Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
09-08-1969 - Regular Meeting - Minutes
I t MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL CITY OF WEST COVINA, CALIFORNIA September 8, 1969 The regular meeting of the City Council was called to order at 7:30 P. M. by Mayor Leonard S. Gleckman, in the West Covina City Council Chambers. The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Councilman Lloyd. The Invocation was given by the Reverend DeWitt J. Brady of the Congregational Church of the Good Sheppard. ROLL CALL Present: Mayor Gleckman; Councilmen Gillum, Nichols, Chappeas ' Lloyd. Absent: None. Others Present: George Aiassa, City Manager, Lela Preston, City Clerk George Wakefield, City Attorney H. R. Fast, Public Services Director and Assistant City Manager George Zimmerman, City Engineer Kenhet;h. Wi4ter:9 iP1ann1rng:'.Asaociate Mayor Gleckman: The first order of business would be a presentation of the Mayor's narcotic advisory committee report by Mr. Feinman, who has called here earlier and said he would be late. We will put that off, with councilr;'s: 1 J permissionj,for a couple of minutes. Next • order of business would be the award of bids. AWARD OF BIDS PROJECT NO. AD 1-68- LOCATION: Cameron Avenue (REVISED PROPOSAL) -1911 between Lark Ellen Avenue and ACT STREET IMPROVEMENTS ;, Azusa Avenue, and Azusa Avenue Bids were opened —in the City between Cameron Avenue and a C:le.rk'is Office at; 10: A. K. , on point 430 feet T:orth=..©'f::, Alaskan St . August ; 27196.9. e - - r The City Clerk read the four bids that -b.ee:a received and checked for errors. as follows u Mayor Gla kman: You heard the bids. The engineers,,'. estimate the bid was $53,950.38. (D'o we have a recommendationZ (,Counci l-man:-,Cha-ppe•11: --•.. ,-_-would-•-enter-twin._:a,..mo.tion- .:to:-,reJec-t all--•bid=s-"on-�-Project..AD -1-68 and authorize- Vto readvertise for bid proposals so as to `}tstart construction during the Christmas school vacation. •4 Motion by Councilman Chappell, seconded by Councilman Lloyd and carriedP to reject all bids and readvertA-se. ' y - 1 - 9/8/69. page two PUBLIC WORKS ITEMS PARCEL MAP NO. 1264 ACCEPT SIDEWALK IMPROVEMENTS. LOCATION: Northwest corner of Valley and Nogales. Motion by Councilman Chappell, seconded by Lloyd, and carried, to accept the sidewalk improvements and authorize release of cash deposit in the amount of $675. ASSESSMENT DISTRICT LOCATION: Cameron Avenue between NO. AD--1-68 - 1911 ACT Lark Ellen and Azusa Avenues, and STREET IMPROVEMENTS Azusa Avenue between Cameron Avenue and a point 430 feet north of Alaska Street. RESOLUTION NO. 4046 THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF WEST COVINA REVIEWED THE ENGINEER'S REPORTS. THE LEGISLATION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE ADOPTED CITY OF WEST CITY COVINA ACCEPTED -.RECOMMENDATION THEREOF EXECUTED BY RALPH M. GOLDSTEIN AND BETTY M. GOLDSTEIN.. Mayor Gleckman: Hearing no objection, we will waive further reading of the body of said Resolution. Motion by Councilman Nichols, seconded by Councilman Chappell, to adopt said Resolution. Motion passed on roll call vote as follows: AYES: Councilmen Gillum, Nichols, Chappell, Lloyd, C�. Y <Q: u•. Ma-yor. -G le-c kman— NOES: None ABSENT: None GRADE CROSSING'SIGNALS if Motion by Councilman Gillum, seconded by Councilman-L-loyd, and carried, that the City take no action regarding the grade crossing signals. Mayor Gleckman: The hour of 8:00 o'clockCnow)having arrived, we will skip over to item:,C - 1, Planning Commission. PLANNING COMMISSION REVIEW ACTION OF After discussion of review action of SEPTEMBER 3, 1969 September 3, 1969 Mayor Gleckman entertained y�1`!�� a motion, seconded by Councilman Chappell, and carried to accept and receive the summary of actions taken by the Planning Commission at -its regular meeting of September 3, 1969,,with the, exception of items No. 3 and No. 4. GrP. �'L �, ' ". �,�n.�„ e�� ...v,. �r �;. fir•. ��,�. �: �C ,...4,,,;(,,.� ! .... � t MEMO FROM PLANNING COMMISSION RE JOINT MEETING OF PLANNING COMMISSION AND CITY COUNCIL IN MID SEPTEMBER Recommendation was made by Mr. Aiassa to move the meeting to mid October. Motion was made by Councilman Lloyd, seconded by Councilman Chappell, and carried. 9/8/69 page three REPORT ON GOODWILL- COLLECTIONg BOOTHS the Chamber of Commerce Motion was made by Councilman Lloyd, seconded by Councilman Gillum and carried, that the subject matter be referred to for a recommendation to the Council. RECREATION AND PARK COMMISSION REVIEW ACTION OF AUGUST . • '�,�( 26, 1969 Motion by Councilman Gillum, seconded by Councilman Chappell, and carried, to accept and file the summary of actions taken by the Recreation and Park Commission regular meeting held August 26, 1969. PERSONNEL BOARD Mayor Gleckman: We don't have any minutes from the meeting of the Personnel Board. HUMAN RELATIONS COMMISSION MINUTES OF Motion by Councilman Gillum, seconded JULY 24, 1969 by Councilman Lloyd, and carried, to receive and file minutes of July 24, 1969. PRESENTATION OF THE 1968-1969 ANNUAL REPORT Motion by Mayor Gluckman; seconded by r,�.caP,A �"rCouncilman Chappell, and carried, to `eceive) and file presentation of the 1968-' 69 annual report. Mayor Gleckman: It's .early for oral communications. • We'll go on to written communications G-2 . WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS Letter from Robert, M. Rodebush re time limit parking ordinace Mayor Gleckman: If council has no objections, we will refer written communications, a, b, and c, public hearings item No. 4. Also include : , Letter from Dean S..:Roberts request.ing._arinekation of.property located at southwest corner of Grand and Cortez Avenues to West Covina. Motion by Councilman Gillum, seconded by Councilman Lloyd, and carried that this letter be(acknowledge-) and accepted and filed. Mayor Gleckman: We have a request from the Citrus Bar Association to use the Council Chambers on 1X3/70 from 7:00 - 10:00 P. M. for their program, "Practice Under the New California Family Law Act". Motion by Councilman Chappell, seconded by Councilman Gillum, and carried , to refer suh aa&.x&;ggQat to staff. Letter from Paul W. Thorsen, West Covina Disposal Company, requesting Council liaison to discuss the proposed clean-up campaign and other items. - 3 - 9/8/69 _. a...,,.., ... page four Mayor Gleckman: N .� We have a motion °to refer to staff. Is 41( there any discussion? Councilman Chappell is to act as liaison to the staff(on)the West Covina Disposal Company. Councilman Lloyd:' Why? Mayor Gleckman; Because I feel the request is for Council liaison which means that they would like •somebody(iri"the Council to sit in with them on their discussions with the staff; unless the Council has 0:-✓ objection:: Councilman Lloyd: No. Motion by Councilman Chappell, seconded by Councilman Gillum, and carried that subject matter be referred to staff. /1Fr t Letter from iss April Jan Redden re Zone Change No. 425, Cameron and Azusa Avenues. Letter from Mr,8� Sharon Grieshaber re'`Zone Change No. 425, Cameron and Azusa Avenues. Resolution No. 69-32 (�/ from City of Commerce urging adoption by the United States Congress • of the controlled Dangerous Substances Act of 1969. Resolution No. 4820 from the City of Redondo Beach requesting the Resolution Committee of League of California Cities to submit a resolution to the Annual Convention opposing any change in the current tax exemption on State and Local Bond interest. Motion by Councilman Chappell, seconded by Councilman Gillum, and carried, that this letter be( wled•ged,) received and filed. eP,�h u Motion by Councilman Chappell, seconded by Councilman Lloyd, and carried, that this letter be (at-d,� received and filed. - Motion by Councilman Lloyd, seconded by Councilman Chappell, and carried, that thjs--le.tter-LL-be°, aclrnoweged•, re e-d Motion by Councilman Chappell, seconded by Councilman Lloyd, and carried,that this letter be (acknowledge`; )and referred to Staff and City Attorney League of California Cities Motion by Councilman Gillum, seconded - General Membership Meeting. by Councilman Chappell, and carried, that the letter be('aPk 4:e.