Loading...
04-28-1969 - Regular Meeting - MinutesMINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL CITY OF WEST COVINA, CALIFORNIA APRIL 28, 1969. The regular meeting of the City Council was called to order at 7:31 P.M. by Mayor Leonard S. Gleckman, in the West Covina City Hall. The Pledge of Allegiance was led by C,.ounci.lman Nichols. The invocation was given by Father John Metzler of St. Martha's Episcopal Church. ROLL CALL Present, Mayor Leonard S. Gl.eckman; Councilmen Ken Chappell, Russ Nichols, Tom Gillum, Jim Lloyd. Also.Presento 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 Mabel Hofflan.d, City Treasurer Ben Bateman., President - W.C.C.E.A. Lee Sharfman & Mr. Niles of Armstrong &.Zharfman PRESENTATION OF RESOLUTION OF COMMENDATION TO SEARS HEADLEY Mayor Gl.eckman asked Mr. Sears Headley to step to the microphone; he was then, presented with a Resolution. of Commendation for his services with the City, Mayer read Resolution in full and commended Mr. Headley for his excellent record with the City as an outstanding employee and on behalf of Council he was wished many years of enjoyable retirement. Mr. Headley expressed his enjoyment at workingfor the City over the years and thanked the Council for the presentation. Ben Bateman., President of the W.C.C.E.A., then asked permission to present to Mr. Headley from the Employees" Association a certificate for 1.3 years of continued, efficient service to the City, along with a Gift Certificate. ITEM N. REORGANIZATION - Election. of Mayor Motion by Councilman. Lloyd, seconded by Councilman Chappell, and carried, that Item N be moved to this time on the Agenda. Mayor G.leckmano Tonight we hold the election. of a Mayor and Mayor Pro Tem. At this time it would give me pleasure to turn the meeting over to our City Clerk, who will conduct the nominations for the new officers. City Clerk° Nominations for the office of Mayor are open. Motion by Councilman Chappell renominating Mayor Len Gleckman for a • second term. Seconded by Councilman Lloyd. Councilman. Nichols. Madam City Clerk. Many months ago.I indicated to Councilman Gillum that I would support him for the _office of Mayor this year and I would still "be prepared to do that with pleasure and gratification, but it was rather apparent this evening that relative to the nominations made, and the maker and seconder, that Councilman Gillum would not enjoy 3 votes for the office. My comment has no bearing at all on the leadership of - 1 - REG, C.C. 4-28-69 Page Two ELECTION OF MAYOR - Continued Mayor Gleckman, but I did want the record to reflect my readiness and willingness to fulfill my commitment this evening. Now having said this and desiring most of all, to continue to work with this Council in a harmonious manner I would like to move that Mayor Gleckman be reelected • to a second term as Mayor by acclamation of this Council. Seconded by Councilman Gillum. Motion carried on roll call vote as follows. AYES. Councilmen Chappell., Nichols, Gillum, Lloyd NOES. None ABSENT. None ABSTAIN: Mayor Gleckman City Clerk. Nominations are in order for Mayor Pro Tem. Motion. by Councilman Lloyd placing the nomination in. the name of Ken Chappell as Mayor Pro Tem. City Clerk. Are there any other nominations? Councilman Nichols. I'would like to move that the office of Mayor Pro Tem be approved through the unanimous action. of the City Council. Seconded by Mayor Gleckman. Motion carried on roll call vote as follows. AYES. Councilmen Nichols, Gillum, Lloyd, Mayor Gleckman NOES. None ABSENT. None ABSTAIN. Councilman Chappell Mayor Gleckman. With. your permission Madam City Clerk I will take over the meeting. It has been the policy of the Council. to have the Mayor Pro Tem sit on the right of the Mayor and I am sure that my former Mayor Pro Tem Gillum would acquiesce, but first let me say that I am deeply honored that the Council would honor me again with reelection to the post of Mayor. You see before you four Councilmen who are qualified and very capable of serving this community as Mayor. And I am sure if it would not be for the particular occupations and the time required in this spot, that you may have had a change in the office of Mayor. As far as leadership is concerned this City Council is all elected CtT large and there is no Mayor so to speak elected by the people, and I am as.Mayor to represent the other four councilmen as well as myself on this Council. I want to thank your Tom Gillum, and the other three members of this Council, for what I would like to think was the most progressive year the City has enjoyed. A lot of it did not just happen. that year, a lot of things lead up to it previously and a lot of people helped to make it the most progressive year. Tom Gillum, as Mayor Pro Tem has done a very fine job this past year and without announcing our candidacies in the next election, I look forward to working with him for many more years. I would like to say that I offer you now only a little more than I offered when I first took this job and that •comes with a year's experience. Outside of that I have nothing more to offer because I gave my all, as the other four gentlemen do, and how can you help it when. you have four capable, qualified men watching you? Again. thank you. I would like to call on former Mayor Pro Tem Gillum. Councilman Gillum. I would like at this time to express my appreciation to ,my fellow councilmen for having the privilege of.serving as Mayor Pro Tem of this City, and I look forward to this coming year with great anticipa- tion. I would be less than honest to say that I would not. have enjoyed _. 2 - REG. C.C. 4-28-69 Page Three ELECTION OF MAYOR PRO TEM -.Continued being.Mayor and I would have enjoyed serving another term as Mayor Pro Tem, but because of our type of government and the system by which we operate, it was the feeling as expressed by the Council on an unanimous vote that Mr. Chappell serve this coming year as Mayor Pro Tem with -Mayor Gleckman. I am sure Mr. Chappell will serve the City.well and I wish him luck. I want to again thank my fellow Councilmen for having the privilege of serving in this capacity in the past year. (Councilman Gillum changed chairs with Mayor Pro Tem Chappell. The reorganization of the City Council for the year 1969-70 was completed.) ORAL PRESENTATION BY JEAN 0' KURA AMERICAN FIELD SERVICES STUDE�NT,ON VISIT TO LIENZ, AUSTRIA Mayor Gl.eckmano Sometime ago we bade farewell to what we will always consider as one of the finest goodwill ambassadors from the City of West Covina to a foreign country Miss Jean O'Kura. She has now returned-, and I received a phone call from Mrs. Brady requesting the appearance of Miss O'Kura at a Council. meeting. Council welcomes Jean O'Kura and her parents -.Mr. & Mrs. O'Kura. Jean O'Kura I am a citizen of West Covina and a part 1343 E. Lakewood citizen of Lienz, .Austria. I bring from my West Covina family and friends .in L.ien.z, Austria, greetings to the Mayor. and Council. The Mayor of Lienz was happy to receive the plague and sends warmest greetings to the City of West Covina. (Miss O'Kura stated some facts about Lienz, Austria and her visit there.) I would like to present this plaque and letter from the Mayor bf Lienz to our City. Mayor Gleckman thanked Miss O'Kura, and asked that Mr. & Mrs. O'Kura stand - introduced to the audience. PUBLIC WORKS ITEMS AWARD OF BIDS PROJECT SP-69018-2 Location° Galster Park GAL.STER PARK COMFORT STATIONS The City Clerk stated that bids were opened at 10 A.M. on Wednesday, April, 23, 1969, and were as follows John Overholt $64,929 Al Gray 65,485 K R W Construction 979857 Motion by Councilman Gillum, seconded by Councilman Lloyd, that since the lowest bid is considerably above the estimated bidding cost that all bids be .rejected and Council authorize the architect to redesign.. Councilman Gillum. This certainly does seem to be quite a difference from the Engineer's estimated bid. Mr. Aiassao Mr. Sharfman of Armstrong & Sharfman, architects, is here and would 'be glad to explain the report or answer any questions. Motion carried. Motion by Councilman Gillum, seconded by Councilman Chappell, and carried, that Council authorize staff to obtain the acceptance of this action 'by Mr. Galster. - 3 - REG. C.C. 4-28-69 Page Four PROJECT SP-69018-2 - Continued Lee Sharfman, Architect (In summary) I think we were Armstrong & Sharfman somewhat guilty of the unp ardon- West Los Angeles able sin of hurry, hurry and wait, and through the combined forces of climatic conditions only three bidders made proposals and the very • high rising costs .in the past few months, all added up to the fact that we had to recommend rejection of all bids. We just have to face the fact that we cannot afford certain rich materials so we are now proceeding along the lines suggested in the staff report dated April 25, 1.969. (Discussed in detail the changes suggested.) Councilman Gillum.- Mr. Sharfman - the lowest bidder is approximately $20,000 higher than the estimated bid and you are talking about changing some structural parts of this complete development - the poles were to be concrete previously? Mr. Sharfman: Yes, they were a form filled with concrete and we are now proposing to use ,a weathered tele- phone pole, green. in. color and slightly tapered. This will weather out well and blend in with the overall atmosphere. Councilman Gillum.- In your personal opinion are we making a mistake by changing this to stay within the budget or should we eliminate someth.ing�else at this time that will not change the structural part of the buildings? Mr. Sharfman.- Well, these cost at Galster Park. I would like available to us. I don't think made these changes. I would there is a limit. I think we are on a spot. I think are reasonable concessions in view of the and there will be many more items needed to see the alternative use of the money 10 years from now we will be sorry we say we are not wasting the .money, but Councilman Gillum- Do you have prepared - and apparently you have, because it is on the agenda asking us to approve the plans and specifications - - Mr. Aiassa, does he have new specs and plans? Mr. Aiassa- He has worked out the basic changes that he is now explaining to you. I think the point you are bringing -up in lieu of the telephone pole, if we stayed with the concrete poles --Mr. Sharfman could we put that in as an alternate and if it is out of line then drop it? Mr. Sharfman.- If the gentlemen wouldn't mind I would like to refer -to our consulting architect, he has been working on this with. staff and has all the alternate items documented. (Mayor Gleckman brought up the matter of time because of Hearings that had to be heard this evening.) Councilman Gillum- If thisfinal decision on•,approuingdth6sbbe specifi:batibhs,;,wlth,..�theL'c.onseiit.'of Mr. Galster, were held up - - because what we are doing now is relying onyour judgment and ` 10 years from now you two may not be around here but remember this Council will be and if one of these telephone poles collapsed. This is your profession,sir, and I know we would have to rely on your judgment but I would personally, like we did in the past, see and talk to the architect and find out what we are eliminating, 'because I was very much impressed with the first presentation and I would not like to,have something develop that might - 4 - REG. C.0 . 