Loading...
03-17-1969 - Regular Meeting - MinutesMINUTES OF THE ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL CITY OF WEST COVINA, CALIFORNIA MARCH 17, 1969. The adjourned regular meeting of the City Council was called to order by Mayor Leonard S. Gleckman at 7:35 p.m., at the Edgewood High School. The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Councilman Gillum. ROLL CALL Present: Mayor Gleckman; Councilmen Chappell, Nichols, Gillum, Lloyd. Also Present: George Aiassa, City Manager George Wakefield, City Attorney Lela Preston, City'Clerk George Zimmerman, Ass't. City Engineer Owen Menard, Planning Director Ken Winter, Planning Associate M. Bedeaux, Ass't. Planning Director Chief Allen Sill ' Ray Windsor, Administrative Assistant At 7:37 p.m., Council adjourned to an Executive Session called by Mayor Gleckman for the consideration of litigation matters. Council reconvened at 7:45 p.m., and immediately recessed to the appointed hour of the Public Hearing. Council reconvened at 8 p.m. PUBLIC HEARING MERCED/ORANGE AVENUE PLAN - CITY INITIATED An attempt to analyze the existing land use and zoning pattern and make recommendations regarding the future patterns of this area bounded by the San Bernardino Freeway, Merced and Orange Avenue. Recommended by Planning Commission Resolution No. 2128. At the request of the.Mayor, the Planning Director - Mr. Menard read Planning Commission Resolution No. 2128 including the addendum incorporated as part of the Resolution. Mayor Gleckman: Before calling for testimony, let me state again that this City Council has not adopted any of this plan. This is the first time in its official capacity that we are hearing.this plan and taking testimony. (Explained procedure of Hearing.) PUBLIC TESTIMONY (Summarized) Mrs. Kathyrn Ferree I have lived at this one address for 15 years. 1125 South Willow Avenue I have a deep concern with the problems of the West Covina City of West Covina. I would like to go on record in favor_ of the proposal being consider- ed tonight. The people against do not realize the problems we have with the oversized lots, etc. The Freeway is too close for good R-1 properties, the area is substandard now. Houses are about 30 years old and probably not up to city standards today. Water has been a big problem in the area. - l - ADJ. C-.C. - 3/17/69 MERCED/ORANGE AVENUE PLAN - Continued Page Two We do not have adequate pressure; streets in need of repair, pavement very weak; when it rains it floods in yards; houses have termites and we cannot get rid of them. I further understand that properties in the area now can have two story homes, so I can't see why there is any objection to two story apartments. As pointed out at previous meetings, this plan is a guideline and everyone should bear this in mind. It is flexible. Until this plan came out and I investigated the Industrial. Park I didn't know an industrial area could be so attractive. I can truthfully say I wouldn't mind living next door to it, it is beautiful and well kept. Mr. Mayor, I talked with a number of the property owners in our area and over half have made a token gift to prove they are behind the City in every way. Some could not donate for some reason or other but they are for the proposal also. I know $130. doesn't sound like very much money, but we do not live in the Country Club area and a few dollars from each of us is not always easy to come by. We know there has to be appraisals, etc., and we know it will cost a lot more than $130. but we hope this token gift will be of help and we wanted to let you know your concern for us is appreciated. (Presented the list of names and the token gift to the City Attorney, and he gave it to the City Clerk. Mayor Gleckman thanked the donors.) Albert M. Gilmore Over a period of years you know I have been 835 South Orange urging you to do something about this area,. West Covina but my objections to this plan are three in number. 1: In a planned group it tends to set things differently than the property owners actually will do in the future. And particularly this plan of encircling the I-P with apart- ments and cul de sacing. Willow Avenue is a street that runs from the •Freeway to Valley Boulevard and here we are proposing cul de sacing it off. 2: I think it would be much wiser in carrying out the plan to have the Industrial Park extend all the way to Merced. If you are worried about area reduced in R-3, there is a corner -Merced and Willow - adjacent to apartment zoning that should probably be zoned that way. I would suggest a careful study there and that the triangle area be C-2. That would allow West Covina to have a development that will probably' continue across the Freeway to Baldwin Park's open area which is planned as C-2. Baldwin Park owns the point between Merced and Garvey and it has been zoned C-2 for many years. I think we should have an area in there of this extent and that it would be profitable both for the city and the residents. The third point is that you have shown a number of 0-P zones which are actually extensions of hospitals. One where the convalescent hospital is and the other the West Covina Hospital owns. At the present time it is zoned C-2 and R-3 and I see no reason for including that as far as the Orange/Merced plan is concerned because it is really taken care of already. The third corner is Orange and Garvey- 0-P. The only catch there is it is divided into four separate owners and you are setting up certain ordinances which really prevents the development that way. Among other things you require the razing of existing structures, so in fact the value of anything shown 0-P here will actually be less than it is now as residential. With those three things; first - the removal of the interfaces; second - the consideration of C-2 at the point of Merced.and Garvey; and third - I think you should give consideration to •the fact that Orange Avenue now has the front part of the hospital area as a parking lot but is actually zoned commercial. I think you should consider where you have 0-P now that a much better development would be commercial zoning. Charles Shaw I have been asked to speak on behalf of some 1824 Leeland Street 350 people protesting the plan. All live within West Covina the area with the exception of a few living adjacent to the Merced/Orange Avenue area. These citizens feel they have a better plan and are only voicing objection to the plan submitted by the Planning Commission on September 1968. We definite are not against some type of plan, we feel a plan 2 - 25, ADJ. C.C. 3-17-69 Page Three MERCER/ORANGE AVENUE PLAN - Continued is necessary for the purpose of some type of control.. Also we realize this is only a plan and not necessarily a zoning change. Interestingly enough, if we understand the City's objectives in this area, I think we are all after the same results - - better usage of land and the cleaning "'•up of some of the appearances along the Freeway and adjacent to Merced Avenue. Basically the objections raised refer to several points that we feel are not necessarily good planning and would place a hardship on many residents in the planned area. The proposed R-3 zone we feel is too. big, it expands completely across the whole area - taking in. about 40 homes. The Planning Department shows R-3 backing up to R-1 and suggests this type of planning would be a buffer zone from I-P. The majority of the residents in the area seem.to desire greater protection from the R-3 than. the I-P. Some of our strongest opposition to'th.e plan was from those living adjacent to Orange Avenue - why the R.