Loading...
06-24-1968 - Regular Meeting - MinutesMINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL CITY OF WEST COVINA, CALIFORNIA JUNE 24, 1968. -The regular meeting of the. City Council was called to order by Mayor.Leonard Gleckman at 70 30 p. m. , at the West Covina City Hall.. The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Councilman. Gillum. The invocation was given by the Reverend Edgar A. Doering, Shepherd of the Valley Lutheran Church. . ROLL CALL PRESENT: Councilmen Chappell, Nichols, Gillum, Lloyd, Mayor Gleckman ALSO PRESENT: George Aiassa, City Manager Ho R. Fast, Public Services Director George Wakefield, City Attorney Lela Preston, City Clerk Owen Menard, Planning Director George Zimmerman, Ass't.. City Engineer Leonard Eliot, Controller Robert Gingrich, Director of Recreation & Parks Donald L. Russell, Ass't. Personnel Director APPROVAL OF MINUTES • June 10, 1968 - Approved as corrected: Councilman Nichols: On Page 12, large middle paragraph the word "because" should be added to the sentence - "At that time there was quite a bit of information furnished showing that because of the very nature........ ". On.Page 13, paragraph near the top of the page, first line should read "We asked that last time, but how. do you quiet them down...... ". On Page 21, large paragraph near the end of the page, second sentence, remove words "and approved". Motion by Councilman Gillum, seconded by Councilman Chappell, and carried, that City Council approve minutes of June 10, 1968, as corrected. CITY CLERK'S REPORTS . PARCEL MAP 14 LOCATION: Northeast corner of Azusa ACCEPT STREET IMPROVEMENTS and Puente Avenues. ARTHUR STINTON (Abbey Rents) Motion by Councilman Nichols, seconded by Councilman. Lloyd, and carried, that City Council accept street improvements and authorize the release of Great American Insur- ance Co., performance bond No. 8179468 in the amount of $2,400.00.. , PROJECT SP-68024 LOCATION: California Avenue, from STREET RESURFACING Francisquito Avenue to Merced.Avenue, and from Cameron Avenue to Walnut Creek Parkway; Orange Avenue, from North. Garvey Avenue to Puente Avenue; and Vine Avenue from Azusa Avenue to Hollenbeck Street. - 1 - REG. C.C. 6-24-68 Page Two CITY CLERK'S REPORTS - PROTECT SP-68024 - Continued 'Motion by Councilman Nichols, seconded by Councilman Lloyd, and carried, that City Council approve plans and specifications for street resurfacing, and authorize. City Engineer to call for bids. PROJECT TS-68023 LOCATION: Sunset Avenue and Work - 'TRAFFIC SIGNAL IMPROVEMENT man Avenue. Motion by Councilman Nichols, seconded by Councilman Lloyd, that City Council approve plans and specifications for '.Project TS-68023 and authorize an expenditure for addition to traffic signal not to exceed $1300. 00. - bVIotion carried on roll call vote as follows: AYES: Councilmen Chappell, NOES: None ABSENT: None FIVE-YEAR PROGRAM OF PUBLIC WORKS THIRD EDITION Nichols, Gillum, Lloyd, Mayor Gleckman Councilman Nichols. Mr. Mayor, the Five -Year program of Public Works is an item and a compilation that our new Councilmen, I believe, have not had the opportunity to go over in detail, nor have I, because of the very heavy nature of tonight's agenda material, and it would please me • verymuch if Council would hold this over for a study at an adjourned meeting. Councilman Lloyd: If Mr.. Nichols would make that in the form of a motion I would second it. Councilman Nichols: I will state it as a motion. Seconded by Councilman Lloyd, and carried. RESOLUTION NO. 3811 The City Clerk presented: ADOPTED "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF WEST COVINA ACCEPT- ING A CERTAIN WRITTEN INSTRUMENT AND DIRECTING THE RECORDATION THEREOF." Mayor Gleckman: Hearing no objections, waive further reading of the body of said Resolution. Motion by Councilman. Gillum, seconded by Councilman Chappell, that 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 - 2 - REG. C. C. 6-24-68 Page Three MAYOR'S REPORTS (3) PRESENTATION OF CERTIFICATES OF COMMENDATION -'Mayor Gleckmano This is something we don't get to do very often. These two fine young gentlemen are receiving two plaques this . evening from the West Covina Police Department in appreciation of their help rendered on May 7th in aiding the West Covina Police De- partment by voluntarily pur'suingla_p,auto�:th'eft suspect. (Read plaques issued to Daryll L. Trost and Robert B. Taylor, signed by Chief of Police, Mayor and City Manager.) It is nice to see the real types of youths we have in our community, in spite of the articles we read in the newspapers - we do have some very nice youths. (Presented plaques .) MUNICIPAL. SERVICES BLUE RIBBON COMMITTEE PRESENTATION OF CERTIFICATES Mayor. Gleckman: I have to apologize to Mr. Weber and Mrs. Unverferth, but due to the multiple graduations in the area and the amount of perma plaque requests, ours did not arrive in time, but we appreciate your presence tonight and will award you your perma plaques on July 8th. To the other members of that Committee we also have some Certificates of Commendation. (Mayor presented Certificates: Adrian A. Arnott; Dick Baer; John H. Baker; Norman L.. Brown; Barry Carmody; Gordon Edwards; Fred Godderz; .Rudolf Grau; Larry Hazen; Charles G. Hunter; Robert Johnson; Bailey Kerr; Jerry L. McDaniel; Finis C. Morris; Edward H. Walters.) These are the gentlemen that served on our Municipal Services Blue Ribbon Committee, and the Co -Chairmen were Mr. Weber and Mrs. Unverferth. PRESENTATION OF FINAL REPORT OF RECREATION & PARKS BLUE RIBBON COMMITTEE (Co -Chairmen - Richard Newton and John R.. White) (Mr. Newton and Mr. White presented report to Council in written form, and gave a brief summary of final recommendations.) Mayor Gleckmano Being the Council liaison I can only say that the first meeting I attended - the organizational meeting - I was most pleased and I am most pleased now to report back to Council that this Committee was composed of some exceptional talent. I am sure they did a fine job, although I have not yet read the report, nor did the City Council, as they know, read this report or have anything really to do with it.. And in no way as feared at the first organizational meeting was this Committee in anyway a rubber stamp for City Council. I am sure we will find certain things in here that we can live with, certain things that we have lived with and I am sure your recommendations will be approved, as-masyour job in preparing this report. On behalf of the City Council I would like to thank all members of the Committee and the two Chairmen for a fine job. Thank you very much. PLANNING COMMISSION REVIEW ACTION OF PLANNING COMMISSION - TUNE 19, 1968. Mr. Menard: I believe the Council has received copies of the action and I will be happy to answer any questions. -3- REG. C. C. 6-24-68 Page Four PLANNING COMMISSION Continued Mayor Gleckman: If there are any questions by Council? If not, a motion to receive and file would be in order. So moved by Councilman. Nichols, seconded by Council- man Lloyd, and carried. RECREATION & PARKS COMMISSION REVIEW RECREATION & PARKS COMMISSION ACTION - JUNE 11, 1968 Councilman Nichols: I have a question of Mr. Aiassa. Is staff preparing any specific recommendations to the Recreation & Park Commission on the sound transmission problem, which I notice they are carrying over to the 25th. Mr, Ai.assa: They are making a review of all the facts, and will come back with a report to Council. Mayor Gleckman: I have a comment Mr. Aiassa. I think it is time to request of the press to once again release the warnings regarding abandoned swimming pools in West Covina; any help that we can receive from neighbors or anyone knowing of a pool existing at a vacant house should notify City Hall so that it may be drained. • Motion by Councilman Chappell, seconded by Councilman Nichols, and carried, that the Recreation & Parks Commid sion action of June 11, 1968, be received and filed. PERSONNEL BOARD REVIEW PERSONNEL BOARD MINUTES OF MAY 7 1968 Motion by Councilman Nichols, seconded by Councilman Lloyd, and carried, that Council receive and file. (Councilman. Gillum abstained, not having attended joint meeting.) FIRE DEPARTMENT DUTY WEEK Motion. by Councilman Chappell, seconded by Councilman Lloyd, and carried, that City Council direct the City Attorney to prepare a resolution for the first regular meeting in July, covering Fire Department Duty Week, as recommended by the Personnel Board. VACATION PROPOSAL Motion by Councilman. Nichols, seconded by Councilman Chappell, and carried, that City Council direct the City Attorney to prepare a resolution for future action incorporating • Vacation Plan A as recommended by the Personnel Board SALARY ADJUSTMENTS Mr. Aiassa: This is the 5.5% recommendation that the Council reviewed with the Personnel Board at their joint meeting. Mayor Gleckman: This is for all city employees with the exception of the Department Heads and City Manager, not including Part-time employees. -4- REG. C.C. 6-24-68 Page Five PERSONNEL BOARD - Continued Motion by Councilman Nichols, seconded by Councilman Lloyd and carried, that City Council direct the preparation by the City.Attorney of the appropriate resolution to establish a pay raise of S. 5% for all full time }. city, employee.s .with.. the exception of Department Heads and City Manager. • ------- SALARY ADIUSTMENT FOR PART-TIME EMPLOYEES Motion by Councilman Nichols, seconded by Councilman. Lloyd, and carried, that City Council approve the recommendation of the Personnel Board to wit: that part- time employees increases in salary be adopted as per the schedule dated June 13, 1968. COMMUNICATIONS DIRECTOR Motion by Councilman Nichols, seconded by Councilman Lloyd, and carried, that Council approve the Personnel Board action directing the establishment of the office of Communications Director with the salary range set in D Range $825.- $12.03,vper month, and that the job description marked Exhibit A of Page 19 of the report be reexamined before final approval. SWIMMING POOL STAFFING Motion- by Councilman Nichols, seconded by Councilman Lloyd, and carried, that City • Council accept as policy the action of the Personnel Board in recommending the adoption of the report dated June 13, 1968, on the subject of Swimming Pool staffing. SCHEDULED MATTERS BIDS LEGAL ADVERTISING Mayor Gleckman: I need a motion to receive and file the affidavit of publication. So moved by Councilman Gillum, seconded by Council- man Chappell, and carried. City Clerk advised two bids had been received: San Gabriel Valley Tribune and the West Covina Tribune, a weekly paper and the official legal notice paper. Per column inch first insertion is $2.02 , subsequent insertion $1. 88; San Gabriel Valley Tribune, first insertion per column inch $3.68, second subsequent insertion $3.55. The weekly rate reflects a 9� increase over the rate for the previous 6 years that we have been using the West Covina Tribune. The recommendation is that the West Covina Tribune weekly paper is our official publication and the cost of the Daily . Tribune is almost twice as much.2he recommendation is that the West Covina. Tribune be accepted. So moved by Councilman Gillum, seconded by Council- man Chappell. Councilman Lloyd: Isn't the West Covina Tribune a throw -away? Mr. Aiassa: ., No, it is a weekly. Press: It is a controlled circulation paper. - 5 - REG. C. C. 6-24-68 Page Six LEGAL ADVERTISING - Continued Councilman Lloyd: Thank you, that is a throw -away. . I question are we getting the type of publication that we should have on our notices, because this is a very important function of our city life and even though it might cost some more I would ask the Council to consider going the other route and using the San Gabriel Valley Tribune; and then I would like to ask a question - how come it is $3.68 a column inch on this when their display rate on a 10 column inch per month or more Comes out to $3.25? Perhaps we could ask Mr. Christensen, since he is here, is there a difference between this bid and your normal display rate? Mr. Christensen: It is handled by the Classified -Ad Department . S . G . V . Tribune Mayor Gleckman: Is there a question you want to ask of Council, Mr. Lloyd? Councilman Lloyd: I think we should go into the San Gabriel Valley Tribune. I don't know if it is too much but I think the other does not reach the public, although I do think the rate is too high. Councilman Nichols: I believe Mr. Lloyd may have a point here that has never come before the Council , at least in my time. Perhaps the nature of the advertising is such that we should go to the Daily Tribune to assure that our residents at least have the opportunity of reading the publications. • Motion by Councilman,. Nichols that this matter be held over until the first regular meeting in July and staff be directed to report to the Council the estimated difference in annual cost in advertising between the lower bid and the next highest bid, and also the types of advertising that would be involved during the course of the year. Seconded by Councilman Lloyd. Motion declared out of order by Mayor, due to an original motion on the floor, Councilman Chappell: May I ask Mr. Christensen - does the West Covina Tribune on certain days go to the whole City or just to those that don't take the Tribune as such? Mr. Christensen: It is my understanding that it goes to those that do not take the Daily Tribune. Councilman Gillum: I feel Mr. :Lloyd has a good point and I would withdraw my motion, if the second would withdraw. Councilman :Chappell: I will withdraw my second. Councilman Nichols: I will reenter my motion. • Seconded by Councilman Gillums, Mayor Gleckman: The only comment I would have to make is I believe the amount of advertising the City of West Covina does would be quite exorbitant to go to the San. Gabriel Valley Tribune, which is a daily. Mrs. Preston, to your knowledge having been to most of the meetings in the past 6 years, have we received any formal complaint about the manner in which we advertise? - 6 - REG. C.C. 6-24-68 Page Seven LEGAL ADVERTISING - Continued Mrs. Preston, City Clerk: No we have not. Most of our advertising is on the street projects and we have a very large bidders list that the Engineering Department notifies and it also goes in the Green Sheet which gets a large covering. Councilman. Nichols: The only point of the motion was to determine this as a matter of fact and not conjecture. Mayor Gleckman: Well I may be a little more familiar with it Councilman Nichols than you are and that is why I brought it up. Any further discussion? We have a motion, all in favor: Motion carried, all were in favor. HEARINGS - PRECISE PLAN NO, 536, REVISION 1 LOCATION: 225 North. Barranca Street. . COLUMBIA SAVINGS & LOAN ASSO. REQUEST to delete the requirement for a 36 inch high decorative wall around the parking lot denied by Planning Commission Resolution No. 2046; appealed by applicant on May 6, 1968; set for hearing on May 25, 1968 and held over at applicant request to this date. Mayor Gleckman: Madam City Clerk do we have the application of . publication and mailing? Mrs. Preston: Yes we do. Motion by Councilman. Gillum, seconded by Councilman. Chappell, and carried, that Council receive and file. (Mr. Menard, Planning Director, read Planning Commission Resolution No. 2046, and gave a brief summary with the use of map, regarding the location.) TIME AND PLACE FOR,THE PUBLIC HEARING PRECISE PLAN NO. 536, REVISION 1. IN FAVOR Jay Gamble Our first letter came out in March in which we stated 1209 Gretta Avenue all the reasons that we thought a densely populated West Covina planting area would be better than the fence and I think you had an opportunity to read that letter so I will not