Loading...
05-20-1968 - Regular Meeting - MinutesMINUTES OF THE ADJOURNED MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL CITY OF WEST COVINA, CALIFORNIA MAY 20, 1968. • The adjourned 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 was led by Councilman Gillum. ROLL CALL Present: Mayor Gleckman, Councilmen Chappell, Nichols, Gillum, Councilman Lloyd (Arrived at 7:45 P.M.) Also Present: George Aiassa, City Manager Lela Preston, City Clerk H. R. Fast, Public Services Director Kenneth Winters, Planning Associate APPROVAL OF MINUTES April 22, 1968 - Approved as corrected: Councilman Nichols: I have a correction on Page 23, second set of remarks attributable to me; the words "is this" should be struck out. Motion by Councilman Gillum, seconded by Councilman Nichols, and carried, that the Council .minutes of April 22, 1968, be approved as amended. April 29, 1968 - Approved as submitted: Motion by Councilman Gillum, seconded by Councilman Chappell, and carried, that the Council minutes of April 29, 196'8, be approved as submitted. May 6, 1968 - Approved as submitted: Motion by Councilman Gillum, seconded by Councilman Nichols, and carried, that the Council minutes of May 6, 1968, be approved as submitted. REVIEW ACTION OF RECREATION & PARKS COMMISSION 0 ACTION OF APRIL 23, 1968 Councilman Nichols: There are several items in these minutes that are very important from a standpoint of cost aspects, also there is another point or two that the Council might want to discuss in some detail. Let me mention them and then if you want to approve in part or all or discuss. On Page 2, item 7, the installation of the trampoline at the Youth Center. There is some question in my mind as to the liability aspects of this type of facility being placed in our recreation facilities. I wondered if sufficient thought has been given to all of the aspects of that equipment. ADJ. C.C. 5-20-68 Page Two RECREATION & PARKS COMMISSION ACTION 4-23-68 - Continued Then relative to the median landscaping - the approval of the Council of Items 1 - 2 and 3. This will commit the Council to the employment of 6 additional street maintenance men, 2 in the new budget for the coming year. • Mayor Gleckman: If I understand correctly then I believe you would like an explana- tion from staff regarding the liability on the trampoline. Mr. Aiassa, are you in a position to answer this? -Mr. Aiassa: No, I am not. I would like this held over along with the Bikeway Trails item 4, and Item 5. Mayor Gleckman: I would suggest that Item 4 and 7 be held over for our next report and Item 5 held over until the budget session. So moved by Councilman Nichols, seconded by Councilman Gillum, and carried. Motion by Councilman Nichols, seconded by Councilman Chappell, and carried, that Council receive and file the minutes of the Recreation & Parks Commission of April 23, 1968, less items 4 - 5 and 7. is May 7, 1968 Councilman Nichols: There are two items in the minutes of May 7th, Item 4 for the proposal for the addition of two full-time recreation leaders recommended by the Commission; and item 6 pertaining to the swimming pool, a budget item for the operation of the pool for a 10 month period of $31, 234. Mayor Gleckman: I can see No. 4 and No. 5 even = -.- , 'put off until budget sessions, but how about No. 6? Would that also be your suggestion that we table 4 = 5 - 6 until budget sessions? Councilman Nichols: I don't know if I am really presenting this in the proper fashion but my thought was that the $141, 924. figure would only hold if the budget, item by item, were approved in that general recommendation. Although I agree with you, it is an integral part of the rest of those. It seems to me it would be wise to hold over items 4 - 5 and 6 for the budget session. So moved by Councilman Gillum, seconded by Councilman Chappell, and carried. • Motion by Councilman Nichols, seconded by Councilman Gillum, and carried, that the Council approve the minutes of May 7, 1968, with the exception of items 4 - 5 and 6. APPROVAL OF TRAFFIC COMMITTEE MINUTES May 3, 1968 - Item 5, Page 3 Mayor Gleckman: I think we have a similar situation with Item No. 5 having - 2 - ADJ. C.C. 5-20-68 . Page Three TRAFFIC COMMITTEE MINUTES - 5-3-68 - Continued to do with the bikeways. I would like a motion to hold this over until our next regular meeting in conjunction with our previous action. So moved by Councilman Nichols, seconded by Councilman Gillum, . and carried. Motion by Councilman Nichols, seconded by Councilman Chappell, that the City Council approve the Traffic Committee minutes of May 3 with the exception of Item 5. Councilman Gillum- We don't have complete minutes here. Item 3 - 4 - 5 and that's all. Mayor Gleckmane Mr. Aiassa, if I am not mistaken didn't we approve the Traffic Committee minutes at the last meeting with the exception of Item 3 ? So if Councilman Nichols will withdraw his motion and Councilman Chappell his second, we will go on with the order of business. Councilman Nichols- I withdraw my motion. Councilman Chappell. I will withdraw the second. REQUEST OF COLUMBIA SAVINGS & LOAN ASSOCIATION TO POSTPONE PUBLIC IARING ON PRECISE PLAN 536 APPEAL TO TUNE 24, 1968. Mayor Gleckmane Is there anyone in the audience this evening interested in Item 4 of the agenda? If not, gentlemen you have the correspondence, do I have a motion? Motion by Councilman Gillum, seconded by Councilman Chappell, and carried, that the hearing scheduled for May 27, 1968 be held over until June 24, 1968, per request of the Columbia Savings & Loan Association, JOINT PROJECT SPONSORSHIP - FRANK W . KITTINGER OF CHARTER OAK SCHOOL DISTRICT Mr. Aiassa- We have a staff report and the only comment I would like to make is that this is charged to Account 751-31 and that this establishes no precedent for any other request, that it will go on its own merit. Motion by Councilman Nichols, seconded by Councilman Chappell, that the City Council authorize the expenditure of $400.00 from budget account 751-31 to assist in a joint project to publish a series of booklets relating to the problem of drugs and narcotics. Motion carried on roll call vote as follows- . AYES. Councilmen Chappell, NOES- None ABSENT- Councilman Lloyd HEARING Nichols, Gillum, Mayor Gleckman AMENDMENT NO. 