-3 on. Orange Avenue? As we mentioned before this actually contains 23 acres of R-3 property which will eventually be rezoned, according to the plan, for multiple dwellings at about 25 units per acre or a total'of 650 units. At present there are 70 homes occupying this area. With that 650 increase in units we would expect to see an increase in that section alone of ten times it is presently. Possibly more than 800 automobiles in that one section. The Planning Department suggested the problems in traffic might be solved by increasing and widening of streets. By widening certain streets such as Garvey and Sunset doesn't necessarily let excessive traffic flow through. (Pointed out areas on map) We feel it would cause a bottleneck as far as traffic is concerned. This has been discussed by the citizens and with that abnormal. traffic in. there around R-1 it is a known. fact that R-1 property does depress in. value by abnormal traffic. • We have three hundred signatures on this petition. and this does show a sincere desire for a plan but not for this plan. I would like to show the Council an alternate plan.. l: The R-3 be reduced in size and be located in a more localized area rather than expanding completely across the entire area. Also we would support the proposed I-P, 0-P and S-C zoning providing the boundaries of I-P would border on Sunkist, Garvey and northward adjacent to the Freeway. In both plans the I-P is essentially thesame size, approximately 26 acres. The reason for the boundary change we feel it borders on streets that would make for good planning and allows for the extension of the I-P area, and at the same time it leaves a rather accessible area and more localized in its position for a possible R-3 zoning. I would ask. the Council for its consideration, of this plan and that it is our hope that you would request the Planning Department to consider the remaining area for future study if this particular idea might be adopted and we would like to - as a committee of citizens - work with the Planning Department in formulating a more acceptable plan. In conclusion I would read from the last page of the proposed plan. itself "The problems within the Orange/Merced area are complex and the approaches to the solution are many. We can be assured the area will not reach its high potential if the City and property owners do not work hand in hand in, the development of this area." We - agree wholeheartedly and would like the opportunity to work with the planners in that area. Nick Dodge I would like to praise the Planning Department 928 Van Horn for the assistance they gave Mr. Shaw and West Covina myself in. answering our questions. At the Planning Commission hearing we were present but did not become too concerned about the plan only because we had seen this particular triangle and not how it would affect the areas around it. The area on the 1990 plan shows there is R-3 all along Orange from Cameron to Merced and on the lefthand side of the map - 3 - ADJ. C.C. 3-17-.69 MERCER/ORANGE PLAN - Continued Page Four it shows the orange which is really not 0-P presently. We became con- cerned because it would place the R-1 area as a long slim strip between two major R-3 areas. As a property owner with the R-3 on the back of my property and R-3 across the street I became considerably concerned. WFurther on in looking at the 1990 plan we discovered there is a proposed chool to be placed at the bottom lefthand corner. This is a relocation of Sunset School and will only take place if the R-3 becomes an actuality. Also noted there are 57 parcels of land which back onto I-P or R-3. 40 on R-3. I contacted Mr. & Mrs. Gold, they have property that backs on to the large multiple dwellings on Sunset and they related to me some of their experiences and the experiences of their neighbors in attempting to sell their properties. (Related). I would like to read a Resolution to the City Council that we are offering here strictly as a guideline. "WHEREAS: The citizens residing in the area of the Merced -Orange Avenue plan agree that a plan is necessary for future development of the area. WHEREAS: These citizens realize and agree that there is an immediate need to establish a plan which would allow a more efficient use of the property encompassed by Garvey Avenue, Mossberg Avenue extended to Sunkist and Sunkist from Mossberg extension to Garvey. WHEREAS: These citizens wish to halt the natural deterioration taking place in the older section and agriculturally zoned areas. THEREFORE: We urge the West Covina City Council to adopt the F-C and the 0-P as recommended by the Planning Commission (excluding the four lots on the corner of Garvey and Orange Avenue) and include the recommended I-P, provided the I-P boundaries would be the • existing streets of Garvey, Sunkist and Mossberg extended to Sun- kist. We further urge the West Covina City Council to stipulate that the remaining property owners of the Merced -Orange Avenue Plan be given the opportunity to work with the Planning Department to develop a more equitable plan. (Signed: Citizens for a Better Plan.)" Mr. Leonard A question - why R-3 on Orange Avenue? I 2014 E. Dangrove own 4 properties in the area and on one piece West Covina I pay close to $800. in taxes a year. The house will not rent for enough to keep up the expenses on any of the four pieces of property in the area. You can't afford to fix it up because there isn't enough income to warrant it. We purchased the land originally in order to keep horses and cattle on the large lots and we were able to keep cattle there at one time. But now that has been changed. Recently I saw the area from a plane and in looking down at the old barns, weeds, broken fences, etc. etc., I realize it is necessary for a change on Orange Avenue. Harvey Parker I came prepared to listen and not speak, but 1204 South Meeker I happen to live directly across from the West Covina proposed R-3 along Merced. I've lived here since 1953 and I am proud of my home. I have improved my property and my neighbors have done likewise. I can only see the area going down in value across Merced from R-3 zoning. I wouldn't have upgraded my property if I didn't want to continue living there, and �eeing the Tonka Ti.ki down the way I can honestly say I don't want to see anymore of these in our area. As stated our water pressure is l.ow'but I think Council could bring a little pressure on the Suburban Water, to increase the pressure of water or increase the size of the mains.. I feel as a property owner, regarding the property across the way, I commend the Planning Commission for coming up with plans and I do believe something should be done. But I also believe people as their property values decrease are going to start upgrading their property. Personally I am opposed to the proposal at the present time., but I applaud the Council and Commission for coming up with plans for upgrading. I am not anti -planning but just against the present plan. I hope the Council will direct the Planning Department and Planning Commission to come up with a more equitable solution. - 4 - ADJ. C.C. 3-17-69 Page Five MERCED/ORANGE PLAN - Continued Mr-s. Donny I wish to comment that I am very much opposed 1246 South Meeker to the high density of the apartment zoning West Covina as proposed. We people who live in the 1200 and 1300 blocks on South Meeker and South unkist ran into a little controversy over this before with people who ad speculative ideas. Everyone in that area have homes in the range of $25,000 to $35,000 by adding swimming pools, etc. The only undesir- able homes in the immediate area are those that have been neglected, close to the freeway because the people have held them for speculative reasons, or are under the impression some outside investor is going to come in and give them a huge sum of money for the property, which everybody knows cannot be done if they have to go in and remove trees, homes, etc., before building - - these people cannot come out with enough money to replace their homes in the West Covina area or any other area. There are only a few problem homes in the area and ,I think instead of tearing down a lot of homes, valuable residential homes, the citizens with disreputable homes should be made to upgrade their homes, and With few exceptions, these homes are owned by nonresidents and I don't think this is fair to the rest of the people in the area. And since the General Plan shows, the idea of pushing the plan on through and including some of the area that is unincorporated, it leaves only one thing left and if Merced is in the R-3 zoning there is no reason spot zoning can't be granted to those people that own several pieces of property that they have left rundown and have no desire to take care.of. The rest of us who have nice homes and have taken care of them we would have our homes and our residential values would go up on our homes, and 'no doubt our taxes would also go up. Dick Chase I purchased my