me in this endeavor. Mayor Gleckman: Further discussion by Council? Now let me understand something Mr. Menard. Are we discussing now the plan in total or are we going to make conditions or do you have a recommendation? Mr. Menard: The Planning Commission's recommendation is Study Plan.A with the flexibility built into a normal study plan. Councilman Lloyd: One question.. Is it possible that in making a motion -that these recommendations to make some of these changes be stated? My immediate inclination is to go along with some of the suggestions of the man building here, because I agree I see the difference that exists between this usage and other usages such as a normal shopping area. On the other hand my inclination is to support the Planning Commission's recommendation and I agree that we do need these green belts. I would like to see the area to the north open. I would also like to see , if possible, a reduction in some of the greenery along these other walls. - I don't see the 10' necessity, but I do agree wholeheartedly that we should have a landscaped green presentation along the street side and as it is viewed back into the property. Mayor Gleckman: I go along with what Councilman Lloyd suggested, and that would be to eliminate the greenery between the two commercial areas and'I would like to see a reduction in the 10' strip because I can't see why you need a 10' strip for trees. Now if you are going to put in more than trees them you are going to have to put in other shrubbery that will go over 6' tall in growth, and I don't know of anything that would other than trees for a buffering over and above the walla What type of planting would take 10' and grow over 6' other than a tree? 21 - REG. Co Ca 5-13-68 Page Twenty-two PRECISE.PLAN NO. 531 Continued Mr.: Menard-. A typical requirement of many of the high growing species requires from 6 to 10' - at least that is my understanding and once again I will have to reiterate, but this is what my landscape architect has indicated. We were advised that these • kinds of materials in order to get 8°, 10°, 12' high and do an adequate job in buffering both from the point of view of sight and sound, and sound being the most important in this type of development where an intense commercial area is to be made separate and compatible with a residential area, requires approximately 10 . They specify 20' on a freeway. We felt that a freeway was twice the intensity of a C-2 development and when asked if 10' would provide adequate protection the experts indicated it would. Mayor Gleckman: The think you keep talking about is noise buffering and I am looking at the establishment and how far away it is from the different walls and wondering where you are going to get all this noise you are going to protect in. Mr. Menard: An auto agency is generally considered a relatively noisy kind of operation. Councilman Nichols: I would like to offer a motion in order to get this off the ground. I would move that the requirement for landscape on the northeasterly boundry of the block wall be deleted from the Study -Plan A except for the 10' of required landscaping most adjacent to the easterly end of the wall. I am making a motion to delete from Study Plan A that landscaping out from the far point down to within 10' of the concrete block wall Seconded by Councilman Gillum Mayor Gleckman: Is there any discussion on the motion? Do I understand Mr.. Menard that the other landscaping in. Study Plan A would be administratively directed and approved and not necessarily where the locations that we are looking at right now? Mr. Menard: That is true. It is flexible at the desire of the applicant. Mr. Wakefield: Mr. Mayor, so there will be no misunderstanding about it. I think when Mr. Menard refers to "flexible" he refers to the location of the landscaping and not a deviation from the 8% total requirement, and if it is the desire of the Council to reduce the total requirement then it should be done by specific action. If you eliminate, for example,, the area to the north you might at the same time eliminate the area from the total. Councilman Nichols: I think it would be appropriate to amend my motion to read that portion deleted by this motion shall also be deleted from the total requirement of 8%. Seconded by Councilman Gillum. Mayor Gleckman: Any further discussion? Roll call, please. Motion carried on roll call vote as follows: AYES. Councilmen Chappell, Nichols,, Gillum, Lloyd. NOES. Mayor Gleckman ABSENT. None - 22 - REG. C.C. 5-13-68 Page Twenty-three PRECISE PLAN NO. 531 - Continued THE CHAIR DECLARED A 10 MINUTE RECESS AT 9.50 P.M. . COUNCIL RECONVENED AT 1'O.P.M. Mayor Gleckmano We have not finished on Precise Plan No.. 531. All we did was to take a motion to reduce the amount of required greenery as described in. Study Plan A. Are there any further comments from Council regarding Precise Plan No. 531? Motion by Councilman, Lloyd and seconded by `Mayor G1e.ckman, that 50% of the 10' strip along the concrete wall be deleted, starting from the northwest corner both northeast and northwest. Councilman Chappell, I am still under the impression that greenery is there for a sound buffer and not beautification, and if we take it out we will not have a sound b.uf ter for those who are going to live in the apartments there and that is my impression, of why we are putting it there Councilman. Lloyd, The 6' concrete block wall will act as a sound buffer and the foliage I don't believe offers that type of sound buffering, It is an aesthetic thing we are dis- cussing, I: feel. Councilman Chappell, I am not a sound engineer but I don't know that the • greenery will be a big buffer versus the wall but because I have both in my backyard and I do know what I get from my neighbors because of it. That is the only reason I see a need for it in this particular place. Councilman,. Lloyd: Perhaps then you would consider amending the motion to put in the greenery or foliage on the northeast side and leaving it off on the southwest side. Mayor Gleckmano Any further discussion regarding the motion? I seconded the motion because -I too can't see the value of the sound buffer, against what? How many feet is the building away from the west wall? ( Mr. Menard pointed out the body shop and paint shop on the map and stated approxi- mately 150 to 170 feet from the body shop and the paint shop back to the area where the -multi -family zoning exists,.) Mr. Menard: If I may make a suggestion and what the City has done at other times and considering this land is vacant at the present time, is request or require a performance bond when construction to multi -family in that area comes that the landscaping be required at that time and that it be left open and free to contain such. landscaping at the present time. • Mayor Gleckmano I still can't see the use of it. . I don't see the sound buffering.. How wide are our streets? Mr. Menard, 60' . Mayor Gleckmano So that would be two and a half times as wide as a City street. (Mr. Menard gave some thumbnail sketches on sound buffering.) - 23 - REG. C.C. 5-13-68 . Page Twenty-four PRECISE.PLAN NO. 531 - Continued Mayor Gleckman- How about block walls? Mr. Menarde Block walls I am not certain. I would anticipate a 6' high wall would reduce decimal count 30-40% and of course distance makes a difference and the source of noise and kind of noise Mayor Gleckman- Again I say ideally I think the Planning Department did the right thing requesting this, the highest and best recommendation they could give whether the necessity is there and a hardship on the applicant and I think it is up to the. Council to decide. You have heard the motion, is there any further conversation? Motion failed on roll call vote as follows.