Loading...
08-25-1969 - Regular Meeting - MinutesMINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL CITY OF WEST COVINA, CALIFORNIA AUGUST 25, 1969 The regular meeting of the City Council was called to order by Mayor Gleckman in the West Covina City Council Chambers at 7:30 P.M. The Pledge of.Allegiance was led by Councilman Nichols. The invocation was given by Reverend David D. Meyer of the United Methodist Church of West Covina. ROLL CALL Present: Mayor Gleckman; Councilmen Gillum, Nichols, Chappell, Lloyd. Absent: None Others Present: H.R..Fast, Pub. Services Dir. & Ass't. City Manager Lela Preston, City Clerk George Wakefield, City Attorney George Zimmerman, City Engineer Michel Bedaux, Ass't. Planning Director PRESENTATION OF PEDESTRIAN Mayor Gleckman read into the record a SAFETY "AWARD OF EXCELLENCE" letter addressed to Chief Allen W. Sill By John H. Moore, of the of the West Covina Police Department. Automobile Club "Dear Chief Sill: We wish to congratulate you for having been selected the winner • in the 1969 Triple A. Pedestrian Program. The announcement indicates that you will receive an award for excellence. The actual award should arrive early in July. Because of the importance of this award to the City of West Covina, I hope that you will help us plan for a suitable presentation." Signed by Donald D. Hoffman, District Safety Consultant. Mr. Moore: Honorable Mayor and your entire Council, I have had the pleasure of presenting awards before to the City of West Covina. This is probably the finest award that I have had the opportunity of presenting to any community. About 36 years ago, the AAA started a tremendous program to develop pedestrian safety in,cities all over the United States, and they have been making a continued effort to promote that program. Since 1937 pedestrian fatalities have dropped from 15,500 to 8,800 last year. This represents a reduction of 43% while, during the same period, motor vehicle registration increased 206%. Since 1937 non -pedestrian fatalities have increased 67%. This year 1864 cities -and 34 states have submitted reports, and this award that I am happy to present to my good friend Allen, because I know that this has been something that he has strived for in every manner, is the highest award that is granted to cities in population of 50,000 to 100,000. Allen, it gives me a great deal of pleasure to present you with this plaque. Chief Sill: I want to thank you very much for this beautiful award. It is very heavy, and very substantial, and it is representative of the City of West Covina, because, certainly, I only represent the Police Department and all the citizens of this community who have striven together to deserve and win this award. I think the fact that pedestrian injuries and fatalities have been kept at the lowest level in 1968 in West Covina for cities in this classification is something for which we can. all be proud. I thank you very much, Mr. Mayor and City Council, this award will be placed on Display. Reg. C.C. 8/25/69 Page two r: ANARD OF BIDS HYDRAULIC SEWER CLEANER QUOTATION NO. 70-15 Bids were received in the office of the City Clerk at 10:00 A.M. on August 20, 1969. There were five bids as follows: '...GAR WOOD - LOS ANGELES TRUCK EQUIPMENT PACIFIC PIPE TOOL CO. SOUTHWEST FLEXIBLE CO. F. E. MYERS & BROS. CO. F.M.C. CORP. $ 7,505.00 $ 8,210.00 $ 2,250.00 Did not meet specifications Did not meet specifications Motion by Councilman Chappell, seconded by Councilman Lloyd, and carried, to award contract to Gar Wood - Los -Angeles Truck Equipment Company, in the amount of $7,505.00• PUBLIC WORKS ITEMS ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. AD 1-68, CAMERON AVENUE RIGHT-OF-WAY ACQUISITION LOCATION: Cameron Avenue between Lark Ellen and Azusa Avenues, and Azusa Avenue • RESOLUTION NO. 4037 The City Clerk presented: "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE 'ADOPTED CITY OF WEST COVINA ACCEPTING A CERTAIN WRITTEN INSTRUMENT AND DIRECTING THE RECORDATION THEREOF"(Albert Handler) Mayor Gleckman: Hearing no objection, we will waive further reading of the body of the said Resolution. Motion by Councilman Gillum, seconded by Councilman Chappell, to adopt said Resolution. COUNCIL DISCUSSION Mayor Gleckman: I have a question, Mr. Fast. You refer to three properties that we still do not have. Mr. Fast: That is correct Mayor Gleckman': Who are the three properties? Mr. Fast: The Goldstein property, the Moncreif property, and the Wessel property. mw�= Reg. C.C. 8/25/69 Page three • PUBLIC WORKS ITEMS (Cont.) ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. AD 1-68 - CAMERON AVENUE RIGHT-OF-WAY ACQUISITION(Cont.) COUNCIL DISCUSSION (Cont.) Mayor Gleckman: And when is the last date that we could receive dedication before we would have to proceed further with this matter? Mr. Fast: Based on the Council's authorization of last meeting, we have the right of immediate possession, so that there is no last date required on this. Motion carried' on roll call vote as follows: AYES: Councilmen Gillum, Nichols, Chappell,.Lloyd, Gleckman NOES: None ABSENT: None AGREEMENT FOR TELEPHONE Motion by Councilman Gillum, seconded by SERVICE TO SAN JOSE LITTLE Councilman Chappell, and carried, to LEAGUE BALL PARK & GALSTER authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to PARK'(Brutocoa Development execute the agreement. Co) RATES FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES BY CONSULTING ENGINEERS PROPOSED ABANDONMENT OF PORT ION OF LA PUENTE ROAD Motion by Councilman Chappell, seconded by Councilman Gillum, and carried, to approve the change in rates by Consulting Engineers. Mr. Wakefield: Mr. Mayor, in connection with this item the ultimate answer to the problem seems to me to be the realignment of the City boundary as it is. affected by this portion of La Puente Road.. At the present time, the City's boundary runs along the northerly boundary of the Road. By an .appropriate proceeding, the boundary could be changed to the center of the road and then would give the City.the control of the abandonment of these particular parcels that are;at'issue here. Mayor Gleckman: What type of ,action, Mr. City Attorney, are we asking for here this evening? Mr. Wakefield: I think the report before you is informa- tiona-l.. The Engineering Depattment and City Attorney will,be back shortly with a recommendation that proceedings be initiated to move the city boundary to the center line'of the street. Motion by Councilman Gillum, seconded by Councilman Chappell, and carried, to receive and file. .- 3 - Reg. C.C. 8/25/69 Page four Mayor Gleckman: PLANNING COMMISSION REVIEW ACTION OF AUGUST 20, 1969 be accepted and filed. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS The hour of 8:00 o'clock not having arrived yet, we will pass over Item B. Hearings, and go to Item C, Planning Commission. Motion by Councilman Gillum, seconded by Councilman Chappell, and carried, that the summary of action of August 20, 1969 (City Council considered each item individually). a) PUC Notice re Southern Pacific Co. Application re -Backlights at Standard No. 8 Grade Crossing Signals b) PUC Notice re 1970 List of Grade Crossings c) Letter from E.S. Galster re Galster Park Utters bpposi.ng Zone Change No. 425 &Precise Plan No.573 • d) Chester E. Shearer ) e) Mrs. Sharon Grieshaber) f ) Mrs. Frances Ming ) g) Letter from Mrs. Genevieve McMahon re Change of Zone to R-3 h) Letter from League of Calif. Cities re Annual League Conference voting represen- tatives. i) Letter from Joanne Wilner opposing Zone Change No.425 • & Precise Plan'No.573 Motion by Councilman Chappell, seconded by Councilman Gillum, and carried, to refer to Staff. Motion by Councilman Chappell, seconded by Councilman Gillum, and carried, to receive & file. Held over to Item 1-10 Referred to Hearing Item B-1 Motion by Councilman Chappell, seconded by Councilman Gillum, and carried, to refer to staff. Motion by Councilman Chappell, seconded by Councilman Lloyd, and carried, that':the Mayor be the official voting rep- resentative (Mayor Gleckman abstained.) Motion by' Councilman Gillum, seconded by Councilman Lloyd, and carried, that Mayor Pro Tem Chappell be the Alternate. Referred to Hearing Item B=1, • • 0 Reg. C.C. 8/25/69 Page five CITY ATTORNEY ORDINANCE INTRODUCTION The City Attorney presented: Zone Change No.421 "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.421 - Lawrence and Helen Jones) Motion by Councilman Gillum, seconded by Councilman Chappell, and carried, that further reading of the body of said Ordinance be waived. Motion by Councilman Gillum, seconded by Councilman Chappell, and carried, that said Ordinance be introduced. ORDINANCE INTRODUCTION The City Attorney presented: Re...Helicopter Landings "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF WEST COVINA AMENDING SECTIONS 3300, 3301 AND 3302 OF THE WEST COVINA MUNICIPAL CODE, RELATING TO THE TAKING OFF OR LANDING OF AIRCRAFT." Motion by Councilman Lloyd, seconded by Councilman Chappell, and carried, that further reading of the body of said Ordinance be waived. Motion by Councilman Gillum, seconded by Councilman Chappell, and carried, that said Ordinance be introduced. ORDINANCE NO. 1091 The City Attorney presented: ADOPTED Zone Change No.423 "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. 423 - J. Reed Gattmann & A.W. Mitchell) Motion by Councilman Gillum, seconded by Councilman Chappell, .and carried, that further reading of the body of said Ordinance be waived. Motion by Councilman Gillum, seconded by Councilman Lloyd, to adopt said Ordinance. Motion passed on roll call vote as follows: AYES: Councilman Gillum, Nichols, Chappell, Lloyd, Gleckman NOES: None ABSENT: None ORDINANCE NO. 1092 The City Attorney presented: ADOPTED Zone Change No.419 "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. 419 - B. F. Smith), - 5 - ,Reg. C.C.' 8/25/69 Page six CITY ATTORNEY (Cont.) ORDINANCE NO. 1092 (Cont.) Motion by Councilman Gillum, seconded by Councilman Chappell., and carried, that further reading of the body of said Ordinance be waived. Motion by Councilman Gillum, seconded by Councilman Chappell, to adopt said Ordinance. Motion passed on roll call vote as follows: AYES: Councilmen Gillum, Nichols, Chappell, -Lloyd, Gleckman NOES: None ABSENT: None RESOLUTION NO. 4038 The City Attorney presented: ADOPTED "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF WEST COVINA APPROVING PRECISE Precise Plan No.572 PLAN OF DESIGN NO.572'1(Lawrence and Helen Jones)' Motion by Councilman Gillum, seconded by Councilman Chappell, and carried, to waive further reading of the body of said Resolution. Motion by Councilman Gillum, seconded by Councilman Chappell, to adopt said Resolution. Motion passed on roll.call vote as follows: AYES: Councilmen Gillum, Nichols, Chappell, Lloyd, Gleckman NOES: None ABSENT: None RESOLUTION NO. 4039 ADOPTED The City Attorney presented.: "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF WEST COVINA REAPPOINTING BEN;, JOE MOUNT .'TO .'THE HUMAN RELATIONS"'COMMISSION' Motion by Councilman Gillum, seconded by Councilman Chappell, and carried, to waive further reading of the body of said Resolution. Motion by Councilman Gillum, seconded by Councilman Chappell, to adopt said Res-olution. Motion passed on roll call vote as follows: AYES: Councilmen Gillum, Nichols, Chappell, Lloyd, Gleckman NOES: None ABSENT: None RESOLUTION NO. 4040 The City Attorney presented: ADOPTED 'A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF WEST COVINA REAPPOINTING JOHN P. OVERHOLT TO THE HUMAN RELATIONS COMMISSION'S Motion by Councilman Gillum, seconded by Councilman Chappell, and carried, to waive further reading of the body of said Resolution. Motion by Councilman Gillum,. seconded by Councilman Chappell, to adopt said Resolution. Motion passed onrollcall`'vote as follows: AYES: Councilmen Gillum, Nichols, Chappell, Lloyd, Gleckman NOES: None ABSENT: None Reg. C.C. 8/25/69 Page seven CITY ATTORNEY (Cont.) ITEMS.X0. 8 AND 9 Mr. Wakefield: Mr. Mayor and members of the City Council, before Items No. 8 and 9 are considered, the City Council should determine whether or not you propose to levy'j.for.the..current,fiscal year the 10�. tax for public park purposes, primarily for Galster Park. If you do, then the Resolutions have been drafted accordingly. If you do not, then they have also been drafted in that fashion. Mayor Gleckman: In other words, then 8 and 9, depending upon what action we take. Mr. Wakefield: That is correct. You do have an inform- ation report form the Staff in this regard under the City Manager's Agenda, you could either consider that now, or postpone these two Resolutions until that time. Council approved holding these two ;Resolutions :over. to',Item I-10:' REPORT ON MAIL ORDER BUSINESS Mr. Wakefield: Mr. Mayor and City Council, some two meetings ago, you.asked for a report with reference to the .authority of the City Council to regulate Mail Order businesses. It is my recommendation that the necessary amendments to the Municipal Code be prepared to include the mail order business in the list of restricted businesses under our Business License Ordinance, so that applications for mail order business is licenses must come to the City Council for approval before they are issued. Motion by Councilman Gillum, seconded by Councilman Chappell, that the City Attorney be directed to prepare an appropriate Amendment to the West Covina-Muh cipal.Code No.6236 and 6237, to include the mail order business in the list of restricted businesses under those sections. COUNCIL DISCUSSION Councilman Lloyd: Mr. Wakefield, what does this really constitute as a change? Mr. Wakefield: At the present time, an individual who desires to set up a mail order business within the City needs only to file an application to establish that business in an appropriately zoned location within the City and the license is issued automatically. Under this procedure, the application must come to the City Council and the City Council will have the opportunity to impose any conditions that might be required in the protection of the public interest. Councilman Lloyd: In other words, there is a possibility that this would offer a chance to in-- crease the revenue? Mr. Wakefield: No, sir, this' would not affect the basic license fees at all. - 7 - Reg. C.C. 8/25/69 Page eight CITY ATTORNEY (Cont.) REPORT ON MAIL ORDER BUSINESS (Cont.) 4 Council Discussion(-Cont.) Councilman Lloyd: As I understand it, at the present moment, a person'who is in the mail order business, if they set up any revenue, or any monies that they gain, they go back to the Home Office. Is that correct, -and thatany taxation exists there? Is that correct? Mr. Wakefield: That may or may not be true, Mr. Lloyd, depending upon the'nature of the mail order business. In other words, it may be a local individual establishing his own business, or it may simply be an agent of an established business that is really located elsewhere. Councilman Lloyd: I see. In view of the fact that we may be facing this in the future, I think that I would recommend, or suggest, that you give us a brief of what the options are as far as the Council is con- cerned, if the Council concurs with that. Councilman Gillum: Mr. Lloyd, I think I was the one who brought this forward. My main concern with the mail order business is that the City of West Covina does not get caught in the same situation that one of the cities in San Fernando Valley did with a mail order business that went nationwide. Councilman Lloyd: Are you referring to lewd literature? I am sorry for interrupting, but in •addition to that'I am looking at it from the point of view of the possibility of some revenue to the City, so that is my only point,.Mr. Gillum, and I am sorry to interrupt. Motion carried PUBLIC HEARINGS Mayor Gleckman: The hour of 8 o'clock having arrived, let us go back to Public Hearings. ZONE CHANGE NO.425 LOCATION: Southwest corner of PRECISE PLAN NO.573 Cameron and Azusa Avenues. ALBERT HANDLER REQUEST: (1) Approval of a change of zone from R-1 (Single Family Residential) to N-C (Neighborhood -Commercial) and R-3 (Medium Density Multiple Family Residential) (2) Approval of a precise plan of design for a neighborhood shopping center. Mr. Bedaux, Assistant Planning Director, read Planning Commission ResolutioM�E. -, 2175 and 2176 in full, -and referred to the displayed, map for further explanation of location of property. Mayor Gleckman: Thank you/Mr. Bedaux. Do you have anything to add,.Mr..Fast? Mr. Fast: No. THE CHAIR DECLARED THIS IS THE .TIME AND PLACE FOR THE PUBLIC HEARING ON ZONE CHANGE NO. 425 AND PRECISE PLAN NO. 573. Reg. C.C.- 8/25/69 Page nine': PUBLIC HEARINGS (Cont.) ZONE CHANGE NO.425 PRECISE PLAN NO.573 (Cont.) .PROPONENTS 0 Albert Handler Mr. Handler was sworn in by the City Clerk- P.O. Box 1524 Beverly Hills, Calif. Mr. Mayor, members of the Council, my name is Albert Handler, I am the owner of the property at Azusa and Cameron which is the subject of the application. I have owned this property and paid taxes on it for fifteen years.. It is my sincere desire to develop it with high quality structures, partly as a commercial venture and partly as multi -family residences. If the zone changes are granted, I will develop the project as set out in the precise plan within .your highly restrictive neighborhood commercial standards and as attractive multi - residential units in a garden setting. I will not sell the land undevelop- ed. Had it been my intention to dispose of this land, I could have done so at any time within the last ten years, but only to those who also saw its value for commercial and multi -family uses. I want to assure you tonight that if the change of zone is granted, and if the precise plan is approved, the development I will construct will be compatible with the neighborhood and will bea development of which you, I, and the people of West Covina can be proud, not only at the time of its completion but also in the -years to come. With me tonight is Mr.. Garvey, my Attorney, who will discuss the justification for the requested zone changes. Mr. Karl.Maste n,the architect of the project; and his associate, Mr. Mel Ford, who will discuss the precise plan. Also with me is Mr. Emmett L. Wimple, a member of the American Society of Landscape Architects, who will •describe the proposed landscaping. I sincerely hope that at the end .of the hearing, you will accept the recommendation of the Planning Commission and approve the requested zone changes. Thank you. Frances J. Garvey Mr. Garvey was,sworn in by the City Clerk. 281 E. Workman Covina, California Mr.. Mayor and gentlemen of the Council, I am an Attorney of Law, and represent Mr. Albert Handler with respect to the pending zone change and request for a precise plan. Mr. Handler has already mentioned the other gentlemen.who accompany us, who will.talk about more technical aspects. The property which is the subject of this application is located, as you can see from the map, at the southwest corner of Cameron and Azusa Avenues. It contains twenty gross acres plus, less parts previously taken for streets.: It presently has approximately 18 acres, plus or minus. Mr. Handler requests in his application tonight a change in the zone from 'the existing R-1 zone to Neighborhood -Commercial for approximately 10 acres of the property, the part marked N-C on the.,map, and multiple family zoning for the remaining rest of the acreage of approximately 8 acres. "A precise plan has been presented with respect to the area sought to be -'rezoned commercial. No precise plan has as yet been developed for the4area sought to be changed to multiple family, but a rendering has been prepared and will be described by the architect which will show a harmonibus architectural development of the entire property along the lines in which it is proposed to be developed. The architect has taken great care to insure 0 that the proposed multiple family will .be homogeneous in character with the proposed commercial buildings, and that the whole will be compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. Whenever an owner requests a change of zone, there are always questions in the minds of city officials and the surrounding neighbors as to the type of development intended and as to its effect when completed upon the existing neighborhood. Although the answers to such questions are not required, -as a matter of law Reg. C.C. 8/25/69 Page ten. PUBLIC HEARINGS (Cont.) ZONE CHANGE NO.425 PRECISE PLAN NO.573(Cont.) y . Mr,:. -:Garvey (Cont.) to determine the highest and best use of a particular property in terms of zoning, it is only fair for the developer to take the city fathers and the interested neighbors in his confidence and to tell them what he does plan. Mr. Handler intends to develop on this property a neighborhood -commercial center compatible with the neighborhood, to be built and operated under conditions more strict than any that have heretofore been imposed upon any developer in the City of West Covina. For example, out of the 457,426 square feet in the pro- posed commercial zone, 55,450 square feet or 12-8/10% of the entire area will be in landscaping. At the southerly end of the property, a 25 foot buffer strip with adequate landscaping will be placed the entire length of the commercial area. The closest building wall to the Alaska Street lots, which is the southerly end of the property, will be a minimum of 53 feet and in most areas it will be nearly 100 feet, all loading docks will be roofed over as well as being depressed, and all trash will be contained in separate enclosures. Sidewalks will be placed along Cameron -and Azusa Avenues frontages, the driveways placed where they will least interfere with the influx and outflow of traffic to and from the project. No building will be in excess of 25 feet in height. Heavy plantings, including parkway plantings, will shield the front of the buildings from the view of those living across from Azusa Avenue and Cameron Avenue. Trees lining the southerly property line, in addition to a concrete wall 6 feet high, will further break the view of the rear of the building from residents living along Alaska Avenue. All lighting will be shielded and controlled so as not to interfere with neighborhood privacy. The entire plant will be built under the strict new neighborhood -commercial ordinance. • What, you may ask, are the proposed uses of the separate buildings or the compartments within the buildings? Contrary to the rumor which has been circulating since the Planning Commission hearings, there will be no markets of the quick, .one item type stop and go, such as the 7 AND 11 and similar stores, which serve a useful purpose in other locations. The major tenant will be a retail food chain and a retail drug chain. Other principal tenants with which negotiations are now being conducted, include•a branch bank and a hardware store. Additional tenants will certainly include such con- venient service facilities as a laundromat, a barber shop, a beauty salon, and similarly neighborhood oriented services. The apartments, when constructed, are intended to be two and three bedroom suites in multiple story buildings, set in a garden type of development. It is intended thatthe quality of the apartments will be such as to attract many of the residents of the type who in recent years have left the East San Gabriel Valley area for the beach and Lake San Marcos areas because there were no apartments of such size or quality to attract them once their children left for college or were married. While it would be incorrect to say that children would be absolutely prohibited, it is intended to restrict the number of children per apartment and to fix a minimum age below which children will not be accepted. Is this a proper area for the combination zones which the applicant proposes? The Planning Commission, after a three hour hearing on August 6, 1969, by a vote of 3 to 2 found that . it was. The Planning Department, on a comprehensive report dated August 6, 1969, analyzed the history of the property, the surrounding zoning and land use, made traffic analyses, set forth planning consider- ations and criteria, found that there was a need for this center, found that it would meet all planning criteria:and recommended that the proposed zoning be granted for the following reasons: (1) The criteria as established for the neighborhood -commercial zone have been met or exceeded. (2) The need for commercial zoning.in this area of the City has been substantiated, as noted in its report. -10- Reg. C.C. 8/25/69 Page eleven PUBLIC HEARINGS (Cont.) ZONE CHANGE NO.425 PRECISE PLAN NO.573(Cont.) Mr. Garvey (Cont.) 43) The future compatibility for this use with those.surrounding it, is guaranteed by neighborhood -commercial zone with its restricted control of uses, parking, landscaping, walls, • signs, etc. and of the Precise Plan Ordinance. (4) The staff has been unable to logically develop any reason based upon planning considerations which would dictate that the rezoning be.denied. To say that there was no public need, or that this center would be detrimental to the welfare of the entire city, would be less than truthful, and to say that it would be imcompatible, would be belying what the applicant has portrayed on the precise plan. Gentlemen, these last few paragraphs have been quotes from the Planning Department Report. (5) Azusa Avenue, with its high traffic volumes, will,in the next few years, come under great pressure as a strip zone, as have Glendora Avenue and north Azusa Avenue.. It has been determined through experience that the best deterrent to such undesirable strip zoning is to'supply the public need of an area with a properly sized, well designed, logically located center. (6) The commercial needs of this area of the city will be adequately met by the proposed center, existing commercial zoning approximately a mile to the south