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. 2044. Hearing before City Council opened on May 13, 1968, and held over to this date with hearing held open. - 3 - ADJ. C.C. 5-20-68 Page Four AMENDMENT NO. 7 TO THE GENERAL PLAN - Continued Mayor Gleckmano The policy of the Council is that we do not go into a hearing until 8 p.m., and as that hour has not yet arrived, if I can have a motion from the Council to adjourn to an Executive Session in order to discuss Commission appointments, I would say now is the time and • place for that motion So moved by Councilman Gillum, seconded by Councilman Chappell, and carried COUNCIL ADJOURNED TO EXECUTIVE SESSION AT 70 45 P.M. COUNCILMAN LLOYD ARRIVED AT 7.45 P.M. COUNCIL RECONVENED AT 8 P.M. HEARING AMENDMENT NO. 7 TO THE GENERAL PLAN Mayor Gleckman: Mr.. Aiassa are you prepared to make a presentation? Mr. Aiassa: Yes, we have with us the representative of Williams, Cook & Mocine - Mr. Al Zelver. Al Zelver First let me preface my remarks by stating that I have Williams, Cook & Mocine been a city planning consultant for ten to fifteen years, (In summary) an associate of Williams, Cook & Mocine. Half of my work is with cities and the other half is with private developers, so I am both aware and sympathetic of the problems private parties have. • There are two points I want to make. Everything we are talking about tonight is long range. Everything is projected to 1990. It is not going to happen tomorrow or not even next year. It anticipates that changes are about to come in the community whether the community plans for them or not. The purpose is to control the change so it is beneficial to the property owners of the community rather than detrimental. And all of the things which are suggested in these plans really require both the consent and support of the public agency, the city and the private property owners. Nothing will go ahead unless it has support in the terms of what people want to do with their own property and what the City is willing and able to fund in the way of public improvements Private property owners may feel that they are well protected as they proceed. The purpose of the plan is to provide a somewhat more moderate assembly of land parcels and circulation. If the population of the valley continues to grow as it has there will be room in the market for somewhere between a half and three, new- department stores and unless sites are provided for them, which take anywhere from 150, 000 to 200, 000 sq. feet of building area along with adequate parking in relationship to other stores, then they are apt to go other places. It doesn't mean they would be lost to the total trade area but it does mean they might very well be lost to West Covina. So that West Covina never would have a very strong downtown or central business district. And this would also mean a great deal in the terms of sales taxes. One Department store might mean as much as $85, 000 in •sales tax and property tax per year, which would have an equal value to the City; the City would be capable of funding bonds for the city, etc. , with no cost to the citizens, which would otherwise be lost. The major proposals of the plan are two -fold. One is circulation, and the other is in terms of land uses. (Used a map to explain the existing Centers and what is proposed to change the existing Centers.) What is proposed in the plan is that the area would be in a sense wiped clean for planning purposes through these two major arterials and develop something between the two roads and make it possible to get around the entire area. (Used the maps again for explanation.) :'_= ADJ. C.C. 5-20-68 Page Five AMENDING NO. 7 TO THE GENERAL PLAN - Continued At present you have roughly two hundred acres with only about twenty-two covered by buildings. Under the new plan thirty-three acres would be covered and the remaining in landscaping and parking. .You are therefore in a very strong :posi.'tion in creating the sites and the site planning to attract the kinds of offices and new stores that will want to come into the area. The steps for carrying out the plan, if it was decided this was the way the City wanted to go are as explained on Page 20 and 22 of the booklet. (Explained step by step the Planning. A preliminary plan, and if the intent and spirit of the plan meets with the approval of the City Council they then can adopt this plan, and it becomes an action program, which would begin with the appointing of a Committee. The purpose of this Committee is to react to this plan. After reacting to this plan, they revise the plan, if they so wish and we then have a revised plan which meets with the approval of the Committee. All is subject to public discussion and public hearings as you go along.) The plan is then analyzed for costs and the costs analyzed for profits. If an improvement would cost one million dollars it should increase land values so that taxes may be increased to pay off those costs without any cost to the property owner. After the costs and beneftts are balanced there are various methods of financing which are analyzed. There maybe bond issues, special assessment districts, special federal funds that may be applied for. There are various elements of the plan that may be revised, then you create a development plan. This development plan is really the first step for development. away at least. • Mayor Gleckman. Mr.. Ai.assa. n Now we are talking about something that will be several years Thank you very much to the report? No, we do not. Mr. Aia s sa do you have anything to add THIS IS THE TIME AND PLACE FOR THE PUBLIC HEARING ON AMENDMENT NO. 7 TO THE GENERAL PLAN. THE CHAIR EXPLAINED THE PROCEDURE. Mayor Gleckman. I would like to state to you people here this evening that Williams, Cook & Mocine are the consultants to this City for the General Plan and within this General Plan we have asked them to come up with a proposed plan for a Central Business District that would enhance all property values in the City.. And they have done just this and the purpose of this report is to describe the problem