- AYES- Councilmen Lloyd, Mayor Gleckman NOES. Councilmen Chappell, Nichols, Gillum Mayor Gleckman- We still have Precise Plan, NO. 531.. The only alternative motion that I would offer would be to take the Planning Director's suggestion that the applicant not be required to do this at this time but to post a bond that in any event the property does not develop commercially and does develop into residential then at that time he put forth the conditions set forth in.Study P1an.A Councilman Gillum- May I pursue this for a moment? If this were the desire of the. Council I think it is a worthwhile suggestion at this time. In the event the property does develop something other than R-3 then the applicant is not required to put this in. So basically what we are doing now is reducing the area of landscaping from the 8% if it is developed into something else. . As I said earlier gentlemen - we have asked the Planning Commission and the Planning Department to give us a recommendation on the required commercial landscaping and it was agreed that 8% was the figure, and if we start reducing now from 8% and continually reduce it we are going to end up with the same thing we have been doing in the City for years regarding landscaping. We custom make everything everytime we have someone come in. It is very possible that in some areas this landscaping could be changed to better serve the applicant but it does concern me greatly that everytime we have something like this within a year's time we have someone come back and say" on that property you didn't require that and therefore you set a precedent and I don't think you can make us comply with the 8%. Councilman Nichols. I would move that the Council approve Precise Plan of design application.No. 531 subject to the conditions enumerated in Planning Commission resolution 2042 and Study P1an.A, as amended by the City Council this evening. Seconded by Councilman Gillum. Councilman Lloyd: Mr. Mayor - I think the suggesting that Mr.. Menard had should be incorporated and I would like to amend the motion to incorporate a performance bond satis- factory to the City Engineer, specifying that such landscaping will be placed in the location as shown on. Study Plan, A, when multiply family development is under construction in this particular area Councilman Nichols. Mr. Mayor, in. due deference to Councilman Lloyd, my motion which was seconded was in keeping with Councilman Gillum's remarks, which I subscribe to, - 24 - REG. C.C. 5-13-68 Page Twenty-five PRECISE PLAN NO, 531 - Continued so I would not want to entertain an amendment to that motion. I would want to vote on the motion. Councilman. Lloyd- Amendment takes precendent and I therefore make a • motion to amend the motion to incorporate the statement made by Mr.. Menard. "Mayor Gleckman- That would be a substitution motion Mr.. Lloyd, which would take preference over the original motion. Mr. Wakefield- Yes it is a substitution motion. Mayor Gleckman: Do I have a second to the substitution motion? No second, it dies for lack of a second. We still have a motion on the floor. Any further discussion? Motion carried on roll call vote as follows: AYES- Councilmen Chappell,Nichols, Gillum NOES: Councilman Lloyd,. Mayor Gleckman ABSENT- . None AMENDMENTNO. 7 TO THE • GENERAL PLAN CITY INITIATED Request to amend the West Covina General Plan and add a specific section dealing with the Central Business District approved, with conditions by Planning Commission Resolution No. 204.4.e Mayor Gleckman: Is there anybody in the audience this evening that wishes to speak on the General Plan, City Initiated, either for or against, or any comments? If there is not is it possible to hold this over., to our next regular meeting? (Audience reacted in a manner to indicate they did not want it held over.) Mr. Aiassa: Mr. Mayor - I think we ought to clarify for the audience that we would like to have the professional consultant here..... Mayor Gleckman: Tha nk you, Mr., Aia s sa , but I wa s trying to find out first if there were people interested. I don't want them to come out and spend half the evening here and find out because our professional conswiltant:� are not here we were going to hold this over to the next meeting, that is why I asked specifically how many are in the audience to hear the General Plan? (A number of hands went up.) Madam City Clerk have the postings been mailed? • Lela Preston, City Clerk- It has been published. Mayor Gleckman: Mr. Menard , will you present the staff report? (Mr. Menard presented the staff report and read Planning Commission Resolution No. 2044. Explained with the use of maps displayed.) Mr.. Wakefield: For the purpose of the record the agenda identifies Planning Commission Resoluffi`on No.. 2044, it should be No. 2043. - 25 - REG, C.C. 5-13-68 Page Twenty-six AMENDMENT' NO o 7 TO THE GENERAL PLAN - Continued Mayor Gleckman- Mr. Aiassa do you have some comments to make prior to the presentation by Mr.. Menard? Mr.. Aiassa- Just some basic remarks. We are paying the consultants some thousands of dollars and I think it is putting e pressure on our Planning Director to make the detailed presentation, and that is why it was suggested to hold over for the consultants at our next meeting. Mayor Gleckman: I think Mr. Aiassa we had better let the Planning Director go through with the presentation because if the staff had properly prepared for this evening Williams, Cooke & Mocine , would be here. So I wouldn't like to take it: any further from this point on Mr.. Aiassa- No we didn't bring them down, that is for the judgment of the Council. Mayor Gleckman- I don't want to debate the subject Mr. Aiassa, but it is not the judgment of the Council. This is an agenda item and if you felt it necessary to have them here to make this presentation it is the obligation and job of the staff and administration to see that they are here and not the job of the City Council to see that they are here. Mr. Menard, do you want to proceed, if you don't mind (Mr.. -Menard summarized the problems existing in tht Central Business District requiring Amendment No. 7 to the General Plan.) Mayor Gleckman: Thank you Mr. Menard. I also would like to thank everybody for being here this evening and taking an interest, but I would like to point out prior to coming forth and -discussing this that this is a guide, presented to the Planning Commission which has been adopted by them and recommended to us for approval as a necessary guide for the future, not to the implementation, only as to the different ways in which it could be enacted, because all of this must come before the people in West Covina prior to taking even the first step. . So being present at the Planning Commission meeting, I feel it is necessary to point this out, because at that time people came forward and expected all their stores to be bulldozed down the next day after adoption by the Planning Commission and that their stores would be closed until some new gigantic take over plan was enacted. . I would like the people in the audience to know that this is not the intent. It is merely in purpose, to bring to your attention, if we had it to do all over again or even with what we have now if at sometime in the future we could get what the professionals feel would be to the best advantage of Weft Covina to what they presently have thisis their recommendation. It is only to act as a guide. . We will open the Public Hearing and anyone in theaudience that would like to address the chair, either for or against or any comments, This is the time and place for this hearing • IN FAVOR None. IN OPPOSITION None. Mayor Gleckman-, If there isn't anyone here this evening that would like to address the chair at this time, with the Council's permission I would entertain the thought rather than closing the hearing, of holding this Public Hearing open over to 5-20-1968 and at -26-, REG. C.C. 5-13-69 Page Twenty-seven AMENDMENT' NO. 7 TO THE GENERAL PLAN Continued that time we could have Williams, Cooke & Mocine, make a more detailed presenta- tion to any of- you who would come and maybe then you would have some comments. Unless there are some objections from the audience, I would so entertain a motion from this Council. • Motion made by Councilman Chappell, seconded by Councilman. Gillum, , that this be held over to the meeting of May 20, 1968, with the Public Hearing held open Mayor. Gleckmana Any discussion by the members of the Council at this time? Councilman Gillum- Only one thing. I am sure that all of you that are here this evening do realize that we hold these hearings to get your comments and reaction and I hope that on the 20th you. will all be here and bring with you some comments, or. questions. It is difficult to sit up here and make a decision and then ra ve someone catch you as you are walking out the door and say I don't like it. We would like to hear suggestions from you. Mayor Gleckman- Any other comments from Council? If not, you have heard the motion. All in favor signify by saying "Aye" All were in favor. . Motion carried. ------------ • CHAIR DECLARED A 5 MINUTE RECESS AT 10. 45 P.M. COUNCIL RECONVENED AT 10- 50 P.M. NORTH AZUSA AVENUE PLAN Request for consideration of a plan that has CITY INITIATED attempted to analyze the existing land use and" zoning pattern and make recommendations regarding the future patterns of this area from the San Bernardino Freeway north to Badillo Street on, both sides of Azusa Avenues approved by Planning Commission. Resolution No. 2'040. Mayor Gleckmana Again, I would preface the report by the Planning Director, that what is being presented here this evening is a guide to a suggested development of North,Azusa Avenue, which has been recommended for adoption.from our Planning Commission. (Mr.. Menard presenting the Planning Commission Resolution No. 2040. . Also stated that the Planning Commission received a communication which has been submitted to Council and answered by both Planning Commission and the Council, from some 12 to 14 residents in the area. (Read communication.) Further advised that the reply from the Commission to the property owners indicated several things - Rezoning. was not being accomplished here, that this was a land use guide to be utilized for future rezoning and future uses in the area. That there were 46 notices • of public hearing spread throughout the area, and it was true there were a great number of items on the agenda that night and it was approxina tely 11. 