which is as yet undeveloped, and the Community Center on Azusa Avenue and Amar Road, which is approximately two miles to the south. The Planning Staff would anticipate that ,it would strenuously oppose addition- al commercial zoning in this area unless the change of conditions can absolutely be proved by a future applicant. That is the end of the Planning Commission's report as I have extracted from it. However, a similarly comprehensive analysis of the subject site was made on October 18, 1967, by the • Planning Department. And at that time it also concluded in its analysis with a recommendation that C-1 zoning, a less restrictive type of zoning than the present neighborhood -commercial be granted to the subject site. Cook, Williams and Mocine, in their recommendations to the city, indicated that this site be shown on the General. Plan as a combination of neighbor- hood -commercial, multi -family uses, which is exactly what the applicant is seeking tonight. The Planning Commission, in the hearing on the General Plan, agreed with every recommendation of the Planning Consult- ants, except the designation for this site which, on its own evaluation, it changed to multiple family only. That change was made -on the motion of the Planning Commissioner, seconded by another, without any discussion or suggestion in that regard by any member of the public. Chairman Adams in the Planning Commission hearing on this change of zone, stated as part of the record, which appears on part of the tape, but not in the summary of the minutes, that he had been opposed to removing the recommendation made...by the Planning Consultants, but the other Commission- ers agreed to do so, because they felt the property was "too controversial" Planning Commissioner Cox, in discussing the property at the hearing, pointed out the numerous changes in conditions which, had occurred in the neighborhood as observed by him, and particularly pointed out that the volume -of current traffic, namely ten thousand'cars per day on Cameron' Avenue and 25,300 cars on Azusa Avenue, was in no way compatible with his concept of a neighborhood street. Commissioner Cox, as is probably, known to the Council, is by profession a qualified appraiser of real property. It is reasonably certain that the zoning history of this property will be reviewed for you by the opponents of this zone change, . and that they will ask what changes there have been since the last case. Gentlemen., the test is not what changes have there been since the last case, but rather what changes have occured since the property was last zoned. Reg. C.C. 8/25/69 Page twelve PUBLIC HEARINGS (Cont.) ZONE CHANGE NO.425 PRECISE PLAN NO.573(Cont.) Mr. Garvey:(Cont.) This property, when acquired by the applicant in 1954, was zoned residential - agricultural. It was subsequently changed to R-1. These two zones are essentially the same, except that the residential -agricultural is a survival of the more pastoral days of West Covina, and at that time constituted a more interim use, pending an expansion and development of the City. The proper question, then, is what changes have occurred since 1954. One.major change has been the accelerated volume of traffic passing the corner, which today, according to the Planning Department, amounts to approximately 10,000 cars per day on Cameron Avenue, and 25,300 per day on Azusa Avenue. The second change was the widening of Azusa Avenue from the northern limits of the city of Azusa, through Covina and West Covina to Valley Boulevard, including the construction of a new bridge to carry the wider volume of traffic across Walnut Creek. Another change is the completion of Cameron Avenue as a fully widened street, anticipating the proposed widening along subject property and its adjoining neighbors to Lark Ellen, from the junction of Cameron Avenue with Pacific Avenue north of the San Bernardino Freeway, clear across the City to Barranca Avenue, and its continuation from Barranca to the newly improved Grand Avenue, giving another means of access to communities to the south. Another change has been the continuing growth of population in the city. Still another change has been the continuing growth.of personal income in the West Covina economic area, which between 1960 and 1965, grew from 450,000,000 to 610,000,000, according to a fact sheet issued in 1965 by the City and its Chamber of Commerce. Certainly, later figures would update these to even more astronomical volume. Still another change is the increased use of the West Covina High School across from the site, the student • population of which is considerably larger than that for which it was originally designed. The most significant change is the adoption of the neighborhood -commercial zoning ordinance with its many restrictive conditions, which ordinance was adopted after a study that lasted more than two years, during which time the majority of the zoning compartments of the city's zoning ordinance were examined and redefined to ascertain compatible uses pertaining to various land uses and to avoid conflicts between types of zones. Following the conclusion of such studies, the neighborhood -commercial ordinance was recommended by the Planning Staff; hearings -were held by the Planning Commission; and the ordinance was adopted after further hearings by the City Council. It was the expressed intention of all concerned with this ordinance to develop it, so that it would provide a tool whereby neighborhood shopping could be located in neighborhoods and not outside of neighborhoods, and if we had the Planning tape here, you would see that some of the Commissioners, at the time of hearing on this case, commented on the fact that this type of zone was particularly applicable to sites of the type owned by the applicant. Now, factors which have not changed, because we shouldn't ignore those, include: (a) The continued failure of the City to provide shopping areas east of Glendora and south of the Freeway, with the exception of the Country Club Center at Barranca and Garvey, and ten unused acres at Francisquito and Azusa. '(b) The continuance of many persons living in the market area of the proposed project area to shop outside the city limits, notably in Covina. (c) • Unchanged also is the continuing need of the city for revenue to carry on its activity. This property, if developed, would alleviate that situation in that in the next ten years it would generate nearly a million dollars in real property taxes for the City of West Covina and the West Covina Unified School District, exclusive of any sales taxes which would accrue to the city alone by reason of sales made from the property. Earlier in this discussion, I mentioned the primary market area. I have, in the past, submitted to the Council economic studies prepared by such recognized expert real estate consultants as Larry Smith & Company, Coldwell Banker, Victor Gruen &rAssociates, and others, showing that over the years these reputable organizations considered - 12 - • Reg. C.C. 8/25/69 Page thirteen PUBLIC HEARINGS (Cont.) ZONE CHANGE NO.425 PRECISE PLAN NO.573(Cont.) Mr. Garvey:(Cont.) the subject property a most desirable site from the view of the economic success of a project and showing that there is an adequate trading area to support the proposed center. Tonight I will content myself on this phase of the question by relying on the figures developed by the Planning Department of the City of West Covina, which found in its report dated August 6, 1969, which, Mr. Mayor, I would like to have incorporated by reference in the record of this hearing, that there would be a primary market area of 13,600 persons in the market area of this shopping center at the present time, with a future population of approximately 17,500 persons. From this the Planning Department made a deduction of 2,000 persons .for the effect of some competing acreage to the south, if it is ever developed. This is to be compared with a minimum population necessary to support such a center of 4,000 persons, according to the Planning Department. In other words, there are a minimum of 3 times as many people living within the primary shopping area as would be required under the criteria normally used by your Planning Department. It therefore appears from studies which have been made by the City's own Staff and by the City's own consultants, that this property warrants the change of zone requested in this application. Now, with respect to the R-3, I do not think that there has been any serious discussion that it is not a recognized and proper change of zone. This is'substantiated by the .Cook, Williams & Mocine report, which recommended for this property a combination of multi -family and commercial uses; by the Planning Commission's own action with respect to the existing new Master Plan • which designated all of the property as multiple family, and by the Planning Department's report on this zone case and by the Planning Commission's action with respect to this zone case. All of which are :findings that the R-3 is a reasonable type of zone for the place in which it is situated upon that property. Some question may be raised and has been asked in the past, whether or not either this total development or this combination of zones is spot zoning. Gentlemen, I do not believe that under the law of California as it exists today, that it is spot zoning. First, the property is of adequate size, so that it can represent separate zones. Secondly, our Supreme Court has held from time to time that lot lines are out proper place for divisions of zones. A spot zone is,essentially, something which is out of place in the zone in which it is' located. This is a situation of apiece of property which is suigeneris with respect to its own size, which can comfortably support both zones which are requested. May I respectfully request that the City Council grant the requested changes of zone to a combination of neighborhood -commercial and R-3 and that it approve ° the -Precise Plan as it is presented. Thank you, Mr.Mayor. and Gentlemen of the Council. Melvin Ford Mr. Ford was sworn in by the City Clerk. 10965 Bluffside Drive Studio City, Calif. Mr. Mayor and members of the Council, Mr. Garvey has more than adequately covered all of the salient points of the project. The only thing I want to do is to point out that we are • attempting, as part of compliance with your neighborhood -commercial zone, to provide a center that will blend with the adjacent residences. We have surveyed them, and looked at them, we feel that natural wood, concrete block, materials of this nature, restrictive siding, will bring this whole project down to a level that will not be objectionable once it is in place and the people realize what is'there. A lot of people have justifiable fears about what a shopping center is going to be, based on what other shopping centers are, and it is our intent that this will not be what some of your existing shopping centers are. - 13 - Reg. C.C. 8/25/69 PUBLIC HEARINGS (Cont.) Page fourteen ZONE CHANGE NO.425 PRECISE PLAN NO.573 (Cont.) Mr. Garvey:(Cont.) One thing that was not brought out so far and was brought out at the Planning Commission hearing, is the entire project is proposed as one unit. The design characteristics will be carried • throughout both commercial and the multiple family residential unit so that there will be a continuity of design and no glaring discrepancies of one type of building for a store and another type for a residence. The reason we have two renderings on display is because we realize that there are some very real objections by the people living to the south about having to look essentially at the backyards of a bunch of stores. We are trying to show here that the rear of the buildings will be essentially the same as the front of the buildings, with the absence of signs. An that is about all for me. Emmett Wimple Mr. Wimple was sworn in by the City Clerk. 1815 Edgecliff Drive Los Angeles, California Mr. Mayor and members of the Council, over the years my organization as landscape architects has concerned itself with beautification and planning for a better environment through good landscape planning.' Throughout the state, ordinances have been written to encourage relief from the automobile and the asphalt through the use of landscape and careful architectural design. Standards have been raised by the public and professional demands and action has been taken by business to give greater attention to visual beauty and to improve our streets, our shopping centers and our civic centers in general. The plan that you've seen demonstrates the use'of trees and shrubs and ground covers to provide visual screening, shade, and an atmosphere that is compatible with residential character. Our firm will • do its utmost to satisfy the City of West Covina and to be a part of developing a project for which we can all be proud. Thank you. Mrs. Elizabeth Williams Mrs. Williams was sworn in by the City 1509 S. Hollencrest Drive Clerk. West Covina, California Mr. Mayor, members of the Council, as a housewife and resident of West Covina, I frequently tr'avel.Azusa on my way between.La Puente and Valley Boulevard and the San Bernardino Freeway. Thus, I am quite familiar with this street, as I am with Cameron, which is a main thoroughfare to the Library and shopping centers by the Broadway. Certainly; a shopping area at the corner of Cameron and Azusa would be most convenient. The proposed plan seems in character with the street, which is already quite varied with gasoline stations, schools and houses spanning many sizes and economic values. To place a market across from -the school .would appear convenient for the family to combine its energies to make a youngster drop become a grocery stop as well. Likewise, I think it is apparent that West Covina has a lack of good-looking, well -constructed apartments, the kind which would draw executive lessees and aspiring junior executives who wish carefree Saturday and Sunday afternoons and who prefer to leave the weeding to professional gardeners. A growing, progressive city must be aware of these needs•. The apartment -shopping center combination, therefore, seems a practical, productive plan. Thank you. William Tanking Mr. Tanking was sworn in by the City Clerk • 153.8 E. Cameron Avenue West Covina, Calif. I have been a resident of West Covina for' 17 years at this 1538 East Cameron Avenue When I bought this property 18 years ago, we had orange groves across the street, barbed wire fences with wild roses, nothing which exists at the moment in the perimeter of the subject property. You are wondering why, as an adjacent neighbor to this, I might be opposite from so many who feel as though homes are the only thing that belong in this area. Had this been the case, I would also agree. Homes have long since not become the prime factor in this area. - 14 - Reg. C.C. 8/25/69 Page fifteen PUBLIC HEARINGS (Cont.) ZONE CHANGE NO.425 .PRECISE PLAN NO.573 (Cont.) Mr. Tanking: (Cont.) If I may be explicit, I bring to your attention in a'1/2 mile -perimeter, which is certainly of prime importance to the subject of what we have on this corner or adjacent to it: First, of • course, the activity on Azusa Avenue and the activity on Cameron Avenue, which has grown to a tremendous thousands of cars a day. But now, let us become factual about where we are. As we go around the corner to the north on Azusa Avenue, we find.we have an Elementary School on the west side of the street. Next to it we have a baseball diamond for junior league players. Is this R-1, is this residential.? Across the street, we have a church on the corner with its parking lot right on Cameron; Then we have the subdivision of homes which I feel was a mistake in its happening. This subdivision of homes was offered not as homes by the original. owner, but as a gift to the City of land for park or further development -of the High School, if proper zoning was granted to the balance of his property. This offer was made by Mr, Handler. But this didn't happen. It's not in the :time of you gentlemen. I watched it, and this housing project became a failure and went back to the lender. It was finally sold, but these people are not surrounded by homes; they are surrounded by everything but homes. Now, Let's get across the street from these homes .to the west, where we find the West Covina High School parking lot. Then we find the back end of the West Covina High School, not the administration area, but the back end, in which we have the janitor's area, we have an automobile repair shop, we have a small, green grass area, and then the tennis courts behind. We have a football field, which is extremely active. All of this, again I ask, is this residential-l-is this homes? Then let's cross the street on Lark Ellen and find the City Park. LeV s go:next.to the.City 'Park and find the Youth Center., with its very interesting activities in music a:nd such - is this R-1? Then let's go further to the west from this, immediately adjacent, and find an Elementary School again. And then let's cross the street and again find a church. Now, I appreciate that many people find churches and schools something that are different, but they are not R-1, and a High School is certainly not residential.-1. Now that.gives you a.perimeter of the area in which this zoning.request is being asked for something other than residential houses. Residential houses, of which I have owned one for a long time and watched the taxes go up considerably, still do not carry the weight. Home owners do not carry the weight in the tax burden that they may think they do because the property values apparently rise and their taxes rise. Unfortunately, you need more commercial zoning. I took a ride down Azusa into Puente, went over to the end of the Freeway, at Huntington Road went -back through to Hacienda and drove back into West Covina this week, just to notice all the new activity, -.that is going on commercially. You can't stop commercial. It has to happen. It's what the public wants and needs and it's what pays your taxes. I know, because I work with departments having to do with planning in business areas in West Covina. I am a businessman in West Covina and have been for fourteen years. I know that there are possibilities that someone feels as .though more traffic, more business is a blight and a bother, but it's happening everywhere. We,at West Covina, may be missing the boat in some of the developments that we've seen happen in other areas like Claremont and are about to . happen further in Puente. There is a site just a half a mile from the site in question that's been zoned for commercial for seven years and nothing happens there because the ideal situation is not there. But this corner would be ideal for the people in question for the type of beautification that it is, rather than just some kind of a commercial zoning thing. I know that broad concepts, broad surveys, have indicated that this corner will be commercial ultimately, and it's a matter of how soon the citizens of West Covina want to begin to get taxes from this, rather than to just get it on raw land. If you wonder about my selfish interest, perhaps I could have one, in that I live in the agricultural 15 - Reg. C.C. 8/25/69 Page sixteen PUBLIC HEARINGS (Cont.) C] 0 ZONE CHANGE'N0.425 PRECISE PLAN NO.573 (Cont.) Mr. Tanking (Cont.) area that you saw to the west of the second lot over, .and, yes; it's obvious that some day, maybe riot in my time, but someday that will be an apartment site, because it is 100 wide and 300 deep. It's just obvious that this type of thing will ultimately result. I've been told as long as ten years ago by people in the city that know about proper planning that this probably could happen. So, if you want to know if I have a selfish interest, yes. But, today, I could sell that home for more money as a home and land, than it could be sold for as land for apartments. So my selfishness is not immediate.. Finally, the 19.90 zone plan, of which this city spends thousands of dollars to arrive at', and have spent many thousands of dollars previously to arrive at planning and ideas for what is going to happen, indicates that this area in question will be commercial. Chances area freeway will bisect this area from Fernwood through. You've got apartments already up on Fernwood, more proposed to be built, and when this freeway comes through there, it'll change the whole perspective, your attitude about R-1 and is it residential. So the Mocine Plan for 1990 says that will be commercial. So I suggest you begin to collect your taxes on this now, as commercial, and enjoy the convenience of a very beautifully planned, adequate and proper neighborhood commercial center. Dr. Perry Nadell Dr. Nadell was sworn in by the City Clerk 2117 Cameo Vista Drive West Covina, California Mr.. Mayor, gentlemen of the Council, everything that has been said, or could be said, has been said. The only thing that I would like to comment, is that we have an opportunity at this time to take a piece of 'land that has been vacant as long as I have been in the City of West Covina, replace it with a well -planned shopping center, which to me 'seems to be an obvious development for this type of area. I notice in the planning that it is as good a plan as I think any shopping center could ever be developed in any city and I strongly urge its acceptance. THE CHAIR DECLARED A FIVE MINUTE RECESS AT 8:55 P.M. AND RECONVENED AT 9:00 P.M. OPPONENTS Bob Ebiner, Attorney at Law Mr, Ebiner was sworn in by the City Clerk 1502 W. Service Avenue West Covina Preliminarily. Mr;'Mayor, I would like.,to make sure,that we.46n't :overr-look. anything. Thevp ale:;:'. Z •be�l�ve :>thr�e.lett�rs in opposition which have not been read to the Council, and my general under- standing is that these were presented to the Council. I would like to make sure that if they are not going to be read, that they are submitted. These three are in opposition to the application. Secondly, the people I represent, the homeowners who surround the area,.some three thousand of'them, signed a petition which was filed with the City last Friday, and no mention has been made of it, and I would like to make sure that that, too, is brought to your attention. Mayor Gleckman: Mr. Ebiner, are you stating for the record under oath that you are here representing three thousand homeowners? Mr. Ebiner: Let me put it this way. The Ad Hoc Committee, of which I was a member, directed me to appear before this body today and make a presentation of those signatures on that petition. - 16 - Reg. C.C. 8/25/69 Page seventeen • 0 PUBLIC HEARINGS (Cont.): ZONE CHANGE NO.425 PRECISE PLAN NO.573 (Cont.) Mayor Gleckman: Mr. Ebiner: Mayor Gleckman: Mr. Ebiner: particular proposal is not to th appeared before you and the Plan the past and I am sure that you ment. However, we are forced by before you and be repetitious in Thank you. And it was my office that filed it with the City Council Friday. Let the record reflect that we are in receipt of the 'petition. Very good. Essentially, gentlemen, the situation before this Council is that our contention is very elementary. This e best interest of West Cov' I eve ning Commission on several/ocCidei in have heard substantially the same argu- reason of repetition and filing to come objection. First of all, the general character of this area has been enhanced by the fact that there has been no commercial in the area, and that it has been a better place to live because of that fact. Secondly, the residents of this area have consistently objected to this type of proposal. Several years ago, approximately four thousand plus signatures were obtained on a petition in opposition to an applica- tion similar to this and submitted to this honorable body. This year, on one weekend, our group was able to pick up some three thousand and plus signatures and submit it to this body. What are these residents telling the City of West Covina? In substance, gentlemen, they are saying, we .don't want it. No matter how you package it, no matter how you present it, we just don't want it in our area. We would rather travel the extra mile or mile and a half it takes us to go to a shopping center. We travel a block and a half or two blocks anyway to go to a shopping center. We don't walk to shopping centers anymore. And, thirdly, this shopping center is not going to provide anything for West Covina that we can't find someplace else in West Covina already. If this developer were tosubmit to you a proposal which would bring in new enterprise in this community, I would say I am for it. If he were to bring in shops and businesses such as I. Magnin, Bullocks and Robinson's, I would say, this is what we need in•West Covina. But we don't need another drug store, nor a market, nor another bank. We do not need, gentlemen of the Council, the other factors which are presented here by this developer. These service shops, desirable though they may be, are nothing more than what we can get within a very short distance from this locale. I suspect • that, if this body passes this type of recommendation, it will be a very short time before the neighborhood on the other side of Azusa•comes in and asks that it, too, be zoned neighborhood -commercial - the perennial strip type zoning that we have opposed over the years. And how, in good conscience, can this body deny that kind of commercial development when you have opened up south Azusa Avenue? I suggest, gentlemen, that the :only benefit that the city will receive is a reapportionment of sales taxes which it will derive from other sources - this shopping center will derive from other sources in West Covina, as well as the.one admitted factor in favor of this development, real property taxes. No question about it. However, to say,that this property cannot be developed as R-1 belies development in today's residential housing market. (1) One-half mile to the west of this corner on Cameron Avenue is a new residential development. (2) You can't go on any freeway any- place in Southern California and not find R-1 development abutting freeways and high density type transportation arteries. I had occasion to go to San Diego a few days ago and I paid particular attention to - 17 - • Reg. C.C. 8/25/69 Page eighteen PUBLIC HEARINGS (Cont.) ZONE CHANGE NO.425 PRECISE PLAN NO.573 (Cont.) Mr- Ebiner: (Cont.) developments along the 605 and San Diego Freeways, and there are new tracts opening all the time.. Lastly, gentlemen, let me refer to the criteria which this city has abided by, or I had hoped would abide by, in those matters relating to zone change and apply them to this particular parcel. 