The URL can be used to link to this page

08-12-1968 - Regular Meeting - Minutes• MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL CITY OF WEST COVINA, CALIFORNIA AUGUST 12, 1968. The regular meeting of the. City Council was called to order by Mayor Pro Tem Gillum at .70 35 p.m. in the Council Chambers at West Covina City Hall. The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Councilman Nichols; and the invocation was given by the Reverend Roy R. Bullock, Delhaven Christian Church. ROLL.CALL Present: Councilmen Chappell, Nichols, Lloyd, Mayor Pro Tem Gillum, Mayor Gleckman (Arrived at 7:39 p.m.) Also Present: George Aiassa, City Manager George Wakefield, City Attorney Lela Preston, City Clerk H. R. Fast, Public Service Director George Zimmerman, Ass't. City Engineer Owen Menard, Planning Director APPROVAL. OF MINUTES July 22, 1968 - Approved as submitted. Motion by Councilman Chappell, seconded by Councilman Lloyd, and carried, that the minutes of the meeting of July 22, 1968, be approved as submitted. July 25, 1968 - Approved as submitted. Motion made by Councilman Lloyd, seconded by Councilman Chappell, and carried, that the minutes of the meeting of July 25, 1968, be approved as submitted. CITY CLERK'S REPORTS PROJECT SP-69002 STREET IMPROVEMENT LOCATION: Cortez Street from Azusa Avenue to Citrus Street. Motion by Councilman Chappell, seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Gillum, and carried, that City Council accept and file Engineer's report; and approve the plans and specifications and authorize City Engineer to advertise for bids. RESOLUTION NO. 3849 The City Clerk presented: "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY C'OUNCIL.OF ADOPTED THE CITY OF WEST COVINA, DIRECTING THE STREET SUPERINTENDENT TO GIVE NOTICE TO CONSTRUCT CURB, GUTTER AND DRIVEWAY APPROACHES PURSUANT TO SECTIONS 5870 ET SEQ. OF THE STREETS AND HIGHWAYS CODE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA ON CORTEZ STREET, FROM AZUSA.AVENUE TO CITRUS STREET. " - 1 - REG. C.C. 8-12-68 Page Two • C� J CITY CLERK'S REPORTS - RESOLUTION NO. 3849 - Continued Mayor Pro Tem Gillum: Hearing no objections, waive further reading of the body of said Resolution. (MAYOR- GLECKMAN ARRIVED AT 7. 3 9 P.M.) Motion by Councilman Nichols, seconded by Councilman Lloyd, that City Council adopt said Resolution. Motion carried on roll call vote as follows: AYES: Councilmen Chappell, NOES: None ABSTAIN. Mayor Gleckman PROJECT SP-68002 STREET IMPROVEMENT 1911 ACT (Short Form) Nichols, Gillum, Lloyd LOCATION: Francisquito Avenue from westerly City limits to Valinda Avenue. Motion by Councilman Gillum, seconded by Councilman Chappell, and carried, that City Council accept and file Engineer's report. Motion by Councilman,. Gillum, seconded by Councilman Chappell, and carried, that City Council approve plans and specifications, and authorize the City Engineer to advertise for bids. RESOLUTION NO. 3850 The City Clerk presented: "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF ADOPTED THE CITY OF WEST COVINA, DIRECTING THE STREET SUPERINTENDENT TO GIVE NOTICE TO CONSTRUCT CURB, GUTTER AND DRIVEWAY APPROACHES' PURSUANT TO SECTIONS 5870 ET SEQ. OF THE STREETS AND HIGHWAYS CODE STATE OF CALIFORNIA ALONG OF THE FRANCISQUITO AVENUE FROM WESTERLY CITY LIMITS TO VALINDA AVENUE. " Mayor Gleckman: Hearing no objections, waive further reading of the body of said Resolution. Motion by Councilman Gillum, seconded by Councilman. Chappell, that the City Council adopt said Resolution. Motion carried on roll call vote as follows: AYES: Councilmen Chappell, Nichols, Gillum, Lloyd, Mayor Gleckman NOES: None ABSENT: None RESOLUTION NO. 3851 The City Clerk presented: "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE ADOPTED CITY OF WEST COVINA, ACCEPTING 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. 8-12-68 Page Three U CITY CLERK'S REPORTS - Continued 'RESOLUTION NO. 3852 ADOPTED Mayor Gleckman: The City Clerk presented: "A RESOLUTION OF THE. CITY COUNCIL.OF THE CITY OF WEST COVINA, ACCEPTING A CERTAIN WRITTEN INSTRUMENT AND DIRECTING THE RECORDATION THEREOF." Hearing no objections, waive further reading of the body of said Resolution. Motion by Councilman.. Gillum, sem nded 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 RESOLUTION NO. 3853 The City Clerk presented: "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF ADOPTED THE CITY OF WEST COVINA, DECLARING ITS INTENTION TO VACATE A FUTURE STREET - TRACT 28988. " 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. Councilman. Gillum- Mr.. Aiassa - if my memory serves me correctly is this the one that the house partially sets on the proposed right-of- way at the present time? Mr. Aiassa: The staff report goes into the history of the program and we also have a map and some pictures. I would like to have the staff give a brief summary of this problem. (Mr. Fast, Public Service Director, summarized the problem and used the map for illustration purposes.) Councilman Gillum: Mr. Fast, you say the. City has never accepted dedication of the right-of-way? Mr. Fast: That is correct. It was simply an offer of dedication. Mr. Aiassa: We accepted the final map and it is earmarked and identified that Council has this in suspension. We have never accepted it, it is in limbo. Mr. Fast: The tentative map is generally good for one year. They did not request extensions and they have expired. Councilman Gillum: In the staffs personal opinion, if we were to relinquish the right to this property or not accept the dedication - is it possible to develop the property behind and still have an adequate access street to serve that area, or are we going to have to buy a house and swimming pool in another couple of years? - 3 - REG. C.C. 8-12-68 Page Four. CITY CLERK'S REPORTS - RESOLUTION NO. 3853 - Continued Mr. Fast: The reason the staff recommends that we do vacate is because it could be developed with the access via Baal&--S Hill Drive. • Mayor Gleckman: Mr.. Wakefield - what would be the dispostion if we had no action on this at all? In other words until the property develops to the east of this and we know exactly what our street pattern is - what advantage to the City of West Covina is it to vacate this particular parcel? Mr.. Wakefield: There is no advantage to the City. The legal situation is that until the City acts to accept the dedication the only way the offer to dedicate can be removed is to go through a vacation proceeding and once that is done the right to and thereafter is lost by the City and they would have to acquire a new right should that situation arise in the future. But until the City actually acts to accept the dedication the property continues to be the property of the adjoining owners subject only to the city's right to ultimately accept. Mayor Gleckman: In the deed of this particular property it must show an intent of dedication and I am just curious as to how an owner can buy that parcel of land without prior knowledge that there is a deeded street potential to the City and buy it and turn around and build a house on it and a swimming pool and then come into the City and say would you vacate? Mr. Wakefield: The facts must have been known to the buyer. • Mayor Gleckman: Thank you. Councilman Gillum: As long as this dedication, whether rejected or accepted is there a cloud on the title of either piece of property? Mr. Wakefield: Yes, to the extent that the City has the right at some future time to accept the offer to dedicate that 46' strip for public purposes and when the City does that the City's right becomes paramount to the adjoining land owners and they would have to remove whatever improvements they put in on the property. Mr.. Aiassa: I don't want the Council to feel that this is a problem pushing staff. This came before staff on 5-13-68 by a letter from Orland B. Murray, Civil Engineer representing the owner of the property and this was the reason it was brought before Council. All we need is a disapproval or intent of approval. Mayor Gleckman: Any other questions by members of the Council? If not, we have a motion to adopt and a second. Motion carried on roll call vote as follows: AYES: Councilmen Chappell, Nichols,, Gillum, Lloyd NOES: Mayor Gleckman . ABSENT: None Councilman Gillum: Mr.. Aiassa - is it possible to let the Council know if we have many other such situations throughout the City that we have houses or swimming pools on in similar situations? Could staff come up with a report so that we might know? Mr.. Aiassa: We have reviewed about 97% of the situations. This is the only one that has occurred in the last 10 years, but I will have -4- REG. C.C. 8-12-68 Page Five • • CITY CLERK'S REPORTS - Resolution 3853 - Continued staff follow-up if you would like to know. Councilman Gillum: PLANNING COMMISSION I would like to know. REVIEW PLANNING COMMISSION .ACTION- OF AUGUST 7, 1968 Motion by Councilman Lloyd, seconded by Councilman. Gillum, and carried, that Council accept and receive the Planning Commission action of August 7, 1968. PARCEL MAP NO. 665 LOCATION: Southerly end of Fircroft Avenue, D. W. THOMPSON south of Merced.Avenue. APPROVED 3 lots - 3/4 acre —Acre District 11A Approved by Planning Commission Mayor Gleckman: I don't understand why this is under Planning Commission. Can you explain - Mr. Wakefield? Mr. Wakefield: No, I don't know. Mayor Gleckman: Mr. Aiassa, explain to me why we have Parcel Map 665 under the Planning Commission secion? Mr. Aiassa: This was a requirement of Council to accept these lots - Mr. Menard will present the report. (Mr. Menard, Planning Director, read the report and a map was presented.) Motion by Councilman Gillum for the approval of Parcel Map 665 - D. W. Thompson, subject to the conditions set forth by the Planning Commission. Motion carried on roll call vote as follows: AYES: Councilmen Chappell, Nichols, Gillum, Lloyd, Mayor Gleckman NOES: None ABSENT: None TRACT NO, 28400 LOCATION: Westerly side of Hollenbeck JAMES E. MYERS, JR. Street between.Alaska and Thackery Streets 7 lots - 2 acres Area District 11A Approved by Planning Commission on August 7, 1968. (Mr. Menard, Planning Director, presented a brief verbal summary of this item.) Mr. Menard: The Planning Commission altered in one minor respect the Tract Map as submitted (explained.) With that added condition to the staff report as submitted, the Planning Commission approved the tentative map tract which now with that added condition applies in all respects to Area District 11A. Councilman. Gillum: Mr. Menard - Lot 6 what is the footage on the cul de sac? - 5 - REG. C.C. 8-12-68 Page Six TRACT NO, 28400 - Continued Mr, Menard: 30' Councilman Gillum: That is going to be their frontage on that street? (Mr.. Menard explained the determination procedure of lot widths in the City and that it was done by Ordinance.) Councilman Gillum: I think we had better take a look at that part of it. How wide is a driveway usually? Mr. Menard: Usually 25' . Mr. Zimmerman: In residential sometimes as little as 12' . Mr. Menard: We have a number of situations like this in the City based on this lot width. Councilman Nichols: In fact the City is full of lots with a narrow street frontage so if we go to changing it now I hope we do not try to do it retro-actively. Mayor Gleckman: What would happen to the property to the north? Mr. Menard: The problem the way I understand it on this piece of land (pointed out on map) and it now appears that the engineer • brought drainage to this property to the center of this street and then underground and out here. Mayor Gleckman: Is staff satisfied? Mr. Menard: Drainage facilities must meet city engineer's specifications, Mr. Mayor. Councilman. Nichols: What is the width of this proposed street? Mr. Menard: The street will be constructed at this time to a 45' width but there will be an additional 6' r.equired when this small piece subdivides, bringing it up to our standard width of 52' for a short cul de sac. Motion by Councilman Lloyd to approve the study plan as submitted by the Planning Commission on tentative Tract No. 28400 subject to all the conditions mentioned, as well as the added condition mentioned by the Planning Director. Motion carried, all were in favor,. Councilman. Gillum signifying "no. " SCHEDULED MATTERS - HEARINGS • 1969 WEED AND RIBJBBISH ABATEMENT PROGRAM LOCATION: Throughout the City. RESOLUTION OF INTENTION HEARING OF PROTESTS Mayor Gleckman: City Clerk: Madam City Clerk do you have the affidavit of mailing as required by law? I do. Motion by Councilman Gillum, seconded by Councilman Lloyd, and carried, that Council receive and file. - 6 - REG. C.C. 8-12-68 Page Seven 11 • HEARINGS - 1969 WEED ABATEMENT PROGRAM - Continued Mayor Gleckman: Madam City Clerk have you received any written protests or objections against performing this work? City Clerk No, I have not. THIiS>IS_THE,.TIME AND PLACE_)FfOR THE,,PUBLIC HEARING OF PROTESTS ON THE 1969 WEED AND RUBBISH ABATEMENT PROGRAM. Mayor Gleckman: Does anyone present have any verbal protests? If not, let the record show there are no written protests and no verbal protests. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED. Motion by Councilman Gillum, seconded by Councilman Lloyd, that City Council authorize the City Engineer to proceed with the taking of bids and order the abatement of weeds and rubbish on those properties described in Resolution of Intention No. 3834. Motion carried on roll call vote as follows: AYES: Councilmen Chappell, Nichols, Gillum, Lloyd, Mayor Gleckman NOES: None ABSENT: None AMENDMENT NO. 89 - REQUEST to amend Section 9211 of the CITY INITIATED Municipal Code re, modification to C-1 Zone. Approved by Planning Commission Resolution No. 2066. (Mr. Menard, Planning Director, verbally presented the report, stating that the Planning Commission has accepted and forwarded to City Council for their adoption if it meets with their approval, Planning Commission Resolution No. 2066.. ) Mayor Gleckman. Mr. Wakefield, this is an amendment to a modification of a zone, doesn't this have to be published and advertised? (Answer: Yes..) Has it been done Madam City Clerk? City Clerk: Yes, it has. (Mr. Menard, Planning Director, then explained the proposed changes, point by point. ) THIS IS THE TIME AND PLACE FOR THE PUBLIC HEARING ON AMENDMENT NO. 89. IN FAVOR None. • OPPOSED None. HEARING CLOSED. COUNCIL DISCUSSION. Councilman Nichols: Mr. Menard - does the N-C_ zone replace the C-1 Zone entirely? Mr. Menard: Yes this is the recommendation of the Planning Commission. CWt REG. Ca Co 8-12-68 Page Eight HEARINGS - AMENDMENT NO. 89 - Continued Councilman Nichols: Are there any uses in the N-C zone that are not: now in the C- 1 zone? Mr. Menard: Several of them. (Read those now in the N-C zone,) Councilman Nichols: If more uses were removed I assume these uses are only permissable in C-2 . Do you happen to know offhand some of the uses that were removed in the C-1 zone? Mr. . Menard: Councilman Nichols: come out of this at this basically correct? There wasn't a great deal. (Gave a few examples of the type removed The Council's charge at the time this came up was to review the more intense zones largely in terms of the type of uses to be included in them, and it appears to me that what: has stage is an upgrading of the light commercial zone. Is that Mro Menard: I would have to agree with you. It was felt that the uses basically allowed in the C-1 zone were appropriate, it was just the development standards such as landscaping require- ments and the quality that was hopeful, had been left. out. Councilman Nichols: It is then somewhat an effort to achieve a similar upgrading in the light commercial zone that: have fallen under the •Ordinance recently adopted - the S-C zone, to achieve in the zone structure an upgrading to solve the problem of the multitude type of uses as much as to improve uses in the zone Mr, Menard: This is correct with particular attention having been paid to those zones which would result by their location with direct exposure to residential whether it be multiple or with direct exposure to .single family residential; and attempts to high landscaping standards to create compatibility in buffering through artificial means. Councilman Nichols: In this section you talk about 4 acres for a neighborhood commercial development - - this zone would still apply to a 50' x 150' commercial lot? Mr. Menard: This is correct. In specifying the size requirements a series of small lots could be combined to create a neighborhood commercial zone as well as those integrated designs Councilman Nichols: I am not making my question clear. Mr. Jones owns a lot on Service Avenue that is zoned C-1 at the present time and the lot: is 75' x 180' and he wants to come in and build a store. Will this zone cover this? Or will this supercede or supplant the C-1 • zone ? Mr. Menard: The recommendation of the Planning Commission is that those areas now zoned C-1 would become automatically zoned neighborhood commercial, and the Ordinance which would adopt this zone would so specify. Councilman Nichols: What about the man with the small lot? - 8 -- REG. C.C. 8-12-68 Page Nine HEARINGS - AMENDMENT NO. 89 - Continued Mr. Menard: If at the time of the effective date of t:he new commercial zone that individual would enjoy a parcel that was non- conforming and he would have right of development - at least in my opinion. Councilman Nichols: This opens up an area of concern that I would like clarifica- tion. Say this Mr. Jones wants to build a Stop and Go Market on any street - they have been building them on sites of 100' or 150' or whatever it is, - under this Ordinance he could not develop that:? Mr. Menard: This is not correct, at least in my mind, unless Mr. Wakefield would have something to add to it. He would enjoy a legally nonconforming parcel and if that parcel were zoned C-1 at the time this became effective it seems to me he would still enjoy C-lo Councilman. Nichols: I understand that but what if he wanted to come in and ask for zoning to build - - say he came to this City and applied for zoning on any type of commercial usage in this City in the future under this zone that would formerly have been C-• 1 and doesn't own any parcel of less than 4 acres? Mr. Menard- Yes - on a parcel that is less than four acres - under several situations the most common being on a piece of land sized as you .indicate right alongside of existing C-1 and integrating the design of the facilities into the design of the already existing neighborhood shopping center, And there was a definite purpose in this. (Explained in detail..) Councilman Gillum: Mr. Menard - did I understand you to say that if this were passed - - everything that is C-1 now if this were to be passed it would automatically fall into the N-C zone or do we have to take certain action? Mr. Menard: There are several ways it could be handled, . The. City Council, it would appear could elect t:o decide on those particular areas that were ideally located for Neighborhood Commercial zoning and so specify "in the commercial official zoning map and advertise, etc. The City Council in adopting this Ordinance Amendment, it would appear to me, could say as we did in the Office Professional, that all zoning now titled R-P shall become known as O-Po This is how we did the conversion of R-P to O-P three or four months ago Councilman Gillum: Mr. Wakefield- - is it possible for the Council to lift zoning on property that has been standing for a number of years? Mr, Wakefield: No. I think the purpose of this Ordinance is to in effect replace the C-1 zone. . So you end up, if this is adopted, in effect with a new name for.:&n"existing--z.onf6,.with additional restrictions attached and conditions attached to the development within this zone. To answer your question specifically all of the property that is now zoned C-1 would end up in the Neighborhood Commercial zone by action approving this recommenda- tion, or no property would end up in the neighborhood commercial zone and you would continue the C-1 zone until there were specific applications rezoned to the N:-•C zone In other words it is all or none, you can't at this hearing on the basis of this recommendation of the Planning Commission, pick and chose as between individual properties currently zoned C-1 o You must either rwjehi<_p them all or none Councilman Chappell: When they come in for this zoning they have to have a precise k� REG. Co Co . 8-12-68 Page Ten HEARINGS - AMENDMENT NO. 89 Continued plan, we approve the precise plan and zoning at the same time and they then decide to change the precise plan do they have to come back and go through the whole procedure again or can they build anything, once they get the zoning? • Mr. . Menard: The precise plan.Ordinance of the City would apply. A typical procedure would be a person would come in and submit his precise plan and they would be heard together by the Planning Commissiom'o If any change were to be made on that precise plan it could only be made over my signature if minor, and if major, resubmittal to the Planning Commission on a completely different plan. All of which still would be re- quired to meet the Ordinance Mayor Gleckman: Are you saying - Mr, Wakefield - that legally this Council can change the conditions underwhich a man has his property zoned and that he must comply with this without notifying the man? In other words a man has presently a C-1 zone in this City that calls for certain things he must comply with - if this is more restrictive and we automatically place it N-C in place of the C-1 and put more restrictive measures on the property without notifying him that he has additional conditions that he must comply with - is this legal? Mr. Wakefield: That is the purpose of this hearing, This is legal. Mayor Gleckman: Is it legal for us to limit the amount of hours and would that same thing then apply to all commercially zoned • property C-1 in the City of West Covina - - which means if a restaurant today in the City of West Covina or a service station, etc. , is in a C-1 zone and we put these limits of hours in - that those same hours would apply to those present developments? Mr. Wakefield: No sir. Those conditions would only be prospective The existing operators would have the right to continue operating as they now do Mayor Gleckman: Then wouldn't anyone coming in for N -C zoning be at a disadvantage with the present people operating under C-1 as far as hours of operation? Mr. Wakefield: Could be Mayor Gleckman: Okay. I just wanted to make that point clear. I think when you start restricting people as to,when they cap be open and when they must close in a C- I zone,. I think. you are asking for complete control of a manns individual business. He may want to stay open longer because he is running a sale, etc. I would hate to be the one sitting up here saying I am controlling that business - that man from staying open certain hours when his competitor up the street can stay open. I couldn't buy that in an Ordinance.. I am sorry, It is unfortunate that when you do come up with a good zone you come up with something that in my opinion would be bad for the people. You can't vote for the whole zoning but unless we get some consensus of opinion I would have to go the other way. Councilman Nichols: Mr. Mayor - I react somewhat the same way. I think this zone is a noble effort that we all recognize must be achieved. I think it has some flaws in it and I think it needs more work. The basic thoughts that I have that I would like to leave with the Council are: 1 - if you are developing a 4 acre or larger shopping center you are likely to have a liquor store and then you come along with an Ordinance that requires nothing will operate after 10 p.m. at night. To me it is an unworkable feature. I think there are types of uses that go along with that. There are many, many uses that - 10 - REG. C.C. 8-12-68 Page Eleven • LJ HEARINGS - AMENDMENTNO. 