try and go back over that. We feel that the block wall fence would definitely detract from the building whereas the planting would add to it. The planting shown here is quite small and the type that we would like to put in would be as big as the fence and would screen the cars as well as a fence would. Also with a • fence, someone is going to hit it and knock it down. We had this experience in Los Angeles and they keep knocking the fence down and in replacing the fence you can never match the block the same as it was before. Also we have another problem about the sprinkling, if we put the fence in the middle of this 5' area that was suggested then we have to put sprinklers on both sides of the fence to properly water the plants. Al so there is another building in the City that I think would be a good example of what it might look like - Cameron and Sunset a relatively new building and they don't have a block wall there and I don't find their parking lot objectionable to the traffic passing by. Their planting looks rather nice. . Other than that I don't have too much to say, but we would appreciate your consideration in this matter. Thank you. - 7 - REG. C. C. 6-24-68 Page Eight HEARINGS - PRECISE PLAN NO. 536 - Continued T. Robert White, Vice -President If I may clear up the Council a little Columbia Savings & Loan. Asso. bit on this. The point of access is 5220"Wilshire Boulevard approximately 100' from Barranca Los Angeles Street, westerly direction on a private road. These parking spaces number about 9 or 10 spaces only. The bulk of the parking is behind the building. (Explained) Mr. Gamble's observations about the plantings we are certainly willing to put up a densely planted area of a height which could effectively screen a car. Another point is that we have an adjacent property, such as May Company - we find their block wall is in the stages of early deterioration. There are chunks out of it requiring frequent repair and in need of fixing, and we don't think this is aesthetic. We feel that Columbia Savings & Loan is putting up a building of a type that we in West Covina should-be proud of and we hope that you will act favorably in this matter because we have a -budget to contend with. The amount of money that we would have to spend on this block wall would have to come out of our planting budget and I would hate to do that. We -have tried to put in approximately 14% in plantings whereas I believe the ordinance calls for about 8%. One other thing the Planning Resolution No. 1988 is really not clear in its context as to having a wall around the parking lot. I don know -really what that means because we do have a parking lot on the May Company side but it does not face a public street. I don't know if you consider the access road on the north line a public street. However, this point in particular is a matter of 50' from the end of our building to this private road. IN OPPOSITION • None. THERE BEING NO FURTHER PUBLIC TESTIMONY, PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED. COUNCIL DISCUSSION. Councilman Gillum: Mr. Menard - if my memory serves me correctly - this property does it slope away; from Barranca ? Mr. Menard: Yes the grade is down from this point. Councilman. Gillum: My concept of the wall is to block from view of the street any parked automobiles, and also as a safety factor, as far as cars moving off the parking lot. Mr. Menard: These are both considerations very definitely. Councilman Gillum: If a block wall were put up it would probably serve about 2 cars in the way the property falls -away, and so it would serve no purpose really. Mr. Menard- Well as the parking lot is laid out it obviously is only going to screen one car because the car in front will • screen all the rest .as you move across but the first parking lot is basically level with the street, if my memory serves me correctly. If the question is whether or not the concrete block wall is going to serve the function of screening an automobile, my answer would -have to be "yes, it is." Without the wall the automobiles that will be visible will not be screened. Mayor Gleckman: Any other discussion by Council? I have a question. Directly to the north of this lot is a car wash - do they have a block wall in front of the car wash? Mr. Menard- No, they do not Basically no shopping center or �8'= REG.. C. Ca Page Nine 0 HEARINGS - PRECISE PLAN NO. 536 - continued professional -commercial area has been required - certain of them have placed block walls around the facilities but it has not been an ordinance requirement until very recently. Mayor Gleckman. Will this block wall be in line with the existing block wall that is directly to the South as far as height? Mr. Menard. The block wall around the May Company to the south will probably be somewhat lower because I think the property drops down towards the freeway, but it is basically going to be the same height as a 3' high wall. Councilman Gillum. Mr. Aiassa, what can we do about - and I have seen a number of them lately - walls with holes in? Mr. Aiassa. We give them legal notice to repair and then they have so much time to do it in. I think the Capri has repaired four sections already. Councilman Nichols: Mr. Menard, when was the requirement for the 36" high block wall placed in our Ordinance? Mr. Menard. The Planning Commission adopted Planning Commission Resolution 1988 which specified such development standards on the 4th day of October, 1967. This Resolution was to set up guides for development which at that time did not exist in the zoning ordinance and when the staff commenced to revise the zoning ordinance at the direction of the Planning Commission they directed that these development standards be incorporated into the zoning ordinance and to date they have been incorporated as in the Resolution I read. Councilman Nichols. This was done by Resolution in October of 1967 and the Council at that time had the opportunity to review it I assume? Mr. Menard: This is correct. Councilman Nichols. It seems to me that several times now in the last few months the matter of a block wall has come up. It may be that the Council will feel they made an error, I don't know but it seems to me that either it was right and proper to put these requirements in as a general requirement, or it wasn't right and proper. . If we do have it as a general requirement then it would follow that a variance should only be granted based on a true hardship case and I don't believe the gentlemen testifying here have shown any grounds to the Council for a Variance. They have stated that they would like to spend more money on landscaping in terms of aesthetics but not in.terms of coming before this Council and showing to me one single thing that would justify me, under the law, to grant them the relief they are..seeking. Perhaps the Council might want to look at the entire picture again but in terms of the issue raised tonight here, as sympathetic as I may or may not be to their problems, I don't believe they have come to me in a way that I could in good conscience give them an answer.. Councilman Chappell. Along Councilman Nichols' thinking, myself -being new on this Council, I am not too familiar with all the reasons why the block wall was established and since this is not an urgent matter, I would like to have a study session on block walls before we actually move on this, if this is possible. a&*t REG. C.C. 6-24-68 Page. Ten HEARINGS - PRECISE PLAN NO. 536 - Continued Mayor Gleckman: Any other comments? I have two comments in regards to something that Councilman Nichols alluded too, and that would be the idea of the block wall. . I think. this • was a precautionary measure to protect the aesthetic value of different buildings coming into West Covina, and the other thing is the proponent alluded to putting landscaping on both sides of the wall - is that a requirement in this precise plan? Mr. Menard: No, it is not a requirement. It is certainly a possibility in design of such block walls in order that they be more pleasing to the eye and in obviously setting such a decorative wall off with landscaping on each side would make it more pleasing. On. the landscaping plan the concrete block wall may be planted with landscaping on one side or on the other, or it could move through the center of it. There is basically total feasibility, What the staff is charged with, as far as their responsibility in looking at the precise plan, is to simply answer the question - does the concrete block wall as it is being constructed adequately shield the parking lot, if we can say "yes" to that then we would approve it in that manner. Mayor Gleckman: I have made my feelings known before and I would like to once again. . I think the block wall requirement is one we could take another look at. I think you can accomplish the same thing with a high hedge that would aesthetically screen off the parking lot we are talking about. . I don't think we are talking about screening off the automobile but the parking lot per se, and no 3' wall is going to block off the automobile. I think landscaping could do about. the same job, as long as it would be required as far as a . certain visibility height. I think there is something to what Councilman Chappell brought up and Councilman Nichols, I think we ought to take another good look at Resolution 1988 and make up our minds whether this is what we really want for the City of West Covina. I have often referred to this - why do we have to have a City of block walls - I just don't agree with this. Councilman Lloyd: I think there are several. elements here. The first of which was well presented by yourself, Councilman Nichols and Councilman Chappell and I think there are one or two others. One, the requirement: on the part of Council to review carefully and barring some element which has not been properly presented we have an obligation to consider carefully the recommendations made by the Planning Commission and in this case they have indicated a desire that the Resolution be adopted, so therefore they would indicate their desire to have the block wall. The other thing that comes to my mind is that this is a special case, in the fact that the building is located on a major shopping center area or parking lot area - the May Company and as such the wall at best does fail to do the things we are now talking about. So, therefore,, I too would join in with regard to what has been said and say let's rrake a review of the basic requirements. My inclinatirn is to support the Planning Commission barring something that I can't see otherwise. Councilman Gillum: Mr. Chappell or Mr. Lloyd are either of you familiar with the development as far as the terrain? Are you • familiar with what is on the west and south side of this property? Councilman -Chappell: Yes Councilman Lloyd: Yes Councilman Gillum- I didn't know if you had a clear picture of the location of the building. I agree we should look at this but I - 10 - REG. C.C. 6-24-68 Page Eleven HEARINGS - PRECISE PLAN NO. 536 Continued have been opposed generally to walls in the City with the same idea that you have Mayor,. that we are walling everything in. I think we had a similar situation in the shopping center to the south where the terrain dropped away to the street. The wall in this case if it were required would actually cover one car and as the terrain • dropped away the only function the wall would serve would be to block one car. I personally would rather see more green area than the block wall.. Again where do we draw the line? We require it on some and some we don't. I think we should look at Resolution 1988 again. Mayor Gleckman-. I think that is the prerogative of the Council though, and the reasoning behind a fellow having a precise plan it gives him the opportunity to come before the Council, if he feels that particular thing does not apply to his own project. And that is the reason we are here in most cases Councilman Nichols, If I. read the consensus of the Council I think it would be to hold this matter over to a date yet to be established with the hearing closed, and allow the Conncil to review this general area and reexamine our own thinking before committing ourselves to a final decision on this request for a revision on the precise plan. Mayor Gleckmane In other words if the applicant would request this we would respect his request. Jay Gamble-. I respectively request that you hold this over. Mayor Gleckman: Gentlemen you have heard the request of the applicant. Motion by Councilman Gillum, seconded by Councilman Lloyd, and carried, that City Council hold this over to July 8th. ZONE CHANGE NO. 392 LOCATION, 1303 Francisquito Avenue RAY GILLILAN between Sunset and Broadmoor Avenues REQUEST to reclassify from Zone R-A to R-3 approved by Planning Commission Resolution No. 2047. Held over from June 10, 1968, at applicant's request, with hearing open. Mayor Gleckman, We did not advertise again and therefore we will go directly to the hearing and into Council Discussion. The hearing was held open. Mr. Menard, Planning Director, briefly verbally summarized the Planning Commission Resolution. No. 2047 and action of the Planning Commission as recommended to Council. TIME AND PLACE .FOR THE PUBLIC HEARING. IN FAVOR Ray Gillilan This is the Precise Plan that I presented to the Planning 5640 Scotwood Drive Commission to build on the site that I am asking. for Palos Verdes a reclassification of zoning. . I met with the people and made a survey of the street and some of the surrounding property. owners. The people in the stores were favorable to it, but maybe from a personal gain, and also from lookingat increasing the beauty of the neighborhood and REG. C.C. 6-24-68 Page Twelve HEARINGS - ZONE CHANGE .NO. 392 - Continued the additional tax revenue that would be brought in. I think it probably would be -better if I answered questions, if City Council have any, rather than any further conversation emphasizing the goodness of the development. • Leroy Atwell I work in. the Sun -Fran Center and there is a number of 1504 E. Valley Boulevard vacant businesses there and with the apartments going Za Puente in it would help the vacancies and would help the merchants there now. I think it would enhance the neighborhood. It is pretty bare with the empty land across the street. Harry J. McGuire I am Vice -President of Ole's Hardware Centers. . I am 637 Fairview here representing our President, Mr. Max Snell, who Arcadia owns Sun -Fran Center. Since we have taken over we have had quite a hard chore of getting good tenants in. Therefore, we would rather have vacant buildings than in and out tenants. We have tried to improve the Center in landscaping and I feel we are gaining on it month by month, year by year making it better. We do need more business within the .