-'o_ -,) received and filed. `--� CITY ATTORNEY • ORDINANCE INTRODUCTION The City Attorney Presented: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF WEST COVINA AMENDING MUNICIPAL CODE SO AS TO REZONE CERTAIN PREMISES. (Zone Change No. 425 - Albert Handler) - 4 - 9/8/69 CITY ATTORNEY (Cont'd) page five ORDINANCE INTRODUCTION (Cont'd) LOCATION: Southwest corner of Cameron and Azusa Avenues. Motion by Councilman Gillum, seconded by Councilman -:'.Lloyd, and carried, that further reading of the body of said ordinance be waived. Motion by Councilman Gillum, seconded by Councilman Lloyd, and carried, that said ordinance be introduced. ORDINANCE INTRODUCTION The City Attorney presented:',. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF WEST COVINA'"~ ANNEXING TO THE CITY OF WEST COVINA THAT CERTAIN UNINHABITED TERRITORY DES IBED v AND HEREIN AFTER DESIGNATED AS(S9THEASTERLY ANNEXATION NO.211 TO THE CITY OF WEST COVINA. /LOCATION: Southwest corner �,of Cortez Street and Grand Avenue: Motion by Councilman Gillum, seconded by Councilman Lloyd, and carried that further reading of the body of said ordinance be waived. Motion by Councilman Gillum, seconded by Councilman Lloyd, and carried, that said ordinance be introduced. ��✓�E.�i,.z.,,A �.:`�,., -� ..--�-.":_ of „1 �-.� � c� �,'ur., t� �, ,, ORDINANCE NO. 1094 The City Attorney presented: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF WEST COVINA i t!n t.., ":✓�,.,,�: roc 2 $ dY, C • AMENDING THE�PRINCIPAL' CODE SO AS TO • c'� REZONE CERTAIN PREMISES (Zone Change No. 421 - Lawrence and Helen Jones) i (2nd reading and adoption LOCATION: 546,548,550 South Glendora Avenue. Motion by Councilman Chappell, seconded by Councilman Lloyd, and carried, that further reading of the body of said ordinance be waived. Motion by Councilman Gillum, seconded by Councilman Chappell to adopt s a i d �/amen dment-- Motion passed on roll call vote as follows: AYES: Councilmen Gillum, Nichols, Chappell, Lloyd,, Mayor'.Gleckman. NOES: None:. ABSENT: None. ORDINANCE NO. 1095-- The City AA torney presented: A RF.S-F?L"tJTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF WEST COVINA AMENDING SECTIONS 3300, 3301 and 3302 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE ' RELATING TO THE TAKING OFF OR LANDING OF AIRCRAFT. - 5 - YAM CITY ATTORNEY (Cont I d) page six ORDINANCE INTRODUCTION (Cont'd) Motion by Councilman Gillum, seconded by Councilman Lloyd, 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: Councilmen Gillum, Nichols, Chappell, Lloyd,'Mayor Gleckman. NOES: None.' ABSENT: None. RESOLUTION NO. 4047 The City Attorney presented: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE ADOPTED CITY OF WEST COVINA APPROVING PRECISE PLAN OF DESIGN NO. 573 (Albert Handler) LOCATION: Southwest corner of Cameron and Azusa Avenues. 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, Mayor Gleckman. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. UPDATE CORTEZ PARK The City Attorney presented a recommendation APPRAISAL (Information) to Council to authorize .the employment of Harris and Baker and Associates in an amount not to exceed $200. to bring the appraisal report up to date. Motion by Councilman Gillum, seconded by Councilman Chappell, to adopt said recommendation. Motion passed on roll call vote as follows: AYES: Councilmen Gillum, Nichols, Chappell, Lloyd Gleckman. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. PUBLIC HEARINGS Mayor Gleckman: The hour of 8:00 o'clock having arrived, we will go back to the item of Public Hearings. - 6 - 9/8/69 PUBLIC HEARINGS (Cont Id,.) page seven VARIANCE NO. 638 - DOUGLAS OIL COMPANY LOCATION: Northeasterly corner of California Avenue and Walnut Creek Parkway in the C-2 Zone. REQUEST: Approval of a variance to replace a detached sign for • the service station. Denied by Planning Commission Resolution No. 2177. Appealed by applicant on August 20, 1969. Mr. �$ewiZM: Winter',! s-tra-ti re, --Erg- ne,er, read Planning Commission Resolution No. 2177 in full and completed staff re ortit'cr,6,.,� `> '01 p r THE CHAIR DECLARED THIS IS THE TIME AND PLACE FOR THE PUBLIC HEARING ON VARIANCE NO. 638. Mayor Gleckman: Anyone wishing to testify in favor for, or in opposition to, may -do so by stepping to the microphone giving their name and address. After your being sworn in by our City Clerk, you will be permitted to speak three minutes. If you desire an additional amount of time, if you would let your wishes be known at the time you step to the microphone, I will seek permission from the Council for y= to do so. The proponents will speak first, and then the opponents. Only the proponents will be given the opportunity for rebuttal, and this rebuttal must go along with just what was said by opponent,or refer to just what was said by the opponent. Is there anyone in the audience this evening that would care to speak in favor of Variance Application No. 638? Peter Foggarty 530 West 6th Street Los Angeles Mayor Gleckman: Mr. Foggarty: Mr. Foggarty was sworn in by the City Clerk. Mr.. Foggarty, do you desire longer than three minutes? . I can accomplish my task if I don't compliment you on your beautiful City Hall. This is great:: Gentlemen, we purchased this property in June of '68. We completed the. .remodeling early in '69, and what we wanted to do was to put our;standardPsign up there. Included in this f sign are the panels, the rs panels, down below approximately, 24 square IIfeet each. We feel that this would eliminate thePboards that you see /on the service stations; and it's an aesthetically much more attractive sign than the one we have up there now. It's a reduction of 108 square feet of signage, and it would complete the remodeling. I think we have everything in there we need outside of the§andard identification that we have. We have a similar sign to this Francisquito and Willow in this neighborhood, and it doesn't seem to be offensive. The sign itself is 67 1/2 square feet. We would not object to the height limitation if this be a question; and that's all I have to say. THERE BEING NO ONE IN THE AUDIENCE WHO WISHED TO SPEAK IN OPPOSITION TO VARIANCE NO. 638, THE CHAIR DECLARED THE PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED. COUNCIL DISCUSSION Mayor Gleckman: Mr. Gillum: Questions from the staff? Mr. Aiassa? - 7 - 9/8/69 , COUNCIL DISCUSSION (Cont'd.) page eight • • Mr. Aiassa: Mr. Gillum: or brought within the sign Mr. Winter ., Councilman Gillum: Mr. Winter!: Councilman Gillum: Mr. Winter:: Yes, Mr. Gillum? The present sign that is in question isn't now conforming; is it not, and it will have to come down and be replaced ordinance in a short time; is that correct? That's correct. This sign, however, is how.much over the new'.sign ordinance? Approximately five times. Five times? Yes. Mayor Gleckman: Any other questions? Councilman Lloyd: Well, one of the things that comes up here is philosophy -- I presume I have the floor -- one of the philosphies, and I think that we are faced with a very basic problem,here; and that is we have a sign ordinance, and while I recognize in life there are many things which require additional consideration, I'm afraid that I would have to say that I don't think this is one of them. I think that if we continue to stretch the intent and spirit of the sign ordinance in this area, specifically, that we really do a disservice to what we are trying to achieve as far as the city is concerned. I think one of the questions which has to be asked: If this were not granted, would thisli.ndeed, work as a detriment to the individual requesting it, and I don't really see where it does. I recognize what they are trying to do and achieve, but I don't feel this is detrimental to the intent and spirit of this commercial venture. I think, also, that one of the things that comes up as we go down the road, there are other peop.le;.. 