89 Continued have a normal accepted use beyond 10 p.m. Secondly, if I understand correctly what is being proposed here, it says in effect - beginning with the'adoption of this Ordinance and from here on out that no new light commercial use can be granted in this City zoning except in 4 acre blocks or larger. , Now if the City grows and develops it would seem to me that there are inevitably going to be --J:,,,e very fine commercial type uses that would not require four acres, and that if we tie up to that extent to say that you will need .... 4 acres or more, that we are again saying West Covina does not want to continue to grow and develop. I think that 4 acre figure in there is too rigid. I think we would live to regret it. I think it needs some greater flexibility. In the terms of the upgrading .conditions, I would buy all the way through, but the point the Mayor made on hours, I would offer as a rigid part of the Ordinance. I believe we are asking for trouble by adopting the Ordinance and will be required to make exception after exception .and with those two features in there I would be reticent to support it. Mayor Gleckman: Mr. Wakefield - is it possible for us to reopen the hearing and hold this matter over for a study session, or is it necessary to hold the hearing open - can we keep it closed and discuss with the Planning Commission and Planning staff? Mr. Wakefield: I think it would be safer to hold the hearing open. Mayor Gleckman: I think this right now would meet with a disapproval by the Council for some very good work done by our Planning Department, and I think there are a few areas that have to be straightened out before I could buy this Ordinance I think the intent is good and a lot of things involved are good but there are those one or two things that we :could discuss to come to a better means of understanding and I think it should be done with the Planning Commission and Planning staff. Councilman Gillum: Did we close the hearing? Mayor Gleckman: We closed the hearing but I would like to have a motion that we hold this over for a study session with the hearing held open - can we do this? Mr. Wakefield: Yes, you should reconsider your action with regard to closing the hearing and the hearing should be held open for further consideration and study with the Planning Commission and Planning staff. Motion by Councilman Nichols, seconded by Councilman Lloyd, and carried, that Council reconsider the closing of the hearing and the hearing be held open. Motion by Councilman Gillum, seconded by Councilman Chappell, and carried, that this matter be held over to a study session on September 10, 1968, at 6 p.m. , with a joint meeting with the Planning Commission. UNDERGROUND UTILITIES WAIVER NO. 1 LOCATION: Sunset School, 851. South WEST COVINA SCHOOL DISTRICT Sunset Avenue. REQUEST for waiver from the West Covina Municipal Code Section 7501 Chapter 5, which provides installation of underground utilities, approved by Planning Commission on July 17, 1968. REG. C.C. 8-12-68 Page Twelve UNDERGROUND UTILITIES Continued Mayor Gleckman: Mr. Aiassa - did the recommendation have a time limit on it? Mr. Aia s sa : No'it did not have a time limit on it. • Mayor. Gleckman: Madam City Clerk do you have the notice of publication and mailing? City Clerk: Yes. Motion by Councilman GiTliiiri, 'sec'nd'ed.by,C.ouriciltian.hlbyd, and carded; that Council receive and file. THIS IS THE TIME AND PLACE FOR THE PUBLIC HEARINGo IN FAVOR None. .OPPOSED None. HEARING CLOSED. COUNCIL, DISCUSSION. Mayor Gleckman: The only comment I would have is that I believe a time limit should be added to the recommendation • Councilman Gillum: Mr. Menard - have you been contacted by the School District on this? Mr. Menard: Yes, the application was forthcoming from the District and I discussed this matter sometime ago with Mr. Eastman, the .Assistant Superintendent. Councilman Gillum: It says it is temporary, is this correct? Mr., Menard: Yes. Mayor Gleckman: Councilman Nichols, I believe you can add some light. Councilman Nichols: The West Covina Unified. School District has leased on a year to year basis approximately one half of the site of the Sunset School to the. County of Los Angeles, which in turn is operating a school for exceptional children at that location. The School District, if I understand it correctly, is making application for the waiver except in fact the waiver is being requested by the County of Los Angeles to enable them to move several temporary portable classrooms into that location to handle some overloading they have in their facilities, so it is a County School, and it is temporary. But what is temporary in this world, I don't know. Councilman Lloyd: You have come into the question that I have - Council- man Nichols., but I wondered if you could shed additional light on this. My feeling at the present moment, while I am 100% in. favor of this type of activity, we -turn around and ask commercial interests to have underground facilities, and although there is no question about the worthwhile qualities of this project, nevertheless, I think as the Mayor has already pointed out, we will have to have a time limit on this, or some communication from the County indicating what their intentions are, Councilman Nichols: I would ..'.tend to agree. I am only trying to cast some - 12 - REG. C.C. 8-12--68 Page Thirteen UNDERGROUND UTILITIES - Continued light on the subject. On one border is the city yard with overhead wires and in front of these temporary units are existing temporary units built in 1948 and wires are all strung through there so there are wires on all sides at the present time. . But I do think there should be a limit put on it. Councilman Gillum. Mr.. Menard - on the temporary buildings either the School District or the County would have to come back with precise plans for the location? Mr. Menard: The School District is of the opinion .... Councilman Gillum. Mr. Menard, I am asking your opinion, not their opinion. Mr. Menard: This is evidently the right they have enjoyed in the past, as nearly as we could determine that on some of these kinds of facilities they have not had a precise plan. The way I understand it at the moment it is the intent of the School District to exercise their prerogatives and not apply for a precise plan. This is my understanding verbally. Councilman Gillum: I think we even require Recreation & Park people when they want to do something regarding signs, etc. I would hate to sit: up here and say that the School District would not have to file a precise plan for something within our City. Is it possible, Mr. Menard, to take this request: and make it along with the precise plan, because I don't particularly -- to be very honest with you gentlemen, I think if the School District is going to put something up they should be compelled to comply, just as anyone else has to in this community. Councilman Lloyd: I think Councilman Nichols has already pointed out that it is not. the School District. . Would we go to the County - Councilman Nichols? Councilman Nichols: I don't know. I am getting over my head. Councilman Lloyd: Well it seems to be a very mushy area . First of all I am in accord with Councilman -Gillum in this case. I feel something more specific should be required and the fact that we have overhead wires in our City, the fact that we have other temporary buildings since 1948, and the fact that we have done a lot of these things in the past - - I realize that in the judicial area it is always nice to go back and determine what has been done, but I don't think it is necessary at this point. In this area we are trying to upgrade at the present time, and I think it is time to ask all agencies, whether it is our own School District or the County, to be a little more specific in their intent both as to time and structure. Mr. Wakefield: Perhaps I can help a bit here. If the actual construction on the leased ground is being undertaken by the County • Superintendent of Schools then the County is not bound by the City's zoning ordinance. They are not required to file a precise plan. A School District is bound by the City zoning ordinances subject to the prerogative of the Board of Trustees - a 4/5ths vote is needed to except itself from the requirement. In this particular matter the application was made by the School District for a waiver of the city's underground utility requirement, so the only thing that now pends before the City Council , whether or not: the waiver requested by the School District to permit the ;construction of the overhead lines will be granted. You can, if you choose, condition the granting of that: waiver.,_on�_a time';ba'sis .and you can require the District to renew its application at some future date if it desires an extension of time. - 13 - REG. Co Co 8-12-68 Page Fourteen UNDERGROUND UTILITIES - Continued Councilman Gillum: What you are saying is that the County can come in to this City and lease property from the School District and we have no jurisdiction over what they put up on there? • Mr. Wakefield: That is correct, Councilman Lloyd-, If we grant that - - you mean they can just move in automa- tically without our permission? Mr. Wakefield: Yes. The County can acquire the property, whether by purchase, lease or condemnation, and then it has the right under the existing State Law to put any kind of a structure it chooses on that property, no, matter where it is Motion by Councilman Chappell, seconded by Councilman Nichols, that Council approve the Waiver Number. 1 on the underground utilities for a period of 5 years Councilman Gillum-, I am not objecting to the request for the underground utilities, but I am concerned that we are granting something here and it has been said to me many times - it all comes out of the same pocket, so I can understand why we are doing it.. But I'll be darned if I can accept this thing of the County coming in and leasing property from the School District and then telling us to jump in the lake and they will put: what they want: on the property. I just don't accept that and if it means not approving this to get some satisfaction out of one of them then I vote against it. And I am not • against the School District requesting it, it just irritates me that the County can come into this. City and take such an action. , And I know it is a State Law, Mr. Wakefield. Motion carried on roll call vote as follows-, AYES-, Councilmen Nichols, Chappell, Gillum,. Lloyd, Mayor Gleckman NOES-, None ABSENT-, None (Mr. Menard asked permission of the Mayor to clarify a point, he felt he had left the impression with the Council that the School District had never presented a precise plan on its facilities in this City, which � s not correct.) CHAIR DECLARED A RECESS. AT 8-, 55 P.M. COUNCIL RECONVENED AT 9-, 05 P.M. SLIGHT MODIFICATION NO. 52 LOCATION: 510 Dawley Avenue, east side LORIN Co RIMER 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; approved by City Council on June 24, 1968; reset for hearing by City • Council on July 22, 1968. Mayor Gleckman-, Madam City Clerk, this has been advertised? City Clerk: Mail notices were sent. - 14 - REG. C.C. 8-12-68 Page Fifteen SLIGHT MODIFICATION NO. 52 - Continued THIS IS THE TIME AND PLACE FOR THE PUBLIC HEARING ON SLIGHT MODIFICATION NO. 52 IN FAVOR Donald Jo Mahoney At the hearing where this came up for final Resolution 506 Gretta unfortunately I was away at the time of the hearing and West Covina upon reading the minutes of the hearing, certain things came up which,I believe I confused the Council on, and that is why this hearing was held over for tonight There was mention made that: I had previously obtained the same type of variance on.Gretta Avenue and nothing had been done on the property since the Council had approved. The fact of the matter is the Council approved with a final resolution a lot split on.Gr.et:ta and I received formal notice on December 28, 1967. Within a week I went to the Flood Control and advised I was ready to go ahead with the purchase of their surplus property and they advised they would draw up the papers. However., during the course of drawing up the papers the Flood Control came across a cloud on the title. Originally the Flood Control had condemned the land adjacent to the present wash between Valinda and up to the point where the dark spot appears