in West Covina°s Central Business District and outline the principles to be followed in solving these problems. They go on to state that they "believe that poor traffic circulation, physical unattractiveness and creeping deterioration have become critical in parts of the Central Business DisrAct; a major program of replanning and physical improvement will be required to arrest economic decline in the central and eastern sections of the study area. We recommend that the City proceed with a Development Plan and Financial Feasibility Study at an early date. " And this I believe is what the City has required of them to do. Mr. Zelver, on behalf of Williams, Cook & Mocine, is here this evening to reiterate those remarks. This plan is not an overnight plan, it is by no means going into action or development within the next 3 to 5 years, but it is an overall plan that we can look to and hope it will carry the necessary equipment to give us the results of what we would like to have in West Covina. Is there anyone in the audience that would like to come forward and speak to the issue? William Beem Other than a statement, I would like to ask a couple of questions 549 N. Foxdale possibly from the Council and the gentleman that spoke. .I do - 5 - ADJ. C.C. 5-20-68 Page Six AMENDMENT NO. 7 - HEARING - Continued object to two or three statements made by the planners in this brochure. I do have a business at 209 So.. Glendora Avenue and it is considered by newspapers, the City Hall,. and others, as the Old Center, of which we object to wholeheartedly, Because we are trying to upgrade and establish an area and considered as the Old Center it •doesn't help the situation, but we have fought this for many years. This is referred to in this report as the Old Center and also states the City does not have a Central Business District and I believe they are wrong, because I do consider that the Old Center is and has been the traditional business center area. I do realize the City is stirred to initiate a program to better the business, better shopping facilities for people and upgrade the City in general. We do want to abide by a conception of the "Headquarters City of the East San..Gabriel Valley" and I will go along with that. But there are many questions I am sure that would like to be asked and answered. There are many merchants and landowners, and not those just of the Old Center, but of other areas of the City, that would like to know the time involved in detail of the work to be accomplished and when it would start after the Council has pa ssed this plan. The plan is in detail but not such precise detail as to when it would start and what goes out first. I have been at my location for 10 years and would like to be there for many more years. My business has been good and improving each year for the past 10 years. I would venture to say that all of the businesses on Glendora Avenue are thriving very well. I do feel that many times the Old Center has been downgraded and degraded by the City and the people writing articles in the newspapers stating we are a blight area. We in that Center, and I am not sure if the landlords would go for this or not, but we as merchants we don't consider ourselves a blight or disgraced •area and we don't want federal aid or state aid to help us. If the City needs state aid in order to proceed with this beautiful plan, fine, then the City is going to have to initiate that over the protests of many merchants and landlords. I do feel the City for sometime now has been giving us the .idea in the Old Center that we will have to prove to them we want to upgrade our area, clean it up, etc. , in order to get services from the City that I feel we should have had all along. I can name many of the services that if we had in the Center, I '.don't think we need to tear down the City and rebuild. I think the landlords would find the. City was interested in the Center and they would also do something to upgrade it and redevelop it themselves without having to sell out to a corporation, a bond issue, or the Urban _Renewal Development, or whatever, in order to redo and rebuild for a projection of 1990. That is a long ways off . We know we have to think of the future and prepare, but on the other hand when we do we are dislocating all of the merchants that have built the City, the individual private merchants and most of them live in West Covina and are vitally interested in the City. I have talked to different ones in the City, the City Manager, the staff - concerning what they will do to help us upgrade the Old Center. We have been given the ideas of what will be done and three things have been done., - that we have been after. A signal light, a stop sign and a sprinkler system put in on the parkways, which to date have not been planted and should have been if the City was really interested in doing this for the Center. I feel, and much of the merchants feel, that we are the black sheep of the City. I can see that parts of the Plaza will be redeveloped and some will not be touched. All of the West Covina Center except for the site on the east side of Glendora; will all be torn out and redeveloped eventually according to this plan. This booklet which was presented to us tonight for study, I would like the opportunity for all of the different merchants and land owners to study this before it is passed. I hope that it will be passed for study only at this time. I appreciate your time. - 6 - ADJ. Co 0. 