'who .on seeing what is occurring here, would come in and say: "You did it for them, why not do it for us?" While I think that each point should be taken up individually, my immediate reaction is that I don't feel this is really detrimental to,business,of the company, and I think' it's in keeping with what we are trying to achieve in the city which is a reduction, if you will, not only of the size of signs so long as there can be a competitive commercial attitude in this thing. My immediate reaction is one of: Let's get on with the ordinance, and let it go at that. r, Mayor Gleckman: Any other comments? Mr. Nichols: I think( ,sdm'e, applicants tend to inadver- tently lose sight of the fact that they must demonstrate that they are meeting four basic requirements in the granting of variances. Not discussing all of them which include community welfare, one that strikes me as being most applicable here is the requirement that the applicant show a substantial property right that is granted to other people in similar zones within the . City„ -of West Covina i,s being denied :`to the `applicant. Although the applicant did cite atFrancisquito and Willow location as one that has that use, that service station is not within the City of West Covina, and.the Planning Department, in its report, in fact, cit:ed._' the fact that no other such sign exists over the ordinance have been allowed. So, I do not think that the applicant in this application has demonstratedoto The Council says that he isn't being denied any right that has been granted to any other individual; so, I could not injgood d'onsience favor; the granting of this variance. - 8 - 9/8/69 COUNCIL DISCUSSION (Cont'd.) page nine • Motion by Councilman Gillum, and seconded by Councilman Lloyd to deny variance No. 638 on the grounds that the reasons for varianceshave not been complied with. Motion passed on roll call vote as follows: AYES: Councilman Gillum, Gleckman. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. PRECISE PLAN NO. 574 - FOTOMAT CORPORATION Nichols, Chappell, Lloyd, Mayor by Planning Commission Resolution 2179. 1969. LOCATION: North side of Walnut. Creek Parkway between California and Sylvan Avenues. REQUEST: Approval of a precise plan of design for a drive -through film service in the parking lot of the Stardust Bowl. Recommended Called up by Council on August 11, 1 "Kenneth W'roters Pl. n I g�Assoc.,,, ,read Planning Commission Resolution No. 2179 in full and referred -to the displayed map for further explana- tion of the location of property. THE CHAIR DECLARED THIS IS THE TIME AND PLACE FOR THE PUBLIC HEARING ON PRECISE.PLAN NO. 574. • Mayor Gleckman: Is there anyone in the audience this evening that would care to speak in favor of Precise Plan No. 574? Would you step to the microphone, give your name�and address and be sworn. JeIrT,Toland Mr. Toland was sworn in by the City Clerk. -2028 1/2 East 15th Street Long Beach Mayor Gleckman Do you desire to speak longer than three minutes? Mr. Toland: No. I think it's already been expressed by the gentleman a moment ago when he was telling about the provisions of the Planning Commission; but we need to abide by ordinance in order to put a unit in this location, and we have agreed to do so. So, I don't see why I have to take up your time. THERE BEING NO ONE IN THE AUDIENCE WHO WISHED TO SPEAK IN OPPOSITION TO PRECISE PLAN NO. 574, THE CHAIR DECLARED THE PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED. 10 COUNCIL DISCUSSION Councilman Lloyd: I guess I'm the bad guy this evening. I frankly don't like it. I don't think it's going to bring anything that attractive to this community. It takes away business from some of the other businesses in the immediate area. I have had an opportunity to see it in other cities, and I don't think it serves a great deal of useful 9/8/69 CQUNCIL DISCUSSION (Cont'd.) page ten By: Councilman Lloyd (Contd.) purpose as far as the community is concerned. I think that it c6uld.pose somewhat as a traffic hazard; somewhat bright colors'I"don'f.-..think,-_w ll all a great deal to the area. Just all and all, I really am not in favor of this type of a commercial development. I think these are franchise operations which are perfectly all right. I think the concept is for the money to go up and profit to go here, which again is perfectly all right. It'.s a legitimate business enterprise, no question about it. The only thing I ask as a representative of the people of the City of West Covina is: What is it going to do for the City of West Covina, and I get a very strong voice which says very little. I don't "1-s.ee.;.where it serves.. So, therefore, I would recommend against it. Councilman Gillum: I am inclined to agree with Mr. Lloyd, I think another point that should be brought to the attention of the Council: W.e'..have set up ,a-Cen.tral--iBus"iness;_D.istr et",:group'--to'study the redevelopment .in the redesign of our central business district, and as you all know, we ave spent considerable time in this area. There are plans in the iscussion stages of manyr;thirigs:".•...:.,.concerning the general business area, and I think we have denied a similar request; and not too far away from this location here for the same reason that we are concerned about the central business district and the realignment and the redesign of it. I'm afraid I couldn't support it in this area for this one reason and the point that Mr. Lloyd brought forth. Mayor Gleckman: Any other comments by the Council? Councilman Nichols: I think the first question that the Council • needs to resolve, and I'm not too sure in my own mind what the answer is. Do we have the right to deny/? I think that's the first question to be answered. _ About a year ago a request for similar use"came before the Council, and I believe the location was in the Alpha Beta Shopping Center,'at that time. I believe that the Planning Commission denied the use. I cannot recall now the basis for that denial, and I do not know in my own mind what the basis would be for this Council's denial of the approval of the precise planning. We are not to be asked to approve zoning. We are being asked to approve a use, and apparently someone at some point along the way has made a.conclusion that this type of use is a provided use in the C-2 Zone. I would like to get that point clarified first by addressing a question to the Planning Staff. Did this matter come up at the time of the application, and if so, was there a finding, and if so, who made the finding, and if not, why was it not considered. This is the problem of this being an approved use of the C-2 Zone. Do you have my answer? - - - - Mr. Winter:; Yes, Photo services are a permitted use in the N-C Zone.a The C-2 Zone refers back to all permitted uses within the C-1 or which is now the N-C Zone and therefore our dtermination. Councilman Nichols: Was- it not correct that the Planning Commission denied a similar use in the Alpha Beta Sunset Area about a year ago? Mr. Winters: Councilman Nichols: That is right. What was the basis for that denial? 10 - 9/8/69 COUNCIL DISCUSSION (Cont'd.) page eleven Mr. Winters: It was not a compatible building. It was not compatible with the Civic Center, or ' what used to be the Civic Center,.Overlay Zone Councilman Nichols: So it was because clearly, then, that the particular use was not an allowed use in Civic over.ld.y�� . the Center area. Mr. Winters: The use was not, or the building was not compatible with the architecture. Councilman Nichols: So the finding that this was�an inappro- priate use in the C-2 Zone was an administrative finding; is that correct? Was the question raised at any point,;as to the appropriate use/iii the C-2 Zone?' Mr. Winters: I don't recall, but I don't believe so. Councilman:.Nichols: It would1be a matter that very definitely needs clarification. Mr. City Attorney, :f. a use is found to be :_,a. l.egal.,._'_ use, is the Council within its right to deny a precise plan` permit? Mr. Wakefield: Mr. Mayor, members of the City Council: the Precise Plan Provisions provide that unless the particular use interferes with the use and enjoyment of prpperty in the vicinity by the occupants thereof, for lawful purposes, i_th�e: Precise Plan must be approved. ;:what is. the conditions which'are prescribed by a particular zone or minimum conditions the Council may attach