-general area of the Center and I believe that rather than an empty lot across the street this would enhance the Center and the entire City of West Covina. I might briefly say I was in on the original planning at the University of Wisconsin whereby they started from scratch on an entire farm - they -put the shopping center in the center, apartments placed surrounding it and residential area on the fringe area. This has proved to be a model for many shopping centers. I know here we cannot do this but I do think we should be aware of the,fact that your multiple dwellings in West Covina are Lower than in most other cities. As a spokesman for the owner of Sun -Fran we believe this would be good for the City. Harold Lewis I as a resident of this particular area that is subject 1506 Shadydale to this property feel that I would not be opposed to the West Covina project if it was adopted as the Precise Plan was presented to us at a Homeowners' meeting. I have discussed this with some of my close neighbors and we feel we would not be opposed to it, we feel it would help the neighborhood. IN OPPOSITION Larry Revell I feel that this is not an ideal location to place an 1318 Randall Way apartment building. .All apartments, as far as I know, West Covina are mainly placed on or close to major freeways to relieve traffic problems. This is _in the, heart of a residential area which would cause much congestion on our streets in this area inasmuch as there are only two roads out of this area. One is up Sunset and the other up Francisquito. Both of these are congested in the mornings. Secondly, I feel that this would be an added burden to our school which we don't care to have at this time, especially since there is not available property to build additional facilities. Also as far as this being stated as being a buffer I have never heard of an apartment house being placed as a buffer. .A buffer is something to dampen noise and it certainly wouldn't dampen noise by placing an apartment behind these residences here. Thirdly, it has been stated the vacancies in the Sun -Fran Center are due to a lack of people in the area. I don't feel this is entirely true. .I feel people like to shop at a large shopping center which this one is not. People go to stores where they can get everything they want in one spot. I feel to increase this shopping centers business you need to put another shopping center across the street from it - 12 - REG. C.C. 6-24-68 Page Thirteen HEARINGS - ZONE CHANGE NO. 392 - Continued IN OPPOSITION .George Lafler I just wanted to touch again on the school 1-513 South Broadmoor Avenue situation. The school in the area now is • West Covina already over crowded. . Next year they have to split second and third grade and combine into one room. They will have half second and half third graders in one class. Now from- the meeting we had last week the apartments are going to go in so many two -bedrooms in the vicinity of 70 or 79; and about the same amount of two bedroom a-nd den, -which could be a three bedroom. You can get as high as six or seven hundred more children right in those apartments. Another thing is the parking. There is no way to handle enough parking for visitors. They would be parking on Sunset: and Broadmoor and parking along the back wall as well as some underneath parking for the tenants.. But if each family has two cars the inside is filled up for just: the tenants. They never did get around to telling us an apartment of that size where all the trash bins are going to be. . I don't think they could handle it for children and parking. George Johnstone I want to concur with what these people have said. 1322-Randall Way Our property is immediately adjacent to the proposed West Covina property. Our back yard runs along the fence where the parking will be and if a property owner, based upon what has been said already, and what we have seen happen where you have a high density population such as is being proposed, there are no safeguards as to what is going to happen here - possible deterioration very rapidly. We have some areas • that have already done this. If we get into a situation of that kind we are going to have people moving in and out, deteriorating property and so from that standpoint I oppose it. And I am very anxious about the school situation. . I believe Mr.. Nichols is with the California School. I have two children still going there, and I am concerned about that. We have enough popul.atiion there. The Shopping Center is adequate for what people are using it for now and I don't think it has any bearing on the matter at all. Thank you. Mrs. Transgard The other pointsthat the other people in the area brought 1334 W. Glenmere out I think are all very true but the one I would like to West: Covina stress the most is the entry into the apartments. Vehicular entrances to the parking lots. The other night at the meeting at California School, Mr. Gamble showed us the plans, how the cars will get in and out of the apartment parking lots and he showed two entrances onto Sunset Boulevard. I live right along Sunset. Boulevard and the block wall discussion was very interesting because the block wall along our property has been a source of trouble ever since we have lived there, with children walking on the wall. And in trying to get it open I talked with the Planning Commission several times and they have brought out that due to the traffic on Sunset Boulevard that it cannot be open and our Title Policy says there is to be no vehicular ingress or regress on to Sunset Boulevard. Now from Randall Way up to Yarnell, which is a distance of roughly 1500' you have one entry at Randall Way on to Sunset and another at Yarnell. Now Mr. Gamble, according to his plans, is going to ask for an entry right back of Randall Way and another close to Francisquito. So how is he going to do this if you won't permit the rest of us to Lopen up the street onto Sunset, how will he be permitted to do this? I don't want any more children going along that block wall. I am pestered to death with them now and instead of getting more children on the block wall I would rather have the block wall open so they can go on the sidewalk or through a gate to Sunset as children should, rather than running on block walls. And if you have more apartments with more children instead of the situation being eased it will only be worse. - 13 - R'EG. C.C. 6-24-68 Page Fourteen HEARINGS - ZONE CHANGE NO. 392 - Continued Peggy Warren We moved into this area about 2-1/2 years ago and 1.335 W. Randall Way when we bought the property they told us it would be West Covina all residences. Where we moved from we had apartments. We don't have children but we live right • on the corner and we have spent a lot of money to improve our place and beautify it and if they are going to have an opening on to Sunserthat will be in confusion with us. I think - why can't they build residential, like we have? So far as the Shopping Center it wouldn't help the City of West Covina, the Shopping Center is in La Puente, so that -wouldn't help us. I don't approve of it. Lorraine Johnstone Just to "amen" everything else everybody has said 1322 Randall Way before me and to mention one thing. A very quick West Covina check with the West Covina Police Department on traffic matters will show - - I don't know how many times we have had accidents at this intersection at Francisquito and Sunset in the past �6•months - - you don't have to go any further back we had an accident just last Sunday, acar turned over,. and one prior to that was two weeks ago. With more people in there, there will be more accidents. We now have a traffic signal which is only I think 2 years old and it hasn't helped. . So if you put more people in there we will have more cars and more accidents and the possibility of people being killed or hurt. . Mrs George Lafler I would like to bring up a matter that I think has 1513 South Broadmoor Avenue been forgotten and that is the price these West Covina apartments are to be rented for. Mr. Gillilan said at the meeting that .it would be $140 to $145 • give or take 10%. I feel in this area you will not find tenants to fill this many apartments to pay that price. I don't feel that you will trap that type of people in this area. James Scoreheim I would like to offer this. I am somewhat of a Johnny - 1507 Broadmoor come -lately to this, because I was unable to attend West Covina the meeting at California School because of business. From the indications I have from my neighbors and --friends, the developers were somewhat less than exact about what they wanted to do and how they wanted to do it. Their plan was sommewhat less than precise. I believe I would like to ask the City Council to hold this hearing open until the developer could have another meeting and perhaps be more explicit about what they want to do. Sue Abel 1 would like to say that I also don't want my children 1318 W. Randall Way going to half day sessions at school. I have 3 -West Covina children attending California and they need their full sessions. Secondly, I studied his Precise Plan. I feel he was very kind to let us look over his plans. He is planning 229 units of 1-2 and 3 bedrooms. The open parking will be against block walls and we have heard testimony tonight that when block walls are run into and holes made into them it is very difficult to match up and repair the holes. And this I don't want to do either. Also as far as increasing business where the Shopping Center is . concerned. We shop at the super market in the Center and continually you stand in line for 20-30 minutes waiting to get out. This is when 6 or 7 check stands are open. Rather than adding to this business if they put 800 more people in front of it, I will drive someplace else to shop rather than stand in line. This is why I go to the other stores that are there because you don't have to :fight��a,_great mob of people and I wouldn't shop there if you had this mob on your hands. -14 - REG. C.C. 6-24-68 Page Fifteen HEARINGS - ZONE CHANGE NO. 392 - Continued IN OPPOSITION Joan M. Susan I have only to say what has been said, but. I do object 1306 Randall Way if this is passed, to my block wall being the only • West Covina barrier between my backyard and some 800 people. Also regarding the schools, I would like to know if there is any guarantee of no school tax increase and if it can be charged, how much, and also what type of load limits is available to our schools - high school and Junior high? Thank you. George Nadel I felt in that design that there was quite a bit lacking in 1543 Soo Sheffield the parking along the back property which doesn't really West Covina affect me personally but from a design standpoint I feel it would be better to have a planting possibly between the residential and the parking area and safetywise the driving lanes coming out are located way too close to the corner to permit safe ingress and egress to the other streets. THERE BEING NO FURTHER PUBLIC OPPOSITION, REBUTTAL BY APPLICANT. Mayor Gleckman: If you wish Mr. Gillilan you have an opportunity for rebuttal of approximately 25 minutes in time. , I might caution that since in your original testimony you brought to the attention of this Council, a particular Precise Plan, this is the only reason I allowed any conversation to go on regarding this Precise Plan because basically your • Precise Plan and any discussion you had with the people in the area regarding this would not be a subject for discussion at this time. _REBUTTAL Mr. R. Gillilan: A -.landlord having an investment of about three million dollars would certainly want to have good control of his project and would have to keep it in shape to keep the rentals up. That is in answer to one questi-)n brought up. And as far as producing more children, not mine but national statistics show that 100 acres of apartments produce no more children than a 100 acres of single family residences. You do have in West Covina here a Precise Plan require- ment, so when it is zoned there has to be a Precise Plan approved by the Planning Commission in order to get a building permit. This Precise Plan has been filed and we went over it this morning at the regular meeting called to study the merits or disgrace of the plan, and it is subject to their approval. We have received tentative approval this morning. As far as the zone change is concerned, in my opinion it is good sound zoning practice. Thank you. PROPONENTS REBUTTAL None. • HEARING CLOSED. COUNCIL DISCUSSION. Councilman Lloyd: I think the experts on schools are Councilman Nichols and Councilman Chappell. They keep talking about school room loading, do you know offhand Councilman Nichols if this presents a problem in that area ? Mayor Gleckman: With the consent of the City Attorney, you don't have to answer that, Councilman Nichols. REG.. C. C. 6-24-68 Page Sixteen • • • HEARINGS ZONE CHANGE NO. 392 Continued Councilman Nichols: Let me say at the outset I propose to disqualify myself from discussing this matter and voting on it because I am intimately connected with it. I work in the area, I have preconceived notions and attitudes, and I could not be objective on this issue. I think it would be a disservice to the applicant for me to sit here and attempt to con- vey an attitude of objectivity about it. In relation to the school I would just as soon let the Council rely on the knowledge of competent school officials who are in charge of the Unified School District and if they desire to seek questions of that sort I would say that naturally any school anywhere if you add a significant number of people, can create some potential problems in terms of enrollment, but I would not respond in specifics for the same reason that I don't think I can ethically take part in this dis- cussion 'Mayor Gleckman: Thank you. Before there is any further discussion I might add that we did have some written objections to Zone Change 392 introduced at the last hearing. Mr. City Attorney is it necessary to read into the record the same objections? Mr. Wakefield: No sir, this may be filed as part of the record. Councilman Gillum: I have some questions of the applicant. If you are granted this zone change are you going to develop the property yourself? Mr. Gillilan: Yes. I have already applied for the ..... Councilman Gillum: Do you have adequate financing? Mr. Gillilan: Yes,_ I believe so. Councilman Gillum: Thank you. Mr. Menard - the gentleman stated they had received tentative approval from you on the Precise Plan today? Mr. Menard: As is normal on application for Precise Plan on a zone change prior to Planning Commission meeting there is a preliminary meeting held with the Planning Department, Building Department, Fire Department and Engineering Department, such a meeting was held this morning on the Precise Plan that has been submitted on this particular project. This was a staff meeting. The intent and purpose is to check compliance as accurately as possible with the ordinances of the City. The result of this meeting this morning was the fact that as nearly as could be ascertained at this point in the research that is accomplished by each Department, this project appears to comply with the ordinances of the City of West Covina to a great extent. There may be some minor modifications required such as width of driveways, etc. , Councilman Gillum: If you were granted zoning when did you plan to start construction - within 90 days to 6 months? Mr.. Gillilan: As soon as possible. Within 90 days to 6 months. Councilman Gillum: Mr. Wakefield, is it possible to give zoning with a restriction if the project is not developed within a given time that the zoning reverts back to its original? Mr. Wakefield: No sir, the zoning change is a legislative act and must either be approved or disapproved. There is no way it can be conditioned upon development with a specified period - 16 - REG. Ca C. 6-24-68 Page Seventeen HEARINGS - ZONE CHANGE NOo 392 - Continued those things may be controlled through other means. Councilman Gillum-. Well previously we had a request on a piece of property to zone to commercial and at that time I could not support it because there was no Precise Plan and it is before us again this evening and I am wondering why when we ask for a rezoning of this size, why a Precise Plan was not presented with it so we would have some idea Mayor Gleckman: Mr. Menard® prior to your answering that question. . I might remind Councilman Gillum and I stand to be corrected by the City Attorney if in error, that a Precise Plan basically has nothing to do in discussion regarding zoning and I would appreciate it if the Council would not refer