1) That the -reclassification is in compliance with the general plan or the concepts therein. Gentlemen, you just adopted a general .plan three weeks'ago. Three weeks ago tonight, in which this parcel is not geared for commercial development. Now, either Council was completely oblivious of what was going on insofar as this property was concerned, and I can't believe that to be the fact, or else the general plan has merit, for which we paid some fifty thousand dollars, and therefore should be followed. And I dare say that it is an imposition on this honorable body to suggest by this developer that we should destroy that general plan so early in its beginning. 2) That the reclassification serves a definite public need. The people who signed this petition are telling you gentlemen it does not serve them in any way. 3) That the reclassification serves the general welfare of the citizens. Same answer. 4) That the reclassification is good zoning pr. act ice , .t hat is, a continuation of existing zoning patterns. On the contrary, this would be opening up south Azusa Avenue .from the • core area which has been defined for future development for commercial, high _rise and professional. 5) That the surrounding area has changed appreciably since the original zone was granted. On the contrary, the surrounding area has developed in residential homes. When the property was first zoned back in the early fifties, much of that property, some of which was held by this particular developer, was open vacant land, as this is. 6) That the streets, utilities, etc. serving the property are adequate, or will be so constructed. Admittedly, I am sure they will be. Gentlemen, it seems to the people that I represent that we want to encourage superiority and not mediocrity. We look to this city as having a vision of fine homes, a headquarters city of East San Gabriel Valley, and we have prided ourselves upon:.these.-things in the years past, and we have prided ourselves upanthe homes which appear and have been built in this area. And, certainly, if all we are going to rely upon is the compass of the engineer in deciding where we are going to locate commercial development, then there.is no criteria. We simply decide that we want a commercial development every mile or mile and a half, and regardless of where that falls, that's what we build. But that isn't what is good enough for West Covina. We ask you to provide the leadership in this City, to provide the leadership which will show that we are preeminent in this area, and that West Covina can fulfill its vision. Thank you. Al Jordon Mr -.Jordon was sworn in by the City Clerk 1623 E. Francisquito Ave. West Covina Honorable Mayor Gleckman,.and members of the City Council, I am the president of the West Covina - Francisquito and Azusa Home Owners' Association. Our home owners' association wants to go on record opposed to this commercial zoning. We believe that the criteria set by the Planning Commission has not been met here_. Public need - it is obvious that there is a need here, because we are in the economic perimQters of this particular property, and there are stores and type's Reg. C.C. 8/25/69 Page nineteen • L1 PUBLIC HEARINGS (Cont.) ZONE CHANGE NO.425 PRECISE PLAN NO.573 (Cont.) Mr. Jordon (Cont.) of establishments already vacant in the City of West Covina. I do not think anyone .in the City of West Covina is complaining about too much business. Second, the General Welfare - It has":certainly been demonstrated that it is not for their general welfare, because so many people have signed against this particular zoning. Good zoning practice - that's questionable also, because this, too, shows commercial throughout our city in spot areas. Last year., as I remember, there were approximately 140 acres already zoned commercial in the City of West Covina that has not been developed, and I certainly don't see why we should develop other commercial until we develop the already zoned property. In compliance to proven planning criteria, which I feel that the City Council., as elected officials of this city, should look out for the interests of the home owner in this area, and this particular hearing I certainly feel., in concurrence with members�of'the executive board of our orgariization,that this hearing should have been held at the time of later on in the fall, because most of the people are on vacation. As Mr. Ebiner spoke earlier, I missed signing of that application because I was out of town and tonight, several members from our area and throughout the city are here - they did not sign the application in opposition to that. I don't know if it would be in order or not, Mr. Mayor, but some of the people who are not going to speak but would like to be recognized as standing in the audience opposed to this, even though they did not sign the application, they want to be noted as in opposition by standing in the audience, if the Council so chooses. Mayor Gleckman: Mr. Jordon, in answer to that, the only way they could make their presence be known would be by stepping to the micro- phone, giving their name and address, and be sworn in by the City Clerk. Mr. Jordon: Thank you. Well, I want to sum up by saying that the homeowners in that area, as property owners, are opposed to this commercial zoning, and I hope that the Council will deny that zoning, based on the wishes of the citizens and the property owners in that area. Charles Anderson 1621 Alaska Street Mr.Anderson was sworn in by the City Clerk West Covina, Calif. Mr -..Mayor, and members of the Council, it gets very embarrassing, I think, for the members of the Planning Department of this city to have printed a booklet like this, to make a proposal like the one that has been made, and completely ignore all of the facts in the case. This zone application completely contradicts the criteria that the Planning Department Now, I'd like to 'ask, is this copied out of a fancy textbook someplace with fancy drawings? Mayor Gleckman: We'll get them for you later, Mr. Anderson: I'd like to know, and I think it behooves the Council to look into this and find out. We're talking about need for apartments. There is already enough zoning in.this city, existing as of tonight, to double the number of apartment houses that we have in the city today, so there is no further need for apartment zoning. Secondly, the proponent has'.never been denied the opportunity to develop this with R-1 residences. He's never even come in for anything like a com- promise. He goes whole hog. I think it -behooves the Council and the Planning Department to make note of the fact that there is more than adequate apartment zoning in the city as it is right now without any adding to it. And I hate to be shoving these facts right back down the throat of the people who made the recommendations, but from a former Planning Department, this definition was given as a spot zone - "It is the creation,of a small portion of an area surrounded by a completely - 19 - Reg. C.C. 8/25/69 Page twenty PUBLIC HEARINGS (font.) ZONE CHANGE NO.425 PRECISE PLAN NO. 573(Cont.) Mr.. Anderson (Cont.) different incompatible zone, which serves only the financial interest of the property owner of the spot itself". This is not my quote, this is from t.he'Planning Department. Williams, • Cook and Mocine, they've been mentioned rather.liberally, but apparently we just mention the part that each side wants to mention, and I'll grant that. I've got my side I'd like to mention. Now, on page two of their bulletin which was published August 28th, by the way, it doesn't say who printed this, except the West Covina Planning Department. "The determination to protect West Covina's fine residential neighborhood while encouraging her economic growth' :stall':.: remains a fundamental objective of the Planning program". They go on, and I quote from Williams, Cook and Mocine, "to preserve and:.enhance the'.residehtial.'..quality. of '..Wd8t'.00vina;'.p.r6te6%t the':.:': existing residential neighborhoods from adverse affects of incompatible uses and excessive traffic:. Since the great majority of this develop- ment - this is referring to the city itself, and the single family homes - since the great majority of this development is comparatively new, well - maintained, and built to high standards., the principal objective of planning.policy for those portions of the city -is-conservation and protection.". The _Planning Department, the last -time this old canard was drug out, came up with this recommendation. Apparently these people don't even read their own information. "It is very difficult for the Planning Staff to make a determination on such'a proposal as being advantageous or detrimental to the general welfare of the entire city. The Staff does not feel that a neighborhood -commercial center is of sufficient significance to materially affect the general welfare of the • entire city;` The citizens' committee, which was appointed a few years ago, indicated a strong desire to protect the existing residential character of the city'_'. Now, the city and the Planning Department and all the Planners recommended that the Beach Freeway go through'. this property which is in question. And I state to you that if it does, and you gentlemen: have voted this in, then the taxpayers will be,charged 4 to 5 times more than would be allowed on this property which is R-1 at the present time. I think it is also important to note that the houses on Cameron Avenue and Azusa, facing this shopping center would forever be denied FHA guaranteed loans, because homes facing industrial• or commercial property cannot qualify, so you are going to take these people out of a large lending market. I want to submit to you, some of you have heard this before, but I believe it is worth repeating because of the proximity of the high school. This is from the L.A. Times on Sunday, October_29, 1968, The title of the article was "Teens Disrupting Shopping Center Lots". "The shop ping center park�ng lot'; . a. posttivar. landmark has become the scene of teenage "drive-ins"' in many areas of San Gabriel and Pomona valleys. Car -conscious teenagers disrupt traffic and incon- venience many adult customers, some shopping center spokesmen say, but there appears to be no easy solution to the problem. George Mc Cray, President of the'Ontario Plaza Shopping Center Association, believes that teenagers crowding parking lots may be the biggest problem of the shopping centers, "because these centers are private property, there is little police :control except in case .of a . disturbance'' .".. I' d like to •leave you with a thought of a distinguished colleague of Mr. Ebiner and Mr. Garvey - Louis Nizer, in.his book "The Jury Returns". "In a civilized society,,men cannot always be allowed to use their own property as their desires may dictate, without reference to the -fact that they have neigh- bors whose rights are sacred as their own".. This little pamphlet, or statement, used to be on the seats left here at City Hall. Thomas Jefferson said, "The care of human life and happiness is the first and only legitimate object of good government". Thank you - 20 - Reg. C.C. 8/25/69 Page twenty-one PUBLIC HEARINGS (Cont.) ZONE CHANGE NO. 425 PRECISE PLAN NO. 473' (Cont.) Ralph Goldstein Mr. Goldstein was sworn in by the City Clerk 1546 E. Cameron Avenue West Covina, California 'Mr. Mayor, I will address my remarks only to two points that were talked about and • discussed at the Planning Commission. One of them being a statement by a couple of the Planning Commissioners that they thought that this shopping center was needed at this corner. I submit, and I don't think there is anything more serious in my mind and conviction, that we, as people, have shown -that we do not want and we do not need this shopping center at Azusa and Cameron. We've shown it by fighting this application of the same applicants since 1957. That is.twelve years. This is the fifth time we ar6<before this body. This body has received and heard from hundreds of people in this area, the people have packed the old City Hall, they have now packed this City Hall, they have talked in hundreds before this body, we have presented petitions with 2,000, 4,000 and now 3,000. Now, why do we only have 3,000 at this time to present to you, ladies and gentlemen? Well, first, let me tell you about this petition. It was gathered by people within a few hours on practically one day - that is all the time we've had, its been only two weeks since the Planning Commission. It was gathered, and this is so important, solely from the area within a mile radius from this corner. I will submit that probably 30 to 40% of the people were not home on the day when this was gathered, either away on vacation - that's why we're here in August, because they know people are away on vacation - or because they are away at church or shopping or some other place, but 3,000 signatures from the people in this area. There's no question in your minds about who the people are who are here tonight, they are opposing this petition. You are the elected representatives of the • people, and we submit that we hope and expect as the elected represen- tatives of these people, who, most of us have lived here for at least ten years or longer, that you will abide by their wishes and keep this property the way that we asked that it be kept all of these years. Now, may I have the map that was .shown here before? If you look at this property, and you look on all sides of it, it is all R-1. Yellow is R-1. If you go from that property all the way down south to the end of the city, it is R-1. If you go east of that property from Azusa all the way to the end of the city, it is R-1. If you go from north just about to the freeway until you get to Garvey, it is just about all R-1. If you go west on Cameron all the way to Glendora, it is R-1. Now, that is the way we want it. You know that this City Council has even opposed that the 7-11 and Standard Oil Station that was put in on the one lot that is in the County at the edge of the City, because nobody in this city, including the City Council, wanted to have anything but R-1 in this section of the city. And we did it, knowing that we had Mr. Brutocao's property at Francisquito and Azusa that is already zoned. Now, you can talk about that he hasn't built there, but it is zoned for commercial :and. apartments and we -.are going to have apartments and commercial there, and that is perhaps a good part, it is at the end of the city and has:a good area that will not interfere with the R-1 aspect of the rest of the area. So, I say to you, I don't know any other way that the people can show, and can repeatedly show, that we want to keep this R-1 and we will do, and we are doing everything that can be done to keep this R-1. • Just one final short point. The other point mentioned by the Planning Commission was that this was something that was neighborhood -commercial as opposed to the old R-1 or regional - community center. Well, we submit that ten acres —this is ten acres of commercial, with hundreds and hundreds of parking spaces - store after store - what you can put in ten acres is something big - a five million dollar development - I heard this. Well, this is not my idea of neighborhood -commercial, and I am sure that's not what the Planners who worked to adopt neighborhood -commercial had in mind. 21 - Reg. C. C. 8/25/69 Page twenty-two PUBLIC HEARINGS (Cont.) ZONE CHANGE NO.425 PRECISE PLAN NO.573 (Cont Mr. Goldstein (Cont.) This is neighborhood -commercial that won't bring in one additional cent of revenue to the city,because, as has already been pointed out, any money that comes in will be taken away . directly from the merchants in the Plaza and Glendora. And I -submit that neighborhood -commercial. is no different from any other commercial. We don't want, we don't need, commercial at Azusa and Cameron, .and the reason that we don't want it is, we like the way we are living now - in five minutes we have every product and service available in this city that your money can buy. And I submit that we want to keep our city, a city of beautiful homes., a headquarter city that can be developed in the areas that are planned - in the Walnut core, the Plaza, and other areas that are the proper spot to have commercial and no apartments. Thank you very much. Earl Fitzwater Mr -Fitzwater was sworn in by the City Clerk 1621 Thackerey Street West Covina, California Gentlemen, we've heard several people up here who have been long time residents, and I want to voice the opinion of a relatively new resident to the area. It has been previously stated by one of the people that were proponents - I very possibly would fall. under the classification of a junior executive that you would like to attract to this city. You are in an area, at least that I feel, is a commuter area. We have freeways from all directions. I, personally, am employed in the City of Commerce and I had the opportunity of going and picking many cities. I had Anaheim, I had Beverly Hills, West Covina and many of the other cities, all within easy commuting range.. I chose • the particular area I chose, which is close to the new developed project because of the quietness, because of easy access, because of readily available stores and markets for my wife and because it is an area, because of the fact that it is R-1, that I wanted to raise my family. I think that in talking about terms of dollars and cents, you have to also remember that you have to attract people. West Covina does not have commercial, the type of employment area that is needed to keep this city manned with the type of people you want, so you have to have something to attract the people to. Now, my income surely comes from the City of Commerce, but it comes into here. If this particular property which is in question was developed at R-1, it would bring in additional salaried income - average salaries that are in excess of $15,000 annual. So this is just one of the things that I wondered. I was interested in one of the Councilmen - I think it was Mr.. Gillum - who said that and he was voicing the opinion, that he didn't want to get caught in the trap that other• cities get caught in. Well, I state, and I was very pleased with West Covina, because I've seen such programs as the"Clean-up Program" and things very progressive. But I say that if you take your prime residential areas and you put commercial type buildings in it that you are going to get the type of atmosphere that is not going to attract, but is going to detract, and is going to send people further, away, or into other areas. And I think that this is one thing that should be taken into consideration. I thank you for your time. Richard Del Gersio Mr. Del. Gersio was sworn in by the City •612 S. Flower Street Clerk Los Angeles, California Mr. Mayor, I am an Attorney for the Brutoco Development Company. If you could place on the projector the primary market area study that was prepared by the Planning Department of the City, it would help me in my remarks and perhaps make them a little more meaningful. The exhibit that is before you right now, as I under- stand it, represents a study by the Planning Department, showing the location of the property which is the subject of the application in the midst of an orange area which is supposed to represent the primary - 22 - Reg. C.C. 8/25/69 Page twenty-three PUBLIC HEARINGS (Cont.) ZONE CHANGE NO. 425 PRECISE PLAN NO.573 (Cont.) Mr. Del Gersio (Cont.) market area which the property would serve if it were developed for the commercial, purpose as set forth in the application. My client's property happens to be at.the southerly . boundary of that primary market area and is indicated by a blue arrow and a blue dot. The points that I wish to make on behalf of my client, and I think are valid points, and that he has a valid basis for making these objections: You recently adopted a Master Plan of land use for the City of West Covina, which was prepared after long and exhaustive studies, and the plan states in its context that one of the purposes of the plan is to assure the residents of the City of'West Covina, investors in the City of West Covina, and others who are con- cerned with properties and their uses that there will be an orderly plan of land use and development that they can follow, with the assurance that upon its adoption, it will serve as a general guide to future land use.. And the proposal that is before you today, tonight, is the first time that you will, have an opportunity to measure the adoption of the Master Plan against an application that seeks to violate that plan hardly before the ink is dry. One of the things that has concerned me in connection with analyzing this proposal., is what I believe to be some- what of a misnomer in describing the application as an application for neighborhood -commercial prroperty< The property which is the subject of the commercial application is 102 acres, according to the data supplied by the Planning Department, and that is the size of the property, which . is described as neighborhood -commercial.. However, at the same time your Planning Department, in defining what is a neighborhood -commercial shopping area, has set forth on the printed matter that it furnished to your Planning Commission that a neighborhood -commercial area is from 4 to 8 acres in size, so that.right away you can see that this really isn't an application for a neighborhood -commercial center. It°s from 507o to twice as big as the neighborhood -commercial shopping center. They also point out, your Planning Department does, in connection with this analysis of the application, that the radius of the service area for a neighborhood shopping center is approximately a half a mile. Yet their primary market area, if you will measure it, is in many instances, more than a mile in radius. As a matter of fact, it is about a mile, or less than a mile actually, from this property to the property on the southern part of Azusa Road at the edge of the city there. And if you would apply the same criteria for defining the market area of each of the other commercial centers around the perimeter of this property, you would see that the commercial needs of the City of West Covina for this particular area are already served and that the only purpose that would be served by this application is to take away com- mercial enterprise from areas which are already zoned for particular commercial uses. At the time that the matter was presented to the Planning Commission for hearing, the Planning Department made a study of this matter, and they made a rather - what I think is - signi_ficant comment in connection with .their analysis of the property. • They said that the property has been shown on the preliminary General. Plan for commercial usage and that subsequently that was removed by the Planning Commission action of June 25, 1.969. Then the Planning Department makes this statement, and I think it is significant. "However, inasmuch as the General. Plan has not been finally adopted by the City Council., the determination for appropriate guidelines on this property has not yet been made.'' By your action, gentlemen, in adopting the General Plan, you have, I believe, adopted the guidelines that the Planning Department found lacking at the time they commented upon this application. Those guidelines, as I read your action, would provide that the land use of the property which is the subject of this application remain in single family residential., or some uses other than commercial. - 23 - Reg. C.C. 8/25/69 Page twenty-four • PUBLIC HEARINGS (Cont.) ZONE CHANGE NO. 425 PRECISE PLAN NO.573 (Cont.) Mr. Del Gersio (Cont.) And that is the point I wish to bring out to you, and that is, that hardly is the ink dry on the Master Plan when someone comes to you wanting to change it in a rather significant way. You've heard many reasons advanced to justify the application, which vary from the desire of the people in the area to have this sort of a shopping center to the tax advantages that would accrue to the City of West Covina. Petitions have been circulated which indicate the desires of the inhabitants of the City of West Covina and in connection with this matter of additional tax revenue that would be generated, the comment that was made in connection with the present- ation of the application, was that over a period of ten years a million dollars in property tax revenues would be generated for. the City of West Covina. I had before me, at the time I was listening to those comments, the comments of the applicant at the time this matter was before your Planning Commission in October of 1967, just a couple of years ago. At that time, the same argument was made, but it was pointed out at that time that the property tax revenues would increase by some $30,000 a year, which in a period of ten years would be some 300,000 dollars. Now, taxes have gone up the last couple of years, but I don't believe they've gone up that much, and the point I make is, really, that is not a legitimate basis, it seems to me, for deciding on whether or not a particular application for a change as substantial as this meets the terms of your