additional conditions to the approval to accomplish those things that are required to make the location, size, and dimensions of the structures appropriate within the particular zone. So far as the use is concerned, it's an authorized use within the C-2 Zone. Councilman Nichols: If in the Council's determination, there were conditions present, however, that made it unsafe, such as structures in the middle of a parking lot, for example, could the Council deny a Precise Plan on such grounds. Mr. Wakefield: Yes. Councilman Nichols: I have held consistently, and I have held before: We have a shopping center, and we provide a parking lot, and we strip out the lanes, and weac.cept;those parking places as part of the require- ment, and then we would find a very bad chaos, a separate building to be built around out in the parking lot to engage in separate activities competing with activities originally approved within; and I certainly conceive of this as a hazard. I consent on denial on the basis of a traffic problem. I'm sorry to take so much time. Councilman Gillum: Along the same line that Mr. Nichols was questioning, wojild.,_: ,t be possible because of the current.stud-ies-)and::currenty.programs as far as the redesign�of,the central busines-s district, would it be possible"to say, "Hold this Precise Plan for a certain length of time." To hold the hearings up until such time it would be determined by the people who are doing the central business district study, if this would fit into what they feel would be appropriate within the given area of the central business district. 9/8/69 page twelve QO,UNCIL DISCUSSION (Cont'd.) Mayor Gleckman: Mr. Wakefield? Mr. Wakefield: Councilman Gillum, again this is an authorized use in the zone in which the property is located. Under the • circumstances, the central business district plan is nothing more than a plan until there is something more specific in terms of development programs. It would be my opinion that the City Council was not authorized in denying this approval of this Precise Plan for that reason. Mayor Gleckman: I have a couple of questions,of Mr. Winters. Item No. 5 here of the report, you say, this is the C-2 Zone which contains no development standards? Is that a correct statement? Mr. Winters: As far as giving a percentage of land- scaping, block walls, definite setback requirements, refuse, facilities, and so forth, as we have in the new- neighborhood%com:er_cial,c.ommunity,_:commer:cial regionalcommercial.;, service; -commercial that'is correct Mayor Gleckman: How long does the C-2 Zone s=tay on the6l property with our new zones. Werelwe`' talking. Mr. Wakefield about incorpo- rating our new zones and taking the C-2 and C-1 Zones off of our land usage.(, Mr. Wakefield: Yes, Mr. Mayor, but that has not been done yet, and until the changes are advertised and necessary hearings are held, it will not be possible to change the existing zoning upon these • particular properties. Mayor Gleckman: Well, I've brought this up time and again, and I felt that all drive-in type restaurant and businesses of this order should be taken of out of the commercial zoning, .,and put .,,n.t.o.L" classified use permit so the Council would have that right to direct as to where in the city these things should be located. Until such time that we take the drive-ins of any type out of the commercial zones and put them into unclassified use permits where the city can decide the location of these particular businesses, we are going to run into this same problem. I do feel, however, that anything placed in the middle of the parking lot is definitely a traffic problem; especially, when usage for that traffic problem has been there time and time and time being for thf. basic reasoning of the Stardust Bowl and for no other purpose. The other,comment. - that I would have, they talk about a curb cut. The curb cuts along a Walnut Creek Parkway right _:now.'.., and the curb cuts along Batelaan. I say, where in relationship were you going to put another curb cut. I mean, I have the Precise Plan; I can't see the curb cut. There were no curb cuts involved in Mr. Zimmerman: the precise plan approval. Existing curb buts were to be used, one in. sylvan Avenue approximately OPP site the. structure and another in Walnut Creek Parkway,.actually there are more than onejan#y of which can be used to enter the parking lot. Mayor Gleckman: Your Item 5 was not an addition curb cut, but'to use one of the existing ones? - Because, if that's the case, that drive- way that you presently have or curb cut, would have to be designed .so that all the parking spaces are eliminated to.,accomplish this par- ticular usage, in order for it to comply with this plan, which I am sure is a lot more than seven parking spaces. .. - 12 - 9/8/69 COUNCIL DISCUSSION (Cont'd.) page thirteen 0 C Mr. Zimmerman: Yes. I am sure there would be more than seven parking places, ,hay.ing tb :.be'.. ' 7- eliminated. I believe the driveway was to be relocated or enlarged. Mayor Gleckman: Well, I would have no. obj.ect.i.on Ao.. recom— mend that this be sent back to the Planning Commission for review for the simple reason I think it's going to be a traffic problem in the manner in it's design,.,i%ight now. Councilman Lloyd: I so move. Councilman Gillum: I second the motion. Mayor Gleckman: I have a motion and second; is there any discussion? Councilman Nichols: What would be the purpose of referring it -to the Planning Commission? Mayor Gleckman: Well, first of all, I don't think the Precise Plan ...as it's presently designed, unless it's designed to eliminate all parking within the confines of the Fotomat lanes completely, so that you would get easy in and out access of this parking lot, but where it has to cross any particular parking spaces, or come in contact with any cars going in and out and going crossways over the particular development; I think you are creating a problem. Councilman Nichols: Then you are suggesting that a redesign of the Precise Plan would make it an acceptable use.from your point of view? Mayor Gleckman: I'm in not so much in favor of usage, but because usage is permitted in this particular zone, the only possible way that I could see that we could deny this would be on.the basis of it being a traffic problem. If it's not a traffic problem, .'Just, oh-d,es1re I .. think we have to take this type of usage out of this zone before we cou-'id legally comply with whaat> our job is. Councilman Nichols: You are suggesti.ng`that it would be up to the applicant if that Precise Plan could be provided that would not in any way be a traffic hazard,•I would certainly support that. Mayor Gleckman: Is there any other discussion by the Council? Motion by Councilman Lloyd, seconded by Councilman Chappell to refer Precise Plan No. 574.t,o Planning Commission for redesign. (/back),., Motion passed on roll call vote as follows: AYES: Councilman Gillum, Gleckman. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. Nichols, Chappell, Lloyd, Mayor Mayor Gleckman: Before we get to Item No. 3, I notice Mr. Feinman is in the audience; and if you would turn back to the first page on your agenda, you would find a presentation this eveninggk'.bf:.: the Mayor's Narcotic Advisory Committee .Report'-; to.. `..:'., be made by Morton' W. Feinman. I will call on Mr. Feinman for his presentation. - 13 - 9/8/69 page fourteen PRESENTATION Mayor's Narcotic Advisory Committee Report by Morton W. Feinman. Mr. Mayor, Honorable Sir, and your Council members: On behalf of the Mayor's Narcotic Advisory Committee we would like to submit to you at this time our final report of the drug problem and • suggestions for'- our committee, to work on— ---This _problem that we have been working on for the past year :in a rather extensive study. The brevity of the report that you will receive is backed up by extensive and voluminous research material that is ready for your disposal and your .perusal for additional information. We sincerely hope that the programs that we have presentedafter the efforts that your committee and members of myself and my committee have expended, will be acted upon by you in an expeditious manner and hopefully take the program in toto. We also request, if possible, that you consider our.request for a study time after you have had a chance to peruse your report so that our committee can further discuss with you':our-, thoughts of the final report presented. Mayor Gleckman: Thank you Mr. Feinman. I took the liberty of glancing through the -report yesterday, and I think that a joint meeting of your committee and the Council would be in order, because this is a long time coming. And now that we have received it, I think it's only proper that this city take some action and take it right away,Jf::the Council has no objection, because of the trip that we have planned to San Francisco, I would -suggest +that the first week of October be the meeting of the Narcotics.Advisory Committee to go over the report. Councilman Nichols: You are suggesting an entire evening.need be devoted to one subject? Mayor Gleckman: After reading the subject matter, yes. But • if we have one or two short items we might - be able to take with us. I think this is .important, and it has enough material in it that we could spend days with this committee; but I think that the urgency is there, and if we could select a date so Mr. Feinman and his committee could confirm it between now and then so we could be sure to have it scheduled. How about the first Monday in October? Mr. Aiassa: October the 6th. Councilman Lloyd: Why don't we do itata,4:00 o'clock meeting? Mayor Gleckman:. I have another suggestion. How about the week after that, 4:00 o'clock in the afternoon. Maybe we could finish. Mr. Aiassa: The next meeting would be the 14th.. Mayor Gleckman: Well, why don't we start it on the, 14th and maybe conclude it on the 20th. Councilman Lloyd: Would that pose a problem? Mr. Feinman: I have an appointment for a Youth Authority • Committee at that time. If we could have alternative dates, but they did request, hopefully, maybe a Saturday meeting, if that could be arranged. Mayor Gleckman: I have no objection to the meeting on Saturday. - 14 - page fifteen Councilman Nichols: I do, Mayor. I only have a few days when I go out and mow the lawn, put on dirty clothes, and let my beard grow. I would just prefer not to do it. If that were the only date open, and were absolutely essential that we meet on that date -- but I'm quite sure that there are alternative dates. • Mayor Gleckman: How about the Staff, City Manager, and maybe through our Staff and City Manager we could set up an appropriate time for Council and committee. • • We thank you very much, and, of course, we have not had an opportunity to read this entirely; and I guess so until that time, I will just thank you for delivering that report. I know your committee has worked very hard, and given many, many hours to this report, and I'm sure this information in it will be invaluable. Councilman Chappell: Mayor Gleckman: Councilman Chappell: Mr. Feinman: Mayor Gleckman: PUBLIC HEARINGS (Cont'd.) A suggestion might be a night they regularly meet. That would be a Wednesday night. I agree with the Saturday decision. I have a lot of things going that day myself, but I'm not above it. We'll work it out. On behalf of the City Council the last year and a half, it's over with yet, we would like to thank you ,for your time. Mayor Gleckman: We will now go to Item No. 3 which is the Precise Plan No. 575, Sierra Del Mar Properties. PRECISE PLAN LOCATION: South side of Center NO 575 - SIERRA DEL Street between California and MAR PROPERTIES Vincent Avenues. REQUEST: Approval of a Precise Plan for office and commercial buildings. Denied by Planning Commission Resolution No. 2180. Appealed by applicant on August 22, 1969 . . Mr. Winters, Administrative Engineer, read Planning Commission Resolution No. 2180 in full, and referred to the displayed slide for further explanation of location of property. THE CHAIR DECLARED THIS IS THE TIME AND PLACE FOR THE PUBLIC HEARING ON PRECISE PLAN NO. 575. THE CHAIR DECLARED A FIVE MINUTE RECESS AT 8:48 P. M. COUNCIL RECONVENED AT 8:58 P. M. Mayor Gleckman: Call the meeting back to order. Sorry for the interruption, we ran out of for lack of knowledge of what it is -- I will call it tape. - 15 - 9/8/69 page sixteen PUBLIC HEARINGS (Cont'd.) By Mayor Gleckman (Cont'd) This is the time and place for the public hearing. Hugh -,Fraser. Mr. Fraser was sworn in by the City Clerk. 162-597' Ventura Boulevard Mr. Fraser asks for about ten minutes time • Encino in which to speak. Council approves: I come before you in an appeal case as you probably know and are aware of, with reference to a piece of property which I am acquiring from the Union Oil Company.at the hearing for the Planning Commission I was unable to show pictures of the exact building that we are planning to do. I had this sketch, but it wasn't shown at 'the'-', time. we;'. put •.:it..up;.becauw it wasn't screened. Now, if this Allstate Claims office and regional office which we anticipate putting on this property and they are now :renting_.::; a smaller building. There will be approximately sev.emt(y.-e.i;ghty employees in this office. I spent three months with my architect and engineering department working out the details of what could be done on this particular piece of property. Prior to that, three and a half years ago, I made an agreement with Union Oil to take over this piece of property, and I spent $10,000, gentlemen, on a lease engineering a''natirnal_general theater to go on this piece of property. I didn't come before this board or the Planning Commission at that time,) _. when we designed the whole package and put it together - we were asking or we would have �-had:: to ask the cityfor a minumum requirement according to the code. We' would have had to be building right -to the sidewalk. We would have been building a 2level parking lot which would have been a great edifice,.i on that particular property, but we would have been barely or probably violating some of the codes, and I turned the deal down after spending the.money. Fort.y::years I have spent working with the City Councils, City.Propexty'all over the eleven western states. Subsequently, we try to stay within the limits and within the working arrangements of what the codes call for in the various cities. Now, my architects and engi.neei::$ went all through this property and came up with some theories.,,We got involved in all types of tene- :nents— Mo . had been working bn this three and a half years. This rtene,inentihappens to be one we could put on the property and still meet the codes, still give the city an approach towards a negotiation of a setback and everything that would match the other buildings. Now, the" contention that we did not set our building back ten feet to join with the neighbors, t`enfoot-- setback is because we have windows on the street side. We put our foundation ten feet back, and I,passed a piC':-:_'. re: ',around her-ewhich I dug out of one of our files to let .you see .that our building has a ten feet setback. ,- Five feet of greenery, it doe.sn't block the view, it's just a decoration.with the roof and everything to': -set-off;-= that particular building. It doesn't break down any of the view from up and down the street at all. Their building next door to me has a plain wall in the front. It has no windows., We are having a maintenance problem of keeping those windows clean. Furthermore, the staff report when it was brought into this commission, was approved by the staff and set forth with various conditions as outlined in here. When I came for the meeting, gentlemen, there was no question. There was no suggestion that there was anything we had done .We"xie � giv-ei "'them 10 ` feet back on the street. The red indicated that it was not going to ) be built at this time, that was a proposed position of the building. The blue was what we were building at this time. The reason we wanted to put Allstate down there and put it up and set it up is, I am tired of seeing this piece of property with no parking and nothing behind it. It's just a dust bowl. 