4-28-69 Page Five PROJECT SP-69018-2 - Continued in 10 years from now be a discredit to you or the City. I am wondering if this would cause some problem if we delayed this until we have a better chance to review it. Mr. Aiassa. The main thing is that we get Mr. Galster`s consent • because we are now working against the deadline of June. Councilman Gillum. If this were to go to bid,when would we be able to go to bid if approved tonight? Mr. Zimmerman- The timing on this calls for, as I remember, the better part of a month before we can actually have an award of bids because we have about a 20 day bid period and it would be a month. or six weeks before it could actually be awarded. Councilman. Gillum: I would personally prefer seeing and having each of these alternate changes explained because what was presented the first time, was a credit to the City and since we are making a 44% decrease apparently, which is considerable, I would like as'one councilman, to see what the changes are. Councilman Lloyd. Mr. Sharfman - you feel, although the low 'bid was $65,000 over the $45,000 estimated by you and staff, if we were to obtain say 60 or 90 days extension from Mr. Galster, do you feel that figure would be significantly reduced assuming you kept in the concrete pillars, etc., all the elements that were in the original bid remain- ing the same? Mr. Sharfman: No - I think there would-be a reduction if the contractor were allowed more time to "both bid and construct, but not significant. It is a combination of many things that forced the bids to the position they are and just how much you can assign to one or the other is a guessing game. The attempt is being made to actually make the bidders give us the opportunity to opt whatever is sound in total for the entire project and this we do not have now with just a single figure. Councilman Lloyd: Mr. Aiassa - from what you already know isn't there some indication that Mr. Galster would be willing to go along for some extension of time? Mr. Aiassa: I don't think we would have much difficulty. We would have Mr. Galster with us when we meet with Mr. Sharfman. Motion by Councilman. Lloyd that the City Manager and the architect in this planned design concept for Galster Park, get together with Mr. Emil Galster and seek a reasonable extension, of time such that'we might find some reduction in the estimated cost of the planned development of Galster Park plus reevaluating all of the design • facilities. Seconded by Councilman Gillum, and carried. Mayor Gleckman acknowledged the presence of Police Chief Allen Sill. Chief Sill introduced the new Deputy Chief of Police - Jim Shade and his wife Joan. Chief Sill summarized the procedure used in the hiring of the Deputy. The Mayor and Council welcomed the new Deputy Chief of Police. Deputy Chief Shade thanked all for the welcome and stated he was pleased and deeply gratified and proud to have been. accepted as Deputy Chief of Police for the City of West Covina, and considered it a real opportunity to be with the City. 5 REG. C.C. 4-28-69 Page Six n U DEPUTY CHIEF OF POLICE - INTRODUCTION - Continued Mayor Gleckman then asked Mrs. Shade if she would like to make any comments. Mrs. Shade replied "I am not accustomed to making speeches, but I would like to say that you made a very good choice." ZONE CHANGE NO. 418 LOCATION. Northeast corner of GOTTLIEB SUGAR INVESTMENT CO. Cameron & California Avenues. Request approval of a zone change from R-1 (Single Family Residential) and R-2 (Restricted Multiple Family Residential) to R-3 (Medium Density Multiple Family Residential.) Recommended by Planning Commission Resolution No,, 21.41.. Mr. Men.ard, Planning Director, read Planning Commission Resolution No. 2141 and verbally went over the matter. THIS IS THE TIME AND PLACE FOR. PUBLIC HEARING ON .ZONE CHANGE NO. 418 IN FAVOR Allen Moline The total. site has a frontage of 721' along the 257 South Spring Street nor-th side -. of California Avenue, split Los Angeles 900.1.2 into two zones R-2 and R-1. We feel in order to develop properly in relation to the surrounding area that the westerly portion should be zoned to R-3. Some of the important items pertaining to this property. 1 - The Real Estate Research Corporation. made a study in 1.966 with reference to the �ear1_y mean demand for multiple units for the Ciety of West Covina. Multiple units provide taxes for the community in excess to services received. We feel. that this particular location. is proper. It is recommended by the professionals for a Master Plan of R�3 hype of zoning. California Avenue is well travelled. Studies indicate it gets heavy traffic similar to a secondary highway. The applicant has made a study as to the feasibility for developing R-1 and found it completely impractical. ' Dri-, tbways were � meritioned � n the past - 7 driveways would be needed for single residences; and also the heavy traffic would make it impractical to sell these homes at this location.. hey cover an average of approximately 322 units per year to the year 1970. Since that time only about 85 units have been built which re- sulted in a shortage of approximately 861 units, The Planning staff conducted a study in December, 1967, covered approximately 1000 units in the City and they found a nil vacancy factor among the apartments having adults only. A 2,4% among the buildings housing children and adults. This Council spent thousands and, thousands of dollars for a General Plan study by a professional firm and their recommendation was to multiple for this particular area. They have indicated that the General Plan for housing should -be providing for a variety of age groups and income levels. The development that is planned for this property will no doubt have executive type of people living in it. The majority are probably married couples without children. An interesting point with reference to the school situation - the ratio for the area destined for the R-3 zoning in comparison to the rest of the site in single residential is a very slight difference, 2/10ths of a percent for school age children will be dwelling in each apartment, comparable to 1,2 children of school age in the single family residences Based upon. the acreage portion of 204 this would generate approximate..-1y 13 school age children . The applicants have acquired financing to cover R-3. It is now available and the applicant is ready to build the .- 6 _, REG. C.C. 4-28-69 Page Seven ZONE CHANGE NO. 418 - Continued project now. It is not a case of coming in. to get zoning but one of wanting to develop a ;-pro.ject that is an. asset to the area. Another vital point - the vacant commercial along Glendora needs supporting density for purchasing dollars. We feel this will support the commercial uses. It is our opinion. that the requested change of zone • will not be detrimental to the surrounding area but will be of a vital asset to the community and will help fulfill the vacancy need that is so necessary in the City of West Covina. IN OPPOSITION Willis Neas I am opposed to Zone Change 717 Soutn. California Avenue No. 418 for the same reasons West Covina brought up.by the citizens of West Covina last October. As far as studies being made saying we need this type of zoning,in the last 6 months there have been. no studies made, the studies were made previous to the last request. Also the criteria for a zone change, I don't see where it fits this request. In compliance with the General Plan in effect in West Covina, the Plan does not show a multiple density in this area. As far as public need, if there was he would have developed. this property 5 years ago when he got the zoning at a compromise. As far as a general welfare to the people - I don't see that it would be as far as throwing heavy density in a residential. area. And zoning practices - to me it would be a very poor zoning practice taking away the buffer .zones between the R-1, R-2 and R-3. Also the only change in the original zoning in this area is on this man's own property, so he has no reason for a zone change, because of a change in surrounding area, The streets are not adequate to serve as a parking lot and since the Planning Commission sets up this criteria I don't see how they could have passed this, and I am asking Council not to pass it tonight for the same reasons they didn't before. Driveways were mentioned - if they put in. 7 driveways it would be for about 14 cars going in and out as against one driveway with about 200 cars if developed with heavy density A._ So I am asking tonight that this zone change be turned down.. Thank you. Edward C. Vestor Four years ago my wife and I 743 South. California Avenue decided to move to West Covina West Covina due to the fact that it was a great R-1 population, and also the information obtained from the Chamber of Commerce was that 40/ of the population was under 10 years of age which meant we would have homes and yards. Also,I understand the San Bernardino Freeway is to be widened to 4 lanes from Francisquito,Avenue to Pomona, which will make an off ramp at California. 2 years ago they put a. 24 hour signal at our in.terBection and the traffic piled up, now what will California do then? So I ask that this Council overrule the R-3 zoning and make along California R-1 as it is, and let the rest of it go R-3. Mrs. Davidson This reclassification would pose 737 California a definite hardship on the health West Covina and general welfare of the citizens in the immediate and surrounding vicinity and on the children, who walk to schools, several of which are on California and others quite close. Traffic problems are severe right . now and living here would become untenable with noises, smog and the frustrations of coping with the great increase of automobiles in such a confined area with the present R-1 zoning. The traffic from this complex would use Cameron Avenue for entry and exit. If the proponents do not wish to attract only the transient tenants they should not demand more because the same problems would affect them too. This is the wrong spot for such dense population. in. surrounding areas are full into parking areas and with so I notice all of parked cars. Our many children in the apartment buildings streets would turn area it would be - 7 - REG. C.C. 4-28­69 Page Eight ZONE CHANGE NO. 418 - Continued treacherous. The people came here to rear their families in peace and tranquility in this City of Beautiful Homes. Planning apartment buildings are very necessary and could 'be done beautifully with sophisticated planning in an area suitable for highrise complexes. The whole city would then benefit. Business needs people that stay, • not the drifters. Granting this zone change would be a great injustice to the hundreds of homeowners in this area. If one drives around West Covina the most blatant fact shows the result of dreadfully bad planning with the acquiescence,, I assume, of the Council. It is time this City -grew up and planned for its citizens to remain harmonious. Business needs people, thousand of them, so give them high:rise with underground parking and utilities in an area suitable as an apartment district. They should be lovely to look at and a pride and joy to live in. This little area on. California is not suitable, it could prove to be the down.gradin.g of West Covina. Using plain. common.sense and pride in. our City I oppose this request on the grounds requested. Ed McNeal I was unable to be here 6 months ago when 1.233 Margarita Drive this came before Council but it bothers me West Covina to think that people have to come up here every so often in order to oppose a group that wants to keep putting something in here. Many years ago who ever owned that land had an opportunity to develop in the way the surrounding area was being developed and when somebody holds on. to land for many years I think he reaps the results of waiting 'too long and of wanting to put something in that the people don't want .