to any type of Precise Plan whether it has been introduced, applied for, or anything other than some information that they -might seek from the applicant or staff and not to ask for any other comments that might have a bearing on zoning because it basically does not, nor can we zone to a Precise Plan. Am I correct? .Mr. Wakefield; That is true with the R-3 Zone hearings, however in the new S-C zoning it is not. Councilman. Gillum. Mr. Gleckman I am aware of this, but I am trying to determine this. I as an individual have to make a decision. It has happened in the past that zoning has been given on property without any Precise Plan and it sits there and increases in value and this is what concerns me. I am not questioning whether he has a Precise Plan... I am • questioning if this man was informed that it would be good practice at the same time to request a zone change to request a Precise Plan. That is all I am trying to determine. . I am not really concerned whether a Precise Plan has been presented but in order to stay consistent with what I have tried to do in the past when it comes to a zone change because I have no guarantee there will be development if it is given zoning. Mayor Gleckman. Nor do you have a guarantee Mr. Gillum that it will even be built if the Precise Plan is submitted, therefore I would again request that you keep the conversation under the jurisdiction of the chair, which is to rule that we discuss zoning and zoning goes with the land and not with the Precise Plan Councilman Chappell- There was a comment made about some sort of Ordinance or law being on the books that they can't having openings on Sunset. I am not aware of this. Mayor Gleckman: This again applies to the Precise Plan and has nothing to do with the zoning on this particular property. As long as it has been necessary to continually talk about this I might say for the new councilmen and the audience, that this has been the first such zoning matter that has come before the City Council where any discussion regarding • any Precise Plan has been allowed and I don't want the Council to take for matter of fact that this should have anything to do with their decision as to whether the property which is presently zoned R-A and the request to be zoned to R-3 has any particular bearing on our decision. Any particular openings, driveways, etc. , has nothing to do with what we are discussing this evening and I hope it does not influence the Council. Councilman Chappell- Has our Police or Building Departments any objection to an opening being cut into Sunset? 17 - REG. C.C. 6-24-68 Page Eighteen HEARINGS - ZONE CHANGE NO. 392 - Continued Mayor Gleckman: I don't think our Police Department has been asked that question, nor do I think they could answer it because if you want to build single family dwellings on this property you still need some cut in to for a street through there. I am trying to • get the Council to discuss this matter on the basis of R-3 zoning versus the existing R-A versus to what potentially this property would best be suited for the highest. and best use. Councilman Lloyd- I would like to ask Mr.. Menard a couple of questions. Under the zoning of R-3 what is the maximum number of units that may be built ? Mr.. Menard- The R-3 zone allows 25 dwelling units per acres. This is approximately 9 acres so we are talking a little over 200 units. Councilman Lloyd- Is there any limitation in time or once the zone change is granted it is there forever. Is that correct? Mr. Menard- The zone change unless by Conncil action changing to another zone, would remain on the land until it was changed. Councilman Chappell- Do we have any square foot requirements as to the size of these apartments per acre? • Mr. Menard- R-3 zone, if I am not mistaken, does not have a size requirement. Single family zones do. R-2 does. R-4 does, but the R-3 when adopted some number of years ago - this was a small portion of the Ordinance that was inadvertently evidently left out. R-3 does not have a size requirement. Mayor Gleckman- Mr. Menard -• are you saying on any R-3 property in the City of West Covina a man could build any size unit he wants ? (Mr. Menard quoted Code 9206.9) Mayor Gleckman- But we do have 25 units per acre in a R-3 zone? Mr.. Menard: This is correct and all the other normal requirements of the development standards of a multiple family zone are required in the R-3 such as a maximum coverage on land, a distance between buildings, the off-street parking requirements, etc. , but for some reason R-3 does not have this minimum size requirement. Councilman Chappell- Do you have any protection from the R-1 to the place where the buildings are going to be built in the way of • footage, what is that? Mr. Menard. The R-3 zone specifies in regard to the height and yards, every lot and each parcel should maintain a rear yard of not less than 20', side yard requirements are 10% of the lot width, front" yard is typically 25' where it presently fronts on a street as a secondary highway, 35' where the property fronts on a street shown as a major highway on the Master Plan. In addition the City of West Covina does have a Precise Plan ordinance upon which design consideration unique to a particular site may be established by the Planning Commission. REG. C.C. 6-24-68 Page Nineteen • n U • HEARINGS - ZONE CHANGE. NO. 392 - Continued Mayor Gleckman: That is correct. A zone change given a property does not necessarily approve a Precise Plan or any particular development that may be proposed by the owner of the particular property that is rezoned if a change takes place. We also have Mr.. Menard, certain requirements of open space, certain parking restrictions, etc. What is the parking ratio on R-3 ? Mr. Menard: 1-3/4 parking stalls required per dwelling unit which is less than required in single family zones of which at least 1-1/4 off street parking space per unit shall be including a certain number of garages, certain number cf open air, etc. , Mayor Gleckman: Basically what we are discussing this evening is the zoning of property and not what type of development on the property. The majority of objections I heard this evening had to do with the type of development, the size of the development, the number of parking, the number of dwelling units, the size, the area for the trash bins, -the -secondary entry and the half -day sessions in school, and the population which would-be increased in the area as opposed to single family development.. I think of all the complaints in opposition, the two that really would apply if they had merit at all and this would be for discussion amongst the. Council, that would be for the increase in the area of population as opposed to R-1 development and also the ingress and egress regarding the traffic situation inthe particular area; on the -other side of the coin I believe it is the obligation of this Council since the zone change has been applied for to rule whether this is the highest and best use for this property. In other words, if we felt R-1 was the highest and best use and it could be developed to the satisfaction of the City; R-2 or R-3 - the applicant is requesting R-3 in order to build a maximum of 25 units per acre at which time a Precise Plan would have to be sent to the Planning Commission and approved prior to his building. Councilman Lloyd: What is the maximum number of stories that can be built? (Mr. Menard read from the Code #9206. 1 and explained. The height would be typically 3 stories.) Mayor Gleckman: And you can, build a two story home on a single family. Councilman Chappell: One of your questions was on school congestion. The School Board in the past has always been notified when something like this was in the process? Were they notified at this time as to any ,objection they might have? Mayor Gleckman: The Code does not read that the School Board has to be notified in any particular case. I f they have a school in the particular radius they would be notified. Councilman Chappell: Then they have not been notified. Mayor Gleckman: If the school does not fall within that radius. I have a questinn Mr.. Menard. The Planning Commission recommended this on a 5 to 0 basis, did they have benefit at that particular time of any other testimony than what we have had this evening to -your knowledge? Mr. Menard: To answer with absolute assurance I would have to check the minutes. From memory, generally speaking, the hearing went basically the same. - 19- "REG. Co C 6-24-68 Page Twenty HEARINGS - ZONE CHANGE NO. 392 - Continued Motion by Councilman Gillum, seconded by Councilman Chappell, that City Council approve application No. 392 requesting a zone change from R-A to R-3. Motion carried on roll call vote as follows: AYES: Councilmen Chappell, Gillum;,. ,L15yd.,..Ma yor,Gleckm.an NOES: None ABSTAIN: Councilman Nichols ABSENT: None THE CHAIR DECLARED A 10 MINUTE RECESS AT 9:25 P.M. COUNCIL RECONVENED AT 9: 35 P.M. ZONE CHANGE NO. 388 COVINA REALTY COMPANY, INC. No.. 2051 adopted allowing S-C zoning. LOCATION: 510 North. Azusa .Avenue REQUEST to reclassify from Zone C-1 to C-2; Planning Commission Resolution Mayor Gleckman: Mrs. Preston do you have the affidavit of mailing and publication? Mrs. Preston,. City Clerk: They have been sent out. Motion by Councilman Gillum, seconded by Councilman Chappell, and carried, • that the Council receive and file. (Mr. Menard read Planning Commission Resolution No. 2051 and explained with the presentation of a map.) Mayor Gleckman: Mr. Wakefield - this being a S-C zoning would we make a motion to hear the Precise Plan at the same time, since the new Ordinance requires a Precise Plan with S-C, or would the zoning automatically be heard.at the same time? Mr. Wakefield: The Precise Plan was approved by the Planning Commission at the same time the change of zone was recommended.. The Precise Plan was approved subject to the change of zone being approved by Council. The Precise Plan is not before you tonight and would not be before you unless you were to exercise your prerogative to call the Precise Plan up. It is still by coincidence within the time permitted to the Council to call up and review the Precise Plan but it is not here tonight. Specifically the S-C zone provides if property is adjacent to a residential zone the applications shall be accompanied by a Precise Plan of design showing its compatibility with the adjacent residential use. Now that seems to me to authorize the City Council to consider in connection with the approval of the change of zone the form and nature of the Precise Plan and the conditions attached to it as being approved by the, Planning Commission without actually having to call it up before you. Mayor Gleckman: With the interpretation of the City Attorney unless there is an objection by the. Council, I would go along with hearing the Precise Plan along with the S-C zoning. Is there any objections by Council? According to the interpretation rendered to us by Mro. Wakefield, the Precise Plan must accompany the S-C zoning if it is adjoining residential property and since it is it would automatically accompany the proposed zone change. But since this is our first case of such, unless the Council has no objection I would rely on the suggestion of the City Attorney. - 20 - REG. C.C. 6-24-68 Page Twenty-one IJEARINGS ZONE CHANGE.NO. 388 - Continued ''Mr. Wakefield- You may call it up but it is not required that you do and the Ordinance specifically authorizes the consideration of the Precise Plan in reference to your determination in connection with the request for the change of zone. Mayor Gleckman: My point is, if we were to call it up we would probably have to request the applicant to postpone this zoning until such time it would be called up. If we can by the determination you just gave, that it would automatically accompany the S-C zone we would not have to call it up.. Now which way would you like to rule Mr. City Attorney? Mr. Wakefield- You need not call it up and if you do not call it up you have no prerogative to change it after it has been approved by the Planning Commission, but you may consider the Precise Plan as approved as to whether or not the zoning change should be authorized. Mayor Gleckman: What is your pleasure, gentlemen? (Council agreed not to call up.) TIME AND PLACE FOR PUBLIC HEARING ON ZONE CHANGE, NO. 388. IN FAVOR W. P. Yaeger The original request was for a C-2 zone. . It was 12-5 No. Citrus determined at that time by the Planning Department Covina and Planning Commission that perhaps there was a better zoning and about that time S-C zoning came into thought and it was therefore continued through until this S-C zoning was developed. We are pleased with the S-C zoning. We think it is going to open up the whole of North Azusa Avenue to development. - I think you will find the application conforms very precisely with the S-C requirements. Mr. Robert Harvey, representative of the Food Makers is the Mayor of one of the local cities and they are. meeting tonight so he will not be here. I will do my best to answer your questions with regard to the Precise Plan, etc. We just request approval of it. This is a lease project. The ultimate and best use of the land at today's market, what it will look like in 20 years from now might be something else. We will stand by for any questions from Council. IN OPPOSITION None HEARING CLOSED. COUINQL DISCUSSION. Councilman Nichols: This applicant in my judgment was quite cooperative with the City and waited the long heralded. S-C zone and has come in with an application that conforms to that zone. I have analyzed the zone and I find it the highest possible protective device for property values that in my mind could be achieved in an area that is commercially oriented. And certainly this area is commercially oriented. I don't think there is any rational person in the City of West Covina that could possibly state that corner could be used for a single family residence or any other use other than a commercial type use. The challenge that has come to this council is to see that this area - North Azusa - evolves in such a fashion that it is logical and as protective as possible to those people that maintain single family homes in the area, and I think the S-C zone achieves that and we have an application that - 21 - 'REG. C.C. 6-24-68 Page Twenty-two HEARINGS ZONE CHANGE NO. 388 - Continued -proposes to develop within the compliance of that zone.1n reading the material and reviewing the Precise Plan I can find no legitimate objection to it. Councilman. Gillum: Mr. Menard - I notice this is a new design. The • main thing I have objected to in the past with this operation is the multi -color in the large sign that rotates-. I don't see a sign other than the one on the side of the building stating Jack -In -The -Box. Are we going. to get a request later on to reconsider the sign? Mr.. Menard: The S-C zone under consideration would not allow such a sign. If one were constructed it would be by formal action of the Planning Commission and the City Council granting a zone variance. The zone does not allow it. Councilman. Gillum: Mr. Yaeger, pertaining to the sign, do you know what the plans are for a sign advertising Jack -In -The -Box? Mr. Yaeger: We have an understanding they will not use their normal identifying sign. Councilman Gillum: Do you have any idea of what kind of sign they will use? Mr.. Yaeger: No, I don't. Councilman. Gillum: I objected strongly to the multi -color combination used in the past, do you have any idea what color this building will be? Mr. Yaeger: No sir. Councilman Chappell: This is supposed to be a drive-in as well as a sitting down restaurant? Mr. Yaeger: Yes, that is correct, seating 56 people. Councilman