5-20-68 Page Seven AMENDMENT NO. 7 HEARING - Continued Harold Goodman I am also a merchant and a landlord in the so-called Old Center 1212 E. Garvey and I want to reiterate what the former gentleman said. We have not had any cooperation and I want to know why we must be torn out to make room for new offices and new department stores. I have been a merchant for 10 years and I am doing a very nice business and I am very happy with it. What we need from you people is a better traffic flawbut we don't need to give up our shops and have it torn down for new office buildings U. Lattimer I would like to reemphasize the fact that anytime in my past 1827 Danes Drive history of business, and I have always been a small businessman, that I have never seen a redevelopment go in, to where rents where comparable to what they were, or anyone that could tear down these buildings and rebuild them and lease or rent them back to us at the present rental rates. We are also of the small business type that people are not coming from great distances on the freeways to patronize the type of business located in West Covina Center. And I speak of the West Covina Center with a great deal of pride because it has been there longer. Also the small businessman came into this district without any tax breaks, which some department stores have had when they came in. We came in and accepted what was set forth for us and have prospered. And we would like to stay there in our buildings. Our buildings are not hazards, they are as good as some of the buildings you are going to leave up in some of the other areas. They are fireproof buildings and have not been condemned as buildings. Also there are certain rental levels that only small business people can afford. I looked 3-1/2 years to find the place I have. • My business is controlled by the State of California and I must meet certain limitations before I can move into a building, they must first give me permission to move into,and those buildings are hard to find. I started out in Los Angeles and finally came out here and found the building, the location and the area for the type of business we are in. So I hope you will give consideration to the fact that even though we are small business that people feel, that we are somewhat necessary in the scheme of things. If there is part of the area that is not paying and you want to take it - fine, but do you have to take all of the area? Can't it be done in other ways rather than demolish and take away from us what we have helped build along with the City and the people in the City? Thank you. Mr. Sylvan: Shulman One thing wasn't mentioned tonight and that was the fact Pasadena, California regarding the surface streets getting into the Center. How about the service streets leading to the Center, is that going to be improved? And talking about the West Covina Center is true - a lot of them have been there for a good many years, however they must realize that in the next 10 years if nothing is done by then, there will be other centers built around and they will lose that traffic, because other buildings will certainly be built by then. I am for the plan, however one thing that has to be done is the service street traffic. Thank you. •H. Spiel I don't know of anybody in West Covina in business any longer 1119 W. Merced than I have. I am in the original West Covina Center and it seems that everytime an improvement is made it seems to take away from us rather than improve for us. We originally had a certain amount of parking which the city deemed was not adequate, I believe it was 200 and some spaces, so they cut us from that to 185, and they put a 3-lane street across our Center but it doesn't go anywhere; then they put a freeway in and planted shrubbery along the fence to block us out completely. It seems as long as we have been there, there has been nothing beneficial done actually to help us build up business but everything to keep people away from our business. - 7 - ADJ. C.C. 5-20-68 Page Eight AMENDMENT NO. 7 HEARING - Continued We started the Center. And I don't think it would have been a Center if it weren't for us, or even a West Covina. But since it did start, it has gone anywhere but up, it has always gone down because they are trying to cut off the ingress for people coming to us. I believe we have done a good service for the people • by being there but the City has done its best to cut off traffic coming through and I know when people call up they say I know where you are, but how do I get there? And they are only maybea couple of blocks away. I like the plan so far as the surface road going the full length of all four centers, but if there could be something done besides teati.ng our Center down, probably it does need a little fixing up but that has been because of the fact that people are afraid to do anything, not knowing what is going to happen. This has gone on for so long and everybody has been afraid to do anything. Every time something starts off, it is trying to take us down rather than build us up and nobody wants to do anything just for that reason. Thank you. Charles Goldering I am only asking a question. This is the first time I have looked Los Angeles at this. Undoubtedly what I want to ask is contained in here, and I am possibly wasting your time. I have heard two or three people -mention the fact that they are going to tear things down and change the whole structure, literally planning to remove and reset buildings in different locations, and if so by what means do you do this? By condemnation proceedings, or what? Payment to the individuals or how? I would like the answer, apparently it isn't involved in the West Covina Plaza but it is in the Center. • Mayor Gleckmana Your question will be answered now that you have asked it. Thank you. Barry Goldman On page 25, sentence 7 (read from booklet) . Now who is going 1237 Auburn Drive to determine which businesses meet the requirements? I have known in the past shopping areas they wanted high fashion centers, or clothing only, or certain types of high value retail. We, in both Centers, are a mixed group and the Plaza, which no one seems to be talking about, is also involved to some extent in changing of buildings, moving, dislocating, etc. , and it seems to me there might possibly come about in all this change where some service would not be desirable to some people. We don't know who the group is going to be to determine who is going and who is going to stay. This is one thing that seems vague and I think is bothering everybody in general, which areas will be the service buildings, which areas will be the retail buildings, and which will remain in the shopping centers that would be most desirable to them. I would be highly interested in that. My business is a peculiar one , a borderline type of thing. That is what Would be of most concern to me - who is going to