'iIt's been my responsibility for the last three and a half years to worry about it. We wanted to get it paved. So -I thought by putt ing;,,a:-tenan.t...on'_ther e.c& it would get ,the parking up in the right manner. Nuw, unti.l'the opposition came in at the very last moment nobody was aware of any other problems. Nobody had said any- 4 thing about us setting back from the property line. Since then, I have ,.,had the opportunity to take a good look at the building next door to us 16 - 9,18/69 PUBLIC HEARINGS (Cont'd.) page seventeen By Mr. Fraser (Cont'd.) and the architect that designed and built it, built it with the under- standing there would probably be another building built on the property line. It was built under the codes for an adjoining building under the property line, and any architect that had designed a building had •:.not taken.into consideration, would lose his business very fast so, we designed our building for traffic flow, for control of property, for paving of the property. And we took away the driveways that are now there in Bob's Big Boy, two of them,another was going to,go into the center. We worked with your traffic department and we got an in drive- way which eliminates people coming out there on our corner. We put the in and out driveway down at the end of Center Street. Now, gentlemen, when I originally got this property back in 1958, we paved Center Street and dedicated it to the city at no cost to the city, without coming before the Planning Commission and without coming before you as a ,committee or: commission or council. We automatically donated approxi- ,.mately $30,000 worth of land to the City of West Covina. By giving a setback around our property, whether it was ten feet or five feet or what, because that's. what the property cost me, around about that, and I was asked at this meeting, without -any knowledge what was going to happen, to donate another thousand square feet to a neighbor. Now, I am not arguing with the Council's or a Commission's approach on this. It happened to be 12:00 o'clock at night. Both them and I were per- turbed at the lateness of the hour, but I am saying at that particular period of time they were asking me to give up something,.or just asked for a delay on behalf when the opposition had come in. And they were the ones that were asking something that he had taken the privilege of doing on their own property. They had built their building out to the property line on both sides and taken every inch they could possibly get. They had designed their building so that they have the airflow and whatever is necessary or needed back under there. They have done all that, then they wanted to ask a neighbor to donate five feet of setback. SGentlemen, I thought it was the wrong approach, to ask a man who was spending a million dollars or so on the piece of property to develop in West Covina, to turn around and donate some more money to somebody that says I built my building five years ago, and we designed it satisfactorily. I need air, and we need that. The code that they built under, their building was built to give them all that without wor:r.. ng abaft the next door neighbor.....If...he had doors and windows and ground floor, five or six inches out, they would have had to have wire mesh.steel frames. If they brought it out five more feet they wouldn't have allowed any openings on it. The fire code of your own city, and the universal code, states that right in the book. So they designed, the architect designed,that bldg. knowing that somebody was going to build, because they put their six foot block wall since on it. I think we have designed a nice building for you as far as the street is concerned. We are willing to negotiate any problems that the city might want us to do, and I told them at this meeting as far as the neighbor who had taken advantage of all the codes in'. building up, asking that I negotiate with him, for me to give him five feet of my land, prime land, facing on California, for use of a parking lot at the back. When you are in this kind of an expensive operation, you don't barter away parking spaces for footage that cost you $7.00 a square foot. Now, I had wanted to bring up one point which I think,.gentlemen, is not for my benefit, but for this Council's benefit. I attended this •meeting and left at 12:30, something like that. I felt that whatever happened in that meeting was something you gentlemen wanted to know about. Development of West Covina is important. Development in a prime piece of property is important to anybody. My attorney says, "Well, do you want to appeal?' No, I would like you to write the City Attorney and get a copy of the minutes and tell me what to do. I am going on; I have other business in Montclair and the City of Los Angeles. - 17 - 9/8/69 PUBLIC HEARINGS (Cont'd.) page eighteen • • By Mr. Fraser (Cont'd.) I can't worry about it. When I come before you people I usually present a sensible approach. We let it ride. The City Attorney sent us a copy of the minutes to my attorney. When I read those minutes, gentlemen, I immediately knew that you wouldn't call it up. Again, I don't think this is something that I have to.do with, but I am drawing it to your attention. The minutes do not spell out what happened at that meeting, and no wonder, when you read these minutes you didn't call it up. If you had read the true minutes, of that meeting, you would have called it up. There was nothing about this whole project that was brought up about this five feet setback until after the owner of the neighborhood property even mentioned it. If the minutes said, and it was a part of the first one, I don't want to go into that detail. Any evidence the Council wishes to see about it at any other time I will present. And thank you very much for letting me talk. Mayor Gleckman: Is there anyone in the audience that would care to speak in opposition to Precise Plan of Design No. 575. Dr. Milton Daniels Dr. Daniels was sworn in by the City Clerk. 360 South California Dr. Daniels requested more than three West Covina minutes. Council.approved. I have here pictures that were taken of our building, and I would appreciate if the members of the Counil would look at it. We also have a few pictures, if we could run them through. This is a view of the side of the building. On the left is a wall which is a five foot block wall, and we have a 12 foot setback from that wall to the bottom of the building, and then we have a six and a half foot overhang. This is the parking lot. This is the walk looking at it from the other view going towards the front of the building, and this is going toward the parking area. This is the front of the building looking'up from California, north, and that's a view of the post office. This is a view from -N- looking from the post office, north. This, another view of the walk. This is a view from the inside of Dr. Wong's office, and his private garden area. This is a private garden area, another view. This is again looking.out from inside of his office. I would like to leave this picture on, because this is one of the problems that we have. When we went to build our building, just like the owner of the Sierra Del Mar properties, we ran into a problem. we threw away a lot of money in devolping this property. We had two sets of plans drawn up, and we found from the aesthetic point of view they were no good, and we ourselves lost over $10,000. in this plan. We felt in building this building we wanted something that would be functional from our point of view and also aesthetic to the city. The city has been good to me, and I thought, and I still do think, that we owe something to the city. When I build a building, I build also in respect to aesthetic quality. I feel you put up a building; it's doing to stand many years and it should be an asset to your city. This is why we went to so much effort in building the building. If you people have seen it, with a facade on one side, one side or two sides, the building is complete -- no one half finished type of structure. In respect to this thing when it came to lands standing, we tried to give as much as possible. When