Chappell: How many parking spaces are required? Mr. Menard: One parking space for each 3-1/2 permanent seats. Approximately 16 and this requirement is met. Councilman Gillum: Mr. Wakefield, if the request for zone is granted, in the motion should it state the Precise Plan also because we are considering it? Mr. Wakefield: No sir. The Precise Plan as a plan is technically not before you, except you may consider it in the change of zoning. Motion by Councilman Nichols, seconded by Councilman Gillum, that City Council approve the Zone Change Application. No. 3881y Motion carried on roll call vote as follows: SUX'O'c7 T° Rb-DoLui'io,✓ �16, -DoS'!. AYES: Councilmen Chappell, Nichols, Gillum, Lloyd, Mayor Gleckman. NOES: None ABSENT: None - 22 - REG. C.C. 6-24-68 Page Twenty-three • 0 0 HEARINGS `ZONE CHANGE NO. 393 LOCATION- 669 South. Glendora Avenue C. J. Wittman & R. Paul Robb REQUEST to reclassify from Zone R-1 and R-3 to S-C approved by Planning Commission Resolution No. 2056. Mayor Gleckman: Madam City Clerk have the affidavits of mailing and publication been filed? City Clerk: Yes they have. Motion -by Councilman Gillum, seconded by Conncilman. Lloyd, and carried, that City Council receive and file. (Mr. Menard read the Planning Commission Resolution No. 2056 and presented a -map of the property under discussion including the surrounding area and briefly summarized.) Mayor Gleckman- Mr. Wakefield, this being a S-C zone case the Precise Plan is accompaning the S-C but is not called up by this Council for the record but we can discuss the Precise Plan but can in no way make a change in the Precise Plan unless it is called up by the Council. Mr. Wakefield- That: is correct. Mayor Gleckman- And if it were called up by Council it would require additional time for publication and notification. TIME AND PLACE FOR THE PUBLIC HEARING ON ZONE CHANGE. NO. 3 93. IN FAVOR Clarence .Wittman I would like first of all to say that in preparation for 10171 Donna Avenue the hearing this evening we did speak to the Pastor North Ridge at the catholic church to the north of us and did have a letter directed to the City Council of that nature which you should have received, but if not I would like to introduce this for the record. (Handed letter to Mayor Gleckman) Father Bramble says he has haard of no objection to our proposed plan of building a Chevrolet Agency. We have done a great deal of surveying and it shows that in the West Covina area it would be a good area for this. Agency. Based on population and registration of cars in this area. After much searching we arrived on this particular piece of property. It is well suited for our particular needs. We feel Chevrolet has established a program planning potential of 1000 units, which means that this agency should sell 1000 new cars a year. This is a minimum type of thing. We feel it will go to 2000 so we are desirous of building a building and covering the land for all of it for construction of a large agency. We also believe with proper operation the operation would generate 10 to 12 million in gross annual sales. We will also employ between 75 to 100 people in the agency. I have with me Mr. Richard Honcheck, Manager for Chevrolet. If you have any questions he will be glad to answer them. R. Paul Robb Of the number of commercial acres that are available 1376 LaLoma Road and brought up in Mr. Menard°s report in the general Pasadena area designated by Chevrolet as an ideal location for an agency, none of the parcels that were available and were presently zoned commercially were really felt to be suitable to our operation. - 23 - REG. C.C. 6-24-68 Page Twenty-four HEARINGS - ZONE CHANGE NO. 393 Continued In order to obtain a sales franchise from Chevrolet certain restrictions are placed upon us. There is a restriction in the square footage needed, in the dollar amount we are allowed to put into ;land or lease for property. The parcels which are currently commercially zoned, the prices being asked for those prohibited putting • an agency on them and coming in under the requirement that Chevrolet has for this agency, When we found this piece of property for sale, although not commercially zoned, we felt it would be ideal for our needs and it was in an area that is being placed in the City for commercial use. The amount of land we required is over seven acres, A good ,operation necessitates two very vital factors, adequate circulation and adequate land. We have looked at all the other agencies in the City and have been aware that one by one they have requested additional facilities, additional land and additional zoning in order to expand their operations to take care of the bud ness. We would like to start in this agency with an adequate amount of land. We feel the depth of the property we are requesting you to rezone is dictated by the need as is the request for the rezoning of the commercial property on the corner of Cameron and Glendora. We feel that the S-C requirements assure the proper buffering of the residential area adjacent to the property that we are asking for. Our agency and our building will reflect our attitude and philosphy of business. We shall have a continuing interest in your community, our building and in support with the community and wi th the -City officials. We have under- stood from talk around the City that there still seems to be some question unresolved concerning our intended use for this property for a Chevrolet Agency. May I say for the record that this is the purpose for which we seek this zone change. We have committed ourselves and a great deal of our future and of what we have to obtain a sales franchise for this area. We believe we can show ourselves and our business to be a complete asset to your community. We believe we have shown ourselves to be cooperative with your Planning staff and your concept of community orientation which you uphold for your City. We know of rno citizen protests to this .zoning change We know of no special interest 'either for or against. You have on record now a statement from the church adjoining our property and we have the unanimous action of your Planning Commission in favor of the zone change. We would now ask you to grant this zone change and let us get to work building a facility and initiating a business swell which will contribute substantially to the well being of this City for many years to come. Thank you. David Hune I wish to state that I am the architect for Mr. Clarence 2301 Hiperian.Avenue Whitman and R. Paul Robb and experienced in automobile Los Angeles dealership facilities in general, and the author of two articles concerning the subject. Also knowledgeable and familiar with the minimum space requirements of the Chevrolet Motors Division of the General Motors Corporation. My general opinion of the plan submitted by the applicants in the request foran S-C zone are as follows. The plot plan is harmonious with the intent of the S-C zoning and presents an environmental quality which will'be an asset to the City of West Covina for the following reasons 1 - Lower intensity land coverage, percentage of land occupancy by structure is approximately 20% planned maximum in the future; 2 - low height of structures, all structures being one story buildings except the main structure which will have a mezzanine floor (basically 2 stories); 3 - The percentage of landscaped or planted areas within the first 240' of depth is approximately 16% of this land area; 4 - Large yard setbacks. . The front yard setback of structures on the property varies from 90' to 100' width of the property, and 220' set back for 300' width of property, the side street setback .is 50', the side yard 20' and the rear yard setback is 200'; 5 - Complete internal auto circulation. The internal automobile traffic has been arranged so that all incidental operations in any portion of the lot can be made without use of City streetsp 6'- Optimum land size. The area of land involved is of optimum size and permits the following design features. Landscaping substantially above - 24 - REG. C.C. 6-24-68 Page Twenty-five C C� HEARINGS - ZONE CHANGE -NO. 393 - Continued usual minimum standards; 2 - avoidance of street congestion by maximum off street customer and employee provisions; 3 - provision for future customer facilities; 4 - provision for community use of customer parking with on site driveway to church and school groundsp 5 - provision for complete internal on site auto traffic. Thank you.. Richard Henley The points I would like to make, you gentlemen are 2331 Alaska Street quite aware of, I am making only for emphasis. One , West Covina enlarging on this ten million dollars a year that is anticipated, I am sure you realize this is $100, 000 a year in tax revenue for the City. Bearing on this whether this is the highest and best use I feel the highest and best use for the benefit of the citizens in considering that tax consequences are very very important. One other point, as you probably know in West Covina there are six new car dealerships and only one is in the West Covina School district and that is the Volkswagon. In those cases a portion of their tax dollars are going to the City of Covina. Another thing about the vacant parcels of land it was brought out that they are being held at high prices and their shapes and sizes are not adaptable to this, and further it seems that quite often in the center core of the City a better use is in the paper shuffling industries -banks, savings and loan associations, etc. , and they are the ones that can pay the price that: is being, asked for these properties. One further point, I would expect if I were the owner of this property and a commercial type use were not granted I would hold the property until such a use were granted and probably come out better in the long run and in the meantime the City and citizens would lose a great deal. Thank you . IN OPPOSITION None THERE BEING NO FURTHER PUBLIC PARTICIPATION HEARING CLOSED. COUNCIL DISCUSSION° Councilman, Nichols: One question. Mr. Menard, I don't quite understand the staff comment on a number of the requests for waivers where the response was "waiver of this type is not needed since the zone provides adequate relief. " Would you, without going into each one of these, tell me what you convey by that statement? Mr. Menard; Perhaps one of the best ways of explaining would be under loading facilities. If the. Council will recall when the S-C zone was being discussed there was some minor changes made to the wording, if I am not mistaken initiated by yourself Mr.. Nichols, which basically gave the staff flexibility in this regard and the same kind of flexibility exists in the storage requirement and loading facilities and the enclosed buildings. Flexibility already acquired in a waiver that exists in the Ordinance Councilman Nichols: This is an indication that there is an administrative recourse then? Mr. Menard: You said it far briefer than can. Councilman Gillum. This one application on landscaping Mr. Menard. Not too long ago the Council I think decided to go along with this 10' wide landscaping around the outside perimeter of the V-W Agency. Is this correct? Mr. Menard: Yes. -25- REG. C.C. 6-24-68 Page Twenty -Six HEARINGS - ZONE CHANGE NO. 393 - Continued Councilman Gillum- And one of the explanations given was the fact that there was adjacent to R-1 and then you state that 'although the church property is zoned residential it has a very intense use, etc. etc. , .... a 6' high masonry wall as shown on • P1an,A is unnecessary...... " I am not saying this is correct or not, but what I am trying to say is that some place along here we are going to have to stick to something in this town when we come to landscaping. I think we were justified -in�requiring the V-W Agency in putting in the landscaping. If you could, -Mr. Menard, I would like an explanation of why when we require one auto agency to do it and then we have a second one come along and don't feel it is necessary? Mr. Menard- I can only go back to what the Planning Commission stated in this regard. It was a determination by the Planning Commission that a certain portion of the 10' landscaping strip, approximately a little over one half of the landscaping strip which would be required on the north side of the property was waived on the Precise Plan because of the fact evidently an open green area of approximately 100 to 130' existed on the other side of that common property line and that in the opinion of the Planning Commission this was determined to be a recreational area for the school and that no disrupted element would result by removing the landscaping. This seemed to be the opinion of the Planning Commission as they waived this particular development. Councilman Gillum- What percentage of total development in landscaping? • Mr. .Menard- I don't know exactly but it is still considerable above the 8% required and is still considerable above the recommendation of the Planning Commission to waive that portion of the 10' strip. One other point made by the Planning Commission is the fact that this is not a residential use. It is a rather intense use itself in a church and related facilities. The 10' landscaping strip was maintained on the property across from the convent, rectory and church, itself. Only back in the open play area was the landscaping waived. Councilman Gillum, I am not questioning this one particular one. I am trying to get across the point - - we run into it with walls and with landscaping and seriously I would like to see the Council and the Planning Commission come up with some solution. As I understand, if the Council so desires to make any changes in this recommendation we would have to call up the Precise Plan and this would delay it again Mr. Wakefield, That is correct. Mayor Gleckman- Since Mr. Gillum brought it up I would like to say I go along with the waiving of the 10' landscaping and it may be hard for some of the council to stay consistent but I am still consistent and say that I don't think we should have that • 10' landscaping strip next to residential area. The Planning Department made some comment because of the usage of the existing R-1 adjoining property is the reason for waiving the 10' strip and I think this is kind of ridiculous unless they can guarantee this Council that that R-1 strip will always be used for that particular usage. Again I think it is great that they waive the 10' strip. I think their reasons are very poor because they didn't use the same consideration on another automobile agency that I sat here talking to waive that 10' of landscaping, and I still feel the 10' of landscaping that was insisted upon by the Planning Commission and this Council made it a bad precedence for this , but I am in favor of waiving the 10' of landscaping. - 26 - REG. C.C. 6-24-68 Page Twenty-seven HEARINGS - ZONE CHANGE NO. 393 - Continued Councilman.Nichols: Mr. Mayor, it is very easy for me to find myself in a scrappy situation with you the way you vigorously press the point you :use.. to prove to me you were right anyway. So I won't rebut, you, only to say I didn't raise this point because I • felt I was being consistent because you see I interpret residential property as property that: has a residential use or a probable residential use, not what number is :.on the property, so if the land is Zoned R-1 I assume it would be R-1, so I treat it that way. If it had hots es on, no matter what it is called, I treat it as R-1.. Now it is true that where the church, school and playground are located it says R-1 but the playground is there and the church is there, so in my mind it is not R-1 and therefore in my mind I justify the deletion of that requirement in the same way I justify