- and this is the case. I frankly feel we have enough apartments :in the city of West Covina. I moved here in 1954 when we had walnut and orange groves (related the area as it was years ago) and I have always felt that we could count on the City- Council and other elected and appointed people to look out for the well being of the people. Tonight we have the citizens of West Covina opposing the project as proposed - I feel you know what is good for West Covina, I know what is good for West Covina and these people know, and I certainly'hope you people will look on this in the same way you did a few months ago. Marjory Gaines This is an. old case covering a span. of about 914 West Chapella 4 years. Originally the proponents came West Covina in asking for high density development of the entire field. The Council made a compromise decision at that time, giving -the proponents most of the field for R-3 but preserving one area of R-1 on California and R•-2, to provide a suitable buffer zone as a protection to the R-1 homeowners already there. I think you will agree most of the pie went to the developers. The next application was for a very profitable (potential) car lot on the Glendora end of the property,,ma.king the pie even more palatable. It was granted. The .following application was to wipe out the R.-1 and R-2 and increase the density - again back to the whole pie. It was very properly denied by you. We all appreciated the fact that you saved us one piece of that pie, naturally we felt we deserved it. Now we are back again, not cheerfullybut here anyway asking you to please save our last piece of pie. I jotted down a couple of notes while..the proponent was speaking that I wanted to point out as "being a little •bit fallacious. 1)- that California Avenue is receiving almost as much. traffic as a secondary highway. I would like to point out that although it may be receiving that much traffic it is necessarily not a desirable thing and we hope it will not get any worse than it is, because California is not a secondary highway and was not designed for that purpose and it is solid R.-1 all the way from the business district down to ZaPuente. As far as the argument that you should have support- ing density -for commercial on Glendora, that is just approximately the opposite reason they give when they ask for the commercial. on streets like Glendora. So it really doesn't hold too much. water. As far as - 8 - REG. C.C. 4-28-69 Page Nine ZONE CHANGE NO. 418 - Continued who might live inthe apartments - why we all know that anybody .might live in. the apartments - which is just fine, but to say they are all going to be executives is kind of silly because it doesn't work out that way and .it really doesn't have much bearing on the subject anyway. • Mrso Z;ombert When an R-3 development is surrounded almost 12.14 W. Devers three quarters by residential, when. one of the West Covina egress streets will have at least 100 cars and the street is of residential width. and the city has made no provisi.on.s to prohibit overnight parking, when strong code standards for -R-,3 have not 'been. developed to protect the surrounding neighborhoods, when our public .recreational facilities are at present only a.15 hundreds of an acre per 100 people, then it seems quite reasonable to conclude this development is not in the best interests of the established community. I present 78 signatures of residents who feel this same concern and desire a well planned community. I would like to put this into the record - pl.ease. Thank you., Mrs. Patricia Neas I: don't want to go over everything that 717 South California. everyone else has said, but I do want to West Covina say I concur. with all that has been said here and at the hearing .last October. One thing not brought out is that this is a matter on zoning and once a person has received the zoning what he builds is up to him. We have no control once zoning is granted, and this is what we thought once befo.re,, He got his zoning that he wished with the R-1-2 &3 and he did :n.ot build. Now he has the commercial and R-3 and as Council agreed before R-1, R.--2 would stay the same and he did not build. We have no idea of what he will build if he gets the R-3 all. the way to California.. As to being executive type of apartments or not, we don't know. Whether he bui.lds.or not we don't know. He could turn right around and sell the property. So I think they ought to think a little about the citizens in the area and what will happen to the area. They do definitely need a buffer zone from the R-2. Mrs. John, L. Kachatek Everything .has been very aptly said in 1.220 W. Ma.rgaretta Drive opposition.. Just another voice saying I West Covina concur on everything said. However, this is a personal. thing with. each. of us as we are in homelike dwellings. I can't imagine so-called executive type dwellers wishing to dwell in an area of family dwellings. Secondly, put each of yourselves and your families directly in. the line of fire, so to speak, with. the heavy abundance of traffic that will be in this area - put yourself and your family across the street or around the corner .from such a structure, and let that be your answer. REBUTTAL Allen. Moline I would like to say that I must deal only -with factors pertaining to planning and good, zoning practices. The opposition claims heavy traffic, which creates a. problem for the site. That claim of heavy traffic makes :it more conducive to a multiple type of use rather than residential. The area it not actually a residential area. It fronts on Cameron. Avenue, a secondary highway, and the properties to the south of Cameron back up to the Cameron. Boulevard and face the street to the south. The properties to the north, which. are also.Master planned multiple in the suggested Master Plan and rear lots abuue the rear of the subject property. All the arguments made were mainly emotional arguments and sometimes people make arguments and don't realize what is good for them. This property has a character which is related more to the commercial than residential uses. Already a portion of this property - 5 acres is zoned R--3. The R-2 zoning is basically an. obsolete type of zone. It is not a. usable type of zoning. The R-1 zoning because of the traffic problems along California Avenue, is not conducive to R-1 uses. - 9 - REG. C.C. 4­28-69 Page Ten ZONE CHANGE NO. 418 - Continued I think it would be a greater tragedy to build residential homes on California which would probably wind up being small dwelling units and could downgrade the area, where an apartment project of the nature of R--3, which to the information of the good people here, is controlled by the Precise Plan procedures of the City of West Covina. .Before that apartment can. be built it has to "be approved by the Planning Department and Planning Commission.. It is difficult to overcome the emotional problems that the people feel they have concerning this site, but we have to be practical about it and we feel. the only logical solution for the use of this property is for. a r.eside.n.tia.l multiple development and the entire site should be included as suggested by the planners hired by the City. I repeat, we have the financing and are ready, to develop under the control of the City. Driveway control lies with the City, not in the hands of the developers. If.the City feels no driveway should go on California and should be restricted to Cameron that is the'way it will. have to go. We feel this area is not residential the character of this site is closely related to the commercial, and to the Glendora Avenue frontages. Thank you. THERE BEING NO FURTHER PUBLIC TESTIMONY, PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED, COUNCIL DISCUSSION. Councilman Gillum: I have written down a few notes that concern me greatly. I think this is the second or third time I have heard this request for a zone change. Let me state that when we as Council sit up here and put up a buffer of R-1 we are just kidding you people and ourselves, because nobody is going to develop it and sooner or later someone is going to come along and ask for relief and justifiably. Relief from an R-1 buffer is being requested here. I think in the past we have been playing a game to pacify by putting R-1 buffers, thinking that will. take care of the problem at present. But I have never found in the past 3 years that an R-1 buffer has ever been. built, they always come in and ask for relief and justifiably so. One gentleman referred to the General Plan as not to the present General Plan showing any type of multiple dwelling and he is correct. But if my memory serves me right these are the same people that asked us to upgrade the General Plan about 3 years ago and th.is.:is what we are trying to do and provide the necessities. We do have control over R-3, in fact we have a very good R-3 as far as set- back, landscaping, etc. Granted we cannot say who will live or not live there. As one young lady said there is a need for R-3. It is a difficult decision. trying to plan a community and do the proper thing and try and satisfy everyone, I think we would actually be doing an injustice to the people in the surrounding area if we were to approve a R-1 buffer because they never build on R-1. As far as traffic is concerned California Avenue is carrying quite a few more automobiles and it will carry still more when the freeway is widened and the hook ramp is put in. I can understand the concern. of the homeowners because I have been here since we had walnut groves, horses, flowers, etc., but this is a City, it is not the little town. of West Covina anymore, and to be a progressive city in the San Gabriel Valley we have to pro- vide the necessities of R-3, and also retain our City of Beautiful homes, As stated a few times - a lot of us that do not live in apartments feel apartments attract undesirables - but this is not true. In fact I take exception. to that, some of my best friends live in apartments. I think it is only a matter of time. One man said he was a little irritated and I believe he was justified, in coming down every six months to discuss this matter, but the people that own this property have every right every six months to request a zone change. It is their property and they have this right to request just as you do to oppose it. 10 - li REG. C.C. 4-28-69 Page Eleven ZONE CHANGE NO. 4.18 .