on the map, that is the Water Company's property - and that whole section which encompasses Graybar, Dawley and Gretta Streets, was originally developed by Gladstone & Holmes. After acquiring this land from Gladstone & Holmes, somebody at the Flood Control failed to record the transaction and this had to be lifted before they granted me the property and it was a matter. of 90 days before they had prepared • the legal matter. They applied to the court and the court gave them a ruling on April 17th, I gave them my money for the property and they gold me it would be 30 days to prepare the final papers. (Explained the proceedings.) Final papers received on July 31.. So in essence I was held up 5 months by the Flood Control, however I: have prepared a parcel, map which.I am, prepared to file and also a preliminary map on the property which I am prepared to file. Another item that occurred at the time of the June 24th hearing -, I was asked if I owned the property and I believe I said I dial and perhaps that was a iaoor choice of words - we had entered into a sales agreement with the owner on April 24th and two weeks later we applied for the Slight Modification and if I may I would ask Mr. Wakefield to ascertain as to the certified escrow as to the date and to the fact there are no contingencies whatever in the escrow instructions. In other words this sale is not: contingent upon proper financing, obtaining approval of the zone modification or anything else. It is a straight bona fide sale. As far as we are concerned we have bought the property and I think the legal implications are that if for some reason somebody wanted to buy that property tonight they would have to approach us to consumrrate the sale The other item raised was that on Gretta Avenue I: had offered the lot for sale. That is not true. . I have my house for sale on Gretta and have since sold the house. I did indicate the extra lot was available to that purchaser and that one only, As far as the Slight Modification goes, as indicated in the testimony, this was approved by the Administrative Review Board. These Slight Modifications and Variances have been given in a number of circumstances in the • past. However, under section 922.2 the requirements before a Variance is granted should show that there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances 'not applicable to other proppTty in the area and we have shown that. Also the Variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right possessed by other properties, which we have shown. The granting of such Variance will not materially be detrimental to public welfare, etc. , and that we have shown and we have substantial evidence to back that up; and the granting of such a Variance will not adversely affect a comprehensive general. plan. When we started into this deal we originally talked to all City Departments - showbdAhem what we had and nobody in the professional staff of the City Planning Department, Building, Engineering, Public - 15 - REG. C.C. 8-12-68 Page Sixteen, SLIGHT MODIFICATION NO. 52 - Continued Works - they could find no objections to what we were doing, We received an un- animous approval :at the 1public hearing which the Administrative Review Board held. Some of the other Variances that have been granted in this area - Variance No. 50 five lots; (mentioned and explained several examples.) Now the lots we are talking about butt against the Wash to the north and the Suburban Water Company to the east. We have a certified FHA appraisal on Lot 24 made on.August 8 of this year. of $23, 400. The last sale that we know about in the area was a year ago on Gretta - the hoes-e has roughly 100' more than this house and it had an appraisal a year ago of $23,400 so when you consider the additional amount of space this house has compared to this and in the lapse of a year the normal °inflation' or appreciation of property would compensate for the difference in appraisals. This property today is worth more. (Mentioned several other homes for comparison with regard to size.) So it is inconceivable to me when it is said that this will have an adverse effect on the area , when the truth is we are prepared to put a larger home here with a larger lot area. It just doesn't make sense. . I would like to show a picture of the preliminary layout of the house we intend to put up. (Left pictures of house as evidence.) IN OPPOSITION Bernard Gallup First of all on behalf of myself and some other people that 518 Graybar ,Avenue have asked me to speak we wish to thank the Council for West Covina this opportunity. There are several points of objections, one is that of the aesthetic value of the area. Why there are smaller homes surrounding these homes but they were built quite sometime before this particular zoning situation was set up. The long list of Variances and Modifications . and all area breakdowns that Mr. Mahoney has presented only gives us proof that it is time to put a stop to the fracturing of these little lots around the City and making it look like E1 Monte, Baldwin Park, and some of the other places in the outlying areas. We know in this area this has not been, an in and out: situation. Some people have lived here 5 - 10 years and some are the original owners. . And they do not care to see this area breakdown, . Should a home be built of the size planned, which I understand is 1100 to 1200 sq. ft. , as compared to the minimum size home in the area which is 1400 sq. ft - which is far from comparable to the homes in the area. And should this home not become saleable and the developer rents the home we know what happens to homes when they are rented._ They get rundown and no one takes care of it and no one seems to care about it. This is one thing we hope the Council will take .into consideration. We have heard a lot about upgrading NTest Covina. . Let's {iot downgrade it, keep it at least at the level it i s and not run it down, or run'it'irito any Wash - much less Walnut Creek Wash. We know a lot of planning and money has been, spent in this area - it is your money, it is our money and we would like to see it put to proper use. If we want zoning ordinances let's keep them within range and let the people who own property with zoning we know has been established - Let's keep it that way. They say there is a financial gain to be made by the City of West Covina, how much will. West Covina gain from a home on a plot this size which will most likely have a parent or two, a child or two and the increased cost for services, protection, schooling, etc. I have petitions signed by 38 citizens and taxpayers and homeowners who object to this particular situation. They feel it is not a situation just in this one little area, and we have been shown tonight that is exactly the situation, that: it is all over West Covina, that it is being rundown and not being built up. It is our feeling that the West Covina City Council should deny the Slight Modification and review in depth future Variances and Slight Modifications in residential areas. Thank you, gentlemen. (Mr. Gallup left the petition with the City Attorney. Ed Samaha I have lived in this particular area since it: was first opened. 525 Gretta Avenue I bought the first two houses - one for myself and one for. West Covina my brother-in-law. 1W6e have kept our property up REG. C.C. 8-12-68 Page Seventeen SLIGHT MODIFICATION NO. 52 Continued "Across the street it is true and I live directly across the street from the 1100 square foot homes and those homes are kept up. But you put a home, like he wants to put, on our Street, where he doesn't even want to live, he sold his home and if that house isn't sold it is like Bernie said - we are in trouble. I pay my taxes. It was $230, a year when I first moved here, it is almost $6 00 a year now. I don't care, I like West Covina and want to stay here, but if something like this goes on, I can't. Thank you. Pearl M. Snyder The garage comes straight into this cul de sac and there 517 Dawley will not be room to park the car between the two driveways. West Covina Besides that all the part in blue down from the cul de sac would have to be just front yard and isn't something that the children could play in and they would be playing in: the street. (Used the map to explain.) If you look at the lot you will realize that it isn't big enough to make a decent home for a family. I object to the fact that we should have to lose, while he gains a profit from this. Stan Kozr-iski I just want to elaborate a little bit .on the previous remarks 51.1 Dawley made. I own the property adjoining the property under West Covina question. . I moved in about a year and nine months ago - retired from the Navy. I like what I found in West Covi na and .ghat is why I moved here. I like the square footage of my property. I have the flood control property available to me if I had the money to buy it, which I don't. Mr. Mahoney owns the property on Gretta that goes into the Wash, he is also asking for parcel A for this Slight Modification. . Now I have the first option to buy the Wash • property between me and the Wash. I don't have the capital. He would more than likely through his development plan have the capital and on second option could pick up this property and he could make it bigger .then. But I don't want and I did not buy my place to have this done. I want my name on record as objecting. I live on the west side of Dawley adjoining the property line where it says 87.33. Mrs. Pearl Snyder Incidentally the driveway to this house will be directly in 517 Dawley front of Stan Kozciski's house, He would be looking right West Covina straight at the cars parked in the driveway. REBUTTAL Donald J. Mahoney I take exception to Mr. Gallup's figure about the minimum of square footage of the tract being 1400 sq. feet. I do havea VA Appraisal on 506 Grett:a and it shows - there were actually three models in there - this happens to be one of the larger houses which is 1360 sq. ft. , and I have an FHA appraisal on 510 Lawley which shows 1290 sq., ft. So this story of the minimum square footage of the house being 1400 sq. ft. , is just not so. As far as the development goes we are talking about 1200 sq. ft. and this is not a shack. The truth of the matter is that anyone familiar with financing today realizes it is impossible to get adequate financing on any kind of home that is under 1200 sq. ft and that it must be that at least, with first class construction. As far as the children Jaying in the front grass - - • I: don't know how many children play in the front grass, I don't see too many.. This development would be in accord with all city regulations regarding setbacks in front, setbacks on sides, etc. We have seen many instances where similar type developments are put into areas and they certainly don't detract from the area. HEARING CLOSED, COUNCIL DISCUSSION. Councilman Lloyd:, I have some questions. Mr. Wakefield - have you checked over the list of people that have signed the petition? (List handed to Councilman Lloyd.) - 17 - -REG. Co Co 8-12-68 Page Eighteen SLIGHT MODIFICATION NO. 52 - Continued Councilman Gillum: Mr. Mahoney- I know we are not reviewing the original piece of property variance that you requested, but I do remember at: that time - and you correct me if I am wrong - but- at that time you were living in the house and you were buying the property next to it - is that correct? Mr. Mahoney: True. The only reason I sold the house was because it has a swimming pool and I have outgrown the swimming pool. I intend fully to stay in the area. Obviously I can't physically inhabit two pieces of property. Councilman Gillum: Well the reason I brought this up was I was going through the minutes of the past meetings and you have clarified to my satisfaction the statement that you did own both pieces of property. It was I that asked the question - if you owned Lot 27 and you made it very clear as to what happened. I think it is every man's privilege and right to develop property but sir, I will be honest with you -- I do not want to become part of speculation as far as property