the deletion of the 1108 frontal on the other parcel because it was against a use that was not in fact proposed to be R-1. The whole point being in truth each of us has to justify our own judgment in these matters, so I feel highly consistent. Mayor Gleckman- I am glad you convinced yourself. Again I am glad to see a usage of this type come to this City and it is most unfortunate that they have to be caught sometimes in the by-play of the City Council, who is trying to be fair to all people and not just one particular development, so to these gentlemen I apologize for this type of conversation, but it is rather frustrating to know what guidelines to continue on when in such closeness you receive two similar type plans and as Councilman. Nichols so eloquently put it you only have to justify it to yourself, when I feel our responsibility is to the entire community and to each and every applicant that comes in. Not that he doesn't, but I would add that to his remarks. Any further discussion? If not a • motion would be in order, Motion by Councilman Gillum, seconded by Councilman Lloyd, that the City Council approve Zone Change No. 393 application of C. J. Wittman and R. Paul Robb. Motion carried on roll call vote as follows. AYES- Councilmen Chappell, Nichols, Gillum, Lloyd, Mayor Gleckman NOES. None ABSENT- None ------------ SLIGHT MODIFICATION NO. 52 LOCATION- 510 Dawley Avenue, east . LORIN C. RIMER side of Dawley Avenue, North of Service Avenue. REQUEST to allow reduction of the area and lot depth requirements approved by Review Board on May 13, 1968; called up for hearing by City Council. Mayor Gleckman: Madam City Clerk do you have the affidavits of mailing and publication? City Clerk: Yes sir. • Motion by Councilman Gillum, seconded by Councilman Lloyd and carried, that Council receive and file. (Mr. Menard read the action of the Review Board and gave a brief verbal presentation of the property with the use of a map.) Mayor Gleckman: This was called up by Council and the hearing is still open.' - 27 - REG. C.C. 6-24-68 Page Twenty-eight SLIGHT MODIFICATION NO. 52 - Continued 'HIS l:S THE TIME AND PLACE FOR THE PUBLIC HEARING ON SLIGHT MODIFICATION NO. 52 0 IN FAVOR Donald J. Mahoney I represent and work for Mr. Rimer. We believe this 506 Gretta request for Slight Modification. No. 52 has a great West Covina deal of merit. As you can see from the map Parcel A which is the excess parcel of land being released by the Flood Control District contains approximately 6500 square feet. Directly to the south bordering on Service.Avenue you have Tract No. 17040 of which there are 247 lots in that particular tract with an average square footage of 7500 square feet. Also in the same area you have Tract No. 18453- 25 lots of approximately 8100 square feet. This is a logical solution of this excess parcel. land being released by the Flood Control. The land at present is not being utlized for any purpose and yields no taxes. If our proposal is adopted this land would be returned to the tax rolls, and would be no detrimental effect to the general area and it would not conflict with the City Ma-ster Plan. When we first approached the City on our proposal we contacted members of the -Building Department, Planning Commission, Engineering Department - and we found no undue opposition to our plan. We went before a formal hearing of the Review Board and it was adopted unanimously on May 13th. We believe the provision under Municipal Code 9222. 1 A we have complied with all requirements of this section. As I understand this section of the Code was adopted primarily because of the large number of cul de sacs in West Covina which entail a number of odd shaped lots. • IN OPPOSITION David Baxley, Attorney I am representing approximately 50 some ,odd home- 250 South California owners in opposition to this. They were also in West Covina opposition to the change that took place on Gretta .Avenue right next to Dawley Avenue. In this respect the homeowners in this area feel by allowing this slight modification it will depreciate the value of their homes in the area in that they are reducing the size of not one but two lots even though they are picking up excess land here, and also it is unfair to these other homeowners in that they will not have the same opportunity to do as these people have done. As the Council may, or may not know, there may be many other lots within the City of West Covina which the same type plan maybe presented to Council, thereby depreciating the value of the homes throughout the entire City. In this respect they request that the Council turn down this proposal for slight modification No.. 52. Mrs. Antoinette Lohr In reference to this property that Rimer and. Mahoney 1205 East Service Avenue want to put up these two homes and cut down one and West Covina add family homes - my house it the second tract east of this and the land behind my house comes within the Flood Control area which I am buying and it comes exactly to their end. Now if they take this property and make two small homes and as the home values come down they are going to try and get an easement from Suburban Water , right next to me their • property is located.. In so doing they can in due time take over which if they don't take it over for a road, we east of this can do..naDthing with our land and we have dormant land that stands dormant right now as of ten - twelve years. I have been hoping that they would be putting a road through so we could build on the property on the back. If they build that on the area they acquired from the Flood Control - like I have done - this would stop us from all areas plus deevaluating the homes, and I don't think this is right. REG. C.C. 6-24-68 Page Twenty-nine SLIGHT MODIFICATION NO. 52 - Continued REBUTTAL -Mr. D. J. Mahoney. I would like to make a reply to the lady that has • just. spoken. Her piece of land is on Service Avenue. Now she is either misinformed or somebody has played -upon her fears in regard to this situation. I believe the Council have the plot map of the area - you will notice that Parcel 24 is butted on the north by Walnut Creek Wa-sh (explained) . Suburban Water Systems have a permanent pumping station and permanent pipe line on this ground and in no way possible could this land be utilized for any other purpose than what it is used for now.. The fact that she owned this land and is acquiring access land from the Flood Control I don't think has any bearing on the case. Our proposal is that we are forming two lots both of which -remain R-1. The statement that we were planning to put up smaller homes is ridiculous because any home put up in this area has to maintain standards and building codes.. As far as depreciation here, there are 6 homes on the street approximately equal in value and the fact that we are putting up additional homes in no way is going to be a reflection on the present or future value of these homes. As far as the attorney is concerned he indicated he is representing 50 clients and the whole -tract only has 26 homes. I can't see where he picked up 50 clients from 26 homes. The tract directly south of us - the homes are smaller, the tract north the homes are smaller and the lots are smaller. I think this is misinformation that has been given to the Council. I think he may have a few clients but when he says he may have over 50 I question that very strongly. This in no way will have any adverse effect on the •area. We are talking about one home on a street that has 6 homes which will make a total of 7. We are not asking for zone change, there is nothing that will have a detrimental effect to the area such as a gas station or a bar. We want to add one home, utilizing a piece of surplus property which presently is in excess of 6500'. The professional staff of the City in all departments have gone through this with us and I am sure if there was anything that would have an ill effect upon the area or the City it would have been brought up before now and this proposal would never have .left the ground. I feel it is the best use for surplus land and the only possible use for another house of single family residence. THERE BEING NO FURTHER PUBLIC TESTIMONY, HEARING CLOSED. COUNCIL DISCUSSION. Councilman Gillum. Mr. Mahoney didn't you appear before us sometime before on Lot 17 ? Mr. Mahoney, Correct. Councilman Gillum, Did you own the property? Mr. Mahoney, Yes. They were slightly smaller parcels, in fact we had to get a variance to comply with City requirements. . Councilman Gillum, As I recall you were going to build an additional house on this. Mr. Mahoney, I still intend to. Councilman Gillum, You still own both pieces of property? Mr. Mahoney, Yes, I still own both pieces of property. Councilman Gillum, We all learn after sitting on the Council a few years and _29_- REG. C.C. 6-24-68 Page Thirty SLIGHT MODIFICATION NO. 52 - Continued I feel I may have made a mistake supporting this the last time. I am not too sure whether this is the best procedure, cutting down the lot sizes and house sizes in this type of application. Mr. Mahoney, do you have any financial interest in these two pieces of property that you plan to build houses on? • Mr. D. J. Mahoney: Yes, I do. Councilman. Gillum: You, yourself will invest in this additional property, if it is granted? Mr. D. J. Mahoney: Right. Councilman Lloyd: Mr. Menard - in the planning will this naturally change the size of the house, or is this a pointed question? Mr. Menard: The minimum size of the house is dictated by the zoning ordinance and a variance has not been requested. So the size of the house would have to comply with the zoning ordinance, Councilman Nichols: I participated in the consideration of the former parcel on. Gretta Avenue. I haven't changed my mind. I believe that I certainly support this type of action. I really can't see that it is going to hurt anyone's property - I know that there are some • people that have written letters and complained quite strongly, but in many areas of our City very expensive homes sit on lots in terms of a level building and don't have that much footage, nor do they have that much frontage, Some individual in our community has a going thing going on a gimmick in order to make some dollars - I wish everybody could. I wish I could and this gentleman apparently has. I think I have resolved again in my mind what I think is in the entire interest of the entire community - - is this really going to harm someone else and I don't visualize it either in the terms of the type of construction or any other aspect. Is it something in the terms of the shape of the parcel or the size of the piece of land that is being given to this man that hasn,'t:.been given to the others, and I don't think that is the answer. I can't find any valid reason for objecting to it in my mind except that some day the City might want to build sore valid thing along Walnut Creek Parkway and this would create a problem, but I don't oppose it to be passed on that type of conjecture. So my own personal position would be to concur with staff's action on it. Councilman Chappell: I would say that here we have an area that has a minimum requirement of 9450' . , There is a separation by Walnut Creek and the homes on the other side of the Creek and the size of the homes there I don't believe has anything to do with this. If I moved into an area that had that sort of requirement --that might be one of the reasons I would buy in that area, a good sized lot that makes a beautiful looking home with landscaping on each side and it might bother me if somebody might be able to cut it in half, irregardless of whether they built another house on it or not. It looks to me like • there was a protection established at the time these homes were built and the protection was 9450' and in my mind I can't see any reason for changing that. Mayor Gleckman: I have a few comments. First of all going along with the comments of Councilman Nichols as far as parcels in our City - odd shapes, big beautiful homes. I can't for the life of me believe that this lot split would add anything to this community and that a big beautiful home would be built adjoining Walnut Creek Wash. At least I can't see the price of a home of quality, but I am not in real estate. - 3 0 - REG. C.C. 6-24-68 Page Thirty-one SLIGHT MODIFICATION NO. 52 - Continued I just wouldn't pay a .lot of money for a home sitting on Walnut Creek Wash especially since it couldn't afford me the space to protect it which some of the odd shape lots do. I think if this is going to be a problem in our community and evidently now it has 'be -come a problem, that this. Council should take some action and direct the Planning Commission and Planning Department to do a study of all that vacant surplus land, not only alcn g Walnut Creek Parkway but any other place wherein we would run into this problem again. Where somebody seeking additional and not give them quite enough land to confirm with what is in the area but if they could get a variance from this Council they could then make use of this land. At the same time I wouldn't deprive them of trying to make a profit but at the sametime our obligation as Councilman, Nichols stated is to all the people in this community, including the people living in and around this parcel. . I think we would be unfair, as I thought in the past, in granting a lot split to build a home in this particular area that in my estimation would not be up to standards with the rest of the neighborhood. That is my feeling.. Any other comments by Council? Is there a motion? Councilman Chappell: I move that we deny :the request Slight Modification No. 52 Seconded by Mayor Gleckman. Councilman Gillum: Mr. Menard - this parcel A, if it were granted is it not larger than what we approved in the past as far as square footage? • Mr. Menard: I don't recall the exact square footage of the 2 parcels on Gretta, however there was required a variance which would indicate the reduction was more than 20%. This required a Slight Modification and this would indicate that the lots on both were smaller than these here. Motion failed on roll call vote as follows: AYES.- Councilman Chappell, Mayor Gleckman NOES.- Councilmen Nichols, Gillum, Lloyd ABSENT.- None Motion by Councilman Gillum, seconded by Councilman Nichols, that Council approve Slight Modification No. 52, Mayor Gleckman.- Any discussion by Council? The only discussion I would have myself gentlemen, is remember the first time you did this you supposedly according to the staff, set a precedent and this is one of the areas in which they feel justified in approving this. They did not recommend it in the first place. I would only caution you to say if we go ahead and approve this we are reaffirming the action we have taken in the past and encouraging it throughout our City. • Councilman Gillum: I believe we are aware of that. Mayor Gleckman.- The motion is for approval of Slight Mdification No. 52. Motion carried on roll call vote as follows: AYES. Councilmen, Nichols , Gillum, Lloyd NOES.