-• Continued I would have to state that I would support the Planning Commission's recommendation for the rezoning on. this property. Councilman. Chappell- When I first came on Council we heard this and at that time the request was for R-4 zoning which I opposed and still do. As far as R-2 nowhere in the City to my knowledge have we ever developed R-2, because of lack of density and the fact it is not profitable. As far as R-1_ goes I have personally contacted a builder in the community who is presently buEldi.ng homes, and they have looked at the site. Another 7 homes would out his cost considerably and he looked this property over and said "I would never develop it to-R-1 because it wouldn't sell" and if he did build the type of homes that could sell people would object far more to that than. they would perhaps to a planned and controlled R-3 development. We do have the built in protection for the homeowners - we have the Precise Plan development that we passed on here at Council., and I feel. by following those requirements we can protect the interests�_of our residents and naturally they count most as far as I am concerned. Councilman. Nichols- Mr. Menard - I notice in the planning staff report there is a statement that I have heard again and again and that is there is "a sub- stantial need for additional. multiple family residential zoning in West Covina." There quite possibly is a need for additional develop- ment of apartments in West Covina, but I trunk the statement of "a substantial need for additional multiple family residential zoning" would be a moot question. So I would ask the staff to look over the nature of the statement to see if it really conveys what staff meant it to convey. I -believe we do have a housing shortage in the City and definitely a shortage of apartments, but there are many, many acres of multiple zoned land vacant in the city at the present time, so I think there is a difference there. This kind of a thing is very hard for many of us to think about. I think the first thing that really bothers me, the same thing that Councilman Gillum. has alluded too, this buffer concept. R-1 - the longer I have looked at that I realize that no builder is ever going to come into the City and build one row of houses facing on California Avenue at today°s building costs, backing them up to apart- ments - it just is not going to happen. I know exactly how everyone feels that lives near that and I don't believe there is anyway a single family residence can 'be buffered from apartments if you are right next door to it, or across the street„ But I think when we are talking about leaving a row for single family housing we are discussing about leaving a vacant lot. But the thing that really bothers me more than anything else is going back historically to when that parcel was first developed and the citizens came out and opposed the whole concept and then we set the buffer - sort of pacifying the opposition. Well once you make the initial change in a land use in the area it is almost destiny that the rest will be changed in some fashion. For myself I could really and in all good conscience sit on this Council. and say I could make a decision in either way and say ethically that I was making a good decision. So I am going to oppose this on on.e basis alone, that I made a commitment to some of the citizens of this community that I would attempt to protect their homes .in that area, and I have always done so and I am going to do that now and vote in that direction tonight. But I state that - in an effort to show you how really concerned I am that no matter which way it goes it is a problem and I don't know the final answer. I will vote "no" on this request. Councilman Lloyd.- It is interesting to note the development of the commentaries which occurred.here this evening, Primarily, it again demonstrates the maturity of this Council. This Council had a meeting at 6 o'clock - 11 - REG. C.C. 4-28-69 Page Twelve ZONE CHANGE NO. 418 - Continued tonight to make a determination of what we want as far as representa- tion on our Commissions and one of the things we asked was that these Commissioners act with foresight, judgment and some force. This Council collectively and individually was passing judgment on indivi- duals with regards to Commissions and asked a very real question - are these Commissioners performing in the manner in which they should? Are they acting with integrity, with honesty, with forcefulness - and now we find in this application that a Commission, the Planning Commission, has come to us with five votes indicating that this action should be taken, I am a homeowner just as you are. I reside in this community, just as you do and if you think for one moment that any person sitting up here can easily make a decision which is contrary to the wishes of many of you here, or contrary to the wishes of a builder who can bring in more base, more business, more economics, which will help support this community the way we want, let me assure you right here and right now that is not the case. It is a difficult decision.. I have very strong feelings as to what I would like to see in this community and I have voiced them-, Now I find that I really don't want to go contrary to what you are asking. I understand what it is like for a multiple dwelling situation right next to homes, it is unpalatable to those of you who own homes there. Yet you are the very people --Mr. Neese, I can. remember you questioning me when I was running for City Council - you said fewhat are you going to do for this community?" One of the things I am going to do is say that we have a plan, we have a recommendation, and I am without any reservations going to be for this. I am sorry because I know it is not going to make some of you very happy because it doesn't even make me happy, but I think at this point, at this time, we have to take a look at what we have to face in this community and p1an a development of a total area. We have a very fine Planning Department, a good Commission and I am guided by their decisions. Mayor Gleckman. I agree with everything said - pro and con on Council, for this particular development and this particular type of zoning. The only thing is that I have always asked the question not that am I against something, but what would I do instead of. I go along with the conversation that has been held here this evening - the R.-4 proposed by this applicant sometime ago I opposed. I don't think this particular area can take that type of density and I am talking about 277 units. The proposed density now would be a maximum of 182 units and would be controlled by the Precise Plan. We do have R-3 in the area. There were some comments saying it was R-1 solid all the way, that is not true. I was asked a question a couple of weeks ago by a school teacher in West Covina High - how come, she asked me, you ask me to come here and teach and we could not find an apartment, we had to rent an apartment somewhere else because you people are against apartments? We have no children and we would like to live in West Covina - we don't like what we have seen built here_. Where would you advise us to live, we can't afford to buy a home. So I think this situation does exist. I am concerned about the many times people come in for zoning and then do not develop. Later on this evening I will ask this Council to take a review of the last year's rezoning to find out what we have rezoned and what has been built and what has not been built and then ask our Planning Commission to take a look at it and find out what we can do about reducing that zoning back to its origin - `all ' use_. and I know it can be done, even though .some of you people don't think so. - 12 - REG. C.C. 4-28-69 Page Thirteen ZONE CHANGE NO. 418 - Continued I do feel this Council has done its best to protect everyone of these residents in this area. I do think this Council in its best judgment have probably the best men we have ever had on our Planning Commission. I sat in on the Planning Commission hearing regarding this. I wanted to find some logical reasoning for turning this down. and I hate to say this, but outside of the emotional reasoning which I agree with because if I lived across -the street or next door I would say exactly what was said tonight, but the obligation of this Council is to recommend for the entire City, I have not been able to find - outside of emotional reasoning - any reason for turning down R-3 on this property. I think it car, be controlled by*th.e Precise Plan, I think the setbacks that would be put in could help you and I don't mean. to degrade but when you look at the homes on Service Avenue, the quality of the homes that back -up to this particular project, I don't think there is a question in anybody's mind including those here this evening, that that will remain. R-1. I don't see how any other use could possibly be put on that property except a park site if the City had the money and if it were a park site we then get complaints from residents about the noise, etc® So the only use I could see for that outside of R-3 was a park site. I don't see any developer at present cost or past cost that could economically build there® So I am going to go along with the recommendation of our Planning Commission and I would entertain a motion. Motion by Councilman Gillum, seconded by Councilman. Chappell, that Zone Change Application 418 be approved. Notion carried on roll call vote as follows., AYES.- Councilmen Gillum, Chappell, Lloyd, Mayor Gleckman NOES. Councilman Nichols 40 ABSENT° None THE CHAIR DECLARED A RECESS AT 9 P.M. COUNCIL RECONVENED AT 9-10 P.M. HEARINGS Continued ZONE CHANGE NO, 417 LOCATION. South side of Truman ROBERT RIMPAU & GERALD KLEIN Place east of the termimus of Wescove Place. Request approval of a zone change from O-P (Office -Professional) to R-3 (Medium Density Multiple Family Residential). Recommended by Planning Commission. Resolution. No. 2139 (Note- Precise Plan No. 567 called up by City Council on April 21, 1969, set for hearing on May 12, 1969.) Mr. Menard, Planning Director, verbally presented Planning Commission Resolu.tioy-,, No. 2139, referred to map displayed, and further stated that the Planning Commission felt this was anupzoning from 0--P to Multiple Residential.. THIS IS THE TIME AND PLACE FOR THE PUBLIC HEARING ON ZONE CHANGE NO. 417. .IN FAVOR Gerald Klein. We feel that this request for a change of zone 1111 E. Third Street is a very reasonable and necessary change in San. Dimas planning for the City. We are in the attractive position of having an unanimous support of staff and Planning Commission. The City Code requires that a change of zone establish three important items which. we feel can readily be established.- 1 - Public Necessity.