is concerned. To be honest with you also it appears to be speculation in property and I am sorry I cannot become a part of that. If you were developing, as you stated the first time, as your existing home,: I would go along with that. But it now appears that you are going down next to the Flood Control District and purchasing property for speculation. I am not saying this is right or wrong, we all make- a penny. But this is the part that bothers me. The first time I supported your request was in my own mind I thought you were buying property and building a home on. it • Mr Mahoney: True. This other development occurred after it was passed. The present owner of the Dawley property had his house on the market one and a half years ago and took it off the market and at the time when I went around and showed everybody in the 300' circle what plans I had for the property he indicated an interest and then shortly before we purchased the property he became interested in property down at the beach and decided he wanted to move there and that is how this occurred. Yes we do intend to develop the property, put up a house and sell it and make money on it. But I still intend to live in the area, because the area is conducive to the way we want to live, Councilman Gillum: Well as I said Mr.. Mahoney - the original request we granted you has nothing to do with this one, but I have to be honest with you and say that I voted for it the first time because I felt you were going to build something next to a house you intended to live in, but now it appears to me it is for speculation and I am not opposed to this but will not be any part of it. Councilman Lloyd: It would appear from these petitions that there are a great many people in the immediate area that very strongly dis- agree with your proposal here. While I realize it is not incumbent upon you to go around and make a sale to any of these people, nevertheless it would appear to me from the presentations made, that you have done your homework yet these people feel very strongly about it and in the reduction down to a 1200 sq. ft. house - it appears this is repugnant to these people. In reality we as a Council - and I am not taking a stand on the thing, as Mr. Gillum said - I have no objections whatever to your making a profit but that is not a function of this Council and as a businessman I would be less than honest if I didn't say that I admire your attempt to do so, nevertheless it seems to be really an unhappy situation to these people. Mr.. Mahoney: I might add in the matter of petitions.I can understand a reasonable amount of interests or concern of the people in the immediate area and naturally as a homeowner and also - 18 - REG. C.C. 8-12-68 Page Nineteen • 0 SLIGHT MODIFICATION NO. 52 - Continued in the business I am probably more concerned with upholding values in the area than anybody else, but I think we should recognize that there is a certain amount of agitation going on which is alright, but if it is a matter of signatures I can stand in front of my church or go down to my fraternal organization or my business organization and I can produce all the signatures of people living in District Area II, it would be no problem but the fact remains that there are 26 homes in this tract and when they come up with 32 or whatever it is obvious they are going down into the Service area there and those people are already living in homes that are smaller than the ones we intend to erect and the lots are smaller and we are talking about construction that is 15 years newer. Councilman Lloyd: Mr. Kozciscki ; you said you were in the Navy. How many homes have you lived in during your tenure? Mr. Kozciscki: In 24 years - it was mostly overseas. You don't buy property to live in while in service. I still own property in the desert that my wife purchased while I was away. Councilman Lloyd: Have you rented any homes while in service? Mr. Kozciscki: Yes —Government homes mostly for the last 18 years. Councilman Lloyd- . Would you say you were a good renter? Mr. Kozciscki: Yes. Councilman Lloyd: And would you say you are a good homeowner at this point? Mr.. Kozciscki: Right now, yes sir. Councilman Lloyd: The reason I am bringing this out - it was pointed out in the testimony that people who rent houses are less desirable tenants and I believe in my Naval career I rented something like 16 to 18 houses and I was always a good renter. Mr. Kozciscki: Well yes I was always a good renter, but I have lived alongside of people that I didn't care for. Councilman Nichols: Mr.. Mahoney I would like to clarify a matter somewhat explored so far. The property where you achieved the lot split and a variance on lot size, was that the property on Gretta ? Mr. Mahoney: That is the property on.Gretta and I have sold. Councilman Nichols: Do you own the vacant lot? Mr. Mahoney: Yes, this is the one I have had such trouble getting title on. Councilman Nichols: I understand, but then there was discussion in terms of sale arid..the matter was clouded somewhat in conversation and I wanted to clarify it. Mr. Mahoney: What I intend to do is ..move in on Dawley while construction on parcel A is going on. - 19 - REG. C.C. 8-12-68 Page Twenty r� LJ • SLIGHT MODIFICATION NO. 52 Continued Councilman Nichols- That: answers the question. It is my opinion that the people who have expressed a concern about this lot split are probably overly concerned. I think probably when developed in the final analysis it would not in fact depreciate that neighborhood or hurt it. However, I am not positive and in saying what I think I am risking their investment and not mine. I think that the burden of proof that would determine whether or not this type of development would hurt that neighborhood is upon the individual who decides to institute that kind of development. Mr. Mahoney, the Council has given you a variance on a lot and you own that lot and you state you will- be- building on that lot and you also state the property on Dawley is in escrow and is going to be consummated and you are in fact going to move into that property. In fact just a few moments ago you indicated you would be moving into that property and would be building on Gretta. You will be on property immediately adjacent to that Flood Control parcel and whether you consummated it immediately or not you will have first call on it. It seems to me that you do also owe to the people in your area a burden of proof that the kind of development you are referring to is one that will not harm the property. Now my position is strictly this - if I see a house go up on Gretta that is a credit to that street, then I would support the Slight Modification on Dawley, but I believe I would have to take the position that I want to see with my -eyes and believe with my heart that what is going to go up will not harm. So it would be my thinking - and really at no harm to you - that you ought to hold off on this matter on Dawley until you have demonstrated on-Gretta what precisely you propose to build. At least that would be my position and I would state for the record that I could not now approve the slight modification on Dawley, but I would in the future make such a commitment to do so if the development on the lot at Gretta confirmed my belief that it would not be harmful. That would be my position. Motion by Councilman. Chappell, seconded by Councilman Gillum, that the City Council disapprove Slight Modification. No. 52. Motion carried on roll call vote as follows: AYES: Councilmen Chappell, NOES. None ABSENT. None . ZONE CHANGE NO. 396 LAWRENCE CARSON Nichols, Gillum, Lloyd, Mayor Gleckman LOCATION. North side of Garvey Avenue between Willow and Puente Avenues. REQUEST for approval of a change of zone from R-3 (Medium Density Multiple Family) and R-A (Residential Agricultural) to C-2 (General Commercial) approved by Planning Commission Resolution No. 2063. Mayor Gleckman. Madam City Clerk, do you have the affidavits of publication City Clerk. I have the affidavit of publication and there were 38 notices mailed. Motion by Councilman Gillum, seconded by Councilman. Chappell, and carried, that Council receive and file. (Staff report presented verbally by Mr. Menard, Planning Director.) THIS IS THE TIME.AND PLACE FOR THE PUBLIC HEARING ON ZONE CHANGE NO. 396. IN FAVOR Lawrence E . Carson I am joint owner of the motel - Stan. Mar - Mrs. Carson is 2329 W. Garvey Avenue the other part of the team. This request for a zone change West Covina -20- REG. C.C. 8-12-68 Page Twenty-one is'preliminary to what we hope will result in submittal of a precise plan for expansion of the motel. As Mr. Menard has said, we have had the West Covina Blue Printers in this -location for the last four or five years. It is a very small addition to our motel but we have found that we are going to have to make some attempt to broaden our ba-se-of-income and with this in mind we would like to put our blueprint business out on the- freeway and advertise to better advantage, and would eventually like to add • -a few more units. There is a possibility that as time goes on and as we increase our number- of units that we may get into a Pancake House or something of that sort. This is what we have in mind and it all depends on being able to obtain financing and -it may be- something we have to wait a little while for, but we felt the zone change in conforming to the City requirements was the first step. Thank you. IN OPPOSITION None PUBLIC PORTION OF HEARING CLOSED. COUNCIL DISCUSSION. Councilman Gillum: A comment to Mr. Carson. If more people would come down and be as honest with us as you have been, we would not have as many problems. I appreciate your honesty as to what you would like to do. I think this whole area is changing and -eventually we will see an altogether different view of property on both sides of the freeway and I think this request for a zone change is a step in this direction and therefore I would support this request. Motion by Councilman Gillum, seconded by Councilman. Nichols, that City Council • approve Application No. 396 for zone change, as recommended by the Planning Commission. Motion carried on roll call vote as follows: AYES: Councilmen Chappell, Nichols, Gillum, Lloyd, Mayor Gleckman NOES: None ABSENT: None CHAIR. CALLED A RECESS AT 10 P.M. COUNCIL RECONVENED AT 10: 07 P.M. PRECISE PLAN NO. 545 RAY GILLILAN LOCATION: Northeasterly corner of Sunset and Francisquito Avenues in the R-A zone. REQUEST for approval of a precise plan of design to construct an apartment complex approved by Planning Commission Resolution. No. 2060. Called up by City Council on July 8, 1968. (Mr. Menard, Planning Director, read the Planning Commission Resolution. No. 2060. Verbally explained with the use of the displayed plot plan.) Mayor Gleckman: Madam City Clerk, do you have the affidavit of publication? City Clerk: Yes and 87 mailed notices were sent out. Motion by Councilman Gillum, seconded by Councilman Lloyd, and carried, that Council receive and file. THIS. IS THE TIME AND PLACE FOR THE PUBLIC HEARING ON PRECISE PLAN NO. 545 - 21 - 'REG. C.C. 8-12-68 Page Twenty-two PRECISE: PLAN NO. 545 - Continued IN FAVOR Ray Gillilan (Presented a picture view of the proposed building and 5640 Scotwood Drive explained) The Precise Plan is of such design that it Pa-losVerdes will enhance the neighborhood and we have more than complied with the Planning Commission requirements. P think you will find that we have used more footage for landscaping which excelled their -demand. It is an adult community project. Our project will be .siffilar to the Barranca Vista Apartments right off of San Bernardino Rd. . I am willing to answer any questions. THERE BEING NO FURTHER PUBLIC TESTIMONY, PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED. COUNCIL DISCUSSION. Councilman Chappell: We talked about.a block wall requirement across the back-.. a.nd he was talking about workingwi th the homeowners in the back. A.lot of those people do not have brick walls back there. We are requiring a brick wall regardless in the background? Mr. Menard: It would be required. The