15 p.m. when the Planning Commission got to this particular item and eventually approved the plan. . Mr.. Menard then went into the reasons for it being conceived by the Planning Commission.and Planning Staff, all of which are stated in the North Azusa Avenue Report, copies of which were made available to those wishing a copy..) Mayor Gleckman- At this particular time those in the audience that would like to speak on the subject are more than welcome to do so. You may speak for, or against, or make any comments pertaining to the proposed plan._ 27 - REG. C.C. 5-13-68 Page Twenty-eight 'NORTH AZUSA.AVENUE PLAN - Continued TIME AND PLACE FOR THE, PUBLIC HEARING. • Mrs. Hill We feel that we are very much affected. I 1726 E. Workman am speaking specifically for us personally ( OPPOSED) on the corner. We are not even a half a block away from Azusa. If we understand it right. Fleetwell is to be made into Service Commercial and then. we will have the trucks that will have to be utilized eseentia.11y for the commercial zone, right on the side of our house and also in front of us on. Workman. We now have an abandoned swimming pool across from us which we allowed to come in and now it is abandoned. On the righthand side we have a service station. It is supposed to be a buffered zone but as far as we are concerned you might take away the visibility of it but we can hear everything We feel, that if any more commercial is coming in across from us that we should be allowed to at least build a small home on the back and get some income from our place because our entire residential will. be gone. You can't sit in the house now .and listen to music, it is too noisy. We are very much against all of this, unless we are allowed to put something else in the back or have it changed. E • Arthur Slade I am for, the plan. . I would like to ask has 1924 East: Greenville Drive this plan been approved by the Planning (IN FAVOR) Commission? That is my question? Mayor Gleckmano It has been approved by the Planning Commission. Arthur Slade When will the Council vote on this? Mayor Gleckman: Tonight we hope W. Holland Mr., Mayor, I would like to have the map put 1814 Danes Drive up. (Map displayed) At the present time this (IN FAVOR) is an area that goes through here. The proposal is that this be rezoned to S-C, which I approve. (Pointed out on the map areas that are being suggested) I am suggesting that this area go straight down all the way through. This is S-C all the way through and if you stick to this plan you only have 146' in back. If you take off 10' fora your buffer zone, plus another 20' for area,. plus another 20' for trucks to park- - you haven't a lot left. Wm. Deckerman Probably nobody realizes what the situation 1839 W. Eckerman Ave. here is anymore than the people on (IN FAVOR) Eckerman, Danes and Pioneer. Not too long ago we were here on the question of Eckerman and Azusa. Avenue frontage by a'similar resolution changing R-1 to R-P We would be most happy to see a cul de sac on. Eckerman without: any opxffiing in it. There has been some talk of proposing a cul de sac with a gateway to allow access for pedestrian travel from Eckerman on out to Azusa, we feel, however, if the council gives consideration to this aspect that they are legalizing a parking lot on Eckerman Avenue which is only for the benefit of the commercial usage and a definite detriment to the R-1 people in the area and the children that live in the area and the children that go to the school on the next street down. The plan I think is good. The gentleman that spoke before me mentioned he would like to see this alley way come straight through across the area' of the three strEeets and Rowland, but what is going to happen if the Council should give consideration to that plan to all. of this R-1 property? I don't think it is the proposal of the Planning Commission that the R-1 property should be taken away anymore than it has been in this particu- -28- REG� C.C. 5-13-68 Page Twenty-nine NORTH AZUSA AVENUE PLAN - Continued lar area. This Council, in the pasta and the Planning Commission without exception, all agree that the zoning given the Eckerman and 'Danes was nothing more than spot zoning. It was done because they felt they couldn't do anything more with the zoning that would be beneficial to the owners of the property at that time. I think if the Council looks into the question you will find that: the property on the corner. of Pioneer, northern side, and southern side of Danes is still R-1. Nothing has been done about that, it never has been given a C zone or an R-P zone. The Council didn't consider that that should be changed, and I don't think it should be unless the whole strip is changed. I think this here will probably be one of the best things for Azusa from Badillo to the Freeway that could possibly be thought: out but it must be given real good thought and consideration. Thank you. Aline D. Henley I am here to represent Mr.. Thomas Bond, owner of the R. W. Henley Company two acres at the northwest corner of Azusa and Puente. 634 South Barranca I request the Council's indulgence while I read a letter Covina which will be self-explanatory. I will first note the following for your consideration. No. 1 - the S-C zoning on north.Azusa Avenue has .included all the property fronting on Azusa Avenue with the exception of Mr. Bond's parcel and the parcel across the street on the East side of Azusa. This makes two parcels not considered. No. 2 - t:he parcels both northeast and northwest corners are already zoned commercial with two service stations or approximately 140' frontage each on.Azusa. The Mobil Oil Station on the northeast corner is also next to the Abbey Rents. We are in receipt of many proposals for this property and none of them are from developers of apartment • houses. This may be from the nature of Azusa Avenue traffic and the commercial pattern already established, as well as developers competing with the existing rates of existing apartments on both sides of Azusa Avenue. Finally this is much desired for commercial use due to the shortages of existing commercial to handle future demands as our city grows and grows, . It is a width of 226' x 296' in depth and this is its most unique feature and .I entreat on this Council not to make an orphan of this particular parcel of land. We have someone that wants to adopt .it now, . This is the type of development the City and the Chamber of Commerce is seeking for our City. Therefore it was only through the foresight of this City to investigate the reasons why North Azusa Avenue had not been developed that resulted in our present commercial zoning. it was then that my client became interested in developing on this sight. This client is the Hyatt House and one of their best known developments to most people is the Hyatt House east of the International Airport on Century Boulevard. Thank you so much. (Mrs. Henley presented a letter to the City Clerk.) Victor Louganvi.11e As a property owner on Workman in one of the houses 1.710 E. Workman pointed out before and being the father of three small West Covina children and the sidewalks on the opposite side of the (Opposed) street from my house and a new alleyway on,. Service Road supposedly coming in directly across the street from me and creating an increasing amount of traffic, trucks, etc. , I am opposed to it on a safety factor for my children, which will be greatly increased to what we are already exposed to. Frank Redfield I am opposed to the present plan as it is not taking into 1706 Workman Avenue consideration any judgment in rezoning on the south West Covina side of Workman Avenue. In the past we have been (Opposed) approached by realtors as to would we be willing to sell our land for apartments and at that time we couldn't see where it would be too good. There were apartments going up all over West Covina and it was kind of shaky at that time, so we didn't give it too much thought, but I think in view of this new plan, that it is the best thing that could happen to West Covina is to develop North. Azusa Avenue. I think an R-4 zone should be included in this so the property owners on the south side of Workman Avenue could be - 29 - REG. Ca Co 5-13-68 Page Thirty NORTH AZUSA AVENUE PLAN Continued included in the development of North Azusa.Avenue development plan. Chet Challe I would like to add to the gentleman in front of me, 1821 Danes Drive with the suggestion of the alleyway being uniform • West Covina beginning at Thelborn or just below Thelborn and right (Opposed) on through,f or very specific reasons. Rowland Street is a divided highway, Azusa is a highway, Pioneer a very narrow one and heavily