ordinance governing zone changes. Thank you, gentlemen. Dick Green Mr. Green was sworn in by the City Clerk 20426 Loyalton Walnut, California I am in business in West Covina. I would like to have on record that you gentlemen received a petition by 67 businessmen in the City of West Covina. Has that been received by you, gentlemen? Mayor Gleckman: Yes, we have received a petition with signed names from commercial enterprises. Mr. Green: All right,sir. I know a lot of pressure has been put on you people about this, and the only way we can express our point is to try to put a little more pressure on you. I hope, by all means, you gentlemen have come into this with an open mind and all of our time and these people coming down here their energy hasn't been wasted, and I am sure you elected officials of the City of West Covina will do what is right by us. Thank you. William Hamm Mr. Hamm was sworn in by the City Clerk 14044 Pinay Way Marina Del Rey, Calif. I have a plot plan that I would like to display, if I may, please. Mayor G1eclan: What is the plot plan of? Mr. Hamm: First of all,..let me say, I am employed by Coldwell Banker Company, agent for the Brutoco Development Company, and we have a plot plan that we have circulated to a number of different potential users for Mr. Brutocao's property. At this time we have a signed lease with Pantry Market for - Councilman Lloyd: Mr. Mayor, a point of order on that. I don't believe that property is germane to the issue. Does this plot plan pertain to the Handler property? =WZ1_ Reg. C.C. 8/25/69 Pag twenty-five PUBLIC HEARINGS (Cont.) ZONE CHANGE NO. 425 PRECISE PLAN NO.573 Mr . Hamm: Councilman Lloyd: • Mayor Gleckman: question. It does, indirectly. We are talking about directly. I am sorry, Mr. Hamm, but the Council has no desire to see a plot plan of property other than the one that is in Mr. Hamm: The point that I wish to make, then, is that Mr. Brutocao's property is zoned commercial, that we have been successful in creating the interest to the extent of having a signed lease with the Pantry Food Market chain for a 25,000 square foot facility to be con- structed on Mr. Brutocao's property. The Pantry Market, I hope many of the people in attendance are acquainted with, inasmuch as they are one of the most quality food chains that we have in Southern California, cater to the residents on a service basis and a quality food basis. Their Attorney, Mr. Hal Berg, is here this evening, who will affirm to the fact that we do have Pantry Markets as a market. At the present time, I am negotiating with a drug chain. We were in the architect's office the early part of this week and agreed to a revision in the plot plan and I anticipate being able to conclude the transaction with them. One of the reasons that has made a market chain like Pantry to be interested in Mr. Brutocao's property is the fact that there is no commercial zoning north of the property running the length of_Azusa Avenue. They anticipate a successful store. Thank you. 0 J. Harold Berg Mr. Berg was sworn in by the City Clerk 723 Security Bldg. Pasadena, California I came here chiefly because you were told that I would be here to confirm the fact that the Pantry Markets, of which I am the Attorney, has entered into a lease involving a 25,000 square foot market, which is to be constructed on the same lines as the Golden West Shopping Center market which we have in Arcadia, which is a beautiful store. We spent many months surveying the area, analyzing the shopping area, looking over the properties, the neighborhood, and in general, the city. We like the location. We would not have entered into this if this zoning change had occurred before we signed the lease. We think this is a desirable location for our store and we trust that you will not grant the change. Thank you. Sharon Grieshaber Mrs. Grieshaber was sworn in by the City 1151 South Glenview Rd. Clerk. West Covina, California Well., one thing I noticed about the pro- ponents' argument is that they are basing a lot of their decision on the land use on the amount of traffic that goes by the corner. And it seems like the people's lives, living in the houses, should be more of a consider- ation than the cars going by the corners. And one major difficulty that West Covina has as far as its shopping is concerned is that it doesn't have major areas like the La Habra Shopping Center or the Montclair one where people can go to one place and do their shopping, and this would just add to the problem, rather° than beginning to alleviate it. Another consideration that I have is because I teach at West Covina -High School. If you have a commercial development across from the school, you are going to increase our problems of supervision to a great extent, because we have kids who like to go off campus to smoke or to get.,something to eat at Taco stands. They are limited by time and cars when they are a little bit of a distance away. If you put something nearby, they are going to be leaving campus more readily and the only solution .that you probably have, ultimately, is to enclose the whole school with fencing, and I don't think anyone would like that particular character in the school. That's all. -25 - Reg. C.C. 8/25/69 Page twenty-six • 0 0 PUBLIC HEARINGS (Cont.) ZONE CHANGE NO. 425 PRECISE PLAN NO.573(Cont.) Don. Hanks 2105 Mesita Avenue West Covina, Calif. a General Plan. Tax dollars. if I'll be listened to; and I not going to be wasted. Many obvious tonight that we don't I have to say, thank you. Mrs. Ronald McGarrigol 1617 E. Merced Avenue West Covina, California Mr. Hanks was sworn in by the City Clerk I don't represent anybody but myself, because I live in the neighborhood. We just spent many thousands of dollars on I don't mind being an interested citizen don't mind paying my taxes if they are people have voted against this, and it is want it in the neighborhood. That is all Mrs.McGarrigol was sworn in by the City Clerk. I have only lived in the area about two and a half years. I find that I can make it up to Von's at Azusa Avenue and Amar Road in 42 minutes without even trying. I can make it to Sunrize Market in about the same amount of time. The only markets that I see that have any validity in the area are Sunrize and Center Market on Glendora Avenue. The rest of them are starving. I can't understand why they would want to put any more stores in that area unless it is a tax rider. Amen. David D'Amelio Mr. D'Amelio was sworn in by the City Clerk 708 W. Laxford Glendora, Calif. Mr. Mayor, members, I am a businessman at 226 S. Glendora Avenue, West Covina. I would like to bring back the point that Dick Green made a few minutes ago in regards to the petition :from the businessmen of West Covina. Now the time spent in gathering these some odd 70 names, which the Tribune was very good about publishing in the paper Saturday, these 70 odd names that were gathered from Monday through Friday on lunch periods and odd coffee breaks, etc. (of which I gathered approximately 20 to 25 .my.se:l.fv not trying to boast, or anything) but of these 20 to 25 names, I submit this back that, under oath, not one out of the 20 to 25 names, approximately, were in opposition to this and they were esprit de corps for West Covina in remaining with the R-1 zoning that is present. Thank you. Edward Wood Mr. Wood was sworn in by the City Clerk. 1117 Glenn Alan Ave. West Covina, Calif. I'd like to say first of all that I am tired, and that I'd like to go home, like everybody else here. However, since the:Council and the Planning Commission and the owner of the property and the proponents, and however you wish, to put it, insist on bringing this up time and time again, I think we are all prepared to stay here all night, if necessary. There has been many mentions made of the fact that some of the speakers are engineers, architects, etc. I also work for an engineering company, but more than that, I am a father and I am a neighbor in West Covina, and I don't think that we need this commercial center to add to the conglomerated area already. Speaking as a father, I don't want my son to have one more spot to gather and be tempted by some of the things that are going on. Secondly, I think we should forget about making a grocery stop and a school drop and make it a little more safer for the school walk. Thank you. Irene Hillard Mrs. Hillard was sworn in by the City Clerk 909 South Navarro West Covina, Calif. I heard Mayor Gleckman say once that we need sales tax revenue, and I agree with him and some of the plans for shopping centers and people who have access to shopping centers outside of West Covina, and this I can see isn't doing us any good. But as a home owner - 26 - Reg. C.C. 8/25/69 Page twenty-seven PUBLIC HEARINGS (Cont.) ZONE CHANGE NO. 425 PRECISE PLAN NO.573 (Cont.) Mrs. Hillard (Cont.) in the area, I own.one.of the older homes' up near Vine, and my neighborhood is being rapidly improved by the second • group of homeowners. The originals have moved on. The second group is improving these homes. We're at the foot of the Villas. The Villas are going to be beautiful. I don't see why West Covina can't have this pocket of lovely residential. Now, if we were gaining anything here, I could see where perhaps this -should be done, but as far as I could tell, and I.am not learned on this subject, from the discussion here tonight, the cost of the tax revenues which we will be getting undoubtedly will be helpful, but if we have to buy out this bunch of executive apartments, if this freeway goes through, whether it's City, County, or State, it is still coming out of my pocket, and it is going to be offset, I think. The duplication of existing stores, I, too, agree we've got enough Savons, Thriftys, to do us a long time, and ditto with grocery shops. Now, I would again, getting into personalities, since it is you, Mr. Gleckman, I heard you say something about - if we could attract something like I've seen on the outskirts of Seattle, where we have a large, beautiful department store, with perhaps interior decorating stores - maybe I am a snob, I don't know - but I can't see the type of development that we are talking aboutthere. It is going to increase the traffic on Cameron, which praise the Lord, has dropped off since Grand went through and I just feel. that the people want this out of there so badly, it feels like they should have their way. Stuart Gary Mr. Gary was sworn in by the City Clerk. 171.1 E. Michelle Street • West Covina, California Mr. Gleckman and members of the Council, I live in the neighborhood where the 7-11 store is at Azusa and Francisquito. Since that store has gone in, the lot next to it is filled with papers that are blowing from those kids going into the store. It seems as though in every neighborhood -commercial development like this with your many acres of parking areas, the kids go in, they eat their tacos and their candy bars and .Slurpys and they throw them on the parking lot or the adjacent properties. I feel as though a commercial development on this property under question would create an unsightly trash condition surrounding this property, especially with the high school kids in the vicinity in their cars and perhaps going over there at their lunch hours to eat and throw their trash on the parking lot so it can blow in the homeowner's property. That is all, thank you. Don Frankel Mr -Frankel was sworn in by the City Clerk 1251 Auburn Drive West Covina, California I want to remind this Council that about a year ago you unanimously voted to oppose a zoning less than a mile away very similar to this one.. Its precise plan very similar,.also. To be ,consistent, you would have to oppose this zoning. You would be, as one of the supervisors said, trying to steal the tax dollar from the county, which .was one of the objections they had to our objections of the zoning at the corner of Francisquito and Azusa on the Batchelder property. Gentlemen, please be consistent, and oppose zoning for commercial on Azusa Avenue. Thank you. Carl Davis Mr. Davis was sworn in by the City Clerk 16859 E. Harvest Moon St. Valinda, California Mr. Mayor, Councilmen, you have before you a beautiful picture up there of what they propose to do, but once a zoning is granted for commercial, there is no way,.whatsoever, we could hold them to keep that beautiful picture. If we try to, they will go into court and say that we are trying to restrain them. This is one point. The second point, there has been made an -effort here tonight to show that additional revenue is going to come from this property in the way 27 - Reg. C.C. 8/25/69 Page.twenty-eight PUBLIC HEARINGS (Cont.) ZONE CHANGE NO. 425 PRECISE PLAN NO.573 Carl Davis (Cont.) of taxes. This is not really a valid point. If we were to be able to do this, we would have to show that the revenue • from the surrounding stores, Sunrize, Von9s) the Center, the Plaza. There has been no revenue taken from them, and this you cannot do. They cannot do. Another point is, the fact that this increased revenue will add to the tax.base of West Covina, but very little has been said as to the services that we will have to provide for this area. All of you know that increased zoning - commercial - increases the services that have to be provided. If any of you have read White's book on The Disappearing Landscape, you will find out that one of the main things we have got to concern ourselves with, is the increased services we have to provide for spot zoning in cities wherethere are large centers for the people to shop at. This is very important for us to consider when we alraady have the Plaza and the Eastland Shopping Center. This past year, I have been working with Drs.. Ken Kramer and Dan Allish, both are planners and have written the recent book published on municipal automation, in which they talk about spot zoning in cities and how, in over 90 percent of the cases, this has actually cost the city money instead of increased the revenue. I think that this is one of the things you have to consider here tonight. The City Manager, no one, is able, without a lot of .research, to provide you with actual costs of services that have to be provided for this area. I think it is one of the things you ought to consider here, is what the services will have to be in police, fire, public utilities, public works, planning, all these areas have to be considered. I don't • think that anyone can give you the actual facts of what these services are going to cost once you put this commercial zoning in. Thank you. THE CHAIR DECLARED A TEN MINUTE RECESS AT 1.0:05 P.M. AT 10:1.8 THE CHAIR DECLARED COUNCIL BACK IN SESSION. REBUTTAL Francis J. Garvey I want to touch lightly on most of this 281 E. Workman Avenue and in detail on a little. I would like Covina, California Mr. Mayor - first, I have examined the petitions during the recess - I would like the privilege, since the 67 signatories of that businessmen's petition are not here to be cross-examined, to make some comment with respect to the nature of the businesses and their relation to opposi- tion to this project, if I may. Mayor Gleckman: Pardon me, Mr. Garvey, it seems that I have overlooked introducing four letters that should have been introduced in opposition that you may want to have some comments on, so if you will just bear with me.. If the Council would desire, I would read these into the record and if the Council would like to just receive and file - what is your pleasure, gentlemen? Councilman Nichols: Mr. Mayor, I speak for myself - I would • be perfectly willing to have the chair stipulate the nature of the letter and the gist of the opposition rather than reading all of them verbatim which would take probably another thirty minutes. Councilman Lloyd: Mr. Mayor, I concur.. Mayor Gleckman: There being no objection from the Council, the first letter I have here is addressed to the City Council and it is from Mrs. Grieshaber. It has to do with her objection to this particular zoning being in the middle of a residential area, supervision problems that already prevail at the West Covina High School. Stores and apartments - 28 - Reg. C.C. 8/25/69 Page twenty-nine PUBLIC HEARINGS (Cont.) ZONE CHANGE NO. 425 PRECISE PLAN NO.573 Mayor Gleckman:(Cont.) across the street frmm the school would only make matters worse. S'he also makes the comment that this would destroy the • stability and residential character of the land near the school for no reason. She also says there are several. stores in all directions and there is no value to be gained, and she would not like any stores closer than they are, and that we have spent a great deal for expert advise and the General Plan which was drawn up and recommended only multiple dwellings for the area, and if we ignore the plan, she claims that one person would make a great deal of money from his land and we would not be responding to the needs of the whole city. If I"ve missed anything, why she said it in her testimony. I have another letter from Mrs. Joanne Wilner, 2108 Casa Linda Drive, West Covina. She also states that she is out of town and she would like this letter to be handled as a protest saying that the General. Plan for West Covina, which has been adopted, calls for this to be R-3, and commercial zoning is more intense than R-3. She also says, and I quote, "I can hear you saying, but the plan is only a guide, not a precise plan". She says that this has been explained to her at other hearings, and that she feels that we should stick with the General. Plan as adopted. Also that the closest commercial zone is on South Azusa near Francisquito and is already zoned commercial.. She says we are the elected representatives of the people. of West Covina, and, as such, have the responsibility to protect the welfare and best interests of all citizens in this community, and a unamimous denial. is called for here. I know Mrs. Wil.ner and I really hope that this wasn't • written in the manner in which I wi11, read it into the record, but since she is not here, I will let her come and talk about it at a future date, and I quote, and I would like this to go into the record, because she has it here - "If the City Council grants this zone change, con- cerned citizens like myself shall seriously work toward a recall election of those Councilmen voting yea." Councilman Lloyd: I believe she is also the representative of the League of, Women Voters to this body and has been a representative... Mayor Gleckman: No, that is incorrect, -She may be a representative, but at no time when she speaks to this body or sends a letter to this body, does she speak for the League of Women Voters and she has so stated. Let me finish. "Councilmen voting yea: in a referendum vote on the zone change". Now, I won't make any comments on that now, but we will have that in the record. We have another letter here from Mrs. Frances Ming, 712 Terri Ann Drive, West Cbvina, California, and she is also in opposition to this property. She says now that the school district has dropped its opposition to the zoning change, the property owner is again requesting a zone change. He speculated in 1954, has left his property undeveloped for fifteen years while he gambled for the extraordinary profits which would result from the,jump from agri- cultural to commercial zoning. Obviously, this would be much more advantagious. The advantage to the neighborhood itself is in dispute. She talks about noise, confusion and traffic fumes. She also has some concern for the merchants that might be in this shopping center if it is allowed, that because of its proximity to the high school it can't possibly be a success. She also talks about the past opposition to this particular zoning. She also refers to a particular point that she brought before this Council regarding the City of West Covina condemning some property of hers, and she says she was piously and repeatedly reminded by both Councilmen and city employees that every citizen has a duty to inform himself about all potential plans for his property. She applies this logic to the people voicing their opinion in opposition to this particular zoning. 29 - Reg. C.C.. 8/25/69 Page Thirty - PUBLIC HEARINGS (Cont.) ZONE CHANGE NO. 425 PRECISE PLAN NO.573 (Cont.) Mayor Gleckman:(Cont.) We have another letter here from Chester E. Shearer, 1704 Alaska Street, who also says he is also in opposition and is unable isto be here because he is on vacation. He makes several points, the first being that there is no need for additional zoning of this type-, the existing undeveloped commercial and multi -residential. property should be developed before making inroads into one of the few remaining single family areas in the city. He says that the petitioner has presented data in the past of its financial success, and he is sure he will do so today, and if that is true, we should legalize draw poker. I am reading it as it is. He also says that the people in the area do not want it, and that they have demonstrated so by petitions. He also says that locating a shopping center so close to a school will cause problems and he states that the petitioner had appeared before the school board on July 29th and at that time stated that a security guard would be used at the proposed center and that ..this, in itself, is an admission of a potential problem. He also says that this proposal was rejected by past council and commission actions, and he askes "What is new?" He says if you will compare the Planning Department's recommendation dated August 6,'1969, with its recommendation dated October 18, 1967, you will find almost a word for word repeat, the only new thing is that this current application includes R-3. He says that we have adopted a new General. Plan, the plan does not indicate commercial or multiple residential zoning on the subject property. He says that we have spent $50,000 for this plan and we should exercise it. And also he says that the conditions have not changed over the past three years and he is against the zone change. • I think that sums up the comments on those four letters in opposition, and, that Mr. Green referred to, there was a petition in our mail. that was signed by merchants in the different centers and they have it all typed up and signed by them. I think that that co ncludes�the number of oppositions that we received, and now, Mr. Garvey, if ,you would like the floor? Please pass these letters on to the City Clerk, if the Council has no objections to these letters. Mr. Garvey, you were talking about the petition, I believe, presented by the commercial signers. Mr. Garvey: Mr. Mayor and gentlemen of the Council, the position of one who attempts to rebut sincere opposition, even if it is misguided, is never pleasant, always difficult, but always necessary. Let me start at the end of the opponents, and I will try not to be rep- etitious, but to take the points° Without intending to be personal, I will identify the people whose comments I am referring to, by name, if that itself is not objectionable. Now, Mr. Davis says that the additional revenue is not valid, and I don't know what he means by additional revenue not being valid. It may not be a prime consideration as to the highest and best use of property, but, certainly, it is a consideration. There may have been some misunderstanding, because I was reading rather rapidly when I gave my initial presentation about my comments on the tax picture. What I intended to be understood by what I said, was that over the course of 10 years this property would generate approximately one million dollars in real property taxes, accruing to the combined use of the City of West Covina and to the school district. Now that is two entities, and obviously the city tax is only about 20% of that of the, -school district. I did not comment because it is difficult to ascertain correct figures for valid comparisons upon the amount of sales tax revenue which would be generated by this center in comparison to any other center, but that it would generate sales tax revenue is obvious from the nature of the tenants who are planned for it. We make no great claims that all of the city°s problems will be solved financially by a change of zone and the construction of this center. We believe some will be alleviated. - 30 - Reg. C.C. 8/25/69 Page thirty-one PUBLIC HEARINGS (Cont.) ZONE CHANGE NO. 425 PRECISE PLAN NO.573 (Cont.) Mr. Garvey (Cont.) Mr. Davis indicated that the cost of the services would be high to the city, and yet my studies in this field, and I have been isconnected with planning and zoning matters for more than 20 years, and I have to study the effect of all types of these things,although I do not profess to be expert on planning and zoning, but merely to be conversant with it. My studies have indicated that a center such as this actually is lower in cost of services required by it than a com- parable acreage of single family residences, and the reason for that is obvious, First, you will have two streets surrounding this property, with no internal streets. Therefore, since these are county or state highways, the upkeep of those streets will come from gas tax funds, which are paid by all of the citizens of California and not just by the local taxpayers. Secondly, there will be relatively little demand in fire protection, because new commercial buildings are built to rigid fire retardance standards, to much more rigid standards than. are single family residences, and the same is usually true of multiple. Secondly, with respect to fire, ordinakily buildings of this type are required to be sprinkl.ered. Invariably, and if you examine the condi- tions, it is true of this case, they are also required to provide stand pipes and other convenient facilities for the fire departments within the center itself, so that the demand on fire services should not be too high. The public utilities and the planting and its maintenance are paid for by the owner, and not by the city. And, if