the city asked for 18 feet setback to conform, we did not hesitate and put it back. We, as well as the developer of the property, were rather unhappy about the empty lot, too. We heard that they had purchased the property and were going to develop it. We were looking forward to great expectations, because we thought it would be an asset to the city, that their architecture and our architecture would enhance instead of their being liability for ,each others; it would help us out. But, unfortunatel,v we discovered �-*M 9/8/69 page nineteen PUBLIC HEARINGS (Cont'd.) By Mr. Daniels (Cont'd.) that when the plans came through that they had decided to build their building right up to the property lime, and this would be done. It happened here that. the wall of their, building would completely obliterate all the lighting going to our offices. We took into con- sideration there would be a possibility that somebody would build right up to the property line. Butiwith the amount of property that is there, and also with the fact oflwhat we are trying to do which is, not to have one building put on top of another one. See what happened when the Baskin -Robbins building was built right on top of the medical: building. Look what has happened to that property: that medical building has been having trouble all along, and the people who are living in the building all along fee that it is a detriment to practice life. The whole setup is so bad thalit they are all moving out, and the building is being torn down. We cannot tear our building down because of all the money involved, but we feel from the practical point of view, from the aesthetic point of view, is that we should have some sort of consideration. If he puts his building right on top of our property, the architecture of his building is immediately put on top of ours; and more -important tb.an-that, the light which is*so important i-n-.the practice of dentistry. All the Qf.fices in the building would;. be completely cut -.down below minimum'standards, and this is why we have raised an objectio u. He has a large_piece of property that can be de eloped;Th.e-r-eare always many answers and many solutions to a -- prob lem, 'and we -feel that putting his building on top of ours.. is just nullifying all the efforts and all the tears that went into that building. We feel it isn't being fair to us. Thank you. Mayor.Gleckman: Is there anyone else that would, care to speak in opposition to Precise Plan • No. 575? Would you step to the microphone. Alan Wong Mr... -Wong. -was sworn in by the City Clerk. 360 South California West Covina I practice orthodontics in the City of West Covina. I think Dr. Daniels has pretty well presented most of our views I think the only thing which I would like to say is: that if originally when the building was built, it was built on the assumption of the City Planning, and so on, and it was built on the assumption that we will have certain setbacks from the street and certain setbacks from the property line and that was how the building was originally built, and this we assumed also applied to our neighbor next door. And we could find that this Precise Plan wasn't, and this is why we.are in front of the City Planning Commission to voice our objections. Mayor Gleckman: Is there anyone else who would care to speak in opposition to Precise Plan No. 575? If not, will the proponent.care to make a rebuttal? • Mr. Fraser: Gentlemen: With reference to statements made by my neighbors, I would like to show you what we have done since the Commission meeting (Mr. Fraser displayed a slide.) would you put that on please? Now, at the time we went into make up our plans, we assumed that by giving five foot of greenery and five foot of space as I showed you on the picture I passsed through here, was meeting the requirements of the neighborhood setback of ten feet. All we did was decorate the front of our building a little, but after discussing it with your City Manager and the various staff, we have been prepared to meet any requests of - 19 - 9/8/69 PUBLIC HEARINGS (Contd.) page twenty By Mr. Fraser (Cont'd.) the City Council or the Planning Commission or the City Staff. We set the building back. Now, the foundation is back 15 feet. The ten feet of greenery has been applied along there. We have done that on, as you will see, imposed on the ---top of the parking lot. By building the Allstate Insurance Building we are now setting it back fifteen-feet,irom the property line. Ten feet of greenery and five feet of decorative art and we are working on the whole property all the way through. We are realigning Bob's Big Boy parking lot so there is none of this mess up that you have up there. We have plans of superimposing a building on that, but we do not have leases on them, and we are not in a position to build them at this time; but we have set them back the ten feet on the California Street with greenery, and depending on the design. We will set them back additional footage. We.are not interested in disrupting the city's flow of foot traffic, or the beauty of the building. Now, as far as my opponent's remarks with reference to the wall between the building, we are putting a the facade along the California side and all down the center of the driveway there, all the side of the driveway, all the way to the back. We are building a sump`.stone building which has a very attractive look to it. We have pictures of that type of building if you wish to see them. They have the air space they need, because as he mentioned on the second floor, he sets back six feet from the property, the roof of it. This five and a half or six feet they have down there that cuts out any air that I could supply them from my wall. So, they have already cut that off. They got it above. This is the north side of the building sun they get from the building is that in the early'morni.ng; they don't get any more; so, we are not cutting out any sunlight from them. Basically, gentlemen, I feel that we have complied with the code, not to its minimum, but to as much as we can give and still,survive in that size of property and with .the amount -we have to pay for it and still meet the requirements we may have to meet at a later date. We are working with the city and all types of approaches. We are trying to enhance the traffic flow on that area. I think that covers it. THE CHAIR DECLARED THE PUBLIC HEARING ON PRECISE PLAN NO. 575 CLOSED. COUNCIL DISCUSSION Councilman Lloyd: I would like to talk to Mr. Fraser if I could. Mr. Fraser, I have a few questions. Councilman Lloyd: Mr. Winters, could we have an overall plan again on your screen?. Mr. Winters: Yes, I'll refer. to slide 6. Councilman Lloyd: Mr. Winters, as I understand it, all of property outlined from California, Center, Vincent, has come under your direction; is that correct, sir? Mr. Winters: Yes,,sir. Councilman Lloyd: I am also under the impression that you might be making some negotiations further on Vincent; is that correct. Mr. Fraser: Well, we've made an approach to try and even off the property, but the owners have not given me a definite price or when. Councilman Lloyd: In other words, you have t.o.:the;.._east., there, - 20 - COUNCIL DISCUSSION (Cont'd.) By Councilman Lloyd (Contd.) page twenty-one coming down Vincent,.if Vincent were extended on the parking lot, you then would have been negotiating for what is kind of a triangular piece there; is that correct? Mr. Fraser: The southern property line behind • Allstate there would run straight across to Vincent. There's a triangular piece there, right. Councilman Lloyd: Well; I certainly am very pleased and encouraged at this type of development. I don't have another question at this time. I am very pleased that this type of development is coming in there, and it appeals to me. Certainly, it.fulfills the requirements of the city. I'm favorable disposed to such things that I have heard with regard to this property. Nevertheless, I think that what we really need at this point is a little further negotiation so we might formalize or at least solidify some of the planning that is going into this. I recognize cerain "inalienable rights" to develop their private property. However, I recognize also that a tremendous amount of money has gone into the development of this property; as well as a lot of money in the development of the adjoining..