- There is a considerable amount of ' O-P property not being utilized as such simply because there is an overabundance of it. We have conducted several significant surveys in the West Covina area as to the vacancy factor in apartments. We find there are literally no vacancies and in many instances apart- .. REG. C.C. 4-28-69 Page Fourteen ZONE CHANGE NO. 417 - Continued ments have waiting lists. We feel R-3 would be very appropriate here because it would lend itself to the neighborhood business districts and permit people working there to reside where they could walk to work, besides providing housing that is needed. Again we would point to the staff's report indicating a need for apartment housing in this area. Also we would point out that this conforms to good zoning practices. The use we are proposing is one more restrictive than you currently zoned for this property. We have reviewed and discussed with staff the preliminary report of the South Glendora Plan which indicates this is a good area for R-3. From the standpoint of a buffer, and much can be said about buffer, this R-3 besides providing housing for people would buffer the R-1 areas immediately to the east and buffer the commercial zone planned around it. We feel this is a good request for zoning and we do propose to construct seventeen apartment units on it. We propose to start work as soon as the zoning and Precise Plan are approved. IN OPPOSITION Mrs. H. Leon I live right next to it on Truman Place and I 440 E. Truman Place say seventeen apartments are too many and I am West Covina against it because our streets are too narrow and people living in apartments do not use their garages and will 'be parking on the street. Also people living in apartments generally work and leave in the morning and return at night and it is very hard to turn on to Glendora now and they will be using Truman Place. Either leave it as it is or less apartments. I am against it. . Clifford S. Thyberg I would call your attention to the petition presented to the Planning Commission when West Covina this hearing was held. The 34 residents unanimously agreed to these points that I would like to call to your attention. The undersigned protest a zone change for the following reasons.- 1- The high density of apartments for such a small area of land; 2 -,the congested parking that will result because of this location and because of the residential street size; 3 - the increased traffic on these residential streets.. I happen to liver -right across from this and I canverify it is very difficult to come out and turn left on Glendora now, so there will be a great deal of traffic on Truman Place, and for this reason we are opposed to it. REBUTTAL Mr. Gerald Klein-. Here again I think the key is that the zoning we are proposing is more restrictive than the zoning that is there. From the standpoint of, traffic, which seems to be the basic bone of contention, the apartment project would create less traffic than would the 0-P zone. We are providi.ng_,for about two covered parking spaces for each apartment unit. As indicated to the Planning Commission, we would have no reservations whatsoever if the City choose to prohibit overnight parking on Wescove or Truman Place. We don't feel street parking is appropriate for an apartment project or any other type of project. We want to take care of our parking problems on the project itself. We feel by provid- ing two parking stalls per unit this would be adequate. This apartment is being developed for adults only, we are making no provisions for children, therefore we do not see why any family would have more than two cars. Granted, Glendora carries a lot of traffic but again our project wouldn't increase that any more than a doctor's office or any complex of professional offices. - 14 - REG. C.C. 4-28-69 Page Fifteen ZONE CHANGE NO. 417 - Continued The petition presented was reviewed by the Planning Commission and I am not real sure that the people that signed the petition were really interested, at least not sufficiently to come to the Planning Commission and protest it, and I don't know if they are here tonight or not. • PUBLIC PORTION OF HEARING CLOSED. COUNCIL DISCUSSION. Councilman Nichols: I would like to tell a little story to the Council, if I may. A short historical back- ground on this, which has bearing. (Went to display map) At one time in recent years all of this parcel going out c to Glendora Avenue was in one block. At that time, three or four years ago, the owner came to the Council and asked for 0-P, I believe over all this property. At that time the Council expressed a considerable concern about the possibility of this area then being developed and the traffic there from feeding out on to Truman and Wescove. So the Council in its wisdom required the owner of the property at that time - to deed to the City of West Covina a 1' lot along this boundary and the pledge the Council made at that time by its action to the residents in the area in development, the West Covina City in taking that 1' lot was going to protect the substandard streets with residential homes from intrusion of this flow of traffic in the area as it developed, requiring the area to develop with its access strictly to:Merced to Glendora. Now the setting changes and a period of time goes by and then the owner of the front land came in and said he would like to have C zoning here on the portion and C zoning on this portion, so Council granted and it is now being developed as a service station and a little market is being developed here. •Now we have a nice little packet of land that is landlocked, except for access to Truman Place across the 1' lot owned by the City. So in fact I joined the rest of the Council, forgetting about our little action of a year or two before and proceeded to create a parcel of land that only has access over a buffer that the Council created to protect the area, I myself participated in destroying the protection we tried to create at one time, just by not paying attention to what I was doing. That was an error on my part because I think I was about the only Councilman here and then to have it come back and forget about it. As a result I feel very strongly an obligation to attempt to protect as much of the integrity of the residential property as is possible. It is obvious to me that that remaining parcel of land should have some sort of multiple zoning designation. on it. I couldn't conceive of three odd -ball lots in size left back in there, so I would have to say that I would favor granting the zoning requested, but I would serve nbtice on the applicant at this time that I am going to look with a very severe eye on the Precise Plan for this particular development when it comes in. Councilman Chappell: Have we run a traffic survey? I heard tonight 0-P would cause more traffic on the streets than would commercial. Yet the 0-P would probably be closed evenings and Sunday and possibly at noon on Saturday, when most residents would be home and perhaps traffic would be giving them their biggest headache. Do we have information on that Mr. Menard? 'Mr. Menard: It is very true that the traffic patterns of multiple family and O-P are very different. I would anticipate some kind of a medical. facility which is typically close -to a residential area like this. An apartment house as proposed does not during the day create a great number of generations. In the morning and evening about three or four generations a day per unit. Looking at it from the point of view of a doctors facility it comes out about four generations per hour per doctor and I assume about four doctors in a complex of that size, so it comes out about 60 for an apartment and typically 115 for a doctors complex. From the point of view of traffic generations the Glendora Plan - 15 - REG. C.C. 4-28-69 Page Sixteen 0 a 0 ZONE CHANGE NO. 417 - Continued recommends that back to back cul de sacs be created here to separate the residential area which is obviously going to remain residential for some period of time, that it be separated physically from Wescove Place,by the placing of cul de sacs as we did on Eckerman Avenue. .A great deal of time was given to the possible cul de sating of these streets at the Planning Commission meeting and they will be on the South Glendora Plan. It is up to the property owners, single family property owners, to implement this kind of recommendation if the Council approves this, they must petition their Council to accomplish it. Mayor Gleckman: Any further comments by Council? Do we still have the 1' right of way on that piece of property? 'Mr. Menard: Across a part of the property. The resubdi.vi- sion that tied this all into one (explained with the use of the map.) We have a 1' lot for part of it, so in effect we don't have an effective 1' lot. Mayor Gleckman: But at the same time they are land locked? Mr. Menard: This is all one lot now so they have access out right here (explained with use of map). Mayor-Gleckman: We have an, odd shaped lot now and in either case I believe we are going to create a traffic problem. I believe this should be taken up at the time of the Precise flan. I hate to bring to Council's attention but at the time this property was being zoned I mentioned we were land locking this particular piece of property and the comments from Council were - what's the difference, the same man owns all the property and if he wants to land lock his own property it is to up him. At the same time I predicted this would come back demanding access. It is unfortunate it has come back to us to roost. Councilman Gillum: Mr. Gleckman - I do recall your statements on that and unfortunately I can't remember anything I said - pro or con. Mayor Gleckman: It was a 4 to l vote. Councilman Gillum: Well to quote one of the young ladies out in the hall here tonight and probably rightfully, she was upset over our decision and shh stated "this City is a bodge-podge and it was planned by idiots...." and I took exception to that. This Council and future Councils will be faced with this very thing at times .- and with all good intentions we end up with pieces of property like this. I think we have to do something with it and when the Precise Plan is called up I agree with Mr. Nichols, I would also like to take a long look at it in order to -make sure we try and do a good job for the surrounding residents. Motion by Councilman Gillum, seconded by Councilman Lloyd, approving Zone Change Application No. 417 as submitted by Planning Commission Resolution No. 2139. Motion carried on roll call vote as follows: AYES: Councilmen Gillum., Nichols, Chappell, Lloyd,.Mayor Gleckman NOES: None ABSENT: None (Councilman Nichols asked when the Precise Plan would be heard and he was advised May 12th.) - 16 - REG. C.C. 4-28-69 Page Seventeen STREET IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT AD 1-68 CAMERON AVENUE - PROTEST HEARINGS LOCATION: Cameron Avenue from Lark Ellen Avenue to Azusa Avenue and west side of Azusa Avenue from Cameron Avenue to approximately 100' north 'of Alaska Street. DEBT LIMIT REPORT Set for hearing this date by PROTEST HEARING Resolution No. 3955 adopted March 10, 1969. Mayor Gleckmano Madam City Clerk - do you have the affidavits of mailing relative to this hearing? City Clerk: I do. Motion by Councilman Lloyd, seconded by Councilman Chappell, and carried, to receive and file. (Mayor Gleckman then requested the Assessment Engineer to present his report) Patrick Rossetti (In summary presented the factual data of the Assessment Engineer written report, including modifications made since the original report was presented.) Mayor Gleckmano Let me say this is the first of two hearings to be held on, this matter and this is the Debt Limit report prepared by the City's Assessment Engineer and presents the facts of the feasibility of the project by evaluating the assessed value of the land, improvements and un.