reference was being made to the lighting exterior to the property, that is already • the subject of an assessment district into which the applicant has been contributing for many years for light which was lighting vacant fields and weeds. So, I don't think that that would be a charge, other than the fair share of this property on it. So I see no validity to any argument that says that the construction of this center would add to the city's burden and that it would not produce a fair share of revenue. Now, I would like to turn my attention for a minute to this petition with 67 signatures. Shopping Bag Food Stores is one of them and obviously that would be in competition to some extent with the area in question, and that is at 973 South Glendora, so there may be a competitive reason there. (Some of these I can't read) The A & W Drive -In, we certainly do not intend to have any .root beer stands or anything of that nature there, so I don't see that we would be of any strong competition with them. There are a number of Valet Cl.eane7rs and laundromats and one more or less at this location would not hurt anyone along Glendora Avenue. The Pantry, I guess that is a restaurant, beauty shops, a jeweler these are usually things which are not found in this type of a center, so I don't really see the basis of the opposition, other than that someone might have been friendly to the person who was bringing it around. Top Dog Grooming, I don't think that is permitted in a neighborhood -commercial center under your ordi- nance. Robert D. Robinson, an Attorney... I can't see the connection between a neighborhood -commercial and an attorney, because he is not in that center.. There are other people who do not give their businesses David D'Amelio, I believe he was one of the circulators, the D'Amelio Building, certainly we don't intend to rent in competition with the office building on Glendora Avenue, belonging to the D'Amelio family. The Elite Cleaners, another cleaning shop, West Covina Camera, the Center Market, true, there again is a competitive factor, they're on the periphery of our area here, and so we go. Rocco's Barber Salon, West Covina Cleaners... I can't read this one, Marty's Music Shop, Phillip's Cameras, West Covina Paint... I don't think paint stores specifically are allowed in this, Marie Callender's Pie Shoppe, Bud's Muffler Service is certainly in an industrial area. Mike's Car Wash, Gold Label Radiator Service, Warren's Pit Stop, Hamilton Men's Wear, Joseph W. Still, M.D., Chef Luigi, somebody's Adorable Handkerchiefs, and Ideal Loan Company. - 31 - Rega C.C. 8/25;69 Page thirty-two PUBLIC HEARINGS (font � ) ZONE CHANGE NO. 425 PRECISE PLAN NO.573 (Cont.) Mr. Garvey (Cont.) Now, gentlemen, apparently the basis of this, and it sounds a good deal like one of the sets of points that was made here, • is that Walnut Creek Parkway is scheduled to be a major east -west thoroughfare, and will logically tie the existing CBD core area to other portions of the pity, including much of the primary market area for the proposed shopping center. I can"t see where there is any competition between CBD uses and a neighborhood -commercial center developed under the neighborhood commercial. ordinance, and I think, gentlemen, that while any citizen or businessman has a right to petition you, that not only the quantity should be looked at, but the quality, not in the sense of them being good people, but the quality of relationship of the objec- tors to this. Now some of those I pointed out were in direct competition The fact that a competitor might be injured by the establishment of new zoning is no ground for denying the zoning as a matter of law. Mr. Ebiner had three letters in opposition and he had three thousand home owners in opposition. I assume that was the petition which was filed. But he didn't say exactly whom he represented, other than that he was presenting these signatures. He didn't say who was on the committee, nor what their particular interest was, and I think it is important that when someone represents a group, that their interest be identified more specifically than was done in that presentation. He had four major points, there; that the general character is enhanced because of no more commercial; the residents are generally opposed; that they are willing to.travel; and that it will not bring anything into West Covina. Well, gentlemen, why do real • estate advertisements consistently advertise such amenities as shopping centers, schools, churches and the like as being convenient to resi- dences if they are not related to residences and to peoples living. And I don't think it is a. valid point to say that the general, character is enhanced because of no commercial., because without commercial, people cannot exist or live in a community. He made` a point that it. was strip zoning, or treat there would be strip zoning. This is a scare tactic. The Planning Department in its report to the Planning Commission and Cook, Williams and Mocine in their .report pointed out that a well - developed sizable shopping center is the best deterrent that there is to strip zoning, so obviously, you can't have it both ways. You can't say -that this will create.strip zoning if it is also a deterrent to it. He says that there would be a redistribution of sales taxes but no new taxes generated. Gentlemen, I don't think any of the opponents who have made this point have any more information on the subject than I do. I know that studies;--made._some years ago indicated that a large part of this particular area which would be served,shops in the City of Covina. I also notice in recent years that the favorable balance of taxes from sales tax revenue between West Covina and Covina has reversed itself, arid:.West Covina has: an-'exe.eed'ingxly.l)f.g�vorabl.?e:?balarrce there. :But.-I'.don4t'think anything can be deduced from that other than that the City of West Covina has grown and has added some major commercial in the, Eastland and in the Plaza centers. Mow, as to the General. Plan. I explained and I refer you to the tape of the Planning Commission Meeting because it is not contained in the excerpt in the Minutes, as to why the 'commercial was eliminated here. And if something is eliminated by the Planning Commission because it is too controversial, and I believe the words of Commissioner Mayfield specifically state that in the hearing of the General Plan on it, that is an elimination without a decision on the merits, that is an attempt to avoid a decision on the merits. . (Mr. Garvey quoted as follows) "June 25, 1969, Planning Commission's page 4, Commissioner Mayfield: 'I am in favor .of the plan except for the future commercial zoning at the corner. of Cameron and Azusa Avenues. ® 32 Reg. C.C. 8/25/69 Page thirty-three PUBLIC HEARINGS (Cont.) ZONE CHANGE NO. 425 PRECISE PLAN NO.573 (Cont.) Mr. Garvey (Cont.) I think it is foolish to include this in the General Plan. I believe that if this is an absolute necessity in the future, we certainly could accomodate it then. If it is left on the General Plan, it will. be an immediate tool for another series of -con- troversial hearings and'I don't think it's anything that leads anywhere. I stand firmly opposed on that particular pointy otherwise I am in favor of the Plan!. Mr. Jordon's major point, I believe, was that there are stores vacant in the City of West Covina. I think this is true. I believe there is also a large quantity of undeveloped com- mercial in the city of West Covina, and a large quantity of zoned multiple family, but it has been undeveloped so long, the only logical. conclusion that can be drawn is that perhaps it is misplaced, otherwise, it would have found a user. Merely giving a quantity of acreage which is not in a place which is attractive to users, does not mean that the city is over-commercial.,ized. It merely means that some of the existing commercial might be looked at as well as some of the existing residential. Mr. Anderson says that there is no need for apartments and yet this contradicts flatly what the Planning Depart- ment says. It conflicts with what every realtor in the area knows - that we have a vacancy factor of considerably less than 57o. Why the vacant has not been built upon, I don't know, but there is a vacancy factor, and wherever a vacancy factor exists, a demand exists. Com- mercial is not incompatible with single family. He says its. I believe it is complimentary, because it is what supports the amenities of life and breathing. He talked about it creating a traffic situation, gentle- men.,.:,a traffic situation already exists when you have nine thousand cars on one street and 25,000 cars on another street. He made a point, and I think several people did, so I will not repeat this with respect to others, that the freeway may go through here, and by changing the zoning it would increase the cost of the land. Gentlemen, No. 1, this is not a concern of this Council in passing on zoning. No. 2, it is an in- accurate statement and it comes, I think, from a misunderstanding on, the part of many people. Freeways are built solely out of the gas tax. They are not out of the pocket of the general taxpayer, nor out of the pockets of the local taxpayer. Consequently, the change of zone, even if at some distant date in the future, it might enhance the value of the property, is not a tax upon the local taxpayer or the local residents. He also made a point that parking lots were a congregation place for teenagers. Well, as was pointed out in one of the letters you read, we do intend to have a security guard there for the protection of the property andto police it. Now this is not because we anticipate a problem, but it was to alleviate the fears of other people who antici- pated the problems, and we .feel that, to a large extent, this should alleviate them. We haven't :found a way yet to have parents bring up ' their children so as to eliminate them from doing things in shopping centers, so I suppose every shopping center is going to have to bear that sort of a burden at some time or another. Now, Mr. Goldstein usually uses.a favorite expression of his, he wanted to know where the yellow went. He didn't use that tonight. May I quote from the Planning Commission? The point that there is so much residential, there, which he did refer to,.is the reason, or is one of the better expositions, to the lack of commercial services. If the area did not have so much single family residential from Glendora east to the city border and from the hills north, there would be more commercial to serve it, so I think that this overplus of residential without the normal amenities also indicates a lack of it. - 33 - Reg. C.C. 8/25/69 Page thirty-four PUBLIC HEARINGS (Cont.) ZONE CHANGE NO. 425 PRECISE PLAN NO.573 Mr. Garvey (Cont.) Mr. Del Gersio made the point that the Master Plan omitted Mr. Handler's pro- perty, I have discussed that, and will . not repeat. I gathered that the burden of his, part of his, is that this would be competitive with a center of a developer which he repre- sents. Well, gentlemen, planning and zoning is not intended to grant nor prevent competitive advantages. And it is an invalid argument to use it. He referred that 102 acres is not a neighborhood center - it should be 4 to 8 acres. This is a guide. It is not the law as laid down. This is the characteristic, and anything may be plus or minus. The radius of one half mile again is not a fiat, some areas will have up to one and a half, or:-onia,�afi&.A'.quar,ter miles; .and.*.commercial econo- mists,in`making such studies, will frequently use that type and they will frequently come up with an elliptical trading center which is long in one dimension and short in another dimensions because of the topog- raphy or the nature of their studies of the area. I talked about the petition of the 67 businessmen. Mr. Hamm, who apparently represents Coldwell, Banker in this, I think was here to assure you that the competing center had now one lease.. The interest of that company in these properties is well known. The applicant today had a call from another representative of Coldwell, Banker wanting to know if they could act as the leasing agents on that property, on this property. Mrs. Grieshaber was concerned about traffic. Traffic is not going to lessen on this corner no matter what • is there. The traffic is already there. This is not going to seriously increase it. Mr. D'Amelio - he talked about the petition. I've already discussed that. Mr. Wood wanted to make it safer for a school walk. Gentlemen, the precise plan calls for walks completely around the property, that is, on the street sides. It will make it safer for people to walk to there. Mr. Gary talked about the 7-11 litter, tacos, Slurpys, and candy bars. Well, we certainly do not intend to have a 7-11 litter around there. We do have covered places in the precise plan to take care of waste:, We will have sweeping machines, and the usual. conveniences of large shopping centers, and it wil.l.be kept clean. And I think probably that touches upon most of the points, very few of which attacked the basics of this or the premises set forth in the Planning Commission report and in the report of the consultants upon which we basically relied to justify the -need and the change of circumstances. I think in my original presentation, I went over most of the change in circumstance that there has been since this was rezoned. Thank .you very much. Carl Masten 1657 Marmont Avenue Los Angeles, Calif. Councilman Lloyd: Mr -Masten was sworn in by the City Clerk Mr. Mayor, I think it should be -pointed out to Mr. Masten that he can only respond in rebuttal. Mayor Gleckman: Thank you Mr. Lloyd. Mr. Masten,do you understand what Councilman Lloyd just said? The only remarks that we would welcome would be any remarks that would have to do with what the opposi- tion said, and no new testimony. - 34 - Reg. C.C. 8/25/69 Page thirty-five PUBLIC HEARINGS (Cont. ZONE CHANGE NO. 425 PRECISE PLAN NO.573 (Cont.) Mr. Masten: I would like to address myself, as the architect for Mr. Handler, to the quality of the environment, which has been raised by several of the people here. If I may diverge for a moment to say that I share the concern and I sympathize with the anxiety of these people who are listening to this project. If this project were to turn out as I'd say 90 to 95% of commercial projects do turn out, I'd not only share their concern, I'd be on their side. As -the architect I am on the spot. People have said that we have a pretty drawing here but that is where it is going to end. That both the owner and the architect will use that as a point of departure, and possibly obey the letter, but not the spirit. I don't know that I am in the position, without being known, to do any guaranteeing, but I can avow here that in all my career I have never created a commercial shopping center that would be of a nature that would cause concern. I think that what we are talking about here is something that Winston Churchill said - that we shape our buildings, and they shape us. And I am sensitive to this possibility of an architect, to this responsibility of an architect, and I feel that it is something that if this project is given the green light, that I as the architect would be devoting himself to, and dedi- cating himself to seeing that we have an environment here that is not like the gross and callous huge shopping centers, but would be on a neighborhood scale, not only in the satisfaction of the minimum.require- ments of the code, but in an effort to truly make this a physical, campatibly healthy and wholesome addition to the community. One that has the same intimate, human scale that people can live with and feel comfortable with. I think there are very many other things I could say, • but my main point is to assure you of my dedication to promoting and creating and developing a shopping center that is something that the neighbors would like if they could see it. THE CHAIR DECLARED THE PUBLIC PORTION OF THE HEARING CLOSED AT 10:53 P.M. COUNCIL DISCUSSION. Councilman Lloyd: Mr. Mayor, I feel very strongly the pressure which has been brought 'to bear, as far as I personally am concerned in this area, and there are certain items which I think have not been fully brought out. However, I would remind the people here, pro or con, that my remarks really are, in essence, to the Council, and I am speak ing to them. I have no great feeling that I have the only way to go. I would like to present my views and the way I seethe thing. In view of the emotional nature of this zoning, I think that there seems to be a good deal of objectivity, and I think that this audience and the people who have approached me many times are to be congratulated on the fact that they have presented what they thought was their point; and they have done so with certain fervor, of course, but with objectivity, also. -And I think this bespeaks well of our democratic society, and I am sure that you are all well aware that I feel very strongly about that segment of what we are doing. We -.talk about the individual rights of development, and -the -first thing we have to ask -is - what will be the ultimate use of this property? And the answer is - is there anyone • here who would not tell me that this property could even revert back to an agricultural property,.as might this whole valley, if indeed we are faced with the food shortages in the world that we now project. We, as residents of this productive land, might have to move up to the hills in order to survive, but, at this moment, we can only deal with what is here and what is now. Based on this projection of the next 10 to 20 years, this is the thing that we must talk about. - 35 - Reg. C.C. 8/25/69 Page thirty-six PUBL I C 'HEARINGS (font.) ZONE CHANGE NO. 425 PRECISE PLAN NO.573 (Cont.) Councilman Lloyd (Cont.) Violation of the General Plan - the General Plan, I would like to remind • people, as Joanne Wilner stated,.is only a plan, and does not constitute an ordinance. And no person who owns property has the obligation to develop his property in accordance with the General Plan, if he does not wish to. Conversely, this city can force no one to develop a piece of property if he does not want to. On the other hand, if he wishes to develop the property, he must, of course, come before this body. Individual property rights - and perhaps I am very presumptive'in this area, because I will be dealing somewhat in the law.- Individual property rights - does an individual who ownes property have the right to develop his property to its highest and best use? And the answer is a very emphatic "No". And I refer you to Yokley Zoning Law and Practice, Volume 1, page 41. "It is well. settled by judicial authority that comprehensive zoning ordinances regulating the use to which land may be put or prohibited in the various zoning districts are valid except where the ordinances apply to specific property is in some respect unreasonable or arbitrary." The adoption of an ordinance changing property from one zone to another is a l.egis- lative act. This is a legislative body.and involves the exercise of judgment: by that legislative body. If there is a substantial reason supporting the adoption of th.e ordinance, the courts will. not interfere. The rule is well stated in the California Sypreme Court Case of Wilkins versus the City of San Bernardino. I won't c it.e.. it. If you want it, I'l.l make it available through the City Attorney. The courts, in this case in rendering an opinion, said, 97The courts cannot write the zoning laws and cannot say where the legislative body has erred in drawing the • lines of the districts or in restricting the territory devoted to business or to multiple dwellings, unless there is a clear showing of the abuse of legislative discretion." That is, that the restrictions are unreasonable. A city council is not required to change property from one zone to another simply because it will be more profitable to the owner of the property; To make another use of his property. or that such use will not cause injury to the public. The real test is whether or not the change of zone will promote the general, welfare of the city, and this is a matter committed to the individual judgment of the members of the city council. To go a step further and by the same reasoning, is there a requirement that once a pattern of zoning is established, that it must be continued? Again, the answer is a very emphatic"no" And I cite Robinson versus the City of Los Angeles. This was a case involving somebody up in the San FerTnando Valley. The courts held that the owner of the property had no vested rights in continuity of zoning for the general area in which he resides. And the courts have further held that they are favorable to sustaining zoning portions of resi- dential areas to permit the inclusion of shopping centers. The courts in another area have further held and have indicated that in the area of hardship cases wherein the net income from a piece of property as compared with the total investment is not in keeping. That is to say, if you are not getting any money on your investment, then the admin- istrative and legislative bodies should give definite consideration with the idea of granting relief as far as zoning is concerned. In another case of Ruben versus the Board of Directors, California, "that the granting of zone changes should be within the spirit and intent of • the General Plan, based on a sound economic factor". In essence, what all of this means, is that the final authority for the decision -making process rests with the legislative body, which is us here this evening. And in that line, any legislator, making a decision as an elected representative of the city, should do their very best to come up with that: decision which serves the final. goal. of that which is best for the city, its people, and in keeping with the plan and goals as pro- jected for the foreseeable future. 36 Reg. C.C. 8/25/69 Page thirty-seven PUBLIC HEARINGS (Cont.) ZONE CHANGE NO. 425 PRECISE PLAN NO.573 (Cont.) Councilman Lloyd: (Cont.) On another item which has come to my attention, there have been some comments •to the effect that individuals on this Council have been subject to the will. of certain specific vested interests in this city, either pro or con, as far as the granting of this zone change. I have known each of the other four men on this council and have seen them in the legislative decision process, and I am here to state emphatically that not one person.serving on this council is in any way beholden or economically obligated to any person or group of persons regarding this property or any other property that has come before this body. In view of the fact that I have been questioned on some con -flirt of interest, I have, with regards to one of the peoples, served the interests of the Brutoco people in public relations. However, I can state withaaat reservation that I have no conflict of interest,inasmuch as their property is not in consideration this evening. And in the interest of good government, I am firmly con- vinced that if any person has any knowledge of any activity on the part of any person who serves this city, whether he is a councilman or a commissioner or serves in our community as an elected or appointed official, and if he in any way jeopardizes or compromises this community, I think this should be called to the attention of the authorities, and action should be taken to see to it that this person does not have the ability to continue in the affairs of this community as an elected or appointed official. And we do have an area where we can go, for instance, the Grand Jury, if there'is some violation.of this. If, on the other • hand, I think there is a real obligation at this point of anyone who is prepared to make an accusation be prepared to back that up, and that he should assume both the legal., the ethical and moral responsibilities of a human being and a citizen of our community before he makes any accusa- tion about any man who is doing the job that he has been elected to do. Let me tell you, it is not easy to come into this building and make decisions week after week concerning the future of our fair city and without making a few mistakes here and there. And I, for one, do my very level, best to give value received. I try hard to listen to all parties, in all cases whether I think they are justified or not, I listen to them. For example, on this case alone, I have heard from individuals, including both Mr. Handler and Mr. Brutocao, as well as many others regarding the pros and cons of this individual case. I have turned no one down. In my.office, we tried to evaluate what the actual value of our time and our normal rate of charge to our client, what the value would be in regards to this specific case. I want you to know that it would be in excess of a $1.,000. I would like to also tell you that every other councilman sitting up here has given a like amount of time and consideration, and I feel that anyone who finds fault with the integrity of any of the individuals up here does not only an injustice to the individual, but I think does an injustice to the City as well. In conclusion, regarding the area of some specific interest, I am in no way disagreeing with the person°s right to present his opinion regarding any issue, nor am I saying that the Council is invariably right. I am only saying that in every issue this Council has acted with responsibility, with integrity, and with loyalty to the people of this City. I frankly • don't think any voter could ask for any more. Now with regards to this specific case, I think by this time, every person is well aware of the facts.. The only item that may not have come through very clearly is that there is a commercial competition between two economic entities, specifically, Mr. Brutocao, who is hoping that Mr. Handler will not get his