- Councilman Chappell, Mayor Gleckman ABSENT. None - 31 - 'REG. C.C. 6-24-68 Page. Thirty-two SLIGHT MODIFICATION NO. 52 - Continued Councilman Nichols- Mr. Mayor - before we depart from this matter before us I think a valid point has been brought up. It seems to me that when one thing is approved that it tends to establish a precedent for the approval of additional types of developments except and if 0- conditions "become present that were not known to the policy establishing interpretating -,body. It has been mentioned in this conversation that perhaps the Council ought to direct the Planning Commission to take a look at all of the areas of surplus land in the City as -they abuts other properties, and indicate to the Council if that body feels that it should recommend any definitive policy to rguide this. Council in making future deci- sionsl of this type. We have never had the benefit of the Planning Commission:: thinking as these matters have come before us and we have had to decide them and I think perhaps it is time, Motion by Councilman Nichols, that the matter of the utilization of surplus lands in the City' for residential purposes be referred to the Planning Commission for a report to the City Council. Seconded by Councilman Lloyd Mayor Gleckman: Mr. Menard, have we had such a study in the past? Mr,. Menard- I would call the Council's attention to the sketch plan that was recommended to the Council for approval and was ratified by the Council and the Planning consultant was thereby authorized to continue his General Plan studies along that particular concept. This study indicated a green belt concept - a long slender path along the southerly side of the Walnut Creek Wash and mentioned the fact that • surplus properties existed at the present time and if possible such surplus lands could perhaps be picked up by the City at a later date and this same concept is now embodied in the sketch of the general plan submitted by the consultants within the layout and will come before the Planning Commission and the Council in the next few months in consideration of the General Plan. So some analysis tied to the General Plan analysis has been commenced - in this particular- area. A specific study of each particular surplus piece of property has not been commenced by either the Planning Commission nor the City Council. I could perhaps suggest if this concept is eventually adopted on the General Plan we would then have the vehicle which we could implement. Councilman Nichols: There was no intent in my motion to direct the Planning Commission to study each and every parcel of land in the City, but to study the concept of sufplus land in the City, and have some generalized comments made now. By the time this City would get around to budgeting funds and going into this green belt concept this current trend that we have here will have gone on to its ultimate conclusion and completely negate the possibility of such implementation. The whole thrust of my motion is to suggest that perhaps the Planning Commission should look at it what is happening now and are there any particular recommendations they should bring back to us now to try and bring this plan into thought or hold it in abeyance. The only thought I had was that they look at the concept of surplus land utilization in the City and suggest to us anything that they might feel would be helpful in solving this , and they • would have the benefit of our minutes and our discussion. Mayor Gleckman- Any other comments? I think the conversation we are now talking about 'vAould now exclude the southerly portion of Walnut Creek Parkway but include the additional lands throughout the City. Mr. Menard: Right. . I understand. Mayor Gleckman: All those in favor please so indicate? Motion carried, (all we3e,2 in favor. ) REG. C.C. 6-24-68 Page Thirty-three GENERAL. MATTERS ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Chris Tambe, Manager I am here in response to an invitation to appear Chamber of Commerce before you to see if I can answer some questions 40 1500 W o Service Avenue that appear to be in the minds of some of the people in the community with regard to the 4th of July activities planned this year. There will be four separate events. The four events scheduled for the 4th of July Holiday in West Covina start at 9 a.m. , with a parade planned by the West Covina Parade Committee chaired by Mrs. Dorothy Tevault. (Mrs. Tevault explained the parade route and details of the event.) Councilman. Gillum. I have a question. I think the one thing last year that I heard mainly was there wasn't anyway that people standing along the route of the parade could tell what group was from where. Is there anyway through the papers we can put out a schedule of the parade route and participants? Mrs. Tevault. We approached the Tribune last year and they said there are so many activities on the Fourth they cannot print a schedule of all. We have a program that does allow us to print circulars advertising the event. We would like to print more of them but they are 12 to 14 pages long and this is something we cannot consider. We have approached the local newspaper and they advise they serve so many communities they are unable to do it. We have the announcement stand on Glendora Avenue and we hope to increase the announcement stands this year. Mr. Tambe. The Chamber's involvement with the Parade is identical to that which the City of West Covina has in that we each as separate entities co-sponsor the parade as well as co-sponsor the event itself. The. City contributes funds on the request: of the Parade Committee, as does the Chamber of Commerce. The Chamber in addition offers the facilities of its office as well as the staff assistance. The Committee met in our office and we do the necessary clerical work. The next activity will take place immediately follow- ing the end of the parade, at Cameron Park and known as the Bell Ringing Ceremony, scheduled to begin at 11 a.m. , sponsored and conducted by the PTA Council and the Chairman of the event is Mrs. Mary Fau.lkes (Mrs. Faulkes explained the Bell Ringing event in detail.) Mr. Tambe. The next event is an all. City picnic, scheduled to take place starting at. 12 noon at Cameron. Park and running through 5 p.m. This is being conducted by the City of West Covina, Recreation & Park Department and the Kiwanis Group • (Explained.) By the use of joint manpower we now have several events going on in one day. The picnic activities will include displays, primarily those floats from the parade, entertainment, games, contests and prizes, conducted throughout the day. The Edgewood Kiwanis Club along with your Youth Center Group will offer food and refreshments The Cap of the day will be the llth.Annual Fireworks Show at 7e 30 p.m. , conducted by Mr.. Stan Myner, Chairman.for the event. (Explained Mr. Mynerwas present but because of a hoarse throat asked Mr. Tambe to present the event.) Mr. Mynerhas been chairman of this Committee for more years than I can - 33 - REG. C.C. 6-24-68 Page Thirty-four ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - 4th of Tulv Events - Continued remember. All of the arrangements as typically provided in the past have been to date completed. (Explained.) Some 40, 000 flyers went out to the school children exclud- ing --high school; that includes 4 school districts. Along with some 8 or 9 private • schools in the general area. We have arranged through the courtesy of the Chief of Police of West Covina for the Police Departments Explorer Scouts to work with us and take tickets at the. Stadium. The-s-e-curity, from the Los Angeles County Chief's Department -has been arranged for. We have arranged for the required Engine Company from Los Angeles County Fire Department . All necessary approvals for the Sky Divers -performance has been arranged. The Committee has arranged an excellent program of entertainment to be conducted by Jerry Singer's Diamond -Horseshoe Group.. (Explained in detail„ Explained the news releases that have been arranged for by the various participating groups and that the slogan of all groups is - "Stay in West Covina on the 4th of July for these Activities. " ) Some 14, 000 advance tickets have been distributed to a variety of ticket selling locations. And through the help of Councilman Chappell we will have the members of the Pop Warner League staffing the two booths - one located at the Plaza and one at Eastland. The various letters of invitation have been sent. Complimentary tickets sent where appropriate. Each year the young people have been invited that are housed in various camps and orphanages. This year the groups were Camp Ben Rocky, Camp Oak Group, County facilities; Lark Ellen Home for Boys and the Merry Oak Orphanage. Mayor Gleckman: I would like to thank. the Chamber fpr coming and giving this report as to what is happening on the • 4th of July. I was also informed that there seems to be some doubt as to whether the entire City Council would be present on July 4th and I would like to reaffirm the attendance of the entire Council at this time. (All Councilmen indicated they would be present.) I would like to by-pass Oral Communicatirns for just one moment and go immediately to Mayor's reports and take up the letter from the July 4th Parade Committee requesting funds MAYOR'S REPORTS 1 LETTER FROM JULY 4TH PARADE COMMITTEE REQUEST FOR FUNDS Motion by Councilman Gillum, seconded by Councilman Chappell, that Council approve the expenditure of $425. to the West Covina Parade Committee. Motion carried on roll call vote as follows: AYES: Councilmen Chappell, Nichols, Gillum, Lloyd, Mayor Gleckman NOES: None ABSENT: None ORAL COMMUNICATIONS= Continued Ben.Bateman, President On behalf of the Employees' Association I would W . C . C . E .. A. like to take this opportunity to thank you gentlemen for your endorsement of the Personnel Board recommendations. I realize they are not finalized as of yet, but I am going out of town as soon as I leave the Council Chamber's tonight, so I want to take this opportunity to thank you. Mayor Gleckman: Fine. . I also would like to mention, although he has left now, that Mr. John Stiles, President of the Chamber of Commerce was here also tonight. -34- REG. Ca Ca 6-24-68 Page Thirty-five WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS 1) LETTER OF RESIGNATION FROM DOMINIC VERONDA RECREATION & PARK COMMISSIONER Motion by Councilman Gillum, seconded by Councilman Chappell, and carried, that • Council receive and file 2) LETTER FROM MRS a MARGARET CRAIG WEST COVINA DISPOSAL CO Motion by Councilman Gillum, seconded by Councilman Chappell, and carried, that Council refer this letter to staff. 3) LETTER AND STATEMENT FROM ROBERT Go MOSS RE. PROPOSED ROUTE OF HUNTINGTON BEACH FREEWAY Motion by Councilman Gillum, seconded by Councilman Lloyd, and carried, that Council refer to the Huntington Beach Freeway hearing on July 22, 1968. 4) PETITION FOR CURBS AND GUTTERS FROM RESIDENTS ON FRANCIS UITO AVENUE Motion by Councilman Gillum, seconded by Councilman Lloyd, and carried, that Council refer to staff. CITY ATTORNEY ORDINANCE INTRODUCTION The City Attorney presented: "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF WEST COVINA, AMENDING SUB -PARAGRAPH (Q) OF SECTION 310- OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO MAXIMUM SPEED LIMITS ON VALINDA AVENUE. Mayor Gleckman-, Hearing no objections waive further reading of the body of said Ordinance Motion by Councilman Gillum, seconded by Councilman Chappell, and carried, that Council introduce said Ordinance RESOLUTION NO. 3812 The City Attorney presented: "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF ADOPTED THE CITY OF WEST COVINA COMMENDING DOMINIC VERONDA FOR HIS SERVICES TO THE CITY. " Mayor Gleckman: H.Earing no objections, waive further reading of the body of said Resolution Motion by Councilman .Gillum, seconded by Councilman Lloyd that 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 - 35 - REG, C.C. 6-24-68 Page Thirty-six CITY ATTORNEY - Continued RESOLUTION NO. 3813 The City Attorney presented: "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPTED OF THE CITY OF WEST COVINA APPOINTING ROBERT L JACKSON TO THE PLANNING . COMMISSION. " Mayor Gleckman: Hearing no objections, waive further reading of the body of said Resolution. Motion by Councilman Gillum, seconded by Councilman Lloyd, that 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. 3814 The City Attorney presented: "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPTED OF THE CITY OF WEST COVINA APPOINTING ELIZABETH PLESKO TO THE RECREATION AND PARK COMMISSION. " Mayor Gleckman: Hearing no objections, waive further reading of the body of said Resolution. Motion by Councilman Gillum, seconded by Councilman Lloyd, .that 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. 3815 The City Attorney presented: "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPTED OF THE CITY OF WEST COVINA APPOINTING JOAN M . WILSON TO THE RECREATION AND PARK COMMISSION." Mayor Gleckman: Hearing no objections, waive further reading of the body of said Resolution. Motion by Councilman Gillum, seconded by Councilman Lloyd, that 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. 3816 The City Attorney presented: "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPTED OF THE CITY OF WEST COVINA APPOINTING SAMUEL SORNBORGER TO THE PERSONNEL. BOARD. " Mayor Gleckman: Hearing no objections, waive further reading of the body of said 3e6solution. REG. Co Co 6-24-68 Page Thirty-seven CITY'ATTORNEY - RESOLUTION NO. 3816 - Continued Motion by Councilman Gillum, seconded by Councilman Lloyd, that City Council adopt said Resolution. Motion carried on roll call vote as follows: • AYES: Councilmen Chappell, Gillum, Nichols, Lloyd, Mayor Gleckman NOES: None ABSENT: None - RESOLUTION'NO. 3817 The City Attorney presented: " A RESOLUTION OF THE. CITY COUNCIL ADOPTED OF THE CITY OF WEST COVINA APPOINTING FRED C. SHRADER. TO THE HUMAN RELATIONS COMMISSION, " Mayor. Gleckman: Hearing no objections, waive further reading of the body of said Resolution Motion by Councilman Gillum, seconded by Councilman Lloyd, that 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, 3818 The City Attorney presented: "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPTED OF THE CITY OF WEST COVINA APPOINTING WILLIAM G o BEEM TO THE HUMAN RELATIONS COMMISSION." Mayor Gleckman: Hearing no objections, waive further reading of the body of said Resolution. Motion by Councilman Gillum, seconded by Councilman Lloyd, that 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. 3 819 The City Attorney presented: "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPTED OF THE CITY OF WEST COVINA APPOINTING DOROTHY L. CASSON TO THE HUMAN RELATIONS COMMISSION° " . Mayor Gleckman: Hearing no objections, waive further reading of the body of said Resolution Motion by Councilman Lloyd, seconded by Councilman Gillum, that 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 - 37 - REG. C. C. 6-24-68 Page Thirty-eight 0 C� • CITY ATTORNEY - Continued MOTEL USE AS APARTMENTS "Motion -by Councilman Gillum, seconded by Councilman Nichols, and carried, that Council -receive and file report on Motel Use as Apartments. CLAIM OF MATTHEW GOODRICH, BY HIS MOTHER DOROTHY GRUMET Mr. Wakefield: This is a claim you approved to be filed late at your last regular meeting. The claim is now before you for action. I would recommend that the claim be denied. So moved by Councilman Gillum, seconded by Councilman Lloyd, and carried. CHAIR DECLARED A 5 MINUTE RECESS AT 11: 2 5 P. M. RECONVENED AT 11. 3 0 P.M. CHAIR CALLED FOR AN EXECUTIVE SESSION AT 11. 