-paid assessments within the District as compared to the project cost. Mr. Wakefield: Mr. Mayor - at this time it would be in order to adopt a motion to amend Exhibit B of the Debt Limit Report in accordance with the recommendations of the consulting engineer. So moved by Councilman Chappell, seconded by Councilman Lloyd, and carried. Mayor Gleckman: Madam City Cl.erk,,have you received any written protests relative to the Debt Limit Report? (Mr. Rossetti handed protests to the City Clerk, and advised Council they referred to both the Debt Limit Report and the Assessment District.) The City Clerk read into the record protests from the following: West Covina Unified School District Board, signed by Clifford S. Thyberg, Superintendent of Schools-, Albext Handler and Paul Co Wessel. Mr. Wakefield Gentlemen, the written protests are to be considered in connection with both reports and both items on the agenda. The protests overlap, however they are filed in connection with the Debt Limit proceedings and are to be considered with that item. At this time it would be in order to .ask the Assessment Engineer to compute the percentage of written protests and if there is written protests by owners of more than one-half the area of the property to be assessed, the Council then has two alternatives either to abandon the proceedings or continue until a future date. Mayor Gleckman asked the Assessment Engineer to compute the percentage of protests filed; Mr. Rossetti,adv:ised 51%. - 17 - REG.C.C. 4-28-69 Page Eighteen DISTRICT AD 1-68 - Continued Mayor Gleckman: At this time the Council is instructed that we have two alternatives, we can proceed and ask if the written protests might be withdrawn or we can continue the hearing until a later date. • Councilman Gillum: I stated earlier and I realize this is one of biggest bottleneck's in our community as far as traffic, but I at the present time cannot support this District with the boundary lines as drawn. I think that they are unfair. I would, therefore, make a motion that this hearing be continued for an additional 30 days, to :May 26, 1969. Seconded by Councilman Chappell. Councilman Nichols. Mr. Wakefield - is it possible to amend the boundaries of this District? Mr. Wakefield. The boundaries of the District or the work to be performed may both be amended by the Council. It would require a Resolution to amend the. boundaries of the District and a rescheduling, if so desired by Council. If you desire to do that I believe it would be appropriate to amend the boundaries to whatever date you may seta Councilman Nichols. What would be the virtue of holding this matter over to a given date without such action? Mr. Wakefield. The only virtue in holding would.be with the expectation or hope that one or more of the protests filed against it would be withdrawn. As the matter now stands the City Council is without authority to proceed any further at this time. Mayor Gleckman. If this is to be continued for 30 days, within that 30 day period the City cannot drop certain boundaries that are included in the existing resolution without formally requesting a change? Can we make the Dis- trict smaller without requesting a Resolution to do so? Councilman Nichols. Can this be done without any further action by the Council other than to continue this matter? 'Mr. Wakefield. If the matter .is continued then the City Engineer and the consulting engineer could come in at the date of the continued hearing with a recommendation for the change in boundary. Mayor Gleckman. And at that time no action could take place without scheduling another public hearing? Mr. Wakefield:. That is correct, but it would require some instruction from Council as to what changes in boundaries might be desired. Mayor Gleckman. Now at the same time if we take action on the present motion on the floor and then at this meeting change the boundary and set that hearing for the same night that we hear this - - is that possible? Is there anyway for us to change the -boundaries tonight? Mr. Wakefield: If the boundaries of the District are to be changed the Council would have to indicate specifically what the boundary change would be, - 18 - REG. C.C. 4-28-69 Page Nineteen DISTRICT AD 1-68 - Continued Mayor Gleckman- My question is - can we do this after this motion to continue this hearing to.May 26th? In other words, do we take action before the other action or can we proceed this way and then come back with a motion to change the boundaries specifically? Mr.. Wakefield - Mayor Gl.eckman.- Councilman Gillum., if acceptable to the Councilman Gillum - Mr. Zimmerman - Mr. Wakefield - The change of boundary should occur before the hearing is continued. Thank you. If I understand Mr. Wakefield correctly, then in order.to proceed with this the motion I proposed should be withdrawn' which I will do second. this means we have to wait 30 days 'before we contractor on the job, until. May 26th that it the contract,..., can be Acceptable to Councilman Chappell. Motion withdrawn. Mr. Aiassa - approximately what is the length of time for the total project to be completed on Cameron? The total construction time is estimated at 45 days from the date the contract is awarded. In connection with the time schedule you should bear in mind there are rights of way to be acquired along Cameron Avenue and Azusa and have an. order for immediateJ.'possession and then can take possession of the property and put the so ,I would assume that if the matter is continued would be approximately the first of August before awarded. Councilman Lloyd- I think we have a problem here which works not to the public interest in the fact we have a public agency in opposition to this City, which in turn derives all of their support in. this area, and we have a City area which is making a recommendation and I think at this point that we cannot worry about the time element because it is working against the best interests of the citizens who in the final analysis pays for this. The School System sees fit to object and this Council is trying to get some other thing done, we have to act but I don't think we are required to act in haste to meet any deadline at this point. We must proceed with all "deliberate speed" but if that speed carries over into September I for one say if the interest. of the community is not hampered or endangered than indeed we must take that type of action. I think we have a. basic concept of interest here in the public domain and we should allow a sufficient period of time and quit worrying about deadlines, because in the final analysis the people who are the voters are going to have to pay for it. Councilman Chappell: I might say that I was at the School Board meeting at the time it was discussed and voted on. It was the feeling of the School Board that perhaps one member could go out and contact the owners of the property again - and as I read it and I could be wrong - but he is in the audience and he can make a statement if I am wrong - it looked to me like they would rather have a dedication instead of the 1911 Act. And the School. Board went along with the thinking of trying one more time. I think they should be allowed to have this time to try and get this dedication. They knew full well of our time schedule when they discussed this. I was there and I heard it and felt they had some points in favor of that. As you all know I am very anxious to have this project completed, but I say let's try.it once more. - 19 - .REG. C.C. 4-28-69 Page Twenty DISTRICT AD 1-68 - Continued Councilman Gillum- Mr. Wakefield - you stated if we wanted to change the boundaries we should do it this evening by resolution? Mr..Wakefiel.d- There are two ways - you can do it by resolution. tonight or instruct staff to come back on May 26th with a recommendation on the boundary change and at that time take action and set a hearing on the change in boundaries. Councilman Gillum- Well there are a number of problems here that I don't think we can resolve tonight without contacting the people involved and so,I think the best thing to do is reintroduce my motion to continue this for 30 days and in the motion direct the staff to try and work out the problem areas in the District with the people involved and come back with a solution as far as the assessment of the total project. Seconded by Councilman Lloyd. Councilman Chappell. What we are attempting to do, as I remember, is knock off this area on Azusa, and I agree that we should, but of course I don't know how to go about doing it. Mr. Wakefield- There are two alternatives- You can adopt a resolution tonight changing the 'boundaries of the District to eliminate the acquisition and the improvement on Azusa Avenue - eliminate Parcel No. 13, or you can continue the matter and instruct the staff to prepare an appropriate resolution for consideration by Council and continue the hearing. Mayor Gleckman- We have a motion made and seconded to continue to.May 26th along with instruction to staff to look at the boundaries and come in with an appropriate resolution. Motion carried. Mayor Gleckman- We did have several people here tonight in connection with this. If anyone here this even- ing would like to make a comment. Mr. Wakefield.- Mr. Mayor - Council should bear in mind that we have two hearings tonight and we should also open the hearing on the formation of the assessment district and then you may hear the oral protests or oral suggestions. Mayor.Gleckman- I really don't want to hear any oral protests or suggestions tonight, I just thought they might want to make a statement, anything else T.would appreciate your holding until the hearing. Mr. Michaelson This is information that we are cooperating 1500 E. Cameron with and we hope it is constructive and led West Covina possibly to another avenue. I would like to say that all of the property owners would like to have this improvement made. It is the details of what conditions, that we are now trying to clarify.. Of course some months ago we made this effort to get 100% participation whereby the property owner would dedicate this frontage.... Councilman Lloyd- Do you speak as a property owner or a member of the school board? 'Mr. Michaelson- Property owner. This voluntary plan, as you know, didn't work out and we didn't get 100% so that was defeated. Then we have the School - 20 - REGo C.C. 4_.28-69 Page Twenty-one DISTRICT AD 1-68 - Continued District action which puts the thing more or less on dead center, but in spite of all, of this the property owners would still like to work out some agre'emen.t whereby the improvements can be made. To help solve this we preselit'you with an alternate proposal signed by nine of the property owners. This is not a legal document but the signatures bear out the .. good faith it was signed in. We have three property owners that did not sign, Mr.: Goldstein who is out of the country but he will be back as of May 1 and is sympathetic with the improvements; Mr. Asmus has not signed and he is present tonight and may comment; and the third member is Mr. Handler and whom you already had a statement from. These nine property owners have signed this alternate proposal and agreed to dedicate the required frontage at ano cost to the City. In return the City is to provide the funds for the entire future project. It is understood this alternate proposal., even if Council agrees to the terms, it is not sufficient to make the project go on a voluntary basis. However 100% participation could possibly be obtained by further negotiation with the three property owners who did not sign the alternate proposal. So,I say again - this is presented in the spirit of cooperation. and we hope it is opening the door for the voluntary act rather than getting into the 1911. act. So I would like to leave this proposal with the.signatures of the nine property owners. W. T. Tanking I am a property owner and I have a question. 