home 3 years ago and in the W_806 Leewood Avenue previous 3 years prior I had the misfortune west Covina, California of living in two complex houses in town. My only recommendation would be that the West Covina Police blotter be checked on the number of calls the police have to make on these large apartment house complexes. Laura Smith Lived here since 1948; purchased the house 2232 W. Mossberg because .we wanted a large place to raise a West Covina family. My family is now gone and I can't get a rezoning on the lot or do.a nothing with it, so I am in favor of the plan to help us in the area. Mrs. Dauble Moved here 3 years ago; took me 10 years to 1332 South Meeker find the home we .wanted.. I like the trees West Covina and the large lot and I don't want apartments around me. And if we have the apartment houses where are these youngsters going to go to school'? Schools are crowded now - and who is going to pay for the additional taxes? Mrs. Sc;ihrigmarri Lived here for 22 years and I would like 2219 W. Mossberg go on record that I concur with Mrs.. Brea West Covina Mrs. Smith. Something has to be done. I this done 0help Mr. 1029 West but like but wit just appreciate the feelings of the people but particular area, adjacent to the freeway, something has to be and the suggestion that Suburban Water might help - they would us because we are in Baldwin Park water area. to and in not h - 5 - ADJ. C.C. 3-17-69 Page Six MERCED/ORANGE PLAN - Continued Alice Miller I think the plan presented is a very nice 1103 South Willow plan, especially the I-P. All the homes are West Covina run down in that area. I purchased in 1954 and put in $5,000 trying to keep the property up, but the area is going down. The Freeway is going to be widened and will bring my property closer to the Freeway. I think the whole zoning as planned is nice. Mrs. J. Walker I am tired of trying to keep the yard up and 1018 South Sunkist mowing the lawn. I am alone and have no use West Covina for a back yard-. (Discussed forthcoming expected tax increases) I am in favor of changing the zoning as proposed. Glen Tevault I have listened to the various arguments 1215 South Sunkist and the pros and cons and it seems that those oJest Covina along Willow are in favor and possibly something can be done for them. In my opinion the plan has taken in too large of an area. I know before any decisions are made, you will view the area and if you do you will see that the homes on Sunkist - Orange and in there are pretty well kept up. I am sure this will not be the case if R-3 is put into this area. I think some type of buffer zone is necessary for the I-P area but I' question whether R-3 is the proper buffer zone and whether it has to be that large of a buffer zone. I understand these are supposed to be small. apartment units and in other areas where this has been the restriction it has not deterred children from coming into the area. It has only created an undesirable situation where children are put in cramped • areas, etc., problems you are trying to eliminate. These people who are sick and tired of these large lots - well I don't understand how these lots grew since they bought them. And they have the option to sell the property if they don't like what they have, whereas if you change zoning conditions you are imposing something over and above what the people had when they purchased their property. I am not in this area incidentally, I am on the otherside of Merced. I bought into a community at that time called "City of Beautiful Homes" and if we come up with a plan that makes it clear once and for all that these people are not going to materially benefit by speculating on these properties, maybe it will create an incentive for them to develop the property or get out. That is the reason, as far as I am concerned, that a lot of these homes have deteriorated. Roy Husky I would like to answer this man's question regard- 1112 Willow ing the lots changing in size. It is the change West Covina in the usage of the land. Many years ago we were allowed to do many things with the large lots which we are restricted of doing now. But regardless of that, I would like to call attention to everyone if they would just take the time to look at their own City and then some of the surrounding cities where they have not followed a definite plan and see what has transpired. I don't know if this is the right plan or not, but I do know we should have some plan and then tick with it. (Spoke of the large lots, cost of bringing up to standard, etc.) I do know we will have to adopt a plan or • we will have chaos. Mrs. George Deacon I own one of these terrible pieces of rundown 916 Meeker Avenue property on the Freeway. The thing the man West Covina refused to admit was that the lots got bigger as we got older. We have been out here 28 years and we did not buy to speculate. We bought it as a home and we took care of the property until it put both of us in the hospital. Right now because of the Freeway my husband is in the hospital with pnemonia because of the fumes and the noises. You have to have a plan - I agree. I can't understand why the cul de sacing at the end of the streets. I think they should be opened up - it would provide more protection in case - 6 - ADJ. C.C. 3-17-69 Page Seven MERCED/ORANGE PLAN - Continued fire and I don't believe being left open would cause that: much more traffic. Also people are looking at the plan and thinking this is going to happen tonight or tomorrow. And it can't happen that way. Many people are not interested in selling or in any type of developing at this time - but they don't realize they are going to grow old and they will not be able to take care of it either. I am very sorry I live in a "white trash" area. Mrs. 1Marsh all I appreciate the remarks by the woman who 1333 South Meeker moved here in 1948 because she wanted a West Covina large lot. We have 4 sons. We lived in areas where there have been apartments near us and granted it says "adults only" but all too soon they don't fill up and they take in anyone and soon the schools are overcrowded. I hope the Planning Commission will really'consider everything they have heard tonight because this proposed plan is just not fair. A. J. Graves I am in favor of this plan. I tried to keep I own property on Willow my property up the best I can, but it is gradually running down and I can't get enough rent out of it to pay the taxes and keep it'up. Each year the taxes go up and you can't raise the rent any higher. Sooner or later the water pipes are going to give out. They are closing up now with" rust and you can't get any pressure out of them" at ;all. Something certainly has to be done on Willow Avenue and Mossberg Avenue, they are in very, very bad shape. Mr. Birch Will it be possible to ask a couple of 1245 South Meeker questions? (Mayor Gleckman advised he • West Covina could ask questions, but there would be no answers until the period of Council Discussion.) In general I approve of the plan. One thing I would like to know - why this area first? I understand there is a 5 to 10 year plan, a 10 to 20 so why this area first? And when,- along with that, is there a company ready to develop immediately? I get the impression rightly or wrongly that there is a company ready to develop immediately. In fact I believe there is a hearing coming up on this. If this is true is this what is influencing this development to go in immediately? I am not affected at this time by this particular development, I live about a block south of the edge of it. In the General Plan for the future if I am still where I am now I may not have to tell my kids to go out and play on the freeway, I may be on it. One other thing - I am concerned about the schooling. If this goes into effect in the next 5 to-10 years this will affect me, so I am concerned that we have adequate schooling on the west end of the City. Lynda Westergard I.am with the Citizens for a Better Plan and 1822 W. Mossberg we would like to reiterate that no one so West Covina far as we know is opposed to the re- development of the I-P area. It seems that most of the unfavorable comments are from the people that live in this area (pointed out on map). I don't understand why these people have to come up and make so much more noise. We