32 P. M. RECONVENED AT 11:48 P. M. CITY MANAGER RESOLUTION NO. 3820 The City Manager presented: "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE ADOPTED CITY OF WEST COVINA ADOPTING THE BUDGET. AND APPROVING APPROPRIATIONS FOR THE FISCAL YEAR COMMENCING JULY 1, 1968,. AND ENDING JUNE 30, 1969. " Mayor Gleckman: Hearing no objections, waive further reading of the body of said Resolution. Motion by Councilman Gillum, seconded by Councilman Lloyd, that City Conncil adopt said Resolution. Councilman Nichols: On our last discussion Budget Session the matter of the Communications Center report came up, it was distributed to the Council for review and if anyone had questions they could direct them to the City Manager.. I assume everyone has had a chance to review it and I only have one comment. . Not critical, but of information, and that is the development of this Communications Center and the hiring of personnel in actuality ;represents a very considerable new expenditure of public monies, involves ten or eleven new employees and involves the return to one or more departments of personnel which in effect beefsup those departments. The staff i:s well aware of this and they recommend a careful review of the report. I would suggest at this time that the Council might desire to keep in mind this aspect and request about budget time next year, as part of the budget consideration, a review of the Communications Center. Mr. Aia s sa: I believe we will have a review for you at the time we hire a full time Director. . He will review this and make a report. Mayor Gleckman: Any other comments regarding the budget? REG. C.C. 6-24-68 Page Thirty-nine CITY MANAGER - Resolution No. 3820 - Continued Councilman Gillum: I might like to say that I would like to commend Mr.. Aiassa and the staff for their work on this Budget. There are many added expenses and • improvements, all done without causing the Council to consider a tax increase. Councilman. Nichols: It is a tremendous accomplishment. Motion carried on roll call vote as follows: AYES: Councilmen Chappell,Nichols, Gillum, Lloyd, Mayor Gleckman NOES: None ABSENT: None APPROVE CHAMBER OF COMMERCE.AGR.EEMENT 1968-69 FISCAL YEAR Mr. Aiassa: This has not been reviewed with the City Attorney, I would like to have this opportunity. Mayor Gleckman: I would like to have it approved subject to the approval of the City Attorney. Motion by Councilman Gillum, seconded by Councilman Nichols, that the 1968-69 Fiscal Year agreement with the Chamber of Commerce be approved subject to the • review by the City Attorney. Councilman Nichols: There was a comment made that it should be subject to the approval of the City Attorney - - there is nothing in this agreement that is a departure from last year's agreement? Mr. Aiassa: Mayor Gleckman: Mr.,Aiassa: SWIMMING POOL BUDGETING No, it is just about the same. No change of language- Mr. Aiassa? That is why I want the City Attorney to look it over. Motion carried. All were in favor. Mr. Aiassa: We previously advised Council we were going to do this. Now to close our accounts we have to have an action to remove the certain account allocations . 853.61 and 862.61. Motion by Councilman Gillum, seconded by Councilman Lloyd, that Council approve the allotment of ::funds `in`ac'cordarx-e with staff report dated June 20, 1968. Motion carried on roll call vote as follows: AYES: Councilmen Chappell, Nichols, Gillum, Lloyd, Mayor Gleckman NOES: None ABSENT: None - 39 - z REG. C.C. -6-24-68 Page Forty CITY MANAGER - Continued CONSULTANT PAYMENTS' WILLIAMS, COOKE & MOCINE - MAY 1968 STATEMENT • Motion by Councilman Gillum, seconded by Councilman Chappell, that City Council approve payment to Williams, Cooke & Mocine for their May statement in the amount of $3, 031.00. Motion carried on roll call vote as follows: AYES' Councilmen Chappell, Nichols, Gillum, Lloyd, Mayor Gleckman NOES' None ABSENT' None PEAT MARWICK & LIVINGSTON - MAY 1968 STATEMENT Motion by Councilman Gillum, seconded by Councilman Chappell, that City Conncil approve statement for payment for services rendered by Peat, Marwick & Livingston in the amount of $3,484.92. Motion carried on roll call vote as follows: AYES: Councilmen. Chappell, Nichols, Gillum, Lloyd, Mayor Gleckman NOES: None ABSENT: None USE OF SNORKEL AT 4TH OF TULY FIREWORKS SHOW is Motion. by Councilman Gillum, seconded by Councilman Chappell, that Council approve the use of the West Covina Snorkel at the West Covina 4th of July Fireworks Show. Councilman Chappell: Councilman Gillum will you please amend the motion and add "and parade. " CouncilmanGillum: I will amend my motion. Councilman Chappell' And I will amend my second. Mayor Gleckman: Mr. Aiassa - do I understand now that we are to have the Snorkel in th.e parade? Mr. Aiassa: Yes - where it can be pulled out in case of a fire. We actually are receiving mutual aid from Covina - they will cover us while we are out of the City, and as long as it is in the City, it is okay. Motion carried.. All were in favor. • WATER SHARING ASSESSMENT COST Motion by Councilman Gillum, seconded by Councilman. Lloyd, and carried, that Council instruct the City Attorney to prepare an Ordinance . COMMUNICATION CENTER CONTRACT BID Motion by Councilman. Gillum, seconded by Councilman. Chappell, and carried, that Council receive and file this information. �I 0 REG. C.C. 6-24-68 Page Forty-one CITY MANAGER - Continued RECREATION AGREEMENT WITH BASSETT SCHOOL DISTRICT M-otion by Councilman. Gillum, seconded by Councilman. Chappell, that Council approve the proposed agreement for recreation sErvices with the Bassett Unified • School District. Councilman Nichols: Some years ago they participated in the Recreation program by levying a tax, they then withdrew from that and no longer participate and the City of West Covina provides recreation services on the sites at no cost to the School District. We ha-ve-gone along with this agreement each year with the Bassett Unified, School District - is there a levying of a tax rateAto provide these monies? ,By 6iYJ1a19-P SCHOOL DIGT&Wr Mr. Aiassa: I can't answer that. . I will have to check the tax rates. Motion carried on roll call vote as follows: AYES: Councilmen Chappell,Nichols, Gillum, Lloyd, Mayor Gleckman NOES: None ABSENT: None WEED ABATEMENT NOTICE 3225 Lanesboro Street (Informational) • Motion by Councilman Nichols, seconded by Councilman.. Gillum, and carried, that this be received and filed. GOLD-THOMPSON & CO. INC. CONTRACT Motion by Councilman Nichols, seconded by Councilman Chappell, that City Council instruct the Mayor and City Clerk to execute an agreement with Gold - Thompson & Co. Inc. , to perform work not to exceed an amount of $1, 000. Councilman Gillum: Will this include meeting time? Mr. Aiassa: Yes. Motion carried on roll call vote as follows: AYES: Councilmen Chappell, Nichols, Gillum, Lloyd, Mayor Gleckman NOES: None ABSENT: None • APPOINTMENT OF ADMINISTRATIVE AIDE (License Inspector) Motion by Councilman Nichols, seconded by Councilman Gillum, and carried, that Council receive and file this information. - 41 - REG. C.C. 6-24-68 Page Forty-two CITY CLERK ABC APPLICATION OF ESKO, INC., 1821 W. Badillo - Beer and Wine License Motion by Councilman Nichols, seconded by Councilman Gillum, and carried, that there be no protest. CITY TREASURER Motion -by' Councilman Nichols, seconded by Councilman. Chappell, and carried, that City Treasurer's report of May, 1968, be received and filed. MAYOR'S REPORTS 2) RESOLUTION COMMENDING CO-CHAIRMEN OF RECREATION AND PARKS'BLUE RIBBON COMMITTEE Motion by Councilman Nichols, seconded by Councilman Chappell, that Council direct the City Clerk to prepare Resolutions commending the. Co-chairmen of Recreation and Parks Blue Ribbon Committee and that they be perma-plaqued. Motion carried on roll call vote as follows. - AYES. Councilmen Chappell, Nichols, Gillum, Lloyd, Mayor Gleckman • NOES- None ABSENT: None RESOLUTION NO. 3821 The City Attorney presented: "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE --ADOPTED ,=CITY OF WEST COVINA COMMENDING JOHN R. WHITE FOR HIS SERVICES TO THE CITY. " RESOLUTION NO'. 3822 The . City Attorney pre sIented: "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE ADOPTED CITY OF WEST COVINA COMMENDING RICHARD NEWTON FOR HIS SERVICES TO THE CITY. " PROCLAMATION SISTER. CITY FIESTA WEEK - WEEK OF JULY 1, 1968 Mayor Gleckman: If there are no objections by Council, Sister City • Fiesta Week will be so proclaimed. No objections by Council. Mayor Gleckman: We have a request from the Colt Baseball League to proclaim Colt Baseball month starting July 15, and the National and District playoffs will be held in the City of West Covina at Orangewood Park and the City of West Covina will be the host City. If there is no objection, it shall be so proclaimed. (No objections.) - 42 - REG. C.C. 6-24-68 Page Forty-three • 0 MAYOR'S. REPORTS Continued 1Vlayor Gleckman: I would like to have the. Council make a motion , if there is no objections, that we direct the Planning Commission to develop within the next 30 days some type of ordinance covering political signs so we can now prepare for the onslaught of political signs for November. So moved by Councilman. Gillum, seconded by Councilman Chappell, and carried, Mayor Gleckman: I have another comment. The Traffic Committee. Mr.. Aiassa, I have requested this sometime ago that they bring back a report to this Council regarding the situation at Von's Market on Vine and Glendora. The hazardous method that intersection causes, coming out of private property onto a public street; they either have to slow down completely or ruin their whole automobile and wind up in the middle of the intersection on a red light even though they entered it while the light was green. Mr., Aiassa: They have it on their priority list. Mayor Gleckman: I would like to see it at our next Council meeting. This is longer than a month. They either have met and avoided it or overlooked it. . And the tickets are continually given and they are appearing in court. Mr. Aiassa: We will. call a special meeting. (Mr. Zimmerman advised the Traffic Committee would be meeting on Wednesday.) COUNCIL COMMITTEE REPORTS Councilman Nichols: We received a letter from the Sister City Founda- tion requesting a figure of $750. - that it now be paid to them for the 1967-68 budget.. Am I confused or are they just now getting their money that was budgeted in 1967-68? Mr. Aiassa: I am confused also and that is the way we read it. Councilman Nichols: That they have not had any money and gone through the whole year without it? Did we get a specific request from the Sister City Foundation? Mr. Aiassa: Yes. Councilman Nichols: Did we include a figure in on the new budget? Mr. Aiassa: Yes - a figure of $750. in the 1968-69 budget. Councilman Nichols: I have one other item. Periodically we run into an agenda situation where it seems that everything piles up on us and we get a very lengthy agenda. I realize that in some respects this cannot be avoided and that Council probably brings this about, but I feel staff is in a better pcs ition than we are to anticipate items that will be coming along and might indeed bunch up at one time and create a very long evenings agenda. I complain about it moderately because I find myself REG, C.C. 6-24-68 Page Forty-four COUNCIL COMMITTEE REPORTS that as the hour grows late that I cannot concentrate with the same patience and clarity -of mind on these matters as I can at an early hour. I think it would not be out of order to again request of city staff that wherever possible they attempt to • schedule items on the agenda so we do not bunch up quite so heavily. Mr.. Aiassa: We owe you an apology but we can't help it. This is the last day of the fiscal year of 1967-68. Some items we had to put on. Normally we try and keep the agenda down. Councilman Nichols: I understand and I don't want to get excessively critical but it gets pretty rugged with a long agenda, even though the Mayor and the Council tonight have done a beautiful job in expediting matters. Councilman Gillum: I have been contacted by a group in the City pertaining to the building of a baseball field on some property being offered by the owner. Unfortunately there are many things involved as far as past problems with this and the bonding company. It boils down to this that there should be a suit started by the City with regard to deficiencies only and I think', -this would expedite the problems in this area. I am speaking about the Brutocao property. There seems to be some discussion about who is responsible for the fill. I • personally feel the only obligation the City has in this area is for the deficiencies other than the fill. I move that we direct our City Attorney to . initiate a suit towards the bonding company in regards to deficiencies other than the fill. Mayor Gleckman: Does this meet with your recommendation Mr.. Wakefield - how do you want the motion worded? Mr. Wakefield: What Councilman Gillum refers to is the grading plan for tract 28988. This has been under discussion for approximately a year now. It is complicated by the fact that Mr. Brutocao exerts an obligation on the part of the subdivider and the bonding company to provide certain fill for the property which Mr. Brutocao owns. This is a controversy between Mr. Brutocao and the subdivider and one in which the City should not be involved. _ I concur with the recommendation Councilman Gillum has made, I think the City should proceed independently, simply to require the subdivider to correct those deficiencies other than the fill, which are involved in the grading plan. Motion seconded by Councilman Chappell. is Councilman Nichols: I would like to clarify that Mr. City Attorney. In other words it is your opinion that the City has no legal right or basis for bringing any action for resolving any other deficiencies than those related to the grading plan. Mr. Wakefield: That is correct. As a matter of fact the City approved of the modification in the original grading plan to eliminate the requirement on the part of the subdivider to provide the fill, so what the subdivider has done with respect to the fill is in accordance with the revised grading plan. So the City - 419 - REG. C.C. 6-24-68 Page Forty - COUNCIL COMMITTEE REPORTS - Continued ha-s no obligation to Mr. Brutocao or the subdivider with reference to that fill material. . Councilman Nichols: Could the City in. fact have any basis for becoming a second party to any action to compel. the subdivider to bring the fill to any location? Mr.: Wakefield: Not in my opinion - it could not. Councilman Nichols: So it would be an illegal action on our part to proceed beyond attempting to gain legal compliance with the requirements instituted by the City. Mr. Wakefield: Yes - if Mr., Brutocao has any complaint at all against the City he has it on the basis that the City approved a modification in the grading plan which had the effect of providing him fill. Councilman;. Nichols: Councilman Gillum°s motion would in effect institute the only action the City could institute in this area ? Mr. Wakefield: That is correct. • Motion carried on roll call vote as follows: AYES: Councilmen. Chappell, Nichols, Gillum, Lloyd, Mayor Gleckman NOES:: None ABSENT: None Mayor Gleckman: I would like to report that our reverse stand on the Municipal Court that we voted to change is now passed and the courts do not get together. Also AB 1203 is now in its third reading in the Assembly and it has the support of our legislators. We were also in support of AB 1203. The only other thing I would add is that Wednesday night you have all been invited to a dinner at the Queen of the Valley Hospital and that also has been the night called for a Rapid Transit meeting. I will attend both meetings. I gather the rest of the. Council will be at the Queen of the Valley dinner. DEMANDS Motion by Councilman Gillum, seconded by Councilman Nichols, that Council approve demands in the amount of $197,585.71 as listed on Sheets. C574 through C576 and payroll reimbursement sheet. Motion carried on roll call vote as follows: AYES: Councilmen. Chappell, NOES: None ABSENT: None Nichols, Gillum, Lloyd, Mayor Gleckman _Y _ - *14 - 0 REG. C.C. 6-24-68 Page Forty -time SO( • ADTOURNMENT Motion by Councilman Gillum, seconded by Councilman Nichols, and carried by Council, that there being no further business. Council adjourn at 12: 20 a.m. to July 8, 1968 at 6 p.m. ATTEST: City Clerk APPROVED: �� l Mayor