1538 East Cameron Is'.Camgron:.-Avenue'a.secondary highway? West Covina Mr.. Zimmertsno Yes on the old General. Plan it is shown as a major highway and on the new General Plan it i.s a secondary highway. Mr. Tanking:_ When there is a secondary highway State Gas Tax funds are involved. Is this .not correct? Mayor Gleckman: State Gas Tax is available. Mr. Tanking: When State Gas Tax is involved it is possible that arrangements other than the 1911 Act are in order. This is just a point for your information. Mayor Gleckmano Thank: you. I would like to inform you that the five members of this Council are very well aware of your point but we appreciate your advising use 'Mr. R. Asmus I am a property owner and one of the three 1434 E. Cameron,.,. owners that dial not sign. My objection is West Covina' basically to the sidewalk part of the proposed improvement., I would ask you to consider ways and means for excluding the sidewalks from the improvement. Basically I feel if we have to give up part of our property and the sidewalk is constructed, thousands of people in the City will gain direct benefit from the improvement and therefore the cost of the improvement should be spread to all the people who gained from the improvement. 0 As Mr. Michaelson proposed and if it is your decision that a sidewalk goes in for return of dedicating 10` at no cost for construction I would be willing to dedicate the 10`, but I would rather first see ways and means explored to see if a sidewalk is absolutely necessary or if it can be excluded from the improvement. At the appropriate time I would be ready to talk about sidewalks. Mayor Gleckmane Mr. Wakefield, am I correct that the sidewalks being proposed here are being paid by the City and not a part of the cost of this particular area. The city's general fund is paying for the sidewalks. - 21 ; REG, C.C. 4-28-69 Page Twenty-two DISTRICT AD 1-68 - Continued Mr. Wakefield- That is correct. HEARING OF PROTESTS AND OBJECTIONS Installation of street improve - TO FORMING 1911 ACT ASSESSMENT ments in Cameron Avenue improve - DISTRICT ment District AD 1-68. Set for hearing on. this date by Resolution of Intention No. 3956 adopted by the City Council on March 10, 1969. THIS IS THE TIME AND PLACE FOR THE PUBLIC HEARING. Mayor Gleckman- Madam City Clerk do you have the affidavits of posting, publication and mailing? City Clerk- Yes I do. Motion by Councilman Gillum, seconded 'by Councilman Chappell, and carried to receive and file. Mayor Gl.eckman- Do you have any additional protests other than those written into the Debt Limit record? (Answer- None) Let those three previously read into the record be recorded as protests in conjunction with this hearing. I would entertain a motion holding over Resolution of Intention No. 3956 until May 26, 1969. So moved by Councilman Gillum, seconded by 40 Councilman. Lloyd, and carried. Motion by Councilman Gillum, seconded by Councilman Lloyd, and carried, holding over; the Resolution ordering work to be done in Cameron Avenue to.May 26, 1969. THE CHAIR DECLARED A RECESS AT 10-20 P.M. COUNCIL RECONVENED AT 10:27 P.M. AWARD OF BID PROJECT AD 1-68 LOCATION° Cameron Avenue Street Improvements (1911 Act). Motion by Councilman Nichols, and seconded by Councilman Lloyd, that this item be held over to the May 26, 1969, Council meeting. Motion carried. PUBLIC WORKS ITEMS - Continued PRECISE PLAN 538 STREET IMPROVEMENTS COVINA REALTY CO. INC. LOCATION- Northeast corner of Azusa Avenue and Rowland Avenue. Motion by Councilman Nichols, seconded by Councilman Chappell, and carried, accepting street an4.i-driveway improvements, and authorize the release of cash deposit in the amount of $1,000. 1967-68 WEED ABATEMENT PROGRAM APPROVE REFUND OF OVERPAYMENT OF ASSESSMENT - Ernie Gordon LOCATION- 3114 E. Garvey Avenue Motion.by Councilman Chappell, seconded by Councilman Lloyd, approving the Engineer's report, and approving the refund in the amount of $223.56 for Ernie Gordon from Weed Abatement Account 121,567. Motion carried on 22 - REG. C.C. 4-28-69 Page Twenty-three 1967-68 WEED ABATEMENT PROGRAM - Continued roll call vote as follows. AYES. Councilmen Gillum, Nichols, Chappell, Lloyd, Mayor Gleckman. NOES. None ABSENT.- None '. RESOLUTION NO. 3977 The City Clerk presented: ADOPTED "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF WEST COVINA, AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION OF A GRANT OF EASEMENT IN FAVOR OF GENERAL TELEPHONE COMPANY OF CALIFORNIA FOR UTILITY PUPOSES. Mayor Gl.eckman. Hearing no objections, waive further reading of the body of said Resolution. Motion by Councilman Gillum, seconded by Councilman Lloyd, adopting said Resolution. Motion carried on roll call vote as follows: AYES. Councilmen Gillum, NOES. None ABSENT. None RESOLUTION NO. 3978 ADOPTED 0 Mayor Gleckman: Nichols, Chappell, Lloyd, Mayor Gleckman The City Clerk presented. "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF WEST COVINA, APPROVING FINAL SUBDIVISION MAP - TRACT NO. 27915 - LLOYD E MOEN CONSTRUCTION CO. INC." Hearing no objections, waive further reading of the body of said resolution. Motion by Councilman Gillum, seconded 'by Councilman Lloyd, adopting said Resolution. Motion carried on roll call vote as follows: AYES. Councilmen Gillum, NOES. None ABSENT. None PLANNING COMMISSION Nichols, Chappell, Lloyd, Mayor Gleckman Review Informational Report of April 23, 1969 Motion by Conncilman Gillum, seconded by Councilman Lloyd, and carried, to receive and file information report of April 23, 1969 from Planning Commission. RECREATION & PARKS COMMISSION Review Action of April 22, 1969 (Council 6onsidered each individual item) Councilman Nichols.- Mr. Aiassa - this Account 149Z is that the automatic vending machine account? Mr. Aiassa. I think that is the Fee and Charges. I am getting a report on this for you. Mayor Gleckman: Will you have a report for us on May 12th, and will it hold u4til then? Mr. Aiassa. Yes. -23- REG. C.C. 4-28-69 Page Twenty-four RECREATION & PARKS COMMISSION ._ Continued Motion by Councilman Gillum, seconded by Councilman Lloyd, accepting the action of the Recreation & Parks Commission dated April 22, 1969, with the exception of Item 10. Councilman Gillum: Mr. Aiassa - the next minutes will be showing • what the vote was instead of "unanimous"? Mr. Aiassa: Yes, that has been directed to them. HUMAN RELATIONS COMMISSION Minutes of March 27, 1969 Motion by Councilman Chappell, seconded by Councilman Lloyd, and carried, accept and file minutes of the Human Relations Commission dated March 27, 1969. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS 1) Letter from Harvey Johnson re. AB 1339 Motion by Councilman Chappell, seconded by Councilman Lloyd, and carried, to refer this item to the,Narcotics Committee and staff. 2) Letter from West Covina Unified School District re. AD 1-68 Motion by Councilman Nichols, seconded by Councilman Lloyd, and carried, to receive and file. 3) Letter from State Compensation Insurance Fund Councilman Nichols: Mr. Aiassa - I would be much interested in a report at the convenience of the City Manager, briefly explaining our experience rating. I am very pleased to get this type of communication from the State, which indicates good management practices. I would appreciate a brief report indicating those steps which have brought about this. Councilman Chappell- An 82% experience rate is unusual in the business. Either someone is doing a good job or we are very lucky. Motion by Councilman Lloyd, seconded by Councilman Gillum, and carried, to receive and file. 4) Notice to Shareholders of Suburban Water Systems re. proposed settlement - Informational - Court Case No. 839 957) Motion by Councilman Chappell,.seconded 'by Councilman Lloyd, and carried, that this informational item be received and filed. Mayor Gleckman: Mr. Aiassa - we have Item 3b in our package, is this for a reason? Mr. Aiassa: This is Petrofina and we have not taken action, it was tabled. - 24 - REG. C.C. 4-28-69 Page Twenty-five PETROFINA - Continued Councilman Nichols.- I wondered about that and in that we have given permission to others I would offer the motion that permission be granted as per staff recommendation.. Seconded by Councilman Gillum, and carried. CITY ATTORNEY 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. 416 - Frank DePietro)." Motion by Councilman Lloyd, seconded by Councilman Chappell, and carried, waiving further reading of the "body of said Ordinance. Motion by Councilman Gillum, seconded by Councilman Lloyd, and carried, introducing said Ordinance. ORDINANCE NO. 1081 ADOPTED CODE SO AS TO REZONE CERTAIN PREMISES. Charles Cricks.)" The City Attorney presented - "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF WEST COVINA, AMENDING THE WEST COVINA MUNICIPAL (Zone Change No. 397 - • Motion by Councilman Gillum, seconded by Councilman Chappell, and carried, waiving further reading of the body of said Ordinance. Motion by Councilman Gillum, seconded by Councilman. Lloyd, adopting said Ordinance. Motion carried on. roll call vote as follows - AYES. Councilmen Gillum, Nichols, Chappell, Lloyd, Mayor Gleckman NOES None ABSENT° None (ITEM 3b - American Petrofina handled by Council under written Communisations),. CITY MANAGER 1) Civic Center Dedication Mr. Aiassa.- 5th or 6th. Mr, SEolpe called and advised he made,-contaots with Mr. Rei )ecke, . Lieutenant Governor and was await- ing reply. Dates stated were May 23rd or June (Discussion by Council followed regarding the inability to secure a •speaker which was holding up the definite dedication date, and the fact that the building had not been completed hampered attempts at securing a speaker because of no positive dedication date, etc. etc.) Motion. by Councilman Lloyd, seconded by Councilman Gillum, and carried, that if no date has been set by the acceptance of a speaker as of;UThursday, May 1, that the dedication date will be May 23rd. - 25 - REG. C.C. 4-28-69 Page Twenty-six CITY MANAGER. .