are only opposed to the R-3 zoning. • Mrs. Marker Resided here 16 years. If this plan goes 850 Van Horn thru there are those of us that will still be West Covina left with a piece of property 220'deep and we are just about ready to divide it in half and let the weeds grow. Mr. Williams Mr. Shaw's plan I think has great possibili- 1901 Meeker ties because it helps to keep out the R-3 zone West Covina from the back area of Van Horn. I think if R-3 must go in it should not be allowed to pass Sunkist. This would allow us the proper buffer that we need since -7- ADJ. C.C. 3-17-.69 Page Eight MERCED/ORANGE PLAN - Continued most of the homes in that area are valued at $25,000 and upwards. And they are the newer homes as well and this is the greatest investment by the homeowners in the.area and .we should be given greater protection against the R-3 because that seems to be the bigger threat in our minds because of the density and the problems that go with it. •We certainly need to think more about the people along the R-1 as proposed and protect them from the R-3. If some 600 units are going in I believe on the average they figure something like 1.2 children per apartment unit and this means before 1990 we are going to need a new school and by the time the school is going to be built I will have my property paid for, so this is not too much to'look forward too. I can see the reason for the blighted area needing upgrading but I can't see why the newer areas should have to .suffer -because of the blighted area. So I think the Council should come up with another plan for the blighted area but protect us from the R-3 zone because that is our biggest threat. THE CHAIR DECLARED A RECESS AT 9 P.M. COUNCIL RECONVENED AT 9:15 P.M. Mr. Ray Trego There has been talk about the $40,000'houses, 1133 South Willow well mine is $17,000 assessed valuation and West Covina when I first bought in 1952 the idea was to move my stock from Baldwin Park - chickens, rabbits, etc., Soon that changed from R-lA to R-1 so that knocked out the livestock. When you have no livestock you have no reason for a big lot, it only means working on Saturday and Sunday to keep the lawn mowed. And on top of that my wife is sick now and she can't take care of it anymore. ' • Mike DeGarde I just got out of the service and served my 201 W. Garvey Apt. 25 time in Vietnam. I previously went to West,'Covina Edgewood High and lived in West Covina for 10 years. I am proud of the highschool and the City. I came back and married and my wife is expecting and we want to buy a home. We live in an apartment now and I hear all the arguments, etc. I want to move into West Covina and the area I want to move in is" on Sunkist. I have picked out a house but I don't want to buy if there are going to be apartments there. I want a big lot. I am young and healthy and I would like to have some of the lots these people don't want. - There are a lot of guys like myself who are ready to take on a bigger place. We are tired of being cooped up in apartments, we like large lots. So forget the R-3, it is a terrible thing. Gary Code That has been my home address i:since 1942. 1019 South Sunkist I grew up in West Covina, went through West Covina school from kindergarten to 8th grade; graduated with highest honors from West Covina High and went to the University of California at Berkley. I have a few points I would like to make. I raise this question - I believe that if Sunkist Village is rezoned to R-3 it will fall under the Rumford Rair Housing Act, so I raise this question to those of you who live in that area. I don't believe any of you on the Council live there. A second question, I raise. In general, rezoning to R-3 does not improve the neighborhood. The neighborhood deteriorates. I read throuL-h -the •Merced/Orange plan and I saw a picture in there of the Electro�,.:i Optical Corporation which is located in Pasadena - I do not think this proposed Industrial Park will be suddessful in getting a firm like Electro Optical to locate there. I rather suspect that we will get firms such as located along Irwindale Avenue in Irwindale. These types of firms generally cause offensiveness. Smoke, trash and noise. (Pointed out the noise factor already in the area; also that he had attended schooling in connection with City Regional Planning and knew of what he spoke.) Raised a further question as to the possibility of forming a Community Renewal Association rather than busting up the area on Meeker Avenue and Willow Avenue and rezoning Sunkist Village to R-3. I raise this question and the others to the Council for their consideration. _ 8 _ IADJ. C.C. 3-17-69 Page Nine MERCED/ORANGE PLAN - Continued Ron Moore I am in complete agreement with the I-P, 0-P, 829 South Orange R-1, but my own personal view setting up the West Covina buffer zone is not acceptable to either side. What you are doing is taking a depressed area and increaEi.ng the property value in the blue iarea and by keeping the R-3 buffer zone in there you will decrease the!-'.. value of the R-1 property owners. W. H. Dunton I have been here 18 years. After listening 1246 South Meeker to everyone here it seems like we are being West Covina forced to decide on this,plan or present another one that will bring about the same complica- tions, more or less. Nothing has been said about improving those facilities that we have and some people are complaining about the utilities,:, and certainly I think those things should be corrected. With the money spent on this plan I think that could have gone a long ways. As far as drafting is concerned, it is real ambitious and takes in far too much territory. I believe before another meeting like this is undertaken it should be discussed with the people in the area, like we are doing here tonight and as I understand local government, this is the way it should be done. But we are not consulted until after we have a plan all drawn up and this is done by an expert that doe'sn't even live in the area. I am not an expert but I have been here for a long time and I bought here because I like it here. I think there are a lot of people that would be willing to take these lots if they were put up for sale. And the first people that buy for speculation and let the property run down are the real culprits here, and I think something should be done With that type of person, even though they are supposed to be the ambitious people - even though they are not always right. I have quite a •few industrial buildings that were taken out of an area that needed rebuilding and in all cases I voted with those people around me. When theycc.ame:to me_I--.w:ent along with what they decided whether it cost me money or didn't. I think right should rule and those people immediately affected in these areas should have their chance and their say before anything else. I think we should have had a few meetings like this before that much money was spent on that type of plan. We are supposed to be the citizens and we are supposed to have the vote. Mr. Pat Dunning I want to go on record as being against the 1032 Sunkist plan - especially R-3 zoning. I believe the West Covina property taxes paid by the people that build these apartments will not support all the school children that are going to be living in these apartments. I believe the people that live in the surrounding areas are going to be paying the school bill for those living in the apartments. Also the traffic that will come into this area because of the apartments will make its, -unsuitable for a good residential area. I definitely go along with the theme that West Covina should be the City of Beautiful Homes and not a bunch of apartments stacked up on top of each other - full of kids. Earl Walker An oldtime resident. The plan is good and it 850 Van Horn is bad. It all depends on how you look at it. West Covina And which piece of property you own. The people in the yellow zone are the ones that are going to be caught short. There is another way to do it, make the whole triangle one type of zone. Or have some government agency buy the whole section at a set price per square foot for each piece of property. Then clear it out and have the City buy the property and sell it to whomever they want for whatever they want - I-P, apartments, or whatever. That