determine which businesses will stay where in the reshuffle. And when they say certain demands that are here now will have a priority - - is that determined by the Council? The City? The landowners? It is all pretty vague. Thank you. Mayor Gleckmane First of all let me thank you all for coming. We have no intention to close the hearing at this time. This • subject has been before the Planning Commission and then to the Council and this is the second time this Public Hearing has been heard by Council, and anyone that hasn't had a chance to look at this I cannot blame the City Council or the City of West Covina. I feel there has been ample notices, ample time and ample hearings on this subject. I do feel however, that there are a lot of misconceptions and probably a lot of wrong ideas as to the intention of this. I believe that many people have read certain parts of this report and brought out from the report certain things they are interested in, rather than reading the whole report. There are many ways to ADJ. C.C. 5-20-68 Page Nine AMENDMENT NO. 7 HEARING - Continued redevelopment. It doesn't state anyplace in this report that it will be State money or Federal money or private money. There are various ways to accomplish what we are setting out to do. We, ourselves, at this time cannot tell you people in what manner we will proceed. That is the reason for the suggestions by the professionals and the .reason for the public hearings before the Planning Commission and their recommenda- tion to this Council and the public hearing before this Council. At this time I will turn the mike over to the rest of the Council for comments, if they would like to make any, with the thought in mind that the hearing is still open and is not closed. Councilman Nichols: The only thought that I have come out with is the alarm that has been expressed by a number of individuals who came before the microphone, which rather surprised me because I thought the consultant this evening had done an exceptionally able job in pointing out how extremely early all of this is and I noticed he pointed out that before this plan can move to any type of implementation stage or finalization that citizen participation, meaning you people - becomes an integral part of that. And he pointed out that it is highly unlikely that anything at all can be accomplished in any community unless both the elected officials of the community and the property owners are working together as a team. Most of the questions raised, I don't believe there is any human being alive at this point who could answer them. This type of thing is totally evolutionary - it shows it there (referring to the blackboard diagram drawn by Mr. Zelver) . A plan, a committee, revisions, studies of cost, methods and then final development plan. It is miles and miles away from actual development. •The concerns expressed are good, but I think they need to be held in abeyance and put to work when it comes One final comment. There were quite a few comments and Mr. Beem led off about the lack -of City cooperation in that area - some may indded have some validity but in the four years that I have served on the Council I haven't had any great deluge of any of your people in or out of those centers, including you Mr. Beem, coming to me and asking for my assistance in working on some particular problem area. And when I have been aware of a problem area I have voted in favor of extending that assistance to your area and I think the Council will continue to do so. I think the total motives of this Council are constructive motives and not to wipe out anyone. Certainly I don't take this plan into consideration with that thought in mind and I would hope that all of the people, both merchants and property owners will approach this as a common problem and one that does need a solution and one we can work together on. Councilman Lloyd: First of all I am distressed to hear T and that comes as somewhat of a surprise to me - that any person in the room is surprised at this plan. I know that I spoke as often and as loudly as I could during the recent campaign regarding this plan of Williams, Cook & Mocine, saying I felt this was the way to go. Not the only way to go but a way to go. I noted at that time in responses and questions from audiences there seemed to be a good deal of knowledge on the part of the general voting public. • So I am surprised to hear that. My next thing that comes to mind is there was some indication that things were going pretty well and yet during my campaign I was able to ascertain that of all the consumer total dollar available in West Covina that about 40% of it was staying here. That would leave me to believe that 60% was not staying here. I don't consider that a break even. I kind of like to see a little better than that. I do have some other questions and this is of Mr. Fast. On the building standards and codes, is the West Covina Center the same as in the Plaza? Mr. Fast: Yes they are. - 9 - ADJ. C.C. 5-20-68 Page Ten AMENDMENT NO 7 - HEARING - Continued Councilman. Lloyd: Mr. Zelver, in your studies, has it been proven or shown that it is better for businessesrto face a freeway, as in the example of the original center, or face away from the freeway? Mr. Zelver- There are certain kinds of businesses that profit from exposure of traffic but without making a study of every property that fronts on the freeway and there are many that face the freeway and are not freeway oriented. A major motel needs freeway exposure but those businesses that their customers come again and again - first you need access and then you need a place to park when they get there. Using the freeway exposure as a form of advertising is of less importance. Councilman Gillum- I am thinking about ten or fifteen years ago when I was sitting here and listening to the same problem. So I agree we have been faced with this problem for a number, of years. I have talked to many of you merchants and many of you have a good idea on how to cure the problem. It takes money first of all to cure the problems this Council and this City has inherited from rapid growth in our area. In order to get the money we