travelled. It is like an obstacle course to get into Danes from this way, you have to go that way (pointed out on the map.) Now the suggestion to close it off there makes it quite difficult, We would have to come up Rowland Avenue a divided highway, with shrubbery growing there and if you want to make a lefthand turn into Phillips you cannot see the approaching traffic on this side, consequently you have a very heavy traffic hazard there. If you want to turn in this direction and you want to close this off this is where all the school children travel and when they don't want to walk in the streets because there is no sidewalks here, they come up these streets to approach the schools. While you might be saving a little danger for these children that live here by closing it off, you are making it just that much more difficult for hundreds that pass this way every morning and night. In addition to that if you wanted to cover this distance from the corner to where I live - 150 and you closed it off here, I will have to go 12 blocks back and forth to cover 150' o As I pointed out to the Commission - who is going to compensate me for the added price I will have to pay for fire insurance? Who is it in this Council that is going to take the responsibility when you close off this street - you know the official records are never printed for many years after a change takes place - and suppose it is an emergency where an ambulance has to get in there, how will they get in . without knowledge of this? A life could be lost. So I say to you the only direct route we have coming from the West Covina area is this way here and into our streets. Now we paid for the streets, the curbs, the sewerage - everything that went on these streets and now you are proposing to deny us this very thing that we paid for. In addition our property value is going down, This is what you are expecting us to accept:, - gentl.emen, I can't accept it, Mr.. Lockwood (Pointed out on the map his location.) My question 1820 Eo. Pioneer Avenue is there any time that has been forecast as to when West Covina this would take place? Also, how would these properties be acquired? And third, how would we be reimbursed for our homes that would be taken away from us? Those are my questions. Thank you Earl Crittenden I was just wondering how you determined to cut back 1826 E.. Pioneer Avenue four lots on Pioneer Street on the corner and facing the West Covina alley? Mayor Gleckmano That will come out in the discussion, Thank you. Ray Abatta I have a couple of questions. Nov 1 - you mentioned • 1838 E. Eckerman the fact if we wanted the street a cul de sac street - West Covina what would the people have to do on the street? No. 2 - and who would pay for the closing of the street? No, •3 - and where do they get the right-of-way for this 10' and the buffer zone? From which property? I assume the cul de sac would meeting the requirements of the Police and Fire Departments as to the standpoint of access and turn -around. Thank you. - 30 - REG. C. C. 5-13-68 Page Thirty-one NORTH AZUSA AVENUE PLAN - Continued Don Casler In reference to the gentleman's statement as to a 346 North Azusa Avenue possible devaluation of real estate values as a result West Covina of implementing this study, I would like to site as a professional real.tor. 'and �is I stated to the Comission. • (Used the map) These properties located here would definitely without question suffer, if this is implemented, quite a devaluation due to the key load situation. This is where more than two sides of a person's property is abutted by an adverse zoning or situation. If this could be corrected by aligning the S-C zoning or a straight pattern or such as this with a cul de sac here. But I don't think anyone can ignore the point with a single family home here and high density commercial behind him and on the side of him, that it will have not less than the adverse effects on the value of that real estate. However, if it was a little different with an alignment in here and a cul de sac , you would have only one side affected. Other than that I wouldn't comment on anything else. I am the owner of a corner parcel here that would be affected by this and although I would hate to lose my corner parcel, I can see the advantages to the movement of traffic and the flow on to Azusa Avenue by such a plan. Harold Slater The only question that I have is that in the event: this 1843 Pioneer proposal is approved this evening, will this not open West Covina the door to changing the zoning on Azusa for things other than what is proposed, by`that I mean it will be a lot .less of a problem for an individual or developer to come in and change this property and build what he wants to build on these lots which he couldn't do in the pasta I have a lot of admiration -for your Planning Director and staff and .I saw a .little bit of the opposition he has when he comes up with his recommendations and the Council doesn't see fit to follow his recommendation and this is the only point I want to bring out. I think it will open the door to changing the rest of this property that .is presently zoned R-10 Mayor Gleckman: Thank you. Is there anybody else now ghat; would like to cover a point that has not been covered? If not the public hearing is closed. COUNCIL DISCUSSION. Councilman Nichols: The first thing that impresses me so much is there is a tremendous amount of misinformation the people have regarding the zoning matters and what happens. I think what we really need is a workshop session for our ditizens with our Planning staff as to what we are really talking about. You tried to indicate to the point, Mr. Mayor, that this was just a general guide or plan, but from the comments made I gathered that: the people feel we are about to do something or are talking about doing something entirely different from what we are even capable of doing this evening. The questions raised about who compensates me for my property - shows fears that don't exist. As I understand what we are doing we are merely by adopting this doing the same thing as if these ladies and gentlemen would sit down • with their children and say - well now in the next 20 years if we can afford it we would like to buy a new car, add a family room, and other things. But all are maybe, gentlemen - later on we have to come back again before making these commitments, by specific action we have to come back. So we are not changing any zones by this action and only when the zones change at some later date specifically to each area and then there would be a situation that would develop where the use of the land would change ; and even then ladies and gentlemen - it is your land. Nobody is going to take it at all. Just the use that would be authorized on the land would be changed and it would be up to you to determine what happened to your land. The city would never be taking anything. I hope you don't mind gentlemen, if I discourse for a - 31 - ` REG. C.C. 5-13-68 Page Thirty-two NORTH AZUSA AVENUE PLAN - Continued moment but I wanted to make sure when I speak to this issue that no one feels in the audience that I am voting on specific zoning. I have studied this very carefully and I think the staff has done a tremendous amount of work. There is no sure answer to these problems we face. At least in the four years I have been on council. we have . battled with these issues, whether it be someone wanting to put in a car wash, someone else wanting residential -professional. zoning, etc. , and for everyone that thinks one way there is somebody else that thinks another and it is just one heck of a job to try and decide what to do, but I think in terms of the total picture and I have studied this very carefully, admitting that one day five years or ten years from now there might be a detrimental effect: to some property, I think in the aggregate that this general goal we are talking about tonight is something in all good conscience I can support and live with. Councilman Lloyd. I think we have a real responsibility and I would point out that a great deal of work has gone into the develop- ment of this plan and the program as outlined by the Mayor. I think that we are dealing with the dynamics of urbanization of our City, and I think that we would be less than honest if we didn't say such a thing was occurring. I think some of you should be aware of the tremendous amount of traffic that passes up and down these streets which is in excess of 30, 000 cars a day and as such, we do have real problems here. We want. to make our City as livable as possible for the people that reside here and as economically feasible for the businesses that reside here, therefore we are going to have to make changes with the changes in time, and this is precisely what this plan is for. Instead of creating . many of the problems which now exist today in our City limits, plans and programs of this type will provide the dynamics of future development which will be