would be the only way to satisfy everybody. This would also solve a few problems for the City Planners because they would have the whole section to plan and could start from scratch. - 9 - ADJ. C.C. 3-17-69 Page Ten MERCED/ORANGE PLAN - Continued Barbara Fels When I first moved into the area, 5 or 6 1117 Meeker years ago, it was very pretty and very nice. West Covina It has deteriorated considerably in the last few years. Our taxes are considerably higher and I feel the I-P zoning will keep our taxes from being raised in the future. Also I have been told that in case of a fire we have to call the Water Department in order to build up the pressure in order to have sufficient water pressure to put the fire out. Someone earlier mentioned - speculation. I feel if this has started it will continue and will also cause the area to go down in value. Earlier it was also mentioned - City of Beautiful Homes, but without tax revenue you can't have a City of Beautiful Homes. Also mentioned that the yellow zone R-1 which I agree with wholeheartedly in their complaints. M Gilmore: A further comment that I want to make. 81g S. Orange Sunkist Village - I think you will find West Covina the biggest opposition comes from that area along Sunkist Avenue marked R-3. There are 50 parcels in there. I would suggest before you act upon this that you have the Planning Department contact each person who owns in the area and find out what their opinion is. Tonight you have heard some of them but you have also heard those on Merced and Willow accepting the plan as it is. So there is a divergence and this might be a way to find out what the divergence is. Mrs. Dunning One further comment. It seems there are more 1246 South Meeker people that are going to be affected West Covina adversely to the plan as it stands, than •there are people that will benefit. So since the only areas really considered bad are - one end of Meeker, one end of Willow and some parts that face the Freeway and som of this is State property which will go when the Freeway is widened and Service Road is widened. I don't see why some type of improvement plan can't be made to improve this so-called blighted area if this is what everybody is so concerned about because it is so close to our new Civic Center. This is what should be done rather than making those that have R-1 property unhappy. Why not make an effort to izriprove these.homes, other communities have done this and there is no reason why it can't be done in there. Homes sold on our street with deep lots in the past few years have been bought because they wanted deep lots, they had lived in apartments and wanted large yards. I still think there is a shortage of deep lots in West Covina and if these homes can be brought up rather than let rundown and if they would be willing to sell their homes for a reasonable amount, not double what they paid for them, they could very easily have sold them. Gary Code Regarding the suggestion made by Mr. Gilmore. 1019 South Sunkist Avenue Mr. Gilmore suggested a survey of property West Covina owners on Sunkist - may I suggest who ever conducts if one is to be conducted, that it be done in such a fashion that the responses of the person interviewed can be confidential. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED. COUNCIL DISCUSSION. • Mayor Gleckman: Before any of the members would speak to the matter, on behalf of the Council, I would like to thank all of you for being here this evening, for the interest shown, and the manner in which you conducted yourselves. Councilman Gillum: I think we have heard pros and cons, with good reasons on both sides. The main objection at this point is evidently the R-3. All of you agreed that we had to have a plan. Most of us that have lived here for a number of years realize this City grew without a - 10 - ADJ. C.C. 3-17-69 Page Eleven MERCED/ORANGE PLAN - Continued plan and that is the reason we are faced with this problem and this is an attempt by this Council to rectify some of these areas. Whatever we decide will not satisfy everyone in the room. Our decision will be in the best interests of the City of West Covina. I also realize after serving up here for three years, the City of Beautiful Homes will not support a City of 70,000 people, so consequently this Council has the responsibility of finding a way to increase the revenue of the City without going to the homeowners again. I feel the I-P zone under the type of Ordinances and planning we have, would be an asset. I agree with the objections to the apartments. In fact when I first looked at the plan it reminded me of the Berlin Wall, separating citizens from the other side of the City. I think we should give serious consideration to the I-P. The Council had received requests for zone changes in the area and felt it was best to review it and start out with a good future plan rather than start out without a plan. I can understand the homeowners feelings but when a City grows the older part of the City for some reason deteriorates. Regarding speculating - if any of you bought a tract home in this City you bought it from a speculator. So whether it be I-P or R-1 speculating, it is all one and the same thing. Most of the property we are discussing is owned by people living in the area for many years; thereare, some absentee owners, but I think the City has an obligation notonly to these people but to the City as a whole to find a plan for upgrading and bring into our community a better tax base. It does create a problem as far as • school and traffic and things of this type, but this is not going to happen tomorrow. First of all you have to have someone with the money, the tenants, and the precise plan and then it comes to the Council - and he -says this is what I want to put on this property and the Council after public hearing decides whether that type of business goes into the area. I disagree with the statement of the gentleman who said this City can only attract the bodge-podge and smaller shops -that are on Irwindale Avenue. I can assure you this Council and staff are out every d,ay contacting major firms to consider this as their home base. I think something has to be done and whatever this Council decides I am sure we will not satisfy all of you, but it will be a decisionmade in the best interests of the City and its future. So that we can come back through the City and be proud of it and this can be accomplished through the help of you people by coming to meetings such as this. Thank you. Councilman Lloyd: I am particularly pleased with the positive approach by Mr. Dodge and his associates in working up their plan and with contacting their own people and with taking the steps to go into City Hall and speak with the Planning Department and in trying to incorporate the ideas they have into the plan. I would suggest to all of you, who may have other ideas than those presented by Mr. Dodge and his people, that you go in and discuss your approach with the Planning Department, which in • the final analysis makes it recommendations to the City Council through the Planning Commission; and if we use this democratic process which has been demonstrated here this evening, will in the final analysis be that which is best for the greatest number. And this is in reality what we are aeeking. We must have a good tax base, but'in finding a good tax base, we must also have citizens who are reasonably happy with the results that they have. Because a tax base is of no avail if you who live in the area are not happy. So what we are trying to do this evening is compromise and arrive at a point which will be satisfactory to the greatest number. I think the approach these people have is a step in the right direction and I commend it to the thinking of all of you. - 11 - ,ADJ. C.C. 3-17-69 Page Twelve MERCED/ORANGE PLAN - Continued Again I would reiterate that this is not final. The plan was not perpetrated on you, but presented as a point of d.eparture.,which means only that we had to have something on which to talk this evening. That is why the plan was made. There has been a sufficient amount of time for all of you to read it thoroughly and disagree or agree, but we this • Council and the Administrative staff and all of you who have contact with this