zoning.so that Mr.. Brutocao can go ahead with his commercial development, and I, as a businessman find no real. fault with the .fact that Mr. Brutocao wants it that way. I would be surprised if he didn't. We must, however, 37 Reg. C.C. 8/25/69 Page thirty-eight PUBLIC HEARINGS (Cont.) ZONE CHANGE NO. 425 PRECISE PLAN NO.573 (Cont.) Councilman Lloyd (Cont.) be very aware that there,are other economic interests and other commercial interests that have come to bear, also. We must try as objectively as possible to review the facts of every given zoning case, and, specifically, this one. We must also recognize one other thing. That even though this property were not zoned, there is another piece of property owned by Mr. Batchelder which has already been referred to, located on Azusa at Francisquito, and that property does not depend upon its zoning from this legislative body. The real elements of the case are, what is best for the city, economically, socially, and as far as the people are concerned, as far as all of us 70,000 residents of this city are concerned, .and commensurate with the given facts, what will best serve the interests of all the people, including those who live in the immediate area. It has been recommended by both the City Administration and the Planning Commission that favorable consideration be given to this rezoning. I think something else that should be -con- sidered in this thing is what are the options? If you don't do this, what might happen? I've tried to project, and I can't project the future.. I can only take a look at what is here and what is now. In addition, there has been opposition on the basis that this would deprive the taxpayer because the individual taxpayer would have to pay more money when the land was repurchased in 10 or 15 years for the proposed Huntington Beach Freeway. I consider this argument invalid because I believe that if this zoning is granted, the property will generate the tax dollars. While I am against any individual profiteering as a result • of any zoning, I recogzize that the State Highway group may take as long as fifteen years in the development of the Huntington Beach Freeway and that even the .final route might be changed. I don't say that it will, I think it will be where they've projected it, but it could change. In another area, there is an objection with regards to the influence of the area on the students at the high school. I think this is a reasonably valid objection. I think there might be some influence. However, I would point out that not only in our area, which is becoming very highly urbanized very quickly, such areas as downtown Los Angeles such as downtown San Francisco, such as many other areas,there are many young people who are subjected to these stresses of our society. These young people are able to overcome and do a very fine job and a credit- able one. Let us ;face facts. The City of West Covina is over 50% under the age of 18 and, as such, I think we should give some consideration to these young people. We have talked about the precise plan and one of the people here suggested the possibility that the precise plan can be changed. The precise plan cannot be changed without first coming before the Council and, as such, this is a protective device for the people of West Covina. I have done my very best to review this thing as object- ively as possible. I have tried to consider all of the elements of zoning, and I think that there are many things in this city which warrant a great deal more attention, as far as our society is concerned, re- garding, for instance, the issue at Edgewood High School.,.and I am very much concerned over it. I think that crime and narcotics are important„ I also think that living, for you and for me and for my :family, is also important. After a review, I am convinced that there is absolutely • no 100% answer which will. satisfy everyone, or which will be absolutely correct, and I don't think any man sitting up here is 100% in favor of either pro or con. He has terribly divisive .forces working on him. I certainly don't have 1.0.0% one way or the other, but at the present moment, and since I am -called on to make -a vote which requires a 100% decision, I find myself favorably disposed. Reg. C.C. 8/25/69 Page thirty-nine PUBLIC HEARINGS (Cont.) ZONE CHANGE NO. 425 PRECISE PLAN NO.573 (Cont.) Councilman Nichols: This kind of an issue, I think, one could find extremely easy to deal in • polemics and high-flown rhetoric; to get dramatic and play to the audience, so to speak, but this has sort of become the late, late show tonight, andI don't mean to be overly humorous about it at"all. Many of us have been through this many, many times before. Just about all that could be said, pro or con, has been said, so I am going to keep my remarks quite brief. I am going to try to stay at as low a key as I can, because I intend to go away from this meeting tonight and try to sleep tonight calmly, and I hope all of you will go the same route and think about it some more tomorrow, whatever way the vote goes. So I would like to take this moment, Mr. Mayor and Councilmen, to talk about just a couple of points.. Our General Plan, the one just recently adopted, states on page 9 in a comment made by the consultant, which has general application throughout the plan, "More than an adequate area of commercial land is zoned for the demand, indicating that more ef- ficient use of this space is required rather than a need to increase the area". That is the fact of the General.Plan; that is the statement of the consultant; and, of course, that is the one I picked out, because I agree with that. The second point I would like to cover is I have repeatedly chided the Staff of our city for making misstatements of fact in regard to the need for multiple housing. All of us recogn..ize that if you want apartments in your community, there is definitely a need for apartments but there is not a need in this city for more land to be zoned for apartments. For our Planning Staff to say we need more • apartments, therefore zone more land, is exactly the same as if in a depression one would say, we.need more money, let's build more banks. By the statement of our Staff on the reports relative to these recom- inendations, the Staff of this city states that we do need more multiple housing, and that in 1990 according to "experts in the field" 1/3 of the dwelling units in the city will be multiple in nature. May I only point out that in West Covina today there are approximately 2900 apartment units within the corporate limits of this city. There is presently zoned in the city of West Covina enough land without any further increase in density, without one acre of additional land being granted, enough zoning to create 3200 more apartment units right now. Now, when you add that 3200 that are authorized now and are zoned, to the 2900 that exist, you get a figure of over 6000 units of apartments for West Covina the City of Beautiful Homes. There are approximately 18,000 housing units of all types in the City of West Covina today. Ladies and gentle- men, the absolute indisputable facts are that if every acre zoned for multiple housing were allowed to develop as presently zoned, one out of every three living units in this city would, today, be multiple housing. And so my position is, the facts tell, me there is no need. It has been my understanding that the primary basis for granting zoning is need. It has been the school. that I have attended, and I cannot, in good conscience, determine that the community in general needs the apartment zoning nor that it needs the commercial zoning. And that has been the basis of my decision, in terms of my own opinion • on these matters. I do not have to be responsible for anyone else°s position but my, own and that will be my position, and I think I can defend it. And I hope that as we move along in this, that each of you will stop and think that whether Russ Nichols is expressing his opinion or someone else is expressing theirs, most of what we have heard tonight, most of what you are hearing now, is opinion, depending upon the way you feel about something you can generate opinion. But there are some new facts that no person can dispute and no one can dispute the fact that we have 3000 apartment units in our city today and that we have vacant apartment land in our city today that will more than double that amount, and I could not justify granting one acre of apartment zoning on that basis. 39 Reg. C.C. 8/25/69 Page Forty PUBLIC HEARINGS (Coat.) ZONE CHANGE NO. 425 PRECISE PLAN NO. 573 (Cont.) Councilman Gillum,:, I, as I think everyone knows out here, since I've been on this Council, I_have • supported sometimes, singly, this develop- ment. It is, as Mr. Lloyd stated, many times, especially the first time, that I had to sit in this chair and make a decision. I spent, the whole weekend going over in my mind trying to decide what was best for our community. Now I have lived here for fifteen years, and I have seen it grow from 15,000 to close to 70,000, and I realize that when a city grows, there are things that take place that are objectionable to some people, and I can understand their objections to it. The statement was made this evening that there were 3,000 signatures on a petition opposing this, there have been 4,500 signatures, there have been many signatures opposing this, and I think its the proper way to express a person's likes or dislikes is through a petition. We have been reminded in a letter that we represent, that we are the elected representatives of the City of West Covina, and I also agree to that m of the complete city of 70,000. I would like to convey to the Council, that as you know, I am a representative of the school district, and I was in attendance when the school district discussed their position at this .time on this zoning matter. Mr. Catalano, who is principal of West Covina High School was asked to appear for the second time before the school board and express his feeling about a shopping center adjacent or across the street from this high school. I don't have the Minutes in front of me, and I am not going to quote exactly his words, but in a sense he said that he found no objection to a shopping center, but he did find objection to such things as 7-11, and nuisance stores, and I think we all find objections to these, and I can understand why. I think the school board was faced with the problem that all, governing bodies are faced with today, and this is something that I have given a great deal of consideration to. I have five children in the schools in this city and they've started in kindergarten and gone through the whole system, two of them. Each year we are faced with the same responsibility of finding new funds for our school districts. Unfortunately, the West Covina School, District had to raise taxes 12� and they are caught in a bind, and they are doing everything they can', in order to provide the services and the education for the community. I think this Council would not be doing the proper job if we would pass up or ignore our responsibility in the area of revenue to the school district in the city. Reference was made to the income that would be derived if this commercial property was zoned and developed. The School Board brought out that, at the present time, the vacant land now contributes $1,700 per year in property tax to the Unified School District. If this property were developed, it would contribute $75,000, or an increase of $739000. Now, I realize that some of you sitting out there are going to be adjacent to, or behind this, are going to say "So what?", and you're right. I might say the same thing if I lived behind it or next to it. But I do think we have an obligation to the city of 70,000. We are also going to have to share that extra burden of 12� on the school tax. Someone brought up the point that we should build R'ls, and put R-l. residences on the 20 acres, or the 1.7 acres, I believe it comes out to net. To give you an example of what an R--1 house contributes to the city of West Covina in a year, the taxes on a $36,000 house is around $800 a year. It contributes $85.00 per home per year to the City of West Covina. The point was made that the commercial shopping center would cost the .city money, actually, to take care of the police and fire and protection of this type, I think there is a vast difference between $85.00 per single residence and what the commercial could bring in in sales tax and property taxes. I notice some of you shaking your head out there about the $85.00, but I have always asked this question, "What really is your city property tax?" Many people don't realize that the smallest portion of your tax bill comes to the city for the services provided so Vb,_can't continually ask' -the property owner to carry the burden of this city in the things 40 Reg. C.C. 8/25/69 Page Forty-one PUBLIC HEARINGS (Cont.) ZONE CHANGE NO. 425 PRECISE PLAN N0.573 (Cont.) Councilman Gillum (Cont.) that you people have requested. Blue Ribbon Committees and things of this type, • have requested that we should build additional parks, we should have swimming pools, we should fix the streets, we should do this. We have even been asked to extend Walnut Creek Parkway across this city to unsnarl the traffic problem, which in the estimate of our Staff, a conservative estimate is around five million dollars, and our, total budget for the year is five million dollars. So I think this Council and future councils have the obligation to the citizens of this community to find other sources of taxes other than the home owner, because it is just not the home any more. I think the one :thing that concerns me . when we keep referring to the General Plan and the fact that this piece of property was taken out of the General. Plan by the Planning Commission, and, the one thing that really disturbs me most about this one point, is that a General.Plan that covers a city of our size and all the public hearings that we have had in this city and it boils down to one piece of property in a city of this size which is objectionable_. I would really stop to think about that. Here is a city of 67,000, large in area, and the only thing, in all the public hearings and all the testi- monies, that they find objectionable was one piece of property of 20 acres. We had an objection on the Citizens" Committee to the 20 acres. I am not going to refer to personalities, but it happened to be the person who Mr. Lloyd stated was in competition with this piece of pro- perty. Out of the Citizens' Committee this was the only objection to the commercial on that piece of property. I really believe what has happened in our community is that this thing has become so emotionally involved. This has sometimes torn a community apart. I've had people call me that I've known for fifteen years. The letter this evening with the - and I have to use the word - "threat",.of a recall or refer- endum - that is nothing with what I`ve had on the telephone in three years. But the day that I ran for this office, I ran to represent the City of West Covina. If anyone out there voted for me thinking that I was going to sit up here and base my decisions on future elections, they elected the wrong person. Because I believe in this community and I believe it can be the community we all would like to see - a beautiful homes and headquarters city. I've stated in the past three times that I°ve�sat on this Council and listened to the testimony and I believe some of it is very factual and I believe there is deep concern on the part of some of the people, but I also believe that there is a tremen- dous amount of emotion that has been generated in our community in the past and even in this time.. I have supported it in the past from my own convictions of thinking it is best for the City of West Covina. If it causes some harm or does some damage to people adjacent, I am deeply sorry, as I will be deeply sorry the day the freeway comes through and causes the same problems. But I think we have to look at the overall picture of what is best for the City of West Covina. I've heard the same arguments. In the past it was the narcotics problem. I think that the narcotics problem here is An unfortunate thing, but the point has been made that because a security guard is going to be stationed at this shopping center that the developer was admitting that there was a problem. I think most of you were here last time when the objection was brought up that because of the shopping center, it would create narcotics problems on the high school. So, I think that this was an attempt by the developer to at least in some way to try to help with our problem, and I say our, because it is our problem, not only as a city, but as parents. So, I don't think this is an honest objection to the shopping center if we use the narcotics., which is unfortunately existing in our community. I do believe that the area has changed. - 41 - Reg. C.C. 8/25/69 Page Forty-two PUBLIC HEARINGS (Cont.) ZONE CHANGE NO. 425 PRECISE PLAN NO.573 (Cont.) Councilman Gillum (Cont.) I do believe the traffic patterns have changed. We have opened up the Azusa Road through the hills, and I am sure that many of us have traveled the street and realize that it is going to be a very fast thoroughfare to the south. A few years ago, the city spent money for real estate research. We took an inventory of our existing commer- cial -residential & R-3. It was about 60 or 70 pages long. It summed up in about two paragraphs, actually, what the City of West Covina should do, and we haven't done it. Because it said that we had about three years to start in the area of developing what we needed to support this city, and that we had the best access roads,out of the city that you had ever seen. I haven't found a city in this state that will share its in- crease in sales tax with, its neighboring cities, and this is what we are faced with. As I have in the past, and as I will this evening, and what in my judgement.•:in the best interest of the city of West Covina, will support the zoning request on this property. Councilman Chappell: Mr. Mayor, we've all had a long time to listen to what various citizens in our community and the developers have had to say. I'm not going into lengthy detail as to how I feel, about the particular zoning, but I would say that when I first came to West Covina, the City of Beautiful Homes wasa by -word. But those in power and position discovered that the homes were not going to pay the way, and certain areas were designated, as far as I was concerned, to be the business area of our community - Glendora, a small portion of Citrus, Eastland, the Plaza, Desmond's area, the Broadway. I feel that these areas are the proper areas to have our business development in. There is plenty of land still undeveloped in these areas -to continue building the types of businesses that are needed to provide the services for the people in our city. And our city is people. We can talk about all the buildings and everything else we want, but we're still going to boil. down to people. We have the Hollenbeck area, we have the Azusa area, we have the Lark Ellen area; we have basically the Citrus area, other than the small zoning at the freeway itself. There is nothing wrong to have a large area of homes and to be,serviced by the shopping areas surround- ing that body of homes. I've seen parts of our community, the City of West Covina, where shopping centers have been built, and they certainly didn't improve the area that they were built,in. They certainly didn't help the citizens thereto provide for all the services that they need. So, I would like to see our area that we are talking about here remain R-1 that it has been laid out in the years past, and I hope in the years to come. So at this time I will state that I am opposed to the zoning that is being requested tonight. Mayor Gleckman: You know, I could preface my remarks with a lot of things., but I think we have been here a long time, and I am going to say the things that I have to say. First of all, I would like to thank all of you for coming down here. Regardless of what your opinions might be on this particular zone case, you are interested, and you don't have somebody coming to your house telling you that you should be for or against something without actually sitting in on the conversation and finding out what is being proposed. What the good things are and what the bad things are.. There are a lot of things that were said this even- ing that I could probably speak pro and con, both on the same point. But I think your elected officials have a responsibility, and I think that responsibility when we take office - it's the old story, if you can't stand the heat in the kitchen, get out. Now, our community is growing every single day. I do not find fault with anything that was said here this evening, both pro and con. I do not find fault with anything that was said by the four Councilmen, both pro and con. - 42 - Reg. C.C. 8/25/69 Page Forty-three PUBLIC HEARINGS (Cont.) ZONE CHANGE NO. 425 PRECISE PLAN NO. 573 (Cont.) Mayor Gleckman (Cont.) I do think that anybody that's going to be elected to a public office has to take into consideration that one question he's always asked, and this may give you an indication of how I feel and what I am going to do, and that is, "Are you prepared to serve the interests of the entire city with the:idea of having to make an unpopular decision, without confusing the people with the facts". Because that is the problem that I see here tonight. If there was ever a zoning case that I have had the opportunity to talk about, both in my 3 years on the Planning Commission, and my three and a half years on the City Council, none of them has weighed as heavily on my decision, regardless of whether I am the swing vot:eor not, if that is what you want to call it, than this particular situation. In 1963 I sat in the audience when this particular zoning case came up and at that particular time, but for the grace of having a motel that might be permitted in this particular zone, this area would then have been zoned multiple -dwelling. There is no doubt in my mind about it. In 1966, I said at that particular time that what happened if the developer decided to sell the property? What assurance do we have for the protection of the residential people? I have had business dealings with Mr. Brutocao, which have nothing to do with this property. I am a stockholder in the corporation as well as he is, and sit on the Board of Directors. I have never found Mr. Brutocao to be anything but fair. I , too do not blame Mr. Brutocao for fighting this particular project fight, per se. I don't blame anybody living in and -around this particular situation that would fight this project. On • the other hand, I have to look at the alternatives that are left on this particular piece of property. Twenty acres of R-3, I agree with Mr. Nichols. I just don't feel that a 20 acre parcel of multiple dwelling would become anything but a blight on the community in 10 years. I agree with that. At the same time, I have not heard one professional opinion., or one opinion by the Planning Commission, or the City Council, with maybe tonight as an exception, that this property could or should ever be developed as R-1. I really feel that the alternatives of this particular property are 1) Because of the neighborhood -commercial zoning, which is the most restrictive zoning we have in the City of West Covina, that regardless of what the applicant would want to do in the future, regardless of who ownes that particular property, we have provided in the neighborhood -commercial enough protection for the residential property owner, otherwise we shouldn't have a neighborhood -commercial zone. This was reviewed by our Planning Commission. It was reviewed by this Council. It was carried to a public hearing, and they all agreed on the neighborhood -commercial, zoning. I think the people that live in and around this area are affected, will be affected. It upsets me:sometimes to get a letter like Joanne Wilner wrote, because I know her. I know she has great intelligence, and I know her intent for this community is the best. On the other hand, I just can't believe that you can serve this city six and seven years and spend hours after hours after hours, and you people know this, because you may be here tonight which you are welcome, but we are here all the time in serving this community, and feel that you people can sit out there in judgement on the five city Councilmen here based on a zoning case.. I really don't believe that. I think that the people of West Covina are much more intelligent, and I think that you're right emotionally. Don't mis- understand my statements, please, but to sit in this chair and have to look over the opinions that are on this property and the chance of getting the type of development that is being offered us, if you want to call it that, against the alternative of what we have to take with the option of Azusa and Francisquito being in the County facing us, the need, if you want to call it need, I think, by zoning this particular property at this particular time, neighborhood -commercial, for one, then gives the indication to the entire eastern part of this city that this suffices the need for looking at any other commercial zoning in - 43 - Reg. C.C. 8/25/69 Page Forty-four PUBLIC HEARINGS (Cont.) ZONE CHANGE NO. 425 PRECISE PLAN NO.573 (Cont.) Mayor Gleckman (Cont.) the entire area. I agree that there are going to be similar tax dollars that probably would be spent in this particular center. I disagree that it will.not bring new dollars. I know several of the people in my area, and I live approximately 6 to 7 blocks from this, that do their shopping in Covina, and I am speaking primarily to the -people that live east of Azusa Avenue. I also have to take into consideration the