in the best interests of our City. I favor it. Mayor Gleckman: I would like to speak to some specific points brought out this evening, Mr. Menard - on Pioneer you have four lots on the corner - what are they zoned now? Mr. Menard: This is residential. (Pointed out on the map the residential lots and the professional lots.) Mayor Gleckman: Including the four. Lots on Rowland? Mr. Menard: This is zoned C-1 and the other two are residential Mayor Gleckman: Thank you. First of all I appreciate the remarks made so far by this present council. We take for�gfanted many'things'that you' -citizens, as well as we citizens that sit up here, understand everything that is going on. We don't take into consideration that we have the benefit of the staff report and live with it and in most cases where it .concerns you directly then you come to this body to find out what: is going on. So as long as we have a captive audience here tonight we will speak on some of the points of interest to you people. That is, we have presemitly zoned on North Azusa Avenue exactly what the report says - spot zoning. We feel in our . particular City that there is room on North Azusa Avenue for higher commercial than presently exists in the present locations. Now the best way to accomplish an orderly development to the highest and best use of the property is to have a plan, and .--- riot. doing it helter-skelter. This is basically the reasons behind this report. If we Vvould better plan North Azusa Avenue, what would be some of the recommendations to this body through the Planning Commission by our Planning Department, who are the professionals in planning. The report as it is produced is excellent, I feel. But we have to use it in the manner in which it was meant and that is just a guide. The reason for, these public hearings is to get - 32 - REG. C.C. 5-13-68 Page Thirty-three NORTH AZUSA AVENUE - Continued your ideas, you people that will be mostly affected by any action taken by this Council. Any change in zoning must be applied for by the people who own the property. Public hearings must be held at the Planning Commission level and zoning can only be given by your City Council, so at anytime that any parcel on North Azusa Avenue would come in for higher zoning or any type, you would have a public hearing before the Planning Commiiasion and the City Council, regardless of what we would adopt this evening as a guide or plan. In this report there are several different methods and ideas. We would adopt, if we so chose, this as a guide and not necessarily would it be developed this way. This is strictly up to you people who own the property. As far as closing off Eckerman, Danes or Pioneer - it is just another suggestion. Yes, we are glad to hear how you people feel about it, but we are not taking action this evening to close Eckerman, Danes or Pioneer; we are not taking action to rezone any lot in that whole area; we are not taking action this evening to do anything but merely accept and adopt this report as presented, as a guide to the future. What we are doing is suggesting to you people who live in and around the area, that the S-C zone, which was adopted by this City Council, would be welcome in many respects in the two lot depth that is proposed on the guide you see, and providing again that in achieving S-C zoning that the Precise Plan would have to be presented in order to receive the approval of this Council in order to develop on that particular property and be in the best interests of the entire City, including the people that reside there I think it is a good idea that you people come and • see how this thing starts and affects you and the whole community. But once again I would like to expand a little on what Councilman Nichols said. None of this will be done without you -people first hearing about it and having something to say about .it. There is no a1ction-th8't-can be taken this evening that will change your position or residential areas prior to the hearing of the Planning Commission and the hearing this evening. These are merely ideas and guides. I think the Planning Department should be complimented on the report they made. I think we al I realize North Azusa Avenue, at least at the two lot depth, should and could be developed in a higher manner than it has been in the past and try and receive some uniformity. We are not going to deny you access to your property or cul de sac any streets. These are merely ideas and you betterbelleve before any of these things would ever go into effect that you will have every right and opportunity to be heard before the Planning Commission and this City Council prior to the adoption- of any ideas that are in the booklet. We welcome your ideas and we thank you for coming and it'is-most unfortunate that the hour is late and it has been late everytime this thing came up, but believe me it has not been intentional. We would like to get out at 9: 30 too. Any other comments from Council? If not a motion would be in order directing the City Attorney to draw up a Resolution adopting the North Azusa Avenue plan, if this would be the Council°s intention. Councilman Nichols: I would offer a motion, but again conveying the understanding that there have been some very valid points made that may be adopted into the plan • later on, but that the plan itself is ;subject to modification as we move along. Motion by Councilman Nichols, seconded by Councilman Lloyd, that the City Council direct the City Attorney to prepare a Resolution adopting the North Azusa Avenue Plan as a general guide for future proposals for development along Azusa Avenue. Motion carried on roll call vote as follows: AYES: Councilmen Chappell, Nichols, Gillum, Lloyd, Mayor Gleckman NOES: None ABSENT: None -33- REG< `C.C. 5-13-68 Page Thirty- four THE CHAIR DECLARED A 5 MINUTE RECESS AT 11. 50 P.M. . COUNCIL RECONVENED AT 11, 55 P.M. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Mr. G. E. Moss I want to thank you for the attention you gave to our 1007 E. State Street Precise Plan matter.. I think you deliberated in the West Covina true concepts of democracy, although I can't say we agree with the end result. . I would like to point out that I talked to Mr. Menard and there was a suggestion that perhaps because of the long period of deliberation you might have overlooked and at least I hope so, and that is on that North wall in order that we will not be afflicted with such a hardship, to allow that planting area to be bonded. We are more than willing to put it in if this is the will of the Council and apparently it is. . However, again I want to point out we feel we are being unduly put upon and would ask at least that you give us an opportunity to put this in when it is needed, It was pointed out that this landscaping was for buffering purposes and not decorative purposes and at the present time the lot is vacant and we do not know what we have to buffer at the present time. We are willing to accept the buffering concept provided someone is living there, so again we appeal and implore you in the sense of .justice and fairness but if this is your approach we will accept it but we want to know why we should buffer something that doesn't exist. We are willing to accept the buffering concept but please give us the opportunity to buffer the wall when and if, in the manner necessary when it requires buffering. It is difficult to accept in all fairness, a concept of buffering when there is no one there to buffer it. I don't know what your procedure is but. I hope we • have not exhausted all of our remedies and that this Council will after due deliberation accept the fact that we are willing to comply but that it would be more considerate of our position by withholding the buffering at this time, . I don't know-how this is initiated or if we can have the Planning Commission or just what, but we would appreciate your consideration and we will be glad to go along with this plan subject to the planting area on the north wall being put in at such time when it is developed and until that time we will be glad to post a satisfactory bond to assure the City that this will be done properly, Thank you for your consideration. Mr. Wakefield, I think the procedure which Mr. Moss should follow is going back to the Planning Commission with a proposed amendment to this Precise Plan that has been approved, and make his proposal to the Planning Commission. in the form of an amendment, and then the Planning Commission has the duty to reset the matter and rehear it and act upon the basis of its judgment as to what should or should not be done. Mayor Gleckman, Is there any action desired by the Council at this time? Councilman Nichols: I would agree with that as the proper procedure. Councilman Chappell, Is there any other way we can do that? Can we change it here? Mr. Wakefield; No.. The Council having acted upon it, it is out of your • jurisdiction. You approved the plan and that plan stands until