City, we have tried desperately to meet a very dynamic and changing situation commensurate with the needs of the individual and the monetary- needs of the City. And that is what we are asking you to do, is collectively get together and decide that which is most reasonable for you, and then present to our Planning Director and his Department. I think the final result will be something which is acceptable to all of us and which we can be proud of. I. think the ih=flow.:we_1.have-! had this evening is indeed a very good one and�,i for one am pleased with what we are coming out with here tonight. Councilman Nichols: Well, what is the plan in the first place? I think it is really just about as good as the men you elect to serve you are. We can adopt or not adopt anything this evening, and a year from now, or two, or four years from now something entirely different could be adopted or changed a piece at a time each month along the way. So really we are just here talking about something we are trying to agree'on in a moment in time. One thing that I do know is that our City is changing, population pressures are changing, most of you won't be living where you are 20 years from now, some of us may not even be living; the City will be here and changes are going to occur and if we have ever been faulted in West Covina before it was letting changes occur without planning for it. So that is what we are really trying to do. Once we make a plan and • adopt the plan anything can happen from that time on. I strongly suspect many of these changes are going to occur over the next twenty to twenty-five years whether we make a plan or not. If the value of land continues to increase relative to the improvements on each parcel of land there will be pressures for changed usage. Many of my very good friends have talked here this evening and with much that has been said I could agree in good conscience and with some I couldn't. One thing that sticks in my mind that I can't agree with is the rather unique lack of concern that some of you have expressed for those parcels of land abutting the Freeway. I have heard some of my very good friends talk about upgrading the old area. I think really in the final analysis that very few people here this evening could envision upgrading any lot right against the Freeway for residential purposes. No matter how high you upgrade it. So at some point, someone has to say that the land along the Freeway is entitled to some relief from residential zoning. And I think any person, no matter where they live, that says "no let them stay with what they have, let them upgrade ..." are not facing the facts'. So, if we could probably all, agree on that fact that those along the Freeway are entitled to some relief, then what about their immediate neighbors? If you give the guy that abutes the Freeway relief, then what about the person right next to him, and then what about his neighbors, and here we go right down towards Merced Avenue, and then we are back at the same trouble where somebody thinks we are getting too close to where they live and they think they are in pretty good shape and don't want to change, and that is the problem we all face. So I want the record to reflect that I believe the people along the Freeway are entitled to some relief. Whether we adopt the plan or make a plan or not, after the years that I have studied this problem I am ready to vote to give them that kind of relief just as soon as they can come in with some reasonable proper use that belongs in the area. I think if we adopted the whole plan here right now you would not see enough change in the next 5 years to know that it had been adopted. I believe gradual changes would set in, but by the time - 12 - ADJ. C.C. 3-17-69 Page Thirteen MERCED/ORANGE PLAN - Continued they became significant most of us would be gone. But I'm like you, in that if the plan stares me in the face, it scares me a bit. I don't think I could sit here this evening and draw lines and come up with some commitment that I could live with, but basically it is obvious the •vast majority here do not favor the multiple houses. I spent quite a few years myself not favoring it, so I can be sympathetic with that in general, although I think some of these areas will probably show up with multiple housing in not too many years. I do think the blue area is a reasonable area for a transitionalluse to a highgrade I-P use. Again I am not prepared to say right where the line should go, but I am prepared to say I will favor and will support with my vote any reasonable plan that shows a transition in this basic area from its current residential into a light industrial. How the rest of it should go ultimately, I do not know. Maybe in two, or four years, we should look at it again. We have stalled this thing so long, year after year the councils have failed to take a stand and theiuncertainty of it has reached the point where something had to begin moving. So I would favor that as a concept and just as soon as we can agree on the type of approach to installing that type of commitment, I would be prepared to make it and then I would wait for proper developers to come in with their specific plans before I would be ready actually to grant the zoning.". In general -details, I tend to favor the suggestions made by the Citizens Group that came in. Although I don't think they digress so extensively that I would favor this program. Finally, I would favor the adoption of the portion of the plan that covers the 0-P area except for that portion that runs south of the Service Road, which I feel should not be shown for change at this time and I would favor an immediate adoption of the plan that would call for the S-C area in that portion of the City that directly abutes Baldwin Park and the triangle along the Freeway. That would be my feelings and I will stand on that. Councilman Chappell: One thing that rather surprises me this even- ing is the fact we are really getting quite a bit of playback that I felt the Planning Commission probably had presented to them. But in talking this evening, we were probably very slow in getting this communication out that we were working on the plan to get this dialogue back and this is pretty unfortunate because for years we have been concerned with this particular area. However, this is not the first area we have looked at. We looked at North Azusa, Glendora, California, and other areas since I have been on the Council. I concur a lot with what Councilman Nichols said. I believe it is time we start doing something. I can agree with the I-P and the freeway commercial zoning. I think I have a concept of a little more of the Freeway commercial in:this area, but I think we all could come up with 164 plans, if that is how many people are here tonight. I really feel we are in the right direction and there are many things we can live with as a Council and I certainly would not be hesitant to say let's have some meetings called by the homeowners and go out and talk to them again as far as the R-3 area is concerned and reevaluate this area. But I would like to see some movement on the I-P, S-C, and 0-P zoning as soon as possible, f,)not this evening. Mayor Gleckman: I promised some of the questions asked this evening would be answered. Why this area first? Well it is not the first. We have been taking into consideration the whole City of West Covina and that is why we hired Williams, Mocine, to upgrade the present General Plan. This is a part of that General Plan. When will it be done? Anything we decide to adopt on your behalf this evening would only be a recommendation from this Council to you people, or to anyone else that would care to come into the community to develop it as such at that particular time. This does not by any means give this area this automatic zoning. You have to come in and apply for the zoning. This - 13 - ,ADJ. C.C. 3-17-69 Page Fourteen MERCED/ORANGE PLAN - Continued means this would be the guide towards the feasibility of this zoning. There was, and there has been, several different applicants, both while I served on the Planning Commission and while I have been on Council, for this area. If this plan were designed for a particular company wanting to buy this whole thing it would have been done a long time