have to think of ways to increase your business and therefore you can pay the City more tax dollars. It is kind of a help thing. In my conversation with different people on Glendora and up through the West Covina Center I have tried to impress on you that this is not going to happen tomorrow or ten years from now. It is just a guideline. We are not saying it is going to be this way. But we have to have a place to start. When they started the Center they had to have a place to • start and when they started the Plaza they had to have a place to start and that is all we are trying to do, is formulate a plan where we can start. It may end up nothing like this. Many of the comments from the merchants and I agree, is that we are going to have to do something for an east -west thoroughfare preferably Walnut Creek Parkway. In the past year we have looked into this and conversative figures to extend this through the City is at one million dollars. I don't know how many of you merchants realize this, but the total budget for this City is only 4.8 million dollars. We know that we need this major east -west street but . how do we go about financing it? I for one am not going to sit up here and tell you if this program were to. come about that some merchant maybe wouldn't lose a store, but -I can also tell you I have asked many questions of the merchants in certain areas that if it deteriorated to a point and you found a better location would you move, and they said - Oh yes we would. So I think we are both faced with the question. If we don't help you with your traffic problem and if we don't upgrade the area it may degrade to the point - as was stated, that another shopping center would be built, your customers will leave and you won't be far behind them. I think it .is a case of each of us working together. We don't have all the answers in this report because we can't anticipate all the problems. The question on who is going to get paid for what or left out in the cold - I don't think this .Council or this gentleman can answer that, .because it isn't in here yet. It is basically a plan to start, but if we don't start - - I would suggest you drive south to La Habra or Claremont and see some of the business areas that are being built. The City paid a tremendous amount of money for the Real Estate Research report and in this book it stated we had 3 years to accomplish certain things and if we didn't accomplish this we had the best access streets out of this City to other areas. We have wasted 18 months now trying to formulate it. I support this concept but I am sitting up here saying to all of you that if this concept is accepted and put in effect that you are not going to be pushed off the street the next day, because it is ten years away. It will take the help of the property owners, the merchants and the City. I have :tried for two years in certain - 10 - ADJ. C.C. 5-20-68 Page Eleven AMENDMENT NO. 7 - Continued areas to get the property owners and merchants together - in one area I think there was 26 owners and we were fortunate enough at one time to get 10. We haggled over a $ 100. for planting trees at one time. We have to find a formula for the merchants, property owners and the City, to work together- because if you merchants leave the City I don't know where we will get the money to put Walnut Creek Parkway through., or for all the other developments. I, too, support this concept because it is in the best interests of all of us. It is something that has to be worked out to the best interests of the merchants, the city and the property owners. Mayor Gleckman: I thank you. I think we all agree that circulation is the present problem and the only way we are going to get proper circulation is for this Council to act as a catalyst and get the job done. We are not going into condemnation or do anything to any type of business to discourage it. On the other hand we have been asked again and again - when is the City going to do something - when is the City going to take an interest - and now that the City is taking an interest before we even start to formulate a plan to give you something in the form of a proposal so we can go out after it, we naturally and with justification receive complaints on different parts of the plan, because it is not formulated and not final, but at least we are not just going to talk about it. We want to do something about it. And the only way we could ever suggest a good plan or a future development for this community is to provide the proper circulation that is so lacking throughout our entire business district and this is what we first hope to accomplish, is a good circulation area so the businesses you presently have will thrive more, but we have to start it and stop talking about it. • I think because of the importance of this matter and the interest of you people, along with many other people in the City, that I would like to suggest to Council that a joint meeting be held with the Planning Commission, the consultants and interested citizens, in order to at least answer all the questions brought up and to give you people, as well as the Planning Commission, the Council and the staff, and other people that couldn't make it here this evening, a better interpretation of what we are trying to accomplish. That is why I held the hearing open so you would have the opportunity to have your questions answered and also ask more questions and get more details when available. Is there any further discussion from the rest of the Council? Councilman Gillum: I would like to add one thing. There probably has been occasions where it would appear one area has received preferential treatment over another. I know that in the Plaza there is the Plaza Merchants Association - they find certain projects in their own area that they feel should be carried out in cooperation with the City and they present these programs to the City. On Glendora in the West Covina Center we have talked with the merchants over there, they are going to form a type of association to hold meetings and discuss their problems. I believe I am still the representative - if I am I would be more than happy to meet with any