wooden fences can be replaced with concrete if individuals so desired. It was the opinion at the Planning Commission that if an agreement could not be reached there would still haveto be a concrete wall built right alongside. Councilman. Chappell: Matching the fences will be quite a problem though so it will look like a'fairly decent project. You have several • types of fences, types of brick. Mr. Menard: This is always perhaps a problem when a situation like this exists. The applicant indicated to the Planning Commission that utilization of the same or similar brick and raising it to a standard height would perhaps accomplish some of this. Councilman Chappell: You will be watching this? Mr. Menard. Yes - the inspectors in the field. Councilman Gillum: Could you tell me approximately the range that these apartments will rent for? Mr. Gillilan: $165 to $215. Councilman Nichols: What is the covered parking requirement in the R-3 ? Mr. Menard: Covered parking 1-1/4 spaces per unit; total off street parking is 1-3/4 spaces per unit and this does meet the requirements. (Explained.) Councilman Lloyd: Mr. Gillilan - have you been able to reconcile or have you • talked to any of the people living immediately adjacent? There was some concern expressed by the people living there that your apartment will command a view of the back area of their homes. I assume you have taken this into consideration so their privacy will be maintained or protected? Mr. Gillilan: Yes, actually we will be far enough away so they will have less vision in their backyards with this apartment project than a 2-story house would be. On Broadmoor Street where we are at the closest point to Mrs. Lens - I am sorry she couldn't be here - 22 - REG. C.C. 8-12-68 Page Twenty-three PRECISE PLAN NO. 545 - Continued tonight, but she was very much in favor of the project. She came down and talked to Mr. Menard and went over the whole project and after discussing it she recommended the project very highly. • Councilman Gillum. Do you have the financing? (Answer: Yes.) If we were to approve when would you start construction? Mr. Gillilan: As soon as I could. Councilman Gillum- Within 6 months? Mr. Gillilan: I certainly would hope so. It is my intention to go ahead as soon as possible. Motion by Councilman Gillum, seconded by Councilman Lloyd, that City Council. approve Precise Plan 545 - Ray Gillilan, subject to the conditions applied in Planning Commission Resolution No. 2060. Motion carried on roll call vote as follows- AYES- Councilmen Chappell, Nichols, Gillum, Lloyd, Mayor Gleckman NOES- None ABSENT- None RECREATION & PARKS COMMISSION • REVIEW ACTION OF TULY 2 3, 19 6 8 Motion by Councilman Nichols, seconded by Councilman Gillum, and carried, that City Council approve and file the minutes of the regular meeting of the Recreation and Parks Commission of July 23, 1968. REVIEW ACTION OF TULY 3 0, 19 6 8 Councilman Gillum: After reading the complete minutes regarding the Galster Park discussion, I am sorry gentlemen, but I am in dis- agreement with what I feel was thought by the Recreation and Park Commission and I would like to receive these but not approve. From what I see here it does not indicate the discussion or feelings by one or two of the Commissioners on the discussion on Galster Park. Mayor Gleckman: Can we hold the approval of this then until our next regular meeting and put it on the agenda then? Councilman Chappell- What would we accomplish doing that? Mayor Gleckman: We would be able to discuss where we are going and how . we are going to get there. Councilman Nichols: Mr. Mayor - a point of order. In that I brought this whole matter up before, I think we ought to explore a little further on the matter of approval of minutes. Mr. Wakefield, it is my understanding that when we receive and approve the minutes we are only approving those actions that the Recreation & Park Commission takes which is in their purview.. For instance, that if in the course of their actions they ,recommend that the Council do some particular thing that the approval of their minutes would not imply a Council commitment to take such action that they might recommend. That is my understand- ing of it. -23- REG. C.C. 8-12-68 Page Twenty-four REC. & PARK ACTION OF 7-30-68 Continued Mayor Gleckman. I agree with your understanding. Councilman Nichols: If my understanding is correct then in fact we would • approve the minutes without agreeing with the recommendations they might make. On the other hand if in fact we are making a commit pent to accept their recommendation by approving the minutes, then we should not. Mayor Gleckman: No they are only recommending and we are approving the recommendation. Mr. Wakefield-, You are in fact approving what they have recommended to you but the implementation of the recommendation still remains the prerogative of the Council. In other words suppose they recommend a special tax levy for the purpose of financing the improvements at Galster Park, you might approve that recommendation from the Recreation. & Park Commission but unless the Council formally imposes the tax it would never come to pass. Councilman Nichols-, The reason I raise the point I differentiate between the type of actions they take. The day by day action which normally does not come to the Council except as an approval of their action, and in that case we are confirming their action, but here I think when we approve the minutes we are not necessarily saying we approve of their recommendations, so I think it would be alright to approve them. • Mr. Wakefield: Yes that would be my interpretation of this action. Motion by Councilman Gillum, seconded by Councilman Lloyd, and carried, that Council accept and approve the July 30, 1968, special meeting minutes of the Recreation & Park Commission, and set the matter of Galster Park for, further discussion at the next regular meeting of the Council. HUMAN RELATIONS COMMISSION HUMAN RELATIONS COMMISSION —ANNUAL REPORT 1967-68 Motion by Councilman Gillum, seconded by Councilman Lloyd, and carried, that Council accept and file. GENERAL MATTERS ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None • WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS LETTER FROM RICK NORTON RE. UNITED NATIONS RESOLUTION Motion by Councilman Gillum, seconded by Councilman Lloyd, - .that City Council receive and file. Councilman Nichols: Mr. Mayor - the man has made a request - are we just going to ignore it, is that the intent of the motion? - 24 - REG. Co Ca 8-12-68 Page Twenty-five WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS (Item 1) - Continued Councilman Gillum: I am afraid it is. Mayor Gleckman: My only comment would be that for the last two years Mr.. Norton has made this proposal and if he is waiting for a formal invitation, I don't think we should grant him anything more than what we grant the rest of our citizens; and that he has been told two years in a row that we would be glad to discuss the matter when it is on the agenda and he has never shown up. Councilman Gillum- And one thing concerns me that there could be strong lines drawn on this subject, and I feel very strongly if we were to give this man the opportunity which he is welcome to have if he wants it but I think we would also be inclined to give the opposite view and I am afraid we would get into something in which the City does not belong in. Councilman Nichols: I agree on that, but I think when any citizen communicates with Council by letter he is entitled to a reply of some sort. How it would be handled, I do not know. I think a letter from the Mayor stating that he will be welcome to appear under Oral Communica- tions at anytime or appear at the time the matter comes up on the agenda. And he knows about when it will come up every year and he can confer with the staff to determine when it is coming up. Mayor Gleckman: You have a motion to receive and file and a second, and I • would only add to that that the Mayor will respond with a letter giving the indication of what was expressed here tonight. Councilman Gillum: I will accept that. Motion carried, all were in favor. PROTEST FROM UNITED POSTAGE SERVICE RE. LICENSING OF POSTAGE VENDING MACHINES Motion by Councilman Gillum, seconded by Councilman Chappell, and carried, that this item be referred to staff. LETTER FROM R. F . REDMOND RE. DRAINAGE Motion by Councilman. Gillum, seconded by Councilman. Chappell, dhd'carri.ed', that. this item be..referred.'to staff. CLARIFICATION 'OF BROWN ACT BILL Motion by Councilman Gillum, seconded by Councilman. Chappell, and carried, that this.le,tter from State Senator Clair,W. Burgen,er.-regarding;SB 592 be referred to the City Attorney. Motion carried on roll call vote as follows: AYES: Councilmen Chappell, NOES: None ABSTAIN: Councilman Nichols Gillum, Lloyd, Mayor Gleckman - 25 - -REG. C.C. 8-12-68 Page Twenty-six WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS - Continued STANDARD OIL COMPANY REQUEST TO CONDUCT "VISBROSEIS" SEISMIC SURVEY 'Mayor Gleckman: I would like to suggest that this item be referred to staff and the City Attorney, and for the City Attorney to investigate setting up an Ordinance to bring back to the Council for review, similar to 'what they have in Long Beach. So moved by Councilman. Gillum, seconded by Council- man Chappell, and carried. COUNTY ENGINEER. NOTICE RE. TRANSFER OF TERRITORY F ROM BALDWIN PARK SCHOOL DISTRICT TO WEST COVINA SCHOOL DISTRICT Motion by Councilman Nichols, seconded by Councilman Gillum, and carried, that this item be received and filed. SAN GABRIEL VALLEY WATER COMPANY NOTICE OF APPLICATION TO INCREASE RATES Motion by Councilman Gillum, seconded by Councilman Chappell, and carried, that this item be referred to staff. ORDER INSTITUTING INVESTIGATION FOR "RAILROAD GRADE SEPARATION • PRIORITIES" Motion by Councilman_ Gillum, seconded by Councilman Lloyd, and carried, that this item be received and filed. APPEAL.FROM TAR DEVELOPMENT COMPANY IN ZONE CHANGE NO. 395 FROM PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION OF AUGUST 7 1968 Mr. Wakefield: This was a matter in which the City Planning Commission tabled the request for the change of zone indefinitely. The applicant asked that the City Planning Commission either grant or deny the request so he would know where he stood with reference to the matter. At that time the question came up regarding the applicants right to appeal in the event the Planning Commission tabled the matter and it turned out ultimately the Planning Commission advised that they could not by tabling the matter, deprive the applicant of his right to appeal, that the tabling was in effect a denial for the change in zone, and he had a right to appeal simply because our Ordinance states this right, that the Planning Commission must decide the matter within 30 days. At this particular instance the Planning Commission decided the matter be tabled and instructed the staff to make a study in the area in question. In effect his right to appeal was protected. Mayor Gleckman: So all we can do is receive and file. If he would like to appeal the decision that is up to him. He sent us a letter and requested that the hearing be set for the first September meeting of Council, which I don't believe is possible. . If he would have appealed this at the time it took place when would his date be - the time it would have come before Council? I believe he is asking for something that we don't normally grant time -wise. City Clerk: No this would be alright. Councilman Nichols: I don't ever remember, perhaps there has been an instance, where the lapplicant tells the Council when to set a hearing. - 26 - REG. C.C. 8-12-68 Page Twenty-seven WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS - Continued (Item 9) Mayor Gleckman: Thank you. That is what I was waiting for. Councilman Nichols: I have a further question - Mr. Mayor-, Other than • unreasonable delay there is no encumbe.ncy.. on this Council to conform to a date set by an applicant? Mr. Wakefield: No sir. Council has control of its own agenda. Mayor Gleckman: All I am trying to get at is why is he asking for September when if he appealed before Council it could have been set for? City Clerk: It could come up on the 26th of August. 