ago. •To my knowledge there is no company that wants to come in and buy this whole parcel. There is an application on file at the Planning Commission that was heard and sent on to Council for approximately four or five lots in this area and that application was for manufacturing and we delayed any decision on that pending our adoption of this plan or any General Plan. I might also comment on the comment made this evening, that none of the members of the Council live in this area. I hope there were some members of this Council that were elected by the people in this area to represent them on matters such as this. It is almost impossible, depending on how you want to divide an area, to'find out where a person. elect should be from, you might have 57 councilmen from here. But we are trying to do a job for not only you people but for all people in the City. We are faced with the responsibility. Not you people. Your responsibility is to elect the people you feel can represent you in this manner. There was another comment made about the type of development that would be developed in this area.. I don't want to get personal, but on this as far as I am concerned, anyone with any planning experience knows that every city, regardless of what zone they install, have certain restrictions and certain qualifications and certain protections for the R-1, or any other type use within our City. It would not be a helter-skelter type of zoning where you could bring in little shops or anything you want or develop in any manner you want. I have complete confidence in our Planning Department and our staff, and our Ordinances, which incidentally were passed by this Council to protect any zoning and any type of development. As time goes on these Ordinances are updated. And as time goes on the people that have built homes in the City, fifteen to twenty years ago, naturally they don't comply with the present Ordinances. We didn't have certain methods in those days that we have today. We didn't have the knowledge of the protection, so sure you don't comply. About six years ago, from the people in this area, was when I first came in contact with a desire on their part that the City had a responsibility and that for five to ten years they have been studying the deep lots and the people had been asking when are you going to do something - you have been doing report after report and never once have you come up with a definite recommendation. We have now asked our Planning Commission and Planning Department to come up with a recommendation in order to give this relief and to do better planning for the future. What we decide this evening culuminates from what has been requested by the people. Not speculators, but the homeowners who came before the Planning Commission six years ago and probably the Council ten years ago and asked for this type of relief. And the money spent on this particular plan - I don't think could run a water line to anyone's home to give you an idea of how much money was spent. It was your money that was spent to help the residents in this area, even though all the people in the City pay their taxes and they help pay for this plan, good or bad. As far as the taxes in the City of West Covina - let me say this, the State raises their taxes, the County raises their taxes, and a lot of the tax is school tax, but the City of West Covina, other than the 100 park tax applied this year for Galster Park, has not raised their taxes in. this City for ten years. So maybe we were wrong and we should have raised your taxes proportionately with the County and the State and gi-V@ you sbre of the services that we would like to have given you but we thought it was more important to hold the tax line. We are going to move forward - and only 'by presenting plans. This may not be the best plan nor the worst. It may be something we can go along with this evening or not, but at least we are doing something. ADJ. C.C. 3-17-69 Page Fifteen MERCED/ORANGE PLAN - Continued We are not sitting as elected officials and saying we want to get re- elected again so let's not do anything. And anytime you do something you hurt someone. Anytime you progress you hurt someone. We would like to think it is more of a help than a hurt. As far as this plan goes I agree with Councilman Nichols that maybe this will develop in twenty to •wenty-five years. As for myself I agree on the I-P zoning on the corner of Merced and Garvey Avenues, I agree with the plan along Cameron Avenue the 0-P zoning, also for the 0-P maybe on Sunkist. I think the rest of the plan - the R-3, should be eliminated from this plan if we adopt anything this evening. Hold it over for 60 days, or longer. The point I make is we have been ten to fifteen years in making any type of plan and it will probably be another ten or fifteen years before anything develops. I think we could hold it over for another 60 days or even a year or two, if we had to, with regard to the rest of the plan. I think these people with Mr. Dodge and Mr. Shaw, showed an interest in wanting to sit down and try and develop something that they feel they could live with - this is commendable. We have asked that of the citizens no matter what we proposed for this City. This City has never been asked by this Council to accept something without you people having the benefit of a public hear- ing, both before the Planning Commission and the City Council. And anyone that leaves this room this evening and feels this has been a railroading and you haven't had the opportunity to speak or give your opinion, I am sorry but I have to consider the source because we have given you this opportunity. I have been to the Planning Commission meeting and I have heard everything you have heard and as far as I am concerned I feel we owe it to the people in our community to give .them the relief where we can. In the other areas, where it would create a hardship, and I agree the R-3 as presented in total, would present a hardship, although it may be the best plan in the world - I am not qualified to say that it will or won't o that way but you people have expressed opinions that you don't want it o develop that way or even encourage'it at this time and you are the people we have to consider in that phase. I would go for the I-P zonings' and the other zoning I mentioned and the rest remain R-l-until. such time as Mr. Dodge and Mr. Shaw and their group, or anyone else that would care to meet with the Planning Department or Council and come u_r.with some" alt6rnate plan just to keep the ball rolling so this City can move forward. I think you have given us the opportunity to speak our piece, but I do want to remind you that we are representing you and it is most unfortunate that we cannot express each and every one of you in the manner in which you would like to be heard, but we do try and represent you in the best interests of the majority. Councilman Nichols: Mr. Mayor - Councilman Chappell mentioned there should be some action tonight. Were you think- ing in the terms of -he exact alignment of the proposed I-P area? The only area of some concern I have might be those few lots that would be facing onto Willow and Meeker Avenues, that would be immediately adjacent to the I-P, but I suppose if the line has to be drawn at some point - I would not favor, myself, bringing the I-P area all the way down to Merced, but obviously there would have to be a line. I can see that staff drew the line at the location where it is now a R-3 largely to coincide with the depth of those lots on Merced Avenue. Councilman Gillum - did that coincide with your thinking? Wouncilman Gillum: I-P and R-1. T would go area to Sunkist.' Councilman Nichols: What I had in mind was similar to what was suggested by the (citizens Committee, to have a street as a divider between the proposed along with that and extending it in a southeast You mean including the lots on the westerly side of Sunkist? Councilman Gillum: If we don't we are creating a condition that we will have I-P backing up to something other than the street. I have a strong feeling _ �5, _ .. .0-DJ. C.C. 3-17-69 Page Sixteen MERCED/ORANGE PLAN - Continued someone will eventually come in and say I can't build R-1 or anything along there and I have to have relief with R-3."