decisions and the opinions given by our Planning Commission and by our professional staff. First of all, in spite of what you might think about their report on this particular zoning, the city of West Covina has been very fortunate in having probably as good, if not better, a professional staff, than any other city that I know of in the surround- ing East San Gabriel Valley. They've done an excellent and an honest job. There hasn't been anybody that has influenced them. They wrote it they saw it professionally. The Planning Commission, on the other hand, also received this request. I don't know when this request first came in, but I do know that the change on the General Plan took place on 6/25. I don't know when the application was first given to the city I want to say this, and I say it to you in all sincerity. This is the toughest decision I have made since I've .been in public office, because not because of the case, itself - but because the majority of the people who are opposed to this are my friends and are people who supported me in the election. But I say to them, and I say to myself, that if I have to sit up here and be obligated to vote certain things in certain areas with the idea that that is the only way I can serve, I don't •think the people of West Covina want their elected officials to be obligated going in and to make their decisions strictly on obligation to certain..individuals. If I had my own way, and I was speaking for myself, personally, I would like to take the popular out, and to say to you people, you are all my friends, I want to keep you, etc., etc., and this is what you want, fine this is the way I will vote. I find myself not being able to do that this evening. I wish I were not the swing vote. In 1967, I said that this area should be and will be, eventually, commercial., but that the City of West Covina had no zoning that it could guarantee its residential property owners in and around this project a quality development, and we didn't. We now have one. The man has exceeded the criteria for this type of zoning. I sure would hate to think .that tempers flare so high, and emotional feelings feel so high, that you would leave this room with the idea that your points of view have not been taken into consideration, because they have. Now, I don't know about the other fellows here tonight. They may be able to sleep tonight, I won't because I am going to have to make a decision that is -really very unpopular. But I do it because I feel I would rather be wrong today and right in a couple of years than right today and wrong in a couple of years, and I think that is our obligation as elected officials. I don't think we are supposed to sit here and go with the :whims of the audience, unless we have particular substantial basis on which to voice that vote. I know that I will be subjected to criticism .for the way I go, but I say to you that I go that way because I think it's best for West Covina. I think we've given., with the neighborhood -commercial, the adequate.protection. I am prepared to discuss it at any particular time. I:. -respect you all for your interest and I respect the Councilmen for their opinions. I wish I were not the swing vote, but at the same time, I would make these statements whether I spoke first or I spoke last. - 44 - Reg. C.C. 8/25/69 Page Forty. -five • • PUBLIC HEARINGS (Cont.) ZONE CHANGE NO. 425 PRECISE PLAN N0.573 (Cont.) Councilman Gillum:-- I would move that zone change application 425 be approved. Councilman Lloyd: I second the motion. Mayor Gleckman: We have a motion and a second. Mr. Wake- field, does this application come in two seperate motions, or one motion. Mr. Wakefield: ITwo separate motions, Mr. Mayor. Mayor Gleckman: The first order of business would be a motion, which has been made and seconded to approve the zone application No. 425, southwest corner of Cameron and Azusa Avenues. Motion carried on roll call vote as follows: AYES: Councilmen Gillum, Lloyd, Gleckman NOES: Councilmen Nichols, Chappell ABSENT: None Councilman Gillum: I would move that the precise plan of design for application No.573 be approved. Councilman Lloyd: I second the motion. Motion carried on roll call vote as follows: AYES: Councilmen Gillum, Lloyd, Gleckman NOES: Councilmen Nichols, Chappell ABSENT: None THE CHAIR DECLARED A FIVE MINUTE RECESS AT 11:43 P.M. AT 11:50 P.M.THE CHAIR DECLARED COUNCIL BACK IN SESSION. 1970 WEED AND RUBBISH ABATEMENT PROGRAM - LOCATION: Throughout the City. HEARING OF PROTESTS Hearing of protests or object- ions from property owners and other interested parties to the proposed program of weed and rubbish abatement for 1970, pursuant to Resolution of Intention No.4023. Mayor Gleckman: Madam City Clerk, do you have the affi- davit of mailing as required by law? City Clerk: I do. Motion by Councilman Gillum, seconded by Councilman Chappell, and carried, to receive and file the Affidavit of Mailing. Mayor Gleckman: Madam City Clerk, have .you received any written protests or objections against performing this proposal? City Clerk: No, I have not. Mayor Gleckman: Does anyone present have any verbal pro- tests or objections, or any questions relative to this proposed work? There appears to be no protests or objections. THE CHAIR DECLARED THE HEARING CLOSED 45 - Reg. C.C. 8/25/69 Page Forty-5ix . PUBLIC HEARINGS (Cont.) 1970 WEED AND RUBBISH ABATEMENT PROGRAM - HEARING OF PROTESTS (Cont.) The City Clerk presented: RESOLUTION NO. 4023 "A RESOLUT!ION..'OF THE':'CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF WEST COVINA, CALIFORNIA, DECLARING ALL ADOPTED RUBBISH AND REFUSE UPON, AND ALL WEEDS GROWING UPON SPECIFIED STREETS AND PRIVATE PROPERTY WITHIN SAID CITY TO BE A PUBLIC NUISANCE AND DECLARING ITS INTENTION TO REMOVE AND ABATE THE SAME UNDER AND IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF TITLE 4, DIVISION 3, PART 2, CHAPTER 13, ARTICLE 2, OF THE GOVERNMENT CODE.91 Mayor Gleckman: Hearing no objections, waive further reading of the body of said Resolution. Motion by Councilman Chappell, seconded by Councilman Lloyd, and carried, that the Street Superintendent proceed with the program, advertise for bids and order the abatement of weeds and rubbish on these properties described in Resolution of Intention No. 4023. PROJECT NO.SP-6626 1911 ACT - SHORT FORM PROTEST HEARING & CON- FIRMATION OF ASSESSMENT LOCATION: Virginia Avenue between Barranca Street and Grand Avenue. THE CHAIR DECLARED THAT THIS IS THE TIME AND PLACE FOR THE HEARING OF PROTESTS OR OBJECTIONS: • Mayor Gleckman: Madam City Clerk, do you have the affi- davit relative to the hearing? City Clerk: Yes, I do. Motion by Councilman Gillum, seconded by Councilman Chappell, and carried, to receive and file the Affidavit of posting and mailing. Mayor Gleckman: Mr. Public Service Director, will you present the factual data of the Engineer's Report? Mr, Fast: The City Council received the report dated August 22, 1969, which constitutes the City Engineer's Report. Motion by Councilman Gillum, seconded by Councilman Chappell, and carried, to receive and file the City Engineer's Report. Mayor Gleckman: Madam City Clerk, have you received any written protests or objections against the assessment or on improvements as constructed, or the proceedings? City Clerk: No, I have not. Mayor Gleckman: Are there any protests or objections against the assessment or report from property owners liable to be assessed for construction or improvements or any other interested persons? THERE BEING NO ORAL PROTEST OR OBJECTIONS, THE CHAIR DECLARED THE PUBLIC PORTION OF THIS HEARING CLOSED - 46 - Reg. C.C. 8/25/69 Page Forty-seven PUBLIC HEARINGS (Cont.) PROJECT NO.SP-6626 (Cont.) The City Clerk presented: RESOLUTION NO. 4041 "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF WEST COVINA CONFIRMING THE REPORT ADOPTED OF THE STREET SUPERINTENDENT FOR CONSTRUC- TION DONE .PURSUANT TO .RESOLUTION NO.394.2 • VIRGINIA AVENUE BETWEEN BARRANCA STREET AND GRAND AVENUE." .Mayor Gleckman: Hearing no objections, waive .further reading of the body of said Resolution.. Motion :by Councilman Gillum, seconded by Councilman Chappell, to adopt said..Resolution. Motion passed on roll call vote as follows: AYES: Councilmen Gillum, Nichols, Chappell, Lloyd, Gleckman NOES: None ABSENT: None ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Robert Nalbandian I represent the Bainbridge Club as President. 1301 S. Broadmoor Avenue We received a letter from your City Admin- West Covina, California istrator, advising us that we should have (Bainbridge Club) a business License, as we are running a business at the Bainbridge Club. There should be a letter on record to the City of West Covina from Mr. Robert Barnes, Attorney at Law, advising you that we are not a business, that we are a non-profit corporation of California and we run no business on these premises. We would like the • business license fees or the dance fees waived for this club. This is the reason we are here. Mayor Gleckman: We have that on our Agenda No. H-11, which we will get to right after Oral Communi- cations,.Mr. Nalbandian. Jonathan M. Stark I would like to refer to the horse pro - (Merced Ave.Horse Ranch) perty at Orange and Merced. You didn't receive any letters this month. Mayor Gleckman: 'No, but we do have it coming up after the business licenses on our Agenda this evening. Go ahead, you are permitted to speak.. Mr. Stark: Mayor, I have a number of questions I would like the Council to answer me and I have typed' -.,them out. There is a copy for each one, .and I will read them off, if it will help you. You can answer these questions afterwards. Question No. 1 - At the July 14th meeting, the Council declared the horse property located at Orange and Merced Avenues to be public nuisance and instructed the City Attorney to take • whatever steps necessary to remove existing conditions. So far, I've not heard this mentioned again, but I would like to know why. Is there a city ordinance on the number of horses than can be kept on any given piece of property in the city? If so, how many on the property in question? Is boarding horses on R-A property against city ordinance? Boarding of horses meaning- furnish food and space. Who do I call when these laws are broken? How long before the city will act if this does occur? Can this property be posted by the city concerning laws and ordinances on horses? So much for the questions. - 47 - Reg. C.C. 8/2.5/69 Page Forty-eight. ORAL.COMMUNICATIONS,(Cont.) Mr. Stark (Cont.) Now there are horses that are being borded on the property with the rules posted inside the barns. The city just removed a commercial business operation on this property, now it seems the same thing all over again, _just a different type of business. • As a resident of the City of West Covina, I expect my city government to uphold existing laws and ordinances. On the problem of the rats, dust, and other health hazards, I think it is time to inform the State Health Department and news media of this condi- tion. Thank you. CITY ATTORNEY REPORT ON BUSINESS LICENSES Councilman Gillum: Since the point was raised in Oral Communi- cations pertaining to the Bainbridge Club, it might be appropriate at this time to convey to the Bainbridge Club the City Attorney's opinion in this matter. Mayor Gleckman: Well, if I would take the time of the Council, I would read from the Report of Business Licenses for Private Clubs. "There are apparently two private clubs in the city. Bainbridge Club, Inc. is a non-profit corporation, which.has a swimming pool, volley ball court, clubhouse, which includes the recreational hall, kitchen and storage facilities. Recreational swimming is a primary activity of the club, • the monthly dues paid by its members constitute its major source of revenue. In addition, the club occasionally holds dances and dinner dances for its members and their guests, for which an admission charge is made.. The Bainbridge Club has protested the payment of the license fee, contending that it has never engaged in any activity to which the general public was invited, and that it is not engaged in any business activity for which license is required under the ordinance. Section 6201 of the Code declares that no person shall carry on any enterprises with- out a license. Section 6200 declares that -.the purpose of the ordinance is to license lawful businesses, professions, trades, callings, and occupations. In my opinion the clubs in question are in the business of selling membership and collecting dues for the purpose of providing services for their members."'I will add that it says,"However, by appropriate amendments to the ordinance, non-profit corporations, the activities of which are limited to providing services exclusively to their members, can be exempted from the license ordinance. This is a matter of policy for determination by the City Council". I think that rather sums up our alternatives, right, .Mr. Wakefield? Mr. Wakefield: Yes,.Mr. Mayor_, As the ordinance now stands, in my opinion, the club is required to have a license. Mayor Gleckman: My own feeling along these lines is, I think, that any organization which is non- profit, which exists for the members . itself, providing a service for its members, should have a license waived by the City Council as long as they remain this type of organi- zation. Councilman Gillum: May I just pursue that just one step? The license waived, or the fee? One of the things that I had in mind is the fact that we are not trying to raise revenue or restrict them or make them pay a fee, except I think we should have the right if, at some time, things became out of hand or could not be controlled by the club, to Reg. C.C. 8/25/69 Page Forty-nine: CITY ATTORNEY (Cont.) REPORT ON BUSINESS LICENSES (Cont.) Councilman Gillum (Cont.) revoke their license.. Because in many times, and not pertaining to the Bainbridge • Club, but in different organizations, they have had dances and things of this type where we have had to supply police protection and things out':of the community and had really no way to control them. Basically, my thinking on it was a method of control, not of raising revenue or penalizing, but in a sense having the right to control activities if they got out of hand or became a public nuisance. Councilman Nichols: I believe that I should agree with that. I believe that the Bainbridge Club should have a business license, although they are a non-profit organization. I am well aware of that. They do on occasion let their premises to other groups. They are engaged in activities that are subject to the regulations of the laws of the city. As to this non- profit business or profit business., I believe they should be licensed. I believe also that when they are certified as a non-profit business, the fees involved should be waived. Councilman Lloyd: Mr.. Mayor, I presume that the Bainbridge Club"s restrictive clauses pertain solely to the area wherein it resides, is that a correct statement? In other words,:..may anyone join your club? Robert Nalbandian: In a certain perimeter of the club area. Councilman Lloyd: That is what I said. But there is no res- triction as regards to race, color, creed, etc.., if they live there they can join. I have no objection. Robert Nalbandian: The restriction is that we have a boundary line set up. Councilman Lloyd: I would be favorably disposed. Mayor Gleckman: I would entertain a motion that the Bain- bridge club secure a license and that the fee for the license be waived on the basis of it being non-profit organization. Motion made by Councilman Nichols, seconded by Councilman Chappell., and carried, that Council direct the City Attorney to return to the Council with an ordinance amending the Business License Ordinance to except organizations with the classification of the Bainbridge Club. Councilman Gillum: When you refer to such clubs as Bainbridge, this would take in such things as American Legion, in other words, "icon -profit"? Councilman Nichols: They already are non-profit. With a ."no fee" license, Mr. Nalbandian: May I ask a question? Mayor Gleckman: Notunless someone recognizes you. Councilman Chappell: I recognize him. Mr. Nalbandian: What is the procedure now? Do we apply for a license? - 49 - Reg. C.C. 8/25/69 Page Fifty • CITY ATTORNEY (Cont.) REPORT ON BUSINESS LICENSES (Cont.) Mr. Wakefield: When the ordinance is amended to provide for the issuance of a "no fee" license, to the club, then the club should come in and apply for their license. Mr. Nalbandian: Will you let us know when this is? Mr. Wakefield: Yes. You will be notified. Mr. Nalbandian : We will be notified by writing? To the club? Mr. Wakefield: Yes, to the club. Mayor Gleckman: We have a couple of other problems that have to do with this, and by the report, since the hour is late, I -would like to entertain a motion that this be over until the next regular meeting. Motion by Councilman Lloyd, seconded by Councilman Gillum., and carried, that the two items concerning South Hills and the California School of Law be held over until the next regular meeting. Mayor Gleckman: Mr. Fast, would you make sure that the particular people that are involved in what we are going to discuss get notifi- cation as coming up on our Agenda, so that they can be here if they wish. MERCED AVENUE ..' HORSE.RANCH'REPORT Mr. Wakefield: Mr. Mayor, and members of the City Council, I have met again with the owner of the property. We were unable to make any pro- gress in the resolution of the problems. It seems to me that we are faced with two alternatives; the City Council could invite the owner, Mr. Nichols, to appear and state his position so far as the use of the property is concerned to the City Council, or the City Council could simply instruct me to proceed in accordance with your instructions of July 14, 1969, and I will file an action against the property and attempt to abate it as a public nuisance. Councilman Nichols: Mayor, I thought we so directed the City Attorney some time ago to do that? What taken as yet? is the reason why it hasn't been under - Mr. Wakefield: The instruction, as I understood it, was to take any action, including bringing an action, to abate the property as a public nuisance that was appropriate. As I say, we've made some progress toward resolving parts of the problem, but the basic problem of the horses still remains and I simply want the Council to be aware that we are now at the alternative where I see no other course of action except to file the suit as originally indicated. Mayor Gleckman: Let me,ask you a question, Mr.. Wakefield. I_f you file the suit, what are we talking act ion, if we file the suit? about time, before we actually get some =I Mr. Wakefield: That will depend upon how far the court is willing to go. It may be possible to get a temporary restraining order or - .50 Reg. C.C. 8/ 2 5/ 69 Page Fifty-one CITY ATTORNEY (Cont.) MERCED AVENUE HORSE RANCH REPORT (Cont'.) Mr. Wakefield (Cont.) restraining the owner of the property -from continuing to maintain the horses on the property. I-f so, that will be issued shortly after the action is filed. If the court will not issue the temporary restraining order, then it will have to•take its course, and it may be a year or so, before the matter is finally resolved. Mayor Gleckman: We have another suggestion by you, Mr. Wakefield, unfortunately, I have to feel kind of guilty that we haven't taken the other action in the first place. Your suggestion was to ask Mr. and ;Mrs.. Nichols,. Qr,: -the owners of the property, to appear at the meeting and to give us any particular cause or reasoning why we shouldn't proceed with this action. I_hate to think that we would take this action against the party that recently bought the property, and you know how quickly I want this. action done, so it is not a case of appealing it. I hate to have this Council, or the neighbors even, be criticized for trying to take some punitive action against a new owner of the property without even having the opportunity of asking him to come before this Council and asking'what is his -intent and how well will he cooperate.. Have we ever written him on official stationary or requested his presence here? Mr. Wakefield: We've written to him but never requested him to appear before the City Council that I know of. Councilman Nichols: Mr. Mayor, the gentleman involved is well aware of the city's concern, and he has ibeen contacted, and every reasonable effort has been made to gain his cooperation. I would question, myself, what additional virtue would attach itself to an invitation to appear formally before our Council meeting, except to present his own viewpoint, which he will certainly be quite willing to do. I would think that he might have come on his own, if he felt that the complaints were':totally without foundation. I have two thoughts on this, gentlemen, if I may. I think., number one, that you people who are complaining repeatedly are expecting more of a city government and a city council under the laws of this nation than can really be achieved. Isn't the City Attorney talking about a year to get somebody in court - something like that? A year' That is what we are talking about. Now, we don't have the power of God, but I do feel that we ought to move and take whatever action is. open to us to get this condition improved. It is an unsightly mess; it is not in keeping with a residential community by any stretch of the imagination;and,.certainly, Section 3479 of the Civil Code is applicable. I think we ought to move on it, and if in the interim of this long year we are waiting to get some action on it, we can negotiate and hear his side of it. It costs very little to file an action, if ' .in the meantime we determine that no compliance has been made. Mot:ioh .by_:.COUhdil.man Gillum., seconded by Coub.c.ilman'.Chappell;: and carried, that the Council instruct the City Attorney to proceed with the appro- priate legal action. Mayor Gleckman: You asked the qestion, is there a city ordinance. Normally we don't take the: -time of the Council to answer questions that you could get from staff. Mr. Stark: I got them from Staff, but the people who own the property have no regard for ordinances. Mayor Gleckman: You asked the question, we can't do anything about that. - 51 - Reg. C.C. 8/25/69 CITY ATTORNEY (Cont.) MERCED AVENUE HORSE RANCH REPORT (font.) Councilman Nichols: Mr. Stark: Mayor Gleckman: Councilman Nichols: Mr. Stark: Mayor Gleckman: ordinances on horses? Page Fifty -.two I think he knows the legal answers to all these questions, do you not? Yes, I do. Well, that is all we can give you. He knows the same ones that we know. We are trying to see that they are enforced as quickly as you are - All I want is them enforced, and I would like to know No. 7. That one I do not know. I don't know either. Mr. Wakefield, for the sake of time can this property be posted by the city concerning laws and Mr. Wakefield: There is no provision in our city ordi- nances of which I am aware, which would authorize the posting of the property, as such. Mayor.' Gleckman :. I am.. sofry, Mr. Stark, that is ,the best that we can do. Councilman Nichols: The best we can do, I think., is exception- ally good, because what your Council is doing is spending several .thousands of dollars of the general taxpayers' money in an effort to abate an nuisance::. Mr. Stark: Mr. Nichols, I am not a bit unhappy. All I would like to see is•:that the man lives within .the law. Councilman Nichols: No-, the Mayor said that that is the best we can do, .and I am saying that if we take him all the way to the court, that is quite an expense.. Mr. Stark: I can't ask for more, can I? CITY MANAGER "T" INTERSECTIONS IN RESIDENTIAL STREETS Staff Report Mr. Fast: Mr. Mayor and the Council, this is a hold- over from a Traffic Committee action of May 26, 1969. One item was held over. They have now made a positive recommendation.' Mayor Gleckman: We have a recommendation that the previous recommendations of the Traffic Committee be amended to read "Median openings within raised landscape medians will not be provided at "T" intersections in residential streets unless both of the following factors are present: The volume of the minor street does not exceed 700 vehicles per day, and the volume on major streets exceeds 20,000 vehicles per day". - 52 - Reg. C.C. 8/25/69 Page Fifty-three 0 CITY MANAGER (Cont.) "T" INTERSECTIONS (Cont.) Councilman Chappell: Mr. Fast: How close are we to those figures, Mr. Mayor? We have applied this criteria to certain steeets that we are -now designing median islands on. Sunset Avenue, South Glendora Avenue, certainly Azusa Avenue. Councilman Nichols: Does Sunset Avenue have normal vehicular count in excess of 20,000, as an example? Mr. Zimmerman: My recollection, Mr. Nichols, is that it is under 20,000 by some amount. Glendora Avenue is in that neighborhood, yes, Glendora and Azusa. It would be under that, about 12 to 15,000 perhaps. Councilman Nichols: Why did you fellows pick this 20,000 figure? Was it arbitrary --did you just shoot on it and come up with it? Mr. Fast: The Staff report refers to a rather com- prehensive study which was made in Sacramento County, which went in some depth on this: Actually, very little criteria does exist in regard to median openings and criteria of residential streets, mainly because nobody has ever looked at it, except we did find these traffic studies of Sacramento County. So the philosophy being that when the traffic is -considerably high on the major street, and there is not too much traffic being diverted away from it to a major intersection somewhere elso off the minor streets, then the recommendation is to leave the median island closed, which is the philosophy behind this. Councilman Nichols: My reaction to this would be that I would certainly go along with it with a reser- vation because I'.think you may find you've tended to block yourself off from