modified through the regular procedure (THERE WERE NO FURTHER ORAL COMMUNICATIONS.) WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS Mayor Gleckman stated that Item 1 would be held over to the City Manager's Item No. 5, since that is what it refers to. Also that Item had already been settled. -34- REG. C.C. 5-13-68 Page Thirty-five WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS - Continued LETTER FROM AUXILIARY OF INTER- COM MUNITY' HOSPITAL Mr. Aiassa: Staff concurred to go ahead and authorize the Fire Truck to be used, if it completes its repairs, and this recommendation meets with Council approval. Councilman Nichols: Didn't the Council give direction to the staff quite some- time ago to handle these matters administratively where it didn't involve the use of funds? Mr. Aiassa: The problem here is the letter is addressed to the City Council. Mayor Gleckman: I need a motion directing the. City Manager to handle administratively. So moved by Councilman Gillum, seconded by Council - man Chappell, and carried. LETTER FROM FRANK W. KITTINGER OF CHARTER OAK SCHOOL DISTRICT RE. CITY SPONSORSHIP AND FINANCING OF JOINT PROTECT Mr.. Aiassa: I would like the Council to refer this to myself and the Chief, and see where we can get the revenue to recommend a scholarship. Motion by Councilman Gillum, seconded by Councilman Lloyd, and carried by Council. INVITATION OF ALHAMBRA JAYCEES TO PARTICIPATE IN ALHAMBRA°S 23rd HI NEIGHBOR WEEK Mav 13-18. 1968 Motion by Councilman. Gillum, seconded by Councilman Lloyd, and carried, to receive and file LETTER FROM SAN GABRIEL VALLEY HUMANE SOCIETY RE. EXTENSION OF CONTRACT Mro. Aiassa: I would like the Council to refer this to staff for a report. So moved by Councilman Gillum, seconded by Council - man Lloyd, and carried. • PLANNING COMMISSION Motion by Councilman Gillum, seconded by Councilman Chappell, and carried, that Council receive and file Planning Commission review action of May .1,. 1968. RECREATION & PARKS COMMISSION REVIEW ACTION OF APRIL.23,. 1968 and MAY 7, 1968. - 35 - REG.. C.C. 5-13-68 Page Thirty-six RECREATION & PARKS COMMISSION ACTION - Continued Mr.. Aiassao I would like to state a word of caution, there are certain items pertaining to budget expenditures and certain items that have not been fully processed by the Commission, one item is on.Page 5, item I - the Bikeway Trails at their meeting of the 23rd, this 'is not completed. Mayor Gleckman, May I have a motion to hold over until May 20th? So moved by Councilman. Gillum, seconded by Council- man Chappell, and carried by Council. PERSONNEL BOARD REVIEW MINUTES OF APRIL 2, 1968. Motion by Councilman Gillum, seconded by Councilman Chappell, and carried, that Council receive and file the minutes of the Personnel Board dated April 2, 1968. LICENSE INSPECTOR Mr.. Aiassao We have a brief report for the Council in a communica- tion signed by Mr. Russell, who is the liaison for the Personnel Board and the City Administration. They have concurred with the recommendation of the staff to proceed and hire an Administrative • Aide, leaving the License Inspector job description as it is. The only action required tonight is for Council to direct the. City Manager to fill the vacancy in the Administra- tive position, whose primary function will be to perform the duties of the license inspector. This is the position that Council discussed previously and referred to the Personnel Board for recommendation. Motion by Councilman Gillum, seconded by Councilman Lloyd, and carried, that City Council authorize the City Manager to recruit for an Administrative Aide in the position of license inspector, in accordance with the Personnel Board's recommendation. ASSISTANT PLANNING DIRECTOR POSITI.ON Mr. Aiassao A recommendation was made by the Personnel Board to Council to proceed on the creation of the position of Assistant Planning Director. And as you know the job description will have to be drawn up by Resolution.. The City Attorney should be directed to amend the resolution adopting the position of Assistant Planning Director, under Salary Range D. Motion by Councilman Gillum, seconded by Councilman Chappell, that the City • Council approve the action of the Personnel Board and authorize the City Attorney to prepare a Resolution creating the position of Assistant Planning Director in accordance with the attached job specification and memorandum dated,April 5, 1968, and placing the position in. Salary Range D. Councilman Gillum. Mr. Aiassa - may I ask Mr. Menard a question. Does this position, the way it is worded and set up - do you feel it meets the requirements? - 36 - REG. C.C. 5-13-68 Page Thirty-seven ASSISTANT PLANNING DIRECTOR POSITION - Continued Mr, Menard. I would have to say that I feel very confident in being able to recruit a well qualified individual with a Range D salary classification.. I am very optimistic, but I would not anticipate that we would be able to recruit at the -low range of Range D. Mayor Gleckman. Any further discussion? All those in favor of the motion so signify? All were in favor. Motion carried. HUMAN RELATIONS COMMISSION REVIEW MINUTES OF MARCH 28, 1968 Motion by Councilman Chappell, seconded by Councilman Gillum, and carried, that Council receive and file the minutes of March 28, 1968, of the Human Relations Commission CITY ATTORNEY ORDINANCE'NO, 1036 The City Attorney presented. "AN ORDINANCE. OF THE CITY. COUNCIL OF THE ADOPTED CITY OF WEST COVINA AMENDING THE WEST COVINA MUNICIPAL CODE SO AS TO REZONE CERTAIN PREMISES. (Zone. Change No. 387 - City Initiated.) Mayor Gleckman. Hearing no objections, waive further reading of the body of said Ordinance Motion by Councilman. Lloyd, seconded by Councilman Chappell, that City Council adopt said Ordinance. Motion carried on roll call vote as follows. AYES. Councilmen Chappell, Nichols, Gillum, Lloyd, Mayor Gleckman NOES. None ABSENT. None ORDIIIA NCE NO.. 1037 The City Attorney presented. "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE ADOPTED CITY OF WEST COVINA, AMENDING SECTION 6378 OF THE WEST COVINA MUNICIPAL CODE, RELATING TO MINORS IN BILLIARD ROOMS Mayor Gleckman: Hearing no objections, waive further reading of the body of said Ordinance Motion by Councilman, Gillum, seconded by Councilman Chappell, that the. City Council adopt said Ordinance. Motion carried on roll call vote as follows. AYES. Councilmen Chappell, Nichols, Gillum, Mayor Gleckman NOES. Councilman Lloyd ABSENT. None - 37 - REG. C.C. 5-13-68 Page Thirty-eight CITY ATTORNEY Continued ORDINANCE NO. 1038 The City Attorney presented. "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE ADOPTED CITY OF WEST COVINA, AMENDING THE WEST COVINA MUNICIPAL CODE .TO ESTABLISH MAXIMUM SPEED LIMITS ON GRAND AVENUE." Mayor. Gleckman: Hearing no further objections, waive further reading of the body of the Ordinance. Motion by Councilman Gillum, seconded by Councilman Chappell, that the City Council adopt said Ordinance. Motion carried on roll call vote as follows. AYES. Councilmen, Chappell, Nichols, Gillum,, Lloyd, Mayor Gleckman NOES. None ABSENT. None ------------- ORDINANCE NO. 1039 The City Attorney presented. "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE ADOPTED CITY OF WEST COVINA, ADDING,CHAPTER 9"70 ARTICLE VI OF THE WEST COVINA MUNICIPAL CODE PROVIDING FOR THE GRANTING OF FRANCHISES FOR COMMUNITY ANTENNA TELEVISION SYSTEMS, PROVIDING TERMS AND • CONDITIONS FOR THE OPERATION OF SUCH COMMUNITY ANTENNA TELEVISION SYSTEMS AND PRESCRIBING FEES THEREFOR. " Mayor Gleckman. Hearing no further objections, waive reading of the body of said Ordinance. Motion by Councilman. Gillum, seconded by Councilman Chappell, that the City Council adopt said Ordinance. . Motion carried on roll call vote as follows. AYES. Councilmen Chappell, Nichols„ Gillum, Lloyd, Mayor Gleckman NOES.. None ; ABSENT. None RESOLUTION NO. 3794 The City Attorney presented. "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE ADOPTED CITY OF WEST COVINA, DENYING A REQUEST FOR CHANGE OF ZONE. (Zone Change.No. 391) Mayor Gleckman. Hearing no objections, waive further reading of the body of said Resolution Motion by Councilman.. Gillum, seconded by Councilman. Chappell, that the City Council adopt said Resolution. Motion carried on roll call vote as follows: AYES. Councilmen Chappell, Gillum, Lloyd, Mayor Gleckman NOES: Councilman•. Nichols ABSENT: None REG. Co Co 5-13-68 Page Thirty-nine CITY ATTORNEY - Continued. RECOMMENDATION FOR COMPROMISE AND SETTLEMENT OF THE CASE OF THE CITY OF WEST COVINA vs. ESTATE OF GEORGE S o MIANO Mr. Wakefield- This was an action filed in February to recover on a. • street improvement bond. The total amount of the bonds $5, 350. The latest estimate of the cost: of the work by the City Engineering Department is $4,680. The ,estate -has offered to settle the litigation for $3,680, which is $1,000 under the ,current estimate of cost and this is the maximum amount that could be recovered. This is the case in