'Mayor Gleckman: So then he is asking for the September date and this would be handled through the City Clerk's office and not the Council. So will you advise him accordingly, Mrs. Preston. Motion by Councilman Chappell, seconded by Councilman Lloyd, and carried, that this item be received and filed. PETITION OF PROPERTY OWNERS REQUESTING CLOSING AND CUL-DE-SACING OF 1800 BLOCK ON EAST ECKERMAN AVENUE Motion by Councilman. Gillum, seconded by Councilman Chappell, that City Council refer this item to staff. Motion carried. CITY ATTORNEY ORDINANCE INTRODUCTION The City Attorney presented: "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF WEST COVINA, AMENDING CHAPTER 1 OF ARTICLE V OF THE WEST COVINA MUNICIPAL CODE, AND THEREBY ADOPTING BY REFERENCE THAT CERTAIN ORDINANCE OF THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, NUMBERED 7583, AS AMENDED TO JULY 1, 1968, AND KNOWN AS THE "HEALTH CODE.OF THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES. " Mayor Gleckman: Hearing no objections, waive further reading of the body of said Ordinance. Motion by Councilman Gillum, seconded by Councilman Lloyd, and carried, that Council introduce said Ordinance. ORDINANCE INTRODUCTION The City Attorney presented: "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF WEST COVINA, ADDING SECTION 4203 TO THE WEST COVINA MUNICIPAL. CODE RELATING TO THE DAMAGE OR DESTRUCTION OF CITY PARK PROPERTY AND OFFERING REWARDS FOR CERTAIN IN- FORMATION IN CONNECTION THEREWITH. " - 27 - REG. C.C. 8-12-68 Page Twenty-eight CITY ATTORNEY - Continued Mayor Gleckman: Hearing no objections, waive further reading of the body of said Ordinance. • Motion by Councilman Lloyd, seconded by Councilman. Gillum, and carried, that City Council introduce said Ordinance. ORDINANCE INTRODUCTION The City Attorney presented: "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF WEST COVINA, AMENDING THE WEST COVINA MUNICIPAL CODE SO AS TO REZONE CERTAIN PREMISES. (Zone Change No. 394 - Arturo Pizzo)" Mayor. Gleckman: Hearing no objections, waive further reading of the body of said Ordinance. Motion by Councilman Gillum, seconded by Councilman Lloyd, and carried, that Council introduce said Ordinance. ORDINANCE INTRODUCTION The. City Attorney presented: "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF WEST COVINA, AMENDING SUBPARAGRAPH (a) OF SECTION 4112 OF is THE WEST COVINA MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO THE SIZE OF DANCE FLOORS IN CABARETS." Mayor Gleckman: Hearing no objections, waive further reading of the body of said Ordinance. Motion by Councilman Gillum, seconded by Councilman Lloyd, and carried, that City Council introduce said Ordinance. (ITEM 18 DELETED.) ORDINANCE NO. 1046 The City Attorney presented: "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPTED OF THE CITY OF WEST COVINA, AMENDING THE WEST COVINA MUNICIPAL CODE SO AS TO REZONE PREMISES (Zone Change 392 - Ray Gillilan.) Mayor Gleckman: Hearing no objections, waive further reading of the body of said Ordinance. Motion by Councilman. Gillum, seconded by Councilman Lloyd, that City Council adopt said Ordinance. Motion carried on roll call vote as follows: AYES: Councilmen Chappell, Gillum, Lloyd, Mayor Gleckman NOES: None ABSTAIN: Councilman Nichols REG. C.C. - 8-12-68 Page Twenty-nine • • n �J CITY ATTORNEY Continued RESOLUTION NOo 3854 The City Attorney presented: "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPTED OF THE CITY OF WEST COVINA, AMENDING CONTRACT WITH PUBLIC EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT SYSTEM TO REMOVE EXCLUSION OF ELECTED OFFICIALS. " 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 RESOLUTION NO. 3855 The City Attorney presented: "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPTED OF THE CITY OF WEST COVINA, CONSENTING TO PROCEED WITH ANNEXATION NO.. 209. " 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, NOES: None ABSENT: None CITY MANAGER Nichols, Gillum, Lloyd, Mayor Gleckman STREET DEPARTMENT REORGANIZATION Motion by Councilman Gillum, seconded by Councilman Lloyd, that this report be reviewed and accepted by. Council. Councilman Nichols: Mr. Mayor - I am not all that sure that I want to vote for it, and I am not all that sure I want to vote against it. There may well be some aspects that I would like to discuss in greater detail. Mr.. Aiassa: In the Police and Fire Departments you adopt Station Rules and Regulations, this is not the same. It is a guide for Council and staff for the future arrangement and development of the Street Department. Mayor Gleckman: Now that we have that in the record - we can go ahead. Motion carried, all were in favor. TRAFFIC COMMITTEE MINUTES OF TULY 31, 1968 Mayor Gleckman: I would like to compliment the Traffic Committee or whoever suggested to them - on the midblock crosswalk for the Swimming Pool. I think it is pretty good foresight. ,-29- REG. C.C. 8-:12-68 Page Thirty L CITY MANAGER - Continued Motion by Councilman Nichols, seconded by Mayor Gleckman, and carried, that City Council receive and approve the minutes of the Traffic Committee dated July 31, 1968. SWIMMING POOL CONTRACT CHANGE ORDER Motion by Councilman. Gillum, seconded by Councilman Chappell, that City Council authorize the architect to issue change order implementing changes set forth in report dated August 9, 1968. Motion carried on roll call vote as follows: AYES: Councilmen Chappell, NOES: None ABSENT: None SCAG 1968-69 DUES OF $364.00 Nichols, Gillum, Lloyd, Mayor Gleckman Motion by Councilman Chappell, seconded by Councilman Lloyd, that City Council approve payment of SCAG 1968-69 dues of $364.00. Mayor Gleckman: I would, for the benefit of the two new Councilmen, like to hear from the two older Councilmen as to their objection of SCAG, if they do object. • Councilman Gillum: I have been opposed to SCAG before I was elected., and I stated that before I was elected. I think it is an unnecessary arm of the Government coming in here and eventually will dictate to this City on certain things that the City has power on at the present time. That is my personal opinion and that is why I am opposed to it and will continue to be opposed until someone can prove different. Councilman Chappell: I would like to ask a question. Councilman Gillum: I am not here to answer questions, we don't have enough time tonight.. If you would like to bring up at another meeting some night to :discuss the pros and cons of SCAG I would be happy too. Mayor Gleckman: Mr. Aiassa - will you in one of our future study meetings put.this on the agenda? (Agreed) I would like to discuss this with Councilman Gillum. I don't think he is that informed about SCAG, because the past President of SCAG and many members of SCAG including Congressman Wiggins and also Huston Flournoy have been very high in their praise of SCAG as a preventive measure of the Federal Government coming in on municipalities and this was basically the reasoning because most legislation that is being introduced is introduced for the cities in the east and really don't have an effect • on us - we don't need that - and SCAG is looking for the interests of local government, and that basically is what it was set up for. We will be glad to have a Study Session on this in order to better familiarize the entire Council, including myself. Councilman Lloyd: I move the question. Motion carried on roll call vote as follows: AYES: Councilmen Chappell, NOES: Councilmen- Nichols, ABSENT: None Lloyd, Mayor Gleckman Gillum - 31 - REG. C.C. 8-1-2-68 Page Thirty-two CITY MANAGER - SCAG - Continued Councilman, Nichols: The only comment I would make, it strikes me as being somewhat strange, when members of the Council took several valuable moments to ultimately decide to have a • study session, to become better informed about this organization in order that we might vote more wisely about it, and then the Council proceeds to vote in advance of having had the study session. It just seems a little strange that we have now all taken the position to commit ourselves to a year's additional membership to be followed by a study session. Mayor Gleckman: I think it would be more informative and for the record that if you do feel that strongly opposed to SCAG it was your duty and responsibility as a member of this Council to do and say whatever you could to better inform your colleagues in order for them to also vote in the manner in which you did, and not let them go just the way it is without your commenting as' to why you voted that way and not give us the benefit of your knowledge of SCAG. Councilman. Gillum: Mr. Mayor - do you really believe we could get into this tonight, where our new fellow Councilmen would have the time to digest and study both sides of SCAG or are we playing a game now - Mr. Gleckman? Mayor Gleckman: Not me, I am not playing any games. • Councilman. Nichols: I didn't raise the point in any sense of criticism. Councilman. Chappell: You just asked why we voted to pay this. We can withdraw that motion and authorize to pay afterwards. This is only the first notice. Mayor Gleckman: What is your pleasure here, gentlemen. Councilman Lloyd: I suggest we go on with the agenda. We had the vote. Councilman Gillum. I agree with Mr.. Lloyd. Councilman Nichols: I don't feel that strongly about it. I believe it would have been better to have waited and had our meeting and everybody become experts and then take our positions.. ATTORNEY STATEMENT FOR SERVICES RENDERED IN LASC NO. 910642 FOR $1,636.16 Motion by Councilman Gillum, seconded by Councilman Lloyd, that City Council approve Attorney fees for $1, 636. 16. Motion carried on roll call vote as follows: • AYES: Councilmen Chappell, Nichols, Gillum, Lloyd, Mayor Gleckman NOES: None ABSENT: None LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES ANNUAL CONFERENCE - OCTOBER 13 to 16 1968 Item deleted from agenda. - 32 - REG. C.C. 8-12-68 Page Thirty-three CITY MANAGER - Continued INSTITUTE ON LABOR RELATIONS SEPTEMBER 5 and 6 1968 Motion by Councilman Gillum, seconded by Councilman Nichols, that City Council authorize City Attorney and City Manager or staff to attend the Institute on Labor Relations on September 5 and 6, 1968; End further authorize expenses not to exceed $2,00 0 00. Motion carried on roll call vote as follows: AYES: Councilmen, Chappell, NOES- None ABSENT: None PAINT -UP, CLEAN-UP PROGRAM Nichols, Gillum, Lloyd, Mayor Gleckman Mayor Gleckman: In accordance with the report I would like to appoint as a Mayor's Committee - Don Casler and liaison to be Councilman Chappell, to work with staff in setting up dates and procedures So moved by Councilman Gillum, seconded by Council - man Lloyd, and carried AMEND MUNICIPAL CODE SECTION DEALING WITH DANCE FLOORS • Motion by Councilman Nichols, seconded by Councilman Gillum, and carried, that Council receive and file this report. POLICE MUTUAL AID WITH BALDWIN PARK Motion by Councilman Chappell, seconded by Councilman Gillum, and carried, that Council authorize City Manager to work with other cities todeVelop the program. ESTABLISH DATE FOR SWIMMING POOL DEDICATION Motion by Councilman Chappell, seconded by Councilman Gillum, that Council establish the date for the Swimming Pool Dedication of September 14, 1968. Councilman Gillum- Will the School Board have their plaque ready by that time ? Mr. Aiassa: Yes. Motion carried, all were in favor. • GREYHOUND RATE INCREASE APPLICATION Motion by Councilman Gillum, seconded by Mayor Gleckman, and carried, that this information item be received and filed, PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION DECISION 74481 -..SUBURBAN WATER, WEST COVINA-WALNUT WATER COMPANIES Motion by Councilman Gillum, seconded by Councilman Chappell, and carried, that Council receive and file this informational item - 33 - REG, C.C. 8-12-68 Page Thirty-four CITY MANAGER - Continued SAN GABRIEL VALLEY MUNICIPAL DATA SYSTEM PROGRESS REPORT Motion by Councilman Gillum, seconded by Councilman