and all groups to bring their recommenda- tions back to the City Council and in a sense build their case, because if they can sell me on the idea I would be happy to bring it back to Council. Mayor Gleckmane Along with what Councilman Gillum said, I think the people of our community, as well as the landlords and the people in business here in West Covina but don't live in the community, should just go along and feel that now we have a City Council that is behind me, that wants to help. As far as we are concerned we don't want anything done in this community that is not even possibly of benefit to everybody here. We have no axes to grind, we are only working for the betterment of the City of West Covina and if the City prospers, you as landlords, and merchants have to prosper with it, because we can not do anything without your permission, without your cooperation, and if ADJ. C.C. 5-20-68 Page Twelve AMENDMENT NO. 7 - Continued you would only take the positive attitude instead of -the negative attitude of I don't want, or I don't think we should, and come and say instead - I would like to if - and at least then we think along the same lines and not I can't, I believe we shouldn't or. I won't. I believe Mrs. Meyer had a comment..... • Rae Meyer You keep telling us we have a problem on Glendora Avenue. We Pantry Bakery do not have a problem. We have very good business. We are very prosperous. When I belonged to the Chamber of Commerce they always tell us we have a problem and we do not. We have very good business. Mr. Goldering: Again, I am lacking in information. This particular report was it mailed to the property owners and the merchants so they might have an opportunity to study it? You gentlemen seem to have all the knowledge because you have had the benefit of this report, and we come here kind of cold. And admittedly I am a little distance from here, but other members are closer. If we had an opportunity to read it, then possibly we could come in with a positive approach such as you are suggesting, but without it you back, away and are a little apprehensive because you are surprised with a very comprehensive report that you haven't had a chance to read. Mayor Gleckman: The point is well taken. Mr. Goldering: May I ask also if there are any other reports that the Council mail them and make them available to the property owners and merchants, so we have an opportunity to read them and not just the members of the Council. Mayor Gleckman: I believe you have a good suggestion Mr. Goldering. Mr. Aiassa: We had two meetings at the Planning Commission level and these reports were available at that time. We did give out as much publicity as possible. The last meeting we had publi- pity in the papers . Tonights meeting we went out individually and gave each business person a notice of the public hearing. The reservation we have is that we have practically given out the 200 reports we had and I believe they are pretty well received. Mr. Fast: 215 have been picked,.:up..,, Mayor Gleckman: Let me say this - and I think I speak for the Council. If any method would bring out all the landlords, all the tenants, all the people concerned, I am sure this Council would welcome any method we could get in order to get them together and get all their ideas, all their' thoughts and above all their cooperation. The point is well taken. At this time rather than beat this horse to death, I would like to set a future date with permission of the Council for a joint meeting with the consultants, the Planning Commission and the City Council. Mr. Aiassa, it would be my suggestion that we follow through on some of the suggestions made this evening, as far as notification, that . if possible we hold the meeting at a school auditorium, because I don't think we have enough room for all the people interested,. here. in the Council Chambers. Mr. Aiassa: This could be arranged. Mayor Gleckman: Councilman Chappell do you have any comments regarding the suggestion? Councilman Chappell: I haven't had anything before now, but looking at it for sometime I thought that we and the business men should all get together, examine our facts and figures, and come - 12 - ADJ. C.C. 5-20-68 Page Thirteen AMENDMENT NO. 7 - Continued up with something that we could all live with and I think a meeting would be advisable now. We could sit here and talk for another year and not get it started. So I think a meeting would be appropriate with the consultants, the Planning Commission, Council and interested people, there are a number of people in the audience that haven't said is anything and there are a number of merchants that are not present. Maybe after reading over the booklet they will have some thoughts to help us formulate what we are discussing. Councilman Lloyd: I make a motion that we have a joint meeting with the Planning Commission, Williams, Cook & Mocine, and the staff, at a date appointed by the Mayor with the hearing held open. Seconded by Councilman. Gillum. Mayor Gleckman: I would like to see enough time so that we could get enough material out to enough people so they would have time to digest it. How about June 26th? (Discussion followed by Council, Mr. Aiassa and some comments from the audience regarding the date of the joint meeting.) Councilman Nichols: Mr, Mayor, the tape reflects all of those people registering an element of conflict. I would suggest we • move to set this continued hearing at a date to be selected and placed on the calendar by the City Manager, after consideration with all people who indicated they have a conflict, and then set the nearest date on the calendar that this Council can (meet with the Planning Commission, Williams, Cook, & Mocine, and a substantial majority of the people. Mayor Gleckman: Will you accept that amendment to your motion Mr. Lloyd? Accepted by Councilman Lloyd and Councilman Gillum. Mr. Aiassa: I think there is a legal question. You are now continuing a hearing and if I recollect you must continue a hearing to a definite date and time, so we are limited because the hearing is open. (Further Discussion.) Mayor Gleckman: The date will be Monday, July 15, 1968, at 8 p.m. That will complete