which the bonds were made out in the name of an individual and the contracts in the name of a corporation signed by the individual as President. There is that discrepancy which the estate claims is fatal to the city°s right to recover. There is some merit in the estate's contention, also there are the additional costs to the City and delay to the .City if it goes to trial. The delay could be as much as 2 years. . I think the proposal for settlement is fair and in the best •interests of the City and I recommend it be accepted Mayor Gleckman- Thank you Mr. City Attorney, . I• would need a motion to accept the settlement of the claim as recommended by the City Attorney in the case of the City of West Covina vs. the Estate of George S . Mianoo So moved by Councilman. Gillum, seconded by Councilman -Lloyd, and carried. CITY MANAGER ENCROACHMENT PERMIT - PUBLIC FINANCE 240 So. Glendora Avenue Mr. . Aiassa- This is a request for an encroachment permit and the report, which the Council has a copy of, explains the sign will protrude 6° over the public right of way. This has been reviewed with the City Attorney and the staff. (Mr. Menard passed pictures to the Council and explained the request.) Mayor Gleckman- A point I noticed you didn't make - if he didn't get this type of sign, any other type of sign would be seen from only one side? Mr. Menard- In viewing from the street or center of the parking lot if it is not blocked. There is loss of identification, Councilman Nichols- Mr. Menard, would you feel that the granting of this encroachment in light of the blockage that you mentioned that it would be hard to debate relative to future is encroachments along the sidewalk? Mr, Menard- I would feed that there perhaps would be a precedent set in this area. (Explained in detail the encroachment permit previously approved.) Mayor Gleckman- I am familiar with the problem Mr. Menard, and. I don't think this situation does exist any place else where another story has been added to the building next door and closed you off.. I don't think there is any doubt but that it does cause a hardship. If there were no hardship,. I would not go alog? with the encroachment permit. REG. C.C. 5-13-68 Page Forty ENCROACHMENT PERMIT PUBLIC FINANCE - Continued Mr. Menard- There is a problem, there is no doubt about that. Mayor Gleckmano Thank you Councilman Nichols- What about the possibility of looking into the Ordinance on the encroachment permit and see if we should tighten that up a bit before we break this open in anyway? Mayor Gleckmano I think you could do both. You could request the encroachment permit because of the hardship and instruct the Planning Director to investigate and come back with a recommendation regarding the Ordinance and the way it is written Councilman Nichols- I thought Mr. Menard's comments were directed in such a way as to indicate a higher quality signage might be achieved when it is an encroached signageo Did I misunderstand Mr. Menard? Mr. . Menard- No, I think this is basically correct. .As indicated in the other two areas - improvement resulted from the encroachment sign, both in appearance and increased business. And based upon this request for an encroachment permit and which it would appear it does meet the basic requirement of the present language for an encroachment permit, but for future requests for encroachment permits it appears that we might investiage an amendment to the encroachment permit language Councilman Chappell- I don't see what that two story building did to the sign than if it hadn't been there Mayor Gleckmano If a two story building wouldn't be there and he put a regular roof sign on, I don't think you would have a problem seeing it from both sides. But maybe. I am wrong. Councilman Lloyd- Mr. Menard - is this a unique situation existing right now? Mr. Menard: I would say it would have to be considered somewhat unique. We don't have a great number of situations in the City that are like this where a roof sign could not be seen from one direction along the sidewalk. Of course the question in my mind is how valuable is seeing something along the sidewalk when it is right in the middle of the parking lot and most people come in to the parking lot in an automobile but that is another consideration. Councilman Gillum. I think from the photographs and what Mr. Menard says that these people are entitled to some considerate • tion in this area Motion by Councilman Gillum that the permit for the encroachment sign be granted to Public Finance, 240 South.Glendora Avenue. Seconded by Councilman Nichols. Motion carried 'on roll call vote as follows. AYES: Councilmen ,Nichols, .NOES. Councilman,,Chappell ABSENT- None Gillum, Lloyd, Mayor Gleckman KI REG. C.C. 5-13-68 Page Forty-one CITY MANAGER - Continued EMPLOYEES' ASSOCIATION PARTICIPATION STATE AUDIT COSTS 'Mr. Aiassa, It appears that the Employees' Association have had • some disagreement on.the letter filed with Council on April 25th and Mr.. Bateman would like to make an oral presentation Ben Bateman, President- There was some conflict in our communications this W o C o C o E.A. afternoon. I did not receive a letter from our secretary which was the result of our meeting this morning. We had a meeting this morning at 11 a.m. , and the Board of Directors elected to raise the monetary donation from the Employees' Association to a maximum of 5.0% of the bill or $275 e 00 o This would be our final offer to the City. The Board of Directors stated they felt at this point, after talking with other individuals that they were more inclined to go along with this agreement. Mayor Gleckman- Thank you. Any comments by the Council? Motion by Councilman Gillum, seconded by Councilman Chappell, that the City Council accept the amount of $275 0 00 from the West Covina City Employees' Association towards the invoice from the State Employees' Retirement System for the state audit in the amount of $526 0 53 Councilman, Lloyd- Is this bill of $526 0 53 the full amount? 0 Councilman. Gillum- Yes a a o a o Mr. Aiassa: No, it isn't. This amount is the first part of the audit. We stopped the audit because we didn't have any money authorized for the bill, We still have 2-1/2 to 3 years of auditing to take place. There may be an equal amount to be paid. Mayor Gleckman- Councilman Gillum, you are the representative to this particular Committee, and there seems to be a differ- ence of opinion between yours and the City Manager, would you like. to state your case? Councilman Gillum, You gentlemen will remember we had an estimate at one time that this first audit would run in the neighborhood of $1200 to $1500, I had a call from Mr., Aiassa°s office asking what should we do, and I said stop - and then the other evening we heard Mr. Eliot°s comments and commended him for taking the particular steps he had taken with the auditor in bringing it to a close and now we find this initial audit is what we requested, and also what Mr. . Aiassa states is true, we will have to have an additional audit if the Committee determines in the future that it will continue with the withdrawal from social security. But whether it will be worthwhile to continue with this withdrawal from social security will be known long before we will need the additional funds for the audit. What the Committee is trying to do now is obtain all • the information possible to submit to the Personnel Board for their recommendation to Council in this area. This initial cost was first understood to be around $1, 000 but when the bill came in it was for $526 0 53 Councilman,. Lloyd- Are there any other costs attendant to this besides an other audit? Mr., Aiassa: Let me, clarify. The reason that this bill is only $526 e 53 is it is a 2-1/2 year audit, there are 2 more years to be - 41 - REG. C.C. 5-13-68 Page Forty-two EMPLOYEES' ASSOCIATION PARTICIPATION STATE AUDIT COSTS - Continued audited of our accounts. We still have a bill from Social Security to finish the 2 years. Now after the Council takes action on this then I have to come back and ask the Council for authorization for the remaining work that has to be authorized to finish the audit. • Mayor Gleckmano Fine, let's take that up at that time. . As I understand it now the Employees' Association are offering us $275. as their participation in the state audit costs.. Now ,is there any further conversation? Councilman. Nichols- I just wondered how much money Mr. Gillum will get.:from the Employees' Association in the next round? Councilman Gillum: I feel by the time we reach that point this City will have enough additional information to determine whether they want to continue in this area. To sit here and say it won't cost any more - when it will. It may cost the City a tremendous amount of money but we are attempting to gather all the information possible to present to the Personnel Board for their recommendation, one way or the other. Councilman Nichols. Councilman Gillum. 