Chappell, and carried, that Council receive and file this information 0 item---- CITY MANAGER'S VACATION Motion by Councilman. Gillum, seconded by Councilman Lloyd, and carried, that Council allow the City Manager to take his vacation from August 16 to September 3, 1968, inclusive. CITY CLERK RESOLUTION OF COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS DECLARING AZUSA AVENUE IN CITY' NO LONGER A PART OF THE COUNTY SYSTEM OF HIGHWAYS Motion by Councilman. Nichols, seconded by Councilman Lloyd, and carried, that Council receive and file this informational item. CITY OF MONTEBELLO ( CORPORATE YARD DEDICATION CEREMONIES • Motion by Councilman Gillum, seconded by Councilman Lloyd, and carried, that Council receive and file. ABC APPLICATION OF SUNDIE AND CARMEN LOTITO, LOCATION. DBA SUSIE'S HOFBRAU, FOR ON -SALE BEER LICENSE 642 S. Sunset Avenue Councilman Gillum. Lotito - that name sounds familiar. That is the Wagon Wheel and I see the Police Department report. Councilman Nichols: This was probably the significant problem or matter of this type to come before the Council during the time I have been on Council. There is a long and detailed and involved history on this particular piece of property and the current applicants had a connection with the series of incidences that went on before. It seems to me it might be a good idea and helpful if the Councilmen that have not served on the Council might have the benefit of having access to some of that material before being asked to pass on this. Motion by Councilman Gillum, seconded by Councilman Nichols, that this item be held over to the next regular meeting of Council. COUNCIL DISCUSSION. SCouncilman Gillum. I withdraw my motion. Councilman Nichols. I withdraw my second. Motion by Councilman Gillum, seconded by Councilman Chappell, and carried, that Council instruct the Chief of Police to protest this application. - 34 - REG. C.C. 8-12-68 Page Thirty-five • MAYOR'S REPORTS Mayor Gleckman: First of all I need a volunteer to represent the City of West Covina at Roger Young Auditorium in the Blue Room on Friday, August 2 3 from 10 p.m. to 1 p . m . They are going to discuss. the Watson 1% property tax. If we don't have a Councilman that can attend, Mr. Aiassa, will you please send staff. (Agreed.) Mayor Gleckman. I also have a letter inviting the Council to the West Covina Sister City Foundation Mardi Gras at Universal City Studio on. August 25th - that will be West Covina Day. Please make note on your calendar if you are going to attend, and try and make it on August 25th. Mr. Aiassa - please poll Council and send a letter to Mrs. Janicek advising her how many. PROCLAMATION Mayor Gleckman: I have a letter from the National Society of the Sons of the American Revolution requesting the issuance of a proclamation designating the period of December 17 to December 23rd, 1968, as Constitution Week. I would so proclaim unless there is objection by Council? No objection. So proclaimed. Mayor Gleckman: I have an invitation, which I think you all have, for August 17th and that is the San Gabriel Valley Peace Officers Association. Those of you who can and will attend, Please notify Chief Sill or staff. Mayor Gleckman. I also have from the Independent Cities of Los Angeles of which we are a member, an invitation to attend a seminar on.Sept.ember 20-21-22 in Santa Barbara, subjects of discussion to be: City -County Relations; Labor Relations; and Racial Relations. I will need some money, maximum of $100. (Read Letter in full.) If there is anyone that would care to go in my place, I will be glad to step down but I think we should have representation Councilman, Nichols: If you desire to attend and represent Council I think it is appropriate. Mayor. Gleckman: If there is any other member of Council that would care to go please let me know. I will leave it open. Let me know within a week. Motion by Councilman Gillum that Council authorize the expenditure of not more than • $125.00 for the person attending the Independent Cities of Los Angeles seminar on September 20-21-22, 1968, at Santa Barbara. Seconded by Councilman Lloyd Motion carried on roll call vote as follows: AYES. Councilmen Chappell, Nichols, Gillum, Lloyd, Mayor Gleckman NOES. None ABSENT: None (Mayor Gleckman stated that this is only authorized if a member of Council goes. Staff not to be sent.) - 35 - REG. C.C. 8- 12-68 Page Thirty-six MAYOR'S REPORTS - Continued Mayor Gleckman: I have another matter involving an expenditure of money. The City of West Covina is being well represented in the "world series" Baseball Tournament. This is the first time we have had representation in the World Series and the past councils have • set as a precedent for the two Pony Leagues that previously went to the World Series in their League, the offer of giving them jackets for each member of the team, the manager.--,- the coach, and the business manager and President of the League. I would -like-to see the City Council, to further the publicity of West Covina, entertain ;the -thought of authotizing the maximum of $550. to be spent for jackets, lettermen type jackets, spelling out the West Covina entrants in the World Series for the team representing the City. Councilman Chappell: How much is that per jacket? Mayor. Gleckman: A little. less. than. $30.00 each. Councilman Nichols: Mr. Mayor - I can't support it because I think it is a bad precedent.. It is a noble cause and I would be willing to go out with you on the streets and try and raise the money...I.think it is very fine but for the City to establish a precedent of spending public monies to buy athletic jackets or whatever for groups of our young people in the community using the taxpayers money for that purpose, I just can't go that. I don't think,it is right. Councilman Lloyd: I think it is important for us on the Council to try to • put something of this nature into perspective. If all we were accomplishing is the putting of jackets on a group of youngsters, no matter how fine they may be, then of course I would have to agree this indeed would be a waste of taxpayers money. We have authorized in excess of $24, 000 to the Chamber of Commerce to spread the good name of the City of West Covina, and I think the authorization was more than justified and I hope we get good action out of it. I see this in the same light. I feel these youngsters have already carried the name of West Covina forward to where it has been heard in other parts of the land and I think this type of activity is good for the soul as it were for the City. I would be just as quick to support it if it were a Pop Warner-Pao_bal1 wh°lf--h I am veW supportive ra&. I would be supporting if it were one of our School fEk"' teams and I think in this case recognition of these youngsters is not so much as individuals or what they have accomplished individually but is in reality a recognition of the fact that they have given service to the City by presenting the name of West Covina and I strongly urge an eye vote. Mayor. Gleckman: I would add that it seems that we spend a lot of money in this City supporting various groups such as Sister City Foundation, and I think that we are not: supporting a baseball team per se. We are supporting an activity of some boys who live and go to school in this community, who are spreading the good will all over the country as well as Canada and Hawaiiand in fact are doing more to promote the City of West Covina than many of the individuals that we spend money for. And I was the one that made the request and I would make it again for the $200. spent to send the kids to Oregon representing the City of West Covina in their musicale. I think these are the areas in which we could expend the money to better help promote this community and what we offer to kids in this land in our community. So I .disagree., although I do agree with Councilman Nichols, if the perspective was to buy jackets for the kids for playing baseball. But that is not the idea, it is for promoting the City of West Covina. Councilman Gillum: For the past 2 years I have been participating on the Mobil Economy Run cross country and I have had Council approve in the neighborhood of $300 for promotional on this Economy run. I think this request falls into the same category as I felt the request to Council on the Mobil Economy Run -it 6s to promote the City of West Covina REG. C.C. 8-12-68 Page Thirty-seven, MAYOR'S REPORTS - Continued and spread the name of the City across the country, and I also would urge a "yes" vote. • Councilman Nichols: Gentlemen - you have the votes to start with, there was no point in saying anything. It was rather apparent that you felt this way and we are not going to debate the issue any longer. I don't feel. all that strongly about it. But the day will come when I ,am going to come before you and ask for some dollars and there are going to be additional groups starting to come, I have seen it in the past year, and we as a Council will reach the point of having to face this area of City promotional, as to who we are and who we are not going to give to,.. . Mayor Gleckman: I am ready to face that responsibility at anytime and I think it is time that we do spend the money to promote the goodness of West Covina instead of waiting for some bad press Motion by Councilman Lloyd that Council approve $540.00 be appropriated from city funds for the purchase of appropriately sized and monogramed jackets for the West Covina Mustang Colt Baseball Team representing the City of West Covina in the Wor.ld.Series of Baseball., • Secorfded� by. Councilman Gillum, Motion carried on roll call vote as follows: AYES: Councilmen Chappell, NOES: Councilman Nichols ABSENT: None RESOLUTION NO, 3856 ADOPTED Gillum, Lloyd, Mayor Gleckman The City Clerk presented: "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF WEST COVINA, COMMENDING AL.TOTTER FOR HIS SERVICES TO THE CITY. " 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, NOES: None ABSENT: NOne COUNCIL COMMITTEE REPORTS Nichols, Gillum, Lloyd, Mayor Gleckman Councilman Nichols: I notice we have received a report on the assessed valuation for the City - the July 1968 report. I would like to know how this compares with our budget estimates of the assessed valuation. Are we low on the budget? Mr,. Aiassa: I am making a full report for your August 26, 1968 meeting. Councilman Gillum: This past week I had 4 or 5 calls from people who participated in our Recreation & Park programs - Fee and Charge. Has this Council in the past set: the policy that - 37 - REG. C.C. 8-12-68 Page Thirty7:.eight the -Recreation & Park people cannot accept personal checks. There seems to be some concern in this regard. Mt.. Aiassa In fairness to the Recreation & Park - we have had so many of these checks returned... . • Councilman Gillum; 12 checks have been returned because of insufficient funds. With Council°s permission I would like to have a report back from Recreation & Park why we cannot accept checks from our citizens for programs they participate in within the City. i 0 Councilman Lloyd: I think that perhaps if there is unanimous opinion on the part of the Council in support of Councilman's remarks that we would not need a report on it, but let the City staff work it out. Mayor Gleckman: Councilman Gillum: Mayor Gleckman: DEMANDS Councilman. Gillum you have heard his remarks - do you still request the report? Yes - I would like a report back from the Recreation & Park Department - I have reasons for asking for it. A Councilman has the prerogative of asking for a report. Mr. Aia s sa , will you handle that please, Motion by Councilman Gillum, seconded by Councilman Chappell, that City Council approve demands totalling $445,486.30 as listed on demand sheets C589 and C593 and payroll reimbursement sheets. Motion carried on roll call as follows: AYES. Councilmen Chappell, Nichols, Gillum, Lloyd, Mayor Gleckman NOES: None ABSENT-. None Motion by Councilman Chappell, seconded by Councilman Lloyd, and carried, that there being no further business, meeting adjourn at 11 p.m. ATTEST - City Clerk APPROVED - MAYOR __Te�/ �,rlI