- Continued b) Tribune Speci.al Edition. Appropriation Mayor Gleckmano Mr. Ai.assa _ don't you have a General Appropriation Fund that we can get this money out of? • Mr. Aiassa- Yes, it is the unappropriated reserve and this is the fund that accumulates from the various having it from this fund. accounts not expended. I would appreciate Motion. by Councilman. Gillum, seconded by Councilman Lloyd, approving the expenditure of $1360-00 covering the Tribune Special Dedication Edition. Motion, carried on roll call. vote as follows,., AYES Councilmen Gillum, Nichols, Chappell, Ll.oycl, Mayor Gleckman NOES; None ABSENT° None TRAFFIC COMMITTEE MINUTES_= April 1.8 y 1969 -• Item No. 4 Motion -by Councilman Gillum, seconded by Councilman Lloyd, and carried, to accept and file. 3 Extension. of Leave of Absence without Pay Motion by Councilman Gillum, seconded 'by Councilman Lloyd, and carried, approving the request of Robert E. Reuss and granting an additional • two months leave of absence without pay. 4 Pending Legislation Mayor Gleckmano I would entertain a motion that Council take the appropriate action on these items, either staff. recommendations, City Attorney, or the League of California Cities Councilman Chappell- All. but one area - AB 8.1 _ we recommended not to support it. Mayor Gleckman.o Right. Actually no action on AB 81. I would entertain, a motion that we accept the staff recommendations with. the exception of AB 81, which is no action. So moved by Councilman Lloyd, seconded by Councilman Chappell, and carried. 5) Letter from Charles Tellis - Re. Improvement of Citrus Street Motion by Councilman Lloyd, seconded by Councilman Chappell, and carried, directing the Engineering staff to write Mr. Tellis a letter explaining the circumstances of the original proposal and of the cash deposit amount. _Confirm Appointment of New Deputy Chief of Police Motion by Councilman Chappell, seconded by Councilman Lloyd, and carried, confirming the appointment of Forrest D. Shade, Deputy Chief of Police. 26 REG. C.C. 4- 28­ 69 Page Twenty-seven CITY MANAGER - Continued 7) State Retirement System ActuarZ_ Mayor Gleckman.- We have a letter from the State Retirement System stating the breakdown, and in essence the Safety employees are paying for this actuary. • Motion by Councilman Chappell, seconded 'by Councilman Gillum, and carried, approving the actuary to be paid for by the Safety members, CITY CLERK 1) Claim of Edward Om Cassell.e Motion by Councilman. Chappell., seconded by Councilman. Gillum, and carried, that the claim of Edward Om Casselle be denied and referred to the City`s insurance carrier. MAYOR'S REPORTS RESOLUTION NO. 3979 The City Clerk presented - ADOPTED "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY' OF WEST COVINA, COMMENDING FRED H. ANGIER FOR HIS SERVICES TO THE CITY." Mayor Gleckman.- Hearing no objections,, waive further reading of the body of said Resolution. IS Motion by Councilman Lloyd, seconded by Councilman. Chappell, adopting said Resolution.. Motion carried on .roll. call vote as follows AYES: Councilmen Gillum, Nichols, Chappell, Lloyd, Mayor Gleckman NOES.- None ABSENT- None Motion. by Councilman Chappell, seconded by Councilman Lloyd, approving the perma plaguing of said Resolution. Motion carried on. roll call vote as follows.- AYES.- Councilmen Gillum, Nichols, Chappell, Lloyd, Mayor Gleckman NOES.- None ABSENT,- None 2 PROCLAMATION - Correct Posture Week .-.May 59 to 11., 1969 Mayor Gleckman. Hearing no objections, so proclaimed. ESTABLISH DATE. FOR PREVIEW OF CIVIC CENTER FOR EMPLOYEES Mayor Gleckman- This is for the employees and their families and the reason this came up is because we are having a lot of visitors going in and out of the Police Station and wanting to see the City Hall., and it is taking up a lot of the employees time® Can. you set a date,Mr. Aiassa? Mr. Aiassa. Yes, I will. arrange it. Mayor Gleckman.- I would also like to take this opportunity to congratulate Dick Tracy and Lou Bell for their columns in Sunday s paper regarding the dire need and request of this community to have a lab in its new police facility. I thought they dial an excellent job in spelling out everything that really had to be done. In our files tonight is a letter from 27 .� REG. C.C. 4--28-69 Page Twenty-eight MAYORS REPORTS - Continued Supervisor Bon.ell.i and I have requested a "thank your` note be sent to him. His letter was also to Sheriff P.i.tch.ess telling him of the opportunity. Motion by Councilman Lloyd, seconded by Councilman Gillum, and carried, •directing a letter commending the San Gabriel Valley Tribune be written by the Mayor. Mayor Gleckman: I would also acknowledge at this time a letter received from Fred Trott', Assistant Superinten- dent of Schools. He is retiring from the School District and has sent in his resignation from the Narcotics Committee. This Committee should be winding up and sending us their recommendation in the next forty-five days. I 'would like permission to send a letter to Mr. Trott thanking him for his services„ So moved by Councilman Chappell, seconded by Councilman. Nichols, and carried. .Mayor Gleckman: We have a new Commissioner to replace Mr. Angier on the Recreation & Park Commission. I just wanted to make sure that he had been notified that Council. had appointed him. The man. is Damon. Peta, Sr., and he will be filling the unexpired term of Fred Angier who resigned. Mayor Gleckman: I also have Committee appointments for June, July and August. First, I would appoint .Councilman Lloyd and Coun.cil.man. Chappell to handle the warrants from now on, The Committee appointments are as follows: Planning Commission. - Councilman. Lloyd, Representative, Councilman Chappell, alternate Recreation. & Park Commission Coun.cil.man. Nichols, .representative, Councilman Gillum, alternate. Personnel Board - Councilman Chappell, representative, Councilman Lloyd, alternate. Human Relations Commission. - Coun.cilman. Gillum, representative, Councilman Nichols, alternate Chamber of Commerce - Mayor Gleckman, representative, Councilman Nichols, alternate. West Covina. School Board - Councilman Gillum, representative, Councilman. Chappell., alternate. All the Annual appointments will remain the same except for SCAG - TASC, Councilman Lloyd - representative, and myself as the alternate9 Sanitation District.Board - Mayor Gleckman, representative, Councilman Chappell, alternate; Regional. Library Council. - Councilman Gillum, repre- sentative, Councilman Nichols, alternate9 Independent Cities - Council- man Nichols, representative, Councilman Gillum, alternate. RESOLUTION NO. 3980 The City Attorney presented: "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF ADOPTED THE CITY OF WEST COVINA, DESIGNATING .ALTERNATE MEMBER OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS NOS. 15, 21 and 22,;" Mayor Gleckman: Hearing no objections, waive further reading of the body of said Resolution. Motion by Councilman Gillum, seconded by Councilman Lloyd, adopting said Resolution. Motion carried on roll call vote as follows: AYES: Councilmen Gillum, Nichols, Chappell, Lloyd, Mayor Gleckman NOES: None ABSENT: None COUNCILMEN'S REPORTS Councilman Gillum: I would like consideration. and study on this item. It is one of the projects West Covina Beautiful REG. C.C. 4-28-69 Page Twenty-nine COUNCILMEN'S REPORTS - Continued is deeply interested in - off street parking. I would like Council to consider this and direct staff to come back with. the problems and what it would take for this City to enact an Ordinance prohibiting parking on our City streets between the hours of 2 a,,m. and 4 a.m. in the morning. There are many areas this would cover - I know in many cases in this community automobiles have been setting on the streets for months until •residents calL and complain and the officer comes out and has it moved. And it would also alleviate the concern of many people in the areas of R-3 that we are not going to overcrowd the street with on street parking, because people are not going to come back'at 2 a.m. and move their car and come back and park it at 4 a.m. I understand there is also some problems involved and I would put it in the form of a motion. Motion by Councilman Gillum, seconded by Councilman Lloyd, directing staff to come back with a report at their earliest convenience on the problems and the advantages of .restricting parking on our residential streets from 2 a.m. to 4 a.m. in the morning. Councilman Nichols- I am only of the opinion it is an area worth looking at, but I have a feeling about it and when it comes up I want to discuss it. I don't want to see staff spend hours or weeks on. it in study until we discuss at Council - we may want to give some policy direction. Mayor Gleckman- Why don't we have them explore it and come back with as much information as they can get in a short time. Councilman Gillum- Mr. Aiassa - would It be possible to check with some of these different communities that have this Ordinance and find out the problems they have encountered. Motion. carried. DEMI� NDS Motion 'by Councilman Gillum, seconded "by Councilman Nichols, approving demands totalling $70,825.32 as listed on Demand Sheets B426 and 427. Motion carried on roll call vote as follows- AYES- Councilmen Gillum, Nichols, Chappell, Lloyd, Mayor Gleckman NOES- None ABSENT- None Mayor Gleckman- Mr. Aiassa has requested an additional item. Mr. Aiassa- We have a problem - we have a man with us over 6 months and at the time of hiring we promised him a raise of $50.00 at the"end of 6 months. It is Michael Bedeaux, Assistant Planning Director. I need a motion from Council to authorize this increase as of April. 1.6, 1969. It is in the budget. So moved by Councilman. Gillum, seconded by • Councilman Lloyd. Motion carried on roll. call vote as follows- AYES- Councilmen :Gilluifz, Nichols, Chappell, Lloyd, Mayor Gleckman NOES- None ABSENT- None '('Mayi:.r�.Gleckman stated that the City.Attorney had two items which were to 'be taken up in Executive Session. Mr. Wakefield advised that with Council permission the items need not be taken up in Executive Session.) - 29 ,- REG. C.C. 4-28-69 Page Thirty 0, • • CITY ATTORNEY-, Continued Mr. Wakefield: There is one remaining parcel on Barranca Street we are in the process of attempting to condemn. We finally reached an agreement with the property owners and I would recommend to City Council that the City Attorney be authorized to stipulate to judgment for the property for William A. Couch and Eleanor Couch in the net amount of $2800.00. This is based upon the independent appraisal of Harrison Baker, which appraised value of the property actually undertaken at $11.60.00, the slope easement at $580.00 and the staff appraisal. of $900.00 for the estimate of the value of the improvements on the property which were destroyed. Mr. Baker's value. of the improvements was $1420.00. I have used the staff estimate as the basis for the settlement. I think it is fair to both the property owner and the City. So moved by CouncilmanGillum, seconded by Councilman Lloyd. Motion carried on roll call. vote as follows. AYES: Councilmen. Gillum, Nichols, Chappell, Lloyd, Mayor Gle'ckman NOES: None ABSENT- None Mr. Wakefield.- The second item has to do with the $436.80 owed by the Carousel Theatre to the City and pursuant to your previous instructions I filed a complaint to recover the amount due. The attorneys have advised me there isn't enough money to pay the claim and have offered a settlement on the basis of 35% on the dollar and I would recommend that the City Attorney 'be authorized to accept 50% on behalf of the City of West Covina. So moved by Councilman Gillum, seconded by Councilman. Lloyd. AYES.- Councilmen Gillum, Nichols, Chappell., Lloyd, Mayor Gleckman NOES- None ABSENT.- None Motion by Councilman Gillum, seconded by Councilman Lloyd, and carried, that this meeting at 11:-10 p.m. adjourn to May 12, 1969, at 4 P.M. ATTEST - CITY CLERK APPROVED: MAYOR - 30 -