0 Mayor Gleckmano STATE LEGISLATIVE PROGRAM You mean the. City's government would take up the greater percentage of the cost? This would be up to the Council at that time. Any further discussion on the motion? If not, all those in favor please signify by saying "Aye. " All were in favor. . Motion carried. Motion by Councilman Lloyd, seconded by Councilman. Gillum, and carried, to authorize City Manager to proceed as recommended by staff and City Attorney. TRAFFIC COMMITTEE MINUTES 5-3-68 Mr. Aiassao I would recommend that Item 5 on page 3 be held over. Motion by, Councilman Gillum, seconded by Councilman Lloyd, and carried, that Council receive and file the Traffic Committee meeting minutes of May 3, 1968, with the exception of Item 5 on Page 3. VINE AVENUE SIDEWALK CONSTRUCTION Motion by Councilman Gillum, seconded by Councilman -Lloyd, and carried, that Council Wold over. SISTER CITY REQUEST FOR FUNDS 1968-69 VISCA'L-.YEAR Motion by Councilman Nichols, seconded by Councilman Gillum, and carried, that this item be held over for the budget sessions. - 42 - REG. C.C. 5-13-68 PAGE Forty-three CIVIL ENGINEER ASSISTANT POSITION Motion by Councilman Gillum, seconded by Councilman Lloyd, and carried, that the Personnel Officer be authorized to hire Wayne'Peterson at Salary Range 28 Step C in accordance with Resolution No. 1277, Section 8 (a) 1, and that Mr. Peterson's performance be reviewed six months from date of hiring, with advancement to -Step D • upon approval of the Department Head and City Manager. 0 RAPID TRANSIT HEARING Motion By Councilman Gillum, seconded by Councilman Chappell, and carried, that Council receive and file the informational report on, Rapid Transit hearing Mayor Gleckmano I might explain that we are sending a staff member and I am not attending because the League of California Cities must hold this meeting but they do not want a quorum present, they want the meeting postponed to June 6th. STREET LIGHTING REVIEW Motion by Councilman Chappell, seconded by Councilman Gillum, and carried, that Council receive and file the Street Lighting Review informational report. STAFF REPORT - ANNEXATION 209 Motion by Councilman Gillum, seconded by Councilman Lloyd, and carried, that Council receive and file staff report on Annexation 209. CITY PUBLIC RELATIONS PROGRAM PLANNING COMMISSION LETTER Motion by Councilman Gillum, seconded by Councilman Chappell,,and carried, that Council hold this item over to the meeting of May 27th. SWIMMING POOL - CHANGE ORDER Motion by Councilman Gillum, seconded by Councilman Nichols, and carried, that City Council authorize -the staff to instruct the swimming pool architect Kisner, Wright & Wright to proceed with the change order on the swimming pool contract covering the items set forth in the report dated May 8, 1968. 'J& DEL. NORTE PARK SITE PARCEL Motion by Councilman Gillum, seconded by Councilman Chappell, and carried, that Council hold this item over to the meeting of May 27th. Mr., Aissao Mr. Mayor - we have a problem. Mr. Menard is going into military service and I have to have the approval of the Council to appoint Mr.. H. R., Fast - 43 - RED. C.C. 5-13-68 Page Forty-four DEL NORTE PARK SITE PARCEL - Continued to act as active Planning Director for the period of time Mr. Menard is on active duty with the U.S. Navy. So moved by Councilman Nichols, seconded by Mayor Gleckman, and carried. • ----------- CITY CLERK ALSAC to SOLICIT FUNDS December 7-14, 1968. Mayor Gleckman-, In accordance with the Council's policy, if there are no objections, permission will be granted for ALSAC to solicit funds from December 7 to 14, 1968. So moved by Councilman Gillum, seconded by Mayor Gleckman. Councilman Lloyd-, I note that the solicitation is to go to an area outside of their area and I am wondering if this- is in the best interests, of course I realize anyone may turn it down. Mayor Gleckman-, ALSAC although located in Tennessee, the results, effects and benefits, are for all peoples in all cities in all areas, and I think this is one of the most worthwhile causes to come before the City Council. All those in favor signify by saying "aye". All were in favor. ABC APPLICATION FOR ON -SALE BEER LICENSE LAVERN W. & THEODORA A. BURCH dba VERN'S at 656 S. SUNSET AVENUE Mayor Gleckman-, Do you have any further information than what we have Madam City Clerk? Lela Preston- No. Francis J.. Garvey,, Attorney I represent Mr,. & Mrs, Burch.. It -is our understanding 281 E. Workman Avenue informally that a letter has been directed to the City Covina Council in connection with Mr.. Burch's application to move his. tavern from around- the corner to the 656 address. , Apparently I don't see it in the minutes hearing tonight but we have seen copies of the letter and apparently they are in opposition to it. Mr.. Burch has had the tavern -for 5 years at the present location and never had a problem with the police and has the recommendation and concurrence of the Police Chief in his move, and all his customers. If there are any particular problems raised by this particular communication I would be happy to answer them, if I could find out what the communication before you might be stating. Motion by Councilman Nichols, seconded by Councilman Gillum, and carried, that there be no protest on this application. MAYOR'S REPORTS Mayor Gleckman-, I would like to request that the Council approve writing a letter of support for AB '1331. -44- REG. C.C. 5-13-68 Page Forty-five • 0 MAYOR'S REPORTS - Continued AB 1331 Councilman Lloyd, and carried. So moved by Councilman Gillum, seconded by GALAXIE PROPERTY COUNCIL MEETING Mayor Gleckmano I would request of Council authorization of monies to notify the Galaxie property owners of the June meeting at Hollenbeck School. Do I have a motion to spend the maximum amount of $15.00. So moved by Councilman Chappell, seconded by Councilman Gillum, and carried. PROCLAMATION REALTOR WEEK - May 19, to May 25,. 1968 Mayor Gleckman; If there is no objection, I will so proclaim Realtor Week from May 19 to May 25, 1968. No objections.. So proclaimed. Mayor Gleckman° I have a letter addressed to Council advising Frank C. Marp - Chapter 44, Disabled American Veterans inviting the Council to the installation of officers, Thursday, May 23, 1968 at 8 P.M., at the VFW hall on Merced. If anyone would care to go will they please notify Mr. Windsor or Mr.. Peacock and they will make reservations. Councilman Nichols: I would move that the Conncil direct the Mayor to attend. Mayor Gleckmano I will attend, my calendar is open. . Is there anyone else that would care to attend, My reason for bringing it up is the letter is addressed to.the Council. HUMAN RELATIONS COMMISSION Mayor Gleckmano I would like to inform you of a meeting that Councilman. Chappell and myself had this afternoon with the representatives of the Human Relations Commission regarding the charge of this Council to the Commission to act as a catalyst on an action program regarding the narcotics problem. We have given them direction to try and bring together all the different organizations and sources of information and act as the catalyst and attempt to have one action program, and by inference we inferred that we would like to see the Human Relations resblution before us which was under the agenda item F (1) and the only thing under F (1) was the minutes. So at this time I would suggest if there is any discussion regarding changing or altering the resolution that we do so at this time. - 45 - v REG. C.C. 5-13 —68 Page Forty-six HUMAN RELATIONS COMMISSION - Continued Councilman Gillum: I notice some strong feelings both ways, and I would like to see this held over until a later date. I don't think it is imperative that we discuss it this evening. I will make a motion to that effect. iSeconded by Councilman Chappell, and carried. 0 Mayor Gleckman: I would like to introduce the 1968 Citizen of the Year at this time Mr.. Phil Wax. .Also, I would like to set up the meeting of May 20th for an Executive Session in order to discuss the coming appointments to the: Planning Commission, Recreation & Parks Commission, Human. Relations Commission and the Personnel Board. Do we need a motion to' that effect, Mr. Wakefield? Mr. Wakefield: No, but it should be scheduled as an, Executive Session now for the next agenda. Mayor Gleckman: Mr.. Aiassa will you please take care of this item. DE MANDS Motion by Councilman Nichols, seconded by Councilman Gillum, that the City Council approve payment, of $312, 600.29 listed on demand sheets B383 through B388 and C560 through C564,. and payroll reimbursement sheets. This total includes a time certificate of deposit in the amount of $100, 000.00. Motion carried on roll call vote as follows: AYES: Councilmen Chappell, Nichols, Gillum, Lloyd, Mayor Gleckman NOES: None ABSENT: None Motion by Councilman Nichols, seconded by Councilman. Lloyd, and carried, that Council adjourn at 1 a. m; to`the hour of 7 .30 p.-m.-.,. on,. Mfa,y°2`0„ 19 Hi.. ATTEST: City Clerk APPROVED. Mayor