-_ (Discussion with regard to where the line should be drawn.) ayor Gleckman: I think normally a street would be a better divider but when you are changing a particular area if you are going to open Sunkist to all that traffic and front the buildings onto Sunkist I think you are defeat- ing the purpose of what we are trying to do. We are going to contain an I-P zone in a given area which will not have in the future the impetus on the rest of the homes around trafficwise, etc., then having all the curb cuts that you might get all the way down Sunkist and all those trucks coming down Sunkist you are containing within Meeker, Willow, Mossberg and Merced, unless you cul de sac at a later date - but if you open all the way to Sunkist I think you are pressing a point. Councilman Gillum: Basically this started because of the deep lots, and on Sunkist we are faced again with the deep lots, so we have taken care of part of the problem and still left an area adjacent to a proposed I-P facing on a major street that is still faced with the problem of a deep lot. Mayor Gleckman: If we adopt the I-P plan as I suggested and not go to Sunkist that- doesn't preclude the people from the area you are speaking about of coming in with a good plan that they might want and at that time we look at it. Actually what we are doing here is saying we are going to look favorably on I-P zoning that extends from Garvey to the particular • boundary lines drawn on that map, but that does not stop any of these areas from coming before this City Council with a logical plan that would make sense and at that particular time we consider rezoning it. Councilman Nichols: One thought - we are so much talking about unknowns that it is hard for any of us to visualize what kinds of developments are pending. It may well be that a few years from now, or a decade, that people living on Sunkist may say this zoning granted around Meeker is what we would like to have on our street and it may be that at that time there are some proper industrial park developments and then the people living on Van Horn could say - well if that is the kind of thing we are talking about it wouldn't be so bad seeing it come up to our line. I think time tends to provide the opportunity to see this things form. I would rather at this initial point restrict the authorization for that type of use to the back lot line at Sunkist rather than move over the street. Councilman Gillum: I would like to go on record that T am on -nosed to it at this time, this )extensive.,.use:;of,any R-3 development. I don't know what control I would have over it in the future or if I will be on the Council in the future, but I think any future Councils should at least keep in mind that this was the objections of many of the people - this vast R-3 in this area. Councilman Nichols: You will notice on the map the area along Merced Avenue, the Freeway side, and towards the Freeway from Willow, it seems to me this also is an area that is going to have to have some type of relief at some point. Motion by Councilman Nichols, for the adoption of the following portion of the Merced/Orange Plan: That portion which is now shown as Industrial Park proposed for I-P use, that portion which is now shown for Freeway -Commerical use, that portion which is now shown for Office- - 16 - v ►ADJ. C.C. 3-17-69 Page Seventeen MERCED/ORANGE PLAN - Continued Professional use with the exception that the Office -Professional portion lying southerly of the Freeway frontage road be deleted. Seconded by Councilman Chappell. Motion carried on roll call vote as follows: • AYES: Councilmen Chappell, Nichols, Gillum, Lloyd, Mayor Gleckman NOES: None ABSENT: None Motion by Councilman Gillum that the balance of the plan as presented in the Merced/Orange Plan be held over for a period of ninety days to give the citizens of the area an opportunity to meet with the planning staff and present their thinking and their ideas on the future development of this area. Seconded by Councilman Lloyd. Mr. Wakefield: Mr. Mayor - if it is to be held over, there should be some definite instructions to the Planning Commission to review the area and make some recommendation back to the City Council. Councilman Gillum: I will incorporate that into my motion, if the second will accept it. Councilman Lloyd: I accept. Mayor Gleckman: In other words what we are requesting is a ninety day hold -over with the Planning Department staff to meet with the citizens group at the citizens group discretion and try and come up' with another alternate plan if possible, or none at all, and this to be referred and heard by the Planning Commission within the next ninety days. Councilman Lloyd: Mr. Menard - what problems are posed by this? Mr. Menard: I don't believe we have a problem. There is no problem. Motion carried on roll call vote as follows: AYES: Councilmen Chappell, Nichols, Gillum, Lloyd, Mayor Gleckman NOES: None ABSENT: None THE CHAIR DECLARED A RECESS AT 10:15 P.M. COUNCIL RECONVENED AT 10:20 P.M. MAYOR'S REPORTS Mayor Gleckman: I have a letter of resignation from one of our Planning Commissioners - Bob Davis. This is due to his business, having bought his partner out, he will be much involved for the next several months. I would like a motion by one of the members of Council accepting the resignation of Robert Davis from the Planning Commission. So moved by Councilman Gillum, seconded by Councilman Lloyd, and carried. Motion by Councilman Gillum that a Resolution be prepared by the City Attorney commending Mr. Robert Davis for his services to the City as a Commissioner on the Planning Commission. Seconded by Councilman.Lloyd. Councilman. Chappell: I would like to request that this Resolution be perma plagued. - 17 - 1 ADJ. C.C. 3-17-69 Page Eighteen • fa MERCED/ORANGE PLAN - Continued Accepted by Councilman Gillum, and Councilman Lloyd. Motion carried on roll call vote as follows: AYES: Councilmen NOES: None ABSENT: None COUNCILMEN'S REPORTS Councilman Lloyd: Chappell, Nichols, Gillum, Lloyd, Mayor Gleckman is present I would like him I would like to report that Chief Sill, who is here, made a report to me with regards to the Dedication Ceremonies and since he to be so kind as to report to the Council. Chief Sill: Our Dedication Committee has progressed right along and we are at the point of putting the program together so I appointed a Program Committee to handle the details. That Committee is composed of Bob Fast, Chairman and Ray Windsor and myself. With regard to the selection of a speaker, this was to be handled by Mr. Stolpe and Mr. Lloyd and I haven't heard anything further. Councilman Lloyd: Mr. Mayor - I believe you spoke to some of the people while in Washington. Mayor Gleckman: I spoke with Congressman Wiggins in an attempt to try and get Bob Finch, Secretary, of HEW-Iandc,.he'-fsf. making that attempt and said he would have an answer this,web:k:sometime. If he did not succeed in getting Mr. Finch to accept he would go down the line in the Cabinet and we would be able to firm it up this week. If nothing, the next step would probably be the Governor. Councilman Gillum: I have two things. First of all I think this'Council was not aware that we had a celebrity amongst us --Mr. Phil Wax, the President of the Chamber of Commerce. The local newspaper did a very fine article on him in the Sunday paper. At the last meeting the Council voted by a 3-2 to withdraw our protest on an ABC application. Additional information has come to my attention and I would like to have this put on the agenda at the next regular meeting. I have information before me that the application will go to Sacramento and it will be 30 to 45 days before the hearing, and then approximately 30 days after the hearing a decision will be made. I would like to have this put on the agenda next meeting. I have some further thoughts on my vote. I would also like to extend an invitation to the applicant and anyone concerned with this request for an ABC license, including the Chief of Police, to be present at this meeting. Mayor Gleckman: Does Council have any objections? (None) So ordered. 0,------- Motion by Councilman Gillum, seconded by Councilman Lloyd, that at 10:37 P.M. this meeting adjourn to 6 P.M. on March 18,1969. Motion carried. ATTEST: APPROVED: MAYOR City Clerk - 18 -