consideration of some streets that may be very close to this count where the problems are significant and. the hazards may be great for other reasons that may interject themselves in addition to the exact count. I would think maybe it would be safer to lower that 20,000 count to 18 or 15,000 to give yourself a little more room as to when you would apply it, but I guess we can always come back and look at it again if it doesn't work out. Motion made by Councilman Chappell, seconded by Councilman Lloyd, and carried, that the previous recommendations of the Traffic Committee be amended to read "Median openings within raised landscape medians will not be provided at "T" intersections in residential streets unless both of the following factors are present: The volume of the minor street does not exceed 700 vehicles per day, and the volume on major streets exceeds 20,000 vehicles per day" CUL DE SACING OF STREETS Motion by Councilman Gillum., seconded by (Traffic Commmittee Councilman Chappell, and carried, that recommendation.) individual consideration be giv en'.to requests for cul de sacing of streets. MASTER TRANSPORTATION Motion by Councilman Gillum, seconded by PLAN Councilman Lloyd, and carried, that the Mayor be authorized to sign the letter in answer to a questionnaire from Senator Short for transmittal t.o Senator Short. - 53 - Reg. C.C. 8/25/69 Page Fifty—four CITY MANAGER (Cont.) APPROVAL OF EASTERLY ANNEXATION DISTRICT NO. 211 Motion by Councilman Gillum, seconded by Councilman Chappell, and carried, ' that the City Council direct the City Attorney to prepare an ordinance annexing Easterly Annexation District No. 211 to the City of West Covina, for introduction September 8, 1969. CREATION OF A SIGN ADVISORY COMMITTEE Councilman Nichols: Mr. Mayor, I am always intrigued in all the years that I have been in this Council business, by these types of developments. At the outset it is the Staff coming to the Council saying they need a tighter sign ordinance•. Then you get the sign ordinance, and then these people start raising a big beef. Then the Staff comes and says, "Council, you've got a problem. You need to form some kind of an extra committee here". So I really do question this kind of an approach of forming additional committees to create additional buffers between the city and its disgruntled clientele. But again, it being late and all, I'll go along with it. Councilman Gillum: Gentlemen, I just want to tell you that I met with the Glendora merchants Thursday night, and I think it is a great idea. Councilman Lloyd: There seems to be a great deal of discus- • sion on this thing., and I concur with the remarks of Councilman Nichols. I think that it is regrettable that we have to build these things one on top of another because of what I consider either a hasty approach on the part of Administration, or the fact that this Council in its policy - making decision process did not adequately foresee or wasn't led in the proper area. But I am with Mr. Nichols, it is late. We are going to do it anyhow, so let us get on with it. Councilman Chappell: One thing,.Mr. Mayor, just like everything else changes in this town. This sign ordinance thing started... I don't know - maybe five years, or maybe longer than that, ago. Maybe this is one of our problems. We've had all these changes and our sign ordinance isn't keeping up with them... I don't know, but it might be a true statement at this time. Councilman Nichols: I have one other question, really, in all seriousness ... Mr.. Wakefield, the Staff recommendation, have you had an opportunity to review this? Mr. Wakefield: Yes, sir, and I have prepared an ordinance. Councilman Nichols: Let me ask you this question, obviously if you have prepared an ordinance, you • probably give the proper change.... Does the ordinance represent a change in the sign ordinance to make legal this operation? .Mr. Wakefield: No, sir. Councilman Nichols: Mr. Wakefield, how can the City Council delegate to an advisory committee the right to extend up to six months illegal signs under the ordinance? - 54 - Reg. C.C. 8/25/69 Page Fifty-five CITY MANAGER (font.) CREATION OF SIGN ADVISORY COMMITTEE (Cont.) 'Mr. Wakefield: That is why an ordinance is required, Councilman Nichols. . Councilman Nichols: Shouldn't we amend the sign ordinance? Mr- Wakefield: No, the sign ordinance simply prescribes the standards which signs must meet. The obligation of the Staff, then, is to enforce those standards, and that is the process that is under way at the present time. Now, the only power that is actually giveito the proposed sign advisory committee, in addition to the power to meet with individuals who are cited for violations of the sign ordinance, is to grant exten- sions of time for compliance with the sign requirements in hardship cases, not in any case the time for compliance shall not exceed more than a total of six months. So that the effect of the ordinance is not to modify any of the existing requirements of the code with respect to signs, it is simply to provide machinery within the administrative framework by which an individual who has a problem may obtain an extension of time in which to comply. Councilman Nichols: Yes. The questionable area.'.in':there that I thought I saw was the 'or other arange- ments' and I thought perhaps this committee would be negotiating with the citizens as to what portions of compliance they would have to come up with and what they wouldn't, and that would be taking it onto themselves a legislative function. Mr. Wakefield: That is correct. And that is not included in the proposed ordinance. ORDINANCE NO. 1093 The City Attorney presented: Introduction & Adoption "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE Sign Advisory Committee CITY OF WEST COVINA, ADDING PART 2 TO CHAPTER 4, ARTICLE VIII OF THE WEST COVINA MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO THE SIGN ADVISORY COMMITTEE AND DECLARING URGENCY THEREOF'TO'TAKE EFFECT IMMEDIATELY." Motion by Councilman Lloyd, seconded by Councilman Gillum, and carried,, that further reading of the body of the Ordinance be waived. Motion by Councilman Lloyd, seconded by Councilman Gillum, and carried, to adopt said Ordinance. Motion passed on roll call vote as -follows: AYES: Councilmen Gillum, Nichols, Chappell, Lloyd, Gleckman NOES: None ABSENT: None PATCHING OF UTILITY Motion by Councilman Gillum, seconded by TRENCHES BY STREET DEPT. Councilman Chappell, and carried, to authorize the Staff to prepare and present a study giving fees, costs and methods of • administrating a program which would call for city forces to repave all utility cuts in the streets. AIP ANNEXATION REFORM POSITION PAPER Motion by Councilman Nichols, seconded by Councilman Gillum, and carried, to receive and file report dated August 5, 1969. - 55 - Reg. C.C. 8/25/69 Page Fifty-six 0 11 4 11 CITY MANAGER (Cont.) MULTI -FAMILY ZONING Motion by Councilman Nichols, seconded by REPORT Councilman Gillum, and carried, to receive and file report dated August 21, 1969. GARAGE SALES IN CITY Motion by Councilman Gillum, seconded by Councilman Chappell, and carried, to receive and file report dated August 20, 1969. RELIEF FOR BUSINESSES Motion by Councilman Chappell, seconded by ON SOUTH GLENDORA AVE. Councilman Gillum., and carried, to receive and file report dated August 21, 1969. GALSTER PARK Motion by Councilman Chappell, seconded by DEVELOPMENT Councilman Nichols, and carried to set apart a tax rate of 10� which will meet our legal obligations for the deed of gift and also develop the park so that the picnic girls and boys camp areas are usable by the public. RESOLUTION NO. 4042 The City Attorney presented: ADOPTED ''A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF WEST COVINA FIXING THE AMOUNT OF MONEY NECESSARY TO BE RAISED BY TAXATION FOR THE FISCAL YEAR BEGINNING JULY 1., 1969./ Mayor Gleckman: Hearing no objection, we will waive further reading of the body of said Resolution. Motion by Councilman Gillum, seconded by Councilman Chappell, to adopt said Resolution. Motion carried on roll call vote as follows: AYES: Councilmen Gillum, Nichols, Chappell, Lloyd, Gleckman NOES: None ABSENT: None RESOLUTION NO. 4043 The City Attorney presented: ADOPTED ltA RESOLUTION*OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE (Tax Rate) CITY OF WEST COVINA, FIXING THE RATES OF TAXES AND LEVYING TAXES FOR THE FISCAL YEAR BEGINNING JULY 1, 1969" Mayor Gleckman: Hearing no objections, we will waive further reading of the body of said Resolution. Motion by Councilman Gillum, seconded by Councilman Chappell, to adopt said Resolution. Mr. Wakefield stated that the'rate is 93� plus 10� for the park tax, making a total of $1.03. Motion carried on roll call vote as follows: AYES: Councilman Gillum, Nichols, Chappell, Lloyd, Gleckman NOES: None ABSENT: None - 56 - Reg. C.C. 8/25/69 Page fifty—seven CITY MANAGER (Cont.) RESOLUTION NO. 4044 The City Attorney presented: ADOPTED "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF WEST COVINA,.FIXING THE AMOUNT OF MONEY NECESSARY TO BE RAISED BY TAXATION FOR THE FISCAL YEAR BEGINNING JULY 1, 1969 FOR THE WEST COVINA SEWER is MAINTENANCE DISTRICT, AND FIXING RATES OF TAXES AND LEVYING TAXES FOR THE FISCAL YEAR BEGINNING JULY 1, 1969 FOR SAID SEWER MAINTENANCE DISTRICT'! Mayor Gleckman: Hearing no objection, we will waive further reading of the body of said Resolution. Motion by Councilman Gillum, seconded by Councilman Chappell, to adopt said Resolution. Motion carried by roll call vote as follows: AYES: Councilmen Gillum, Nichols, Chappell, Lloyd, Gleckman NOES: None ABSENT: None Motion by Councilman Nichols, seconded by Councilman Chappell, and carried, that the letter from Mr. Galster dated August 19, 1969, be spread in the Minutes and that a letter of appreciation from the City Council be sent to Mr. Galster. Honorable City Council of West Covina 1444 W. Garvey West Covina, California 91790 • Attention: Mr. George Aiassa, City Manager Reference: Galster Park Gentlemen: With reference to our telephone conversation today and due to circumstances beyond the City°s control, I would like to authorize the time extension which I had placed in my letter of October 16, 1968 and updated to September 1, 1969 on May 6th, 1969 to the 1st of January, 1970. I would again like to extend to the City my sincere appreciation for moving this project along as rapidly as possible.. My kindest personal regards. Cordially /S/ E.S. Galster Mr. E.S. Galster • DELAY OF PUBLIC WORKS PROJECTS DUE TO STRIKES Motion by Councilman Chappell, seconded by Councilman Lloyd, and carried, to receive and file report dated July 24, 1969. - 57 - Reg. C�C. 8/25/69 Page fifty-eight • CITY MANAGER (Cont.) PROPOSED SOUTHERLY LOCATION: ANNEXATION DISTRICT NO. 212 Mr. Fast: To Councilman Lloyd°s'right is a map which designates the area which is under consid- eration in this application. It is the easterly 2/3 approximately, or 60% of what was formerly Annexation 195, the former San Jose Ranch Property. It is now under the ownership of Southern California Savings & Loan and a combination of the President of that same company. It is an uninhabited annexation without need for any public hearing, similar to Annexation 211. There was discussion as to whether or not there would be some confusion in using an old annexation number with the added "A" to it. Mr. Wakefield advised :the Council that it could be renumbered at this time to the next succeeding annexation number. Motion by Councilman Nichols, seconded by Councilman Lloyd,and carried; that the area under discussion be designated Southerly Annexation District No. 212. Motion by Councilman Nichols, seconded by Councilman Gillum, that the Council authorize the Staff to proceed with the preparation of necessary application forms for submission to the Local Agency Formation Commission. COUNCIL DISCUSSION Councilman Lloyd: to eat it somewhere down the Mayor Gleckman: thousand square foot lots. Councilman Chappell: Mayor Gleckman: Councilman Nichols: Motion carried unanimously. ATTENDANCE OF PLANNING COMMISSION AT LEAGUE CONFERENCE Do we have any option in this case, or do we just have to go along with six thousand square feet, because we are going line. My only comment, Mr. Lloyd, is that most of the annexations that we have taken in in that general vicinity have been six Then this.has.already been done, and we are just taking in the annexation. What we are really doing, is taking in the annexation as it has been proposed and approved by the County. We have to face the fact that it would not be coming in, otherwise. Mr. Fast: Mr. Mayor, I have one additional item that the Council has normally acted on. The Council has normally approved the attend- ance of the Planning Commission at the League of California Cities. All five members have requested permission to attend. Councilman Nichols: What was the amount budgeted for that?. Mr..Fast: The budget amount was $175.00 per person. Reg. C.C. 8/ 25/69 CITY MANAGER (Cont.) ATTENDANCE OF PLANNING COMMISSION AT LEAGUE CONFERENCE (Coat.) Page fifty-nine Mayor Gleckman: Not only is the money budgeted for this specific item, but I am taking cognizance of the fact that it may be $1,000, but if we come out of this meeting with the purposes with which the intent is there, it is worth a lot more money. Approved on roll call vote as follows: AYES: Councilmen Gillum, Nichols, Chappell, Lloyd, Gleckman NOES: None ABSENT: None CITY CLERK ABC APPLICATIONS Carmen William Romano & Verna Mildred Romano "Ferrant is" - 1541 West Garvey Avenue James Lee Hoffman & Fumiko Hoffman "Stop N' Go" - 1413 West Puente Avenue Regis Marshall Johnson "'Crispin's Hut" - 971-A So. Glendora Avenue Motion by Councilman Chappell, seconded by Councilman Lloyd, and carried that no protest be made to ABC Applications as presented. NOTICE FROM GREYHOUND BUS Motion by Councilman Chappell, seconded LINE RE APPLICATION FOR by Councilman Gillum, and carried, to INCREASE IN FARES AND receive and file. PACKAGE EXPRESS CHARGES CITY TREASURER'S REPORT Motion by Councilman Nichols, seconded by Councilman Chappell, and carried, that the City Treasurer's Report for the month of July, 1969, be received and filed. MAYOR'S REPORTS Mayor Gleckman: We have a proclamation for "Union Label Week", September 1 - 7, 1969, and if there is no objection, I will so proclaim. RESOLUTION NO. 4045 Mayor Gleckman presented: ADOPTED 0A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF WEST COVINA EXPRESSING ITS APPRE- CIATION FOR THE SERVICES OF ROBERT E. REUSS AND EXPRESSING SYMPATHY TO THIS FAMILY ON HIS UNTIMELY PASSING! Hearing no objection, I will waive further reading of the body of the resolution. Motion by Councilman Gillum, seconded by Councilman Lloyd, to adopt said Resolution. Motion passed on roll call vote as follows: AYES: Councilmen Gillum, Nichols, Chappell, Lloyd, Gleckman NOES: None ABSENT: None - 59 - Reg. C.C. 8/25/69 Page Sixty MAYOR'S REPORTS (Cont.) RESOLUTION NO. 4045 (Continued) Motion by Councilman Gillum, seconded by Councilman Chappell, that we have this Resolution permaplaqued. Motion passed on roll call vote as follows: AYES: Councilmen Gillum, Nichols, Chappell, Lloyd, Gleckman NOES: None ABSENT: None COUNCIL COMMITTEE REPORTS USE OF TELEPHONE CREDIT CARD Councilman Lloyd: I was the one who suggested that. As a result of the property which we talked about, I had to return calls in several areas. Plus the fact that with regards to the discussions of the Helicopter and Police Helicopter in trying to return calls, I finally asked the City Manager to put it on the Agenda so that Credit Cards would be issued to each Councilman on the thing wherein he conducts his business for the city. It costs the city no more than what it would if we came down here, but it affords him a courtesy to the people who are, frankly, the leaders in this city at the present moment. Mayor Gleckman: Okay, I think it is a good suggestion,, What is your pleasure,gentlemen? • Councilman Chappell: It doesn't cost us anything to get the cards, does it? Motion by Councilman Chappell, seconded by Councilman Gillum, that because of the convenience to the Councilmenthat the Council authorize that the Council have telephone credit cards. Mayor Gleckman: We have a motion and a second, is there any discussion? Councilman Nichols: I am going to oppose this, because I, philosophically, do not subscribe to this. Councilman Lloyd: Could I discuss it with you? Councilman Nichols: Sure, no malice. Councilman Lloyd:. The reason that I am doing this is, frankly, it is flat out costing me money out of my pocket on the thing, and I happen to know that the Mayor has suffered on this thing, too. I am sure that others of you have ... in your capacity as Mayor... I know that you did this, and I understand your philosophical objection because there is a connotation that it could be loosely used, and all. But I think, frankly, that the people who serve on City Council are men of real integrity and would not abuse the privilege. I finally arrived at a point where some of these things are just simply not going to be done, that's all. Councilman Nichols: I sympathize with that, but my feeling about it is a relatively simple one. That is, after sitting around a good many years serving as Councilman, serving the city government,and finding ways to make telephone calls without credit cards, I would not accept one. I think we are leaving ourselves open to justifiable criticism by carrying telephone cards. I don't think we make that many calls and I think if you do, you should come down to City Hall, just as the Mayor - 60 - Reg. C.C. 8/25/69 Page sixty-one COUNCIL COMMITTEE REPORTS (Cont.) USE OF TELEPHONE CREDIT CARD (Cont.) Councilman Nichols (Cont.) does and all the rest of us. I don't think we should make a practice of engag- ing.in telephone calls away from City 41 Hall that routinely require the use of a:.credit card. This opens up a whole new field of credit card activity, that if it is true Df the telephone, then it is true if I am short on cars and I want to go up to Covina to talk to Yeager, so I am going to take a taxi. and use a Bank- americard. You :can apply this same philosophy if there's any time when you are away from available city facilities that you, therefore, should have access to a credit card when you conduct city business. Admittedly, particularly you, when you are working in an office, it is very incon- venient to come over here to make some of these calls, and if you feel that way about it, then I don't want one. Councilman Lloyd: I have no quarrel with the thing that you are talking about except that this isn't an issue. I':think that if it is not a unanimous vote, it should be turned down. Because we could individually be criticized, and one would point with pride that he was against it, and therefore, it's one of those things which comes into the philosophy of it. But I point out to you that it has worked a hardship on me personally. I can't speak for the test of these people. And I have had to return these calls. They demand that I return them, for instance with regards to Los Angeles Airways, with regards to these other people. A man comes by and frankly, Mr: Nichols;; the only thing .I have, to 'sell is"my,time: and,my:counsel, and I am hurt by this, and I mean this sincerely. Councilman Nichols: If you were operating under legitimate Council direction to pursue some area and you need to make telephone calls and you -are over there at your place, you get a billing for your telephone calls just the same as everybody else does. You can bring that in at the end of the month and can get a reimbursement for it. We already set Council policy here that reasonable expenses any Councilman under- goes while on Council business he may be reimbursed. So bring your chits in and get reimbursed for any calls you may make. I wouldn't for a moment say that you should have to do that. All I'm saying is that I think the credt':card concept is one that is wide open and will end in hard feelings, in criticism, in difficulty in auditing, and in upset feelings, ultimately, and I tend to feel that way and think we should stay away from it. There's ; no .way to . prevent -.you, ftom gett ing, reimbursement for all the calls you want to make on city business. Councilman Lloyd: Mayor Gleckman: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: None Councilmen None Mr. . Mayor, I would theref ore, recommend a no vote. We have a motion, and a second, is there further discussion? Roll call, please. Gillum, Nichols, Chappell, Lloyd, Gleckman Councilman Gillum: The only thing I would report, Mr. Mayor, is I was asked by the Glendora merchants to meet with them a week ago Thursday, and to go over the sign ordinance with them. I conveyed to them at that time the possibility of this sign advisory group and they would be notified. And I think., mainly, there was a tremendous amount of con- fusion and misunderstanding: -on their part, but I'm sure the committee will hear from all of them. Other than that, I had a fine vacation. - 61 - Reg. C.C. 8/25/69 Page Sixty-two COUNCIL COMMITTEE REPORT'S (Cont.) Councilman Lloyd: I would like to know,.Mr. Fast, where do we stand on this L.A. Airways thing? Mr. Fast: The current status on the Heliport is as follows: The unclassified use permit is to be presented to the Planning Com- mission on the 3rd of September. The Heliport Program is to be presented to the Civic Center Authority September 8, 1969, for approval as request- ed by City Council. Helicopter landing Ordinance Revision was presented this evening. Negotiation with Los Angeles Airways regarding charges and Tease rights has been initiated. Los Angeles Airways is negotiating with the Federal Aviation Authority for approval`to use the proposed heliport. The architectural firm of Neptune and Thomas has reviewed the installation and sees no objection to it. Our landscape architectural firm of Armstrong & Sharfman is reviewing the plan regarding its appear- ance; has coordinated this with L.A. Airways as to the layout of the parking lot and the requirements of the Federal Aviation Authority in Los Angeles. Costs are also being evaluated by Armstrong & Sharfman. The landscaping contractor has been instructed to discontinue further work on the most westerly mound. City Staff is studying possible source of funds, but will not be ready to recommend until it received a final design and final costs. By that., we mean a final layout, we don't mean a detailed design. Preliminary discussion with the State Division of Highways regarding the relation of the heliport use and construction of the freeway contract have been held. Councilman Lloyd: I have been contacted by the :people from L.A. Airways, and they were somewhat con- cerned that we were not pursuing this with all possible speed. But from what Mr. Fast has just indicated, it seems •to me like we are doing a very fine job of going full steam ahead. I would suggest that a letter be drawn up from the City Administration informing L.A. Airways of the action that has been pursued, and that way they will know where we stand. Motion by Councilman Nichols, seconded by Councilman Gillum, and carried, that a status r,e.port be prepared at the Staff level and forwarded to L.A. Airways, relative to the progress of the plans and development of the Heliport. Mayor Gleckman: I would just like to request of the Council, and primarily of the Staff who's going to have to do the work, that they are watching the newspapers every day and are cognizant of what is happening in our community, and I think that some of the people in our community who are getting outstanding awards for certain things.,that are being a credit to this community, should be acknowledged by the City Council with a letter from the City Council congratulating them. I would like to see the Council give the Staff permission, if they would like to see these letters before they are sent out, have them prepare the letters and present them to the Council for their approval and then authorize the Mayor to sign them and send them out. I was thinking, primarily, as an example, Nino Cassavetes received an award from the news median.on his job as a Probation Officer. He lives in the City of West Covina. The county Fire Chief, who lives in West Covina, t here was something the other day also in the newspaper where a West Covinan had achieved ultimate success in a particular field. I'think a letter from the Council acknowledging them and notifying them that we are cognizant of what's happening in our community, the successes reached by individuals. Councilman Nichols: I think that is very, very good. I think it -is excellent. I think .we will have to give some.help to the Staff, because I don't think they will always think of some of these things. Would it be perfectly in order for any of us? -62 - •' Reg. C.C. 8/25/69 Page sixty-three COUNCIL COMMITTEE REPORTS (Cont.) Mayor Gleckman: aCouncilman Nichols: I agree, I didn't mean it that way. What I meant was :that the Staff, primarily, would prepare the letters, present them to us. If any of the Council had... In my opinion, the Mayor should sign them and copies should go into our mail. Motion by Councilman Lloyd, seconded by Councilman Gillum, and carried, that letters of acknowledgement to people living in West Covina who receive awards be sent from the City Council, signed by the Mayor, with copies to each Councilman. APPROVE DEMANDS Motion by Councilman Chappell, seconded by Councilman Lloyd, to authorize approval of the demands totaling $195,424, as listed on Demand Sheets 651 through 643 and Payroll Reimbursement Sheet. Motion passed on roll call vote as follows: AYES: Councilmen Gillum, Nichols, Chappell, Lloyd, Gleckman NOES: None ABSENT: None ADJOURNMENT Motion by Councilman Gillum, seconded by Councilman Chappell, and carried, • that at 1 : 00 A.M. this i.ieet ing be adjourned. ATTEST: CITY CLERK APPROVED: MAYOR - 63 -