the original motion. At Edgewood High School. With proper notification going out to all property owners and tenants. All those in favor please signify by saying "Aye". All were in favor. Motion carried. THE CHAIR DECLARED A 10 MINUTE RECESS AT 9: 12 p.m. RECONVENED AT 9: 22 P.M. DEL NORTE PARK LAND ADDITION Mayor Gleckman: Mr. Aiassa, you requested an addition to the City Council agenda for May 20th, the Del Norte Park Land addition. Do I have the council's permission to add this to the agenda? (Agreed.) - 13 - ADJ. C.C. 5-20-68 Page Fourteen DEL NORTE" PARK LAND ADDITION - Continued Mr. Aiassa: We have a basic commitment arranged with -Mr. Hinrichs who owns the property. I would like authorization from the Council to proceed with escrowand a lease with Mr. :Hinr.ich.s ds outlined in our memorandum to the City Council on May 17th. We •would lease the property "on July 1, 1968 to March 1, 1969 for $1, 000 and the City will purchase the initial parcel July 15, 1968 for $21, 000 and buy the final parcel on February 1, 1969 for $22, 000, vAi th a total cost of $44, 000. - Seller will pay the 1967-68 taxes and we pay the 1968-69 taxes which are pro -rated and we share equally. Also if further details are wanted by the Council we can go into a study session on this matter. I believe the confidential memo to you is pretty specific. Motion by Councilman Nichols, seconded by Councilman Gillum, and carried, that Council, as an initial action accept the memorandum of May 17, 1968, directed to City Manager from Mr. Fast, as a matter of council policy. Motion by Councilman Nichols, seconded by Councilman Gillum, that City Council direct and authorize the City Manager to commence arrangements to consumwte the agreement as indicated in points 1 - 2 and 3, beginning with point 1, in order that he can meet the June 1 date for implementation of point number 1. Motion carried on roll call vote as follows: AYES: Councilmen. Chappell, Nichols, Lloyd, Gillum, Mayor Gleckman NOES: None • ABSENT: None Mr. Aiassa: I would like to advise Council this will consummate the entire piece of property needed. Mayor Gleckman: Council will now adjourn to the Executive Session to continue its session, on Commission appointments. EXECUTIVE SESSION 9:25 P.M. COUNCIL RECONVENED AT 10: 2L p.m. MAYOR'S REPORTS Mayor Gleckman: I attended the Mayor's and Councilmen's Institute this morning with Councilman. Chappell, and we found it very interesting. They had an attorney explain the responsibility of the individual councilman as to what they could or could not do. COUNCIL COMMITTEE REPORTS Councilman Lloyd: I attended the Planning Commission meeting and I noted with some concern the lack of preparation on the part of people who come before the Planning Commission in the presentation of their problems. I don't know what we can do as a Council to aid in better presentation by people who wish to come before the Commission or the Council, but it is a matter of continuing concern for myself, and one that I think should merit some education. Perhaps we should have a briefing for these people by someone on the City staff, so they know what they are doing and can make a decent presentation. I am speaking specifically of the property at Francisquito and Sunset and the disoriented approach by the Homeowners, in opposition to the development of this property. - 14 - ADJ. C.C. 5-20-68 Page Fifteen COUNCIL COMMITTEE REPORTS Councilman Nichols: What is coming up on that, Councilman Lloyd? Councilman. Lloyd: The proposal involving the building of a two story apartment house across from the Sun -Fran Commercial •Center. The report is that two stories will look into some of the homes. But the people had no idea of the value of what would occur , which would seem somewhat logical. I was concerned with this. Mayor Gleckman: I think at one time we had a brochure we were making up to show how. Did we ever follow through, Mr. Aiassa? Mr. Aiassa: No, we had 100% turnover in staff, so we are back where we started. Mayor Gleckman: Will you look into this and bring a report back to Council? Mr. Aiassa: Yes. ------------- Councilman Gillum: I have a comment in the form of a suggestion, and I would like to get the feelof the council. I found out the other night that I am not sure where all the Fire Stations are located in this city, and I spoke with Chief Wetherbee and I was wondering if the Council in the near future would like to go to the Fire Stations in a group and look over the facilities, personnel and equipment, and locations. We had an opportunity to • inspect the Police facilities but the Fire Department is also an area that concerns us and the citizens and I would like to see this Council ego on a group tour of the present and future locations. Councilman. Lloyd: My only comment on that is I am 100% in favor of Councilman Gillum's suggestion - however, could we postpone that until after the training program that Councilman Chappell and myself are going through just on the basis of time. Mayor Gleckman: Yes, that is something for the future. I would like to compliment the staff as well as the two new Council- men for the valuable time they are putting into learning the job. .'I think it was a good idea Mr. Aiassa. I wish that Mr. Gillum and I had the benefit of that. Did everybody receive an invitation from SCAG? If not will you make copies of the notice Mr. Aiassa and distribute it? The other thing I want to comment on is the Blue Ribbon status report also handed to me. For those of you who are concerned the Auditorium Committee was supposed to wind up in the first week of May; the Municipal Service Committee is just now having a general meeting to approve the final report; the Recreation & Parks Committee is also meeting to approve a final report; the Traffic Flow and Circulation Committee is just getting off the ground and I will be able to report at the next regular meeting as to the progress. •Is there almything further to come before this Council? If not a motion to adjourn would be in order. Motion by Councilman Gillum, seconded by Councilman Chappell, and carried, that Council adjourn at 10: 30 pm. ATTEST: APPROVED: City Clerk - 15 - Mayor