`; property, and I don't possess, by any manner or means; the wisdom of Solomon. However, it would appear to me if we could hold this off, further negotiations would be adopted both with regards to your trying to acquire these other properties and perhaps some consideration being given to the changing of the alignment of the building as it exists without specifically changing a great deal of the engineering and planning that has gone into it. I think that we might be able to achieve some equity by way of moving the building, keeping the general design of the building and achieving the free air space that has been requested. In other words,.what I am really suggesting is that we hold this plan off until additional negotiations can be entered into. I also recognize in suggesting this, and I am suggesting to the individual, .that he has every right to pursue this plan to additional section right here this evening. That's what we are here for. I think we can achieve what you want as well as meeting the aesthetics that have been presented. I frankly think there i.s a real opportunity for everybody to come out with what they really want. I may be dead wrong in this case. I may be overstepping my bounds, I really don't know. Mr. Wakefield, you probably would know if I am overstepping my ,bounds in making this type of a recommendation. Nevertheless, I think at.this point I am suggesting that this matter be set aside until further negotiations can be entered into. I would like to hear from the rest of the Council on this. I am really making an appeal, but I think there is a negotiation other than the one that is yes or no. I don't think it will serve the best interest of your property and the property next door. I think this isn't either yes or no or black or white, without redesigning, without losing the aesthetics and value that.has already been put.into the design and the efforts that has gone into it. In other words, what I am suggesting is a little more time in this matter.. Councilman Gillum: The question I have of the staff is the approximate height of the Allstate Building? Mr. Winters: I believe it's around ten feet. The total . height of the building would be, to top, by stationing it here, around 15 feet. Councilman Gillum: Fifteen feet; this is based on what? Mr. Winters: C-2 . - 21 - 9/8/b9 11 COUNCIL DISCUSSION (Cont'd.) page twenty-two Councilman Gillum: And what are the side yards for C-2. Mr. Winters: There is no side yard requirement e.unle:ss it ;ssset by precise plan design. • Councilman Gillum: The one thing that disturbs me is: I agree it's an asset to the community, but the statement was made if it had been a single developer, the doctor accepted that fact that some day a building would by possibly built right on the property line. I think he made the statement, and correct me ifI am wrong, if it would be a single developer without additional land, he may have had to accept a building right on the -property line. I think in the past this council had required rdev.elop:er.s., whether they be large or small, to meet .all of our requirements, and I think what we are getting into here is askiAg someone who has come into our community to develop;.a very large parcel to make certain concessions. In my own mind I'm with Mr. Lloyd on this, I don't have the answer. I'm not quite sure, but I don't believe that the way.the'code is written what we require under this type of develop- ment . We cc-ould actually say to this gentleman that we think that f-' you would.: like,;,-bdevelop .--and spend :YO-Wmoney in our community and we would like y,=ou to set the building five feet away from the property line. The applicant has made a good point. The building is facing the north as far as sunlight. It is only early in the morning. I am not sure how much a:..fi'f.teen: eigbtben-_ft,.Wdlwould cut down on the daylight coming into the offices. I don't think I could at this time say that the developer, unless he would comply with an additional five foot side yard, that I cou.ld.n:',t__ supp.or.t thp,-! Pr1a.n::.1 think what he has proposed is profit for the property, and I think he is well within his rights under our property code and our requirements. I don't :think I have the right to demand or ask him to give up the additional five feet. I'm with Mr. Lloyd on this. I wish there was some way the people could get together and • work out something to their mutual agreement. I could support the plans that are proposed on the board. Councilman Nichols: If I were the gentleman having built and occupied the medical facility, I would be in the audience protesting, precisely as there are; but I really 'do's: think from an objective standpoint and relative to the loss of the city, that the protest is to pull their own chestnuts out of the fire, and I do not feel under the law that another developer should .be required to secure that which the developer of the other property failed to secure for himself. Had the developer and his architect originally been concerned that someone might build where they legally could build, it was his privilege to set back as much as a greater distance as he could choose, utilizing his own valuable land for that protection. He did not choose to do that, and now, when a developer comes in and desires`:to develop within the requirements of. -the law, hopefully, the earlier developer would like to achieve the security they would not guarantee themselves. As Councilman Gillum has said, and Councilman Lloyd has said, I think it would be wonderful and I would be very pleased if all parties to this dispute could come together and say, 'Well, we solved the problem.` If we could put morals. persuasion to work, I would urge that this be done, but I see no legitimate way to require the developer,to donate • approximately $7,000. of his own land to the edification of the patrons of the business next door. So, it certainly is an unfortunate thing for those people. I.would not feel that I have the right to impose such a requirement on this developer. So, in light of that, Mayor and Council, as much as I would feel personally about it, I feel my role is more to look at the precise plan; to see that it does meet all of the legal requirements, and certainly the developer has complied with full measure for setback involved, and I would have to, I believe, accept Precise Plan No. 575 as submitted. - 22 - 9/8/69 COUNCIL DISCUSSION (Cont'd.) page twenty-three • • Councilman Chappell: The Precise Plan we are looking at didn't show his building setback from the street in line with the other buildings on the street starting with the post office and coming toward this building. Now, from his conversation, is he submitting a revised Precise Plan and that's what we are now looking at, or are we still looking at the original plan? Mayor Gleckman: o Well, my comment is that we are looking at a revised Precise Plan as submitted at this particular hearing by Mr. Fraser. Does that answer your question? Councilman Chappell: Yes. Mayor Gleckman: I have a couple of thoughts on the matter. The one..thought that really sticks in my my mind, the9212.4, which is the require- ment set forth in the C-2 Zone. The comment seems to be among the Council that we have no legal right to require a side yard setback, and the way the code is written, if I may read it to you, gentlemen, "Every lot and every parcel of land in a C-2 Zone need provide no side yards, except, as may be required by a Precise Plan". Now, if I read that correctly, I read that if the Council would require a side yard on a Precise Plan that it's legal for us to do so. Councilman Nichols: I agree, Mayor. Mayor Gleckman: Okay. I just wanted to clear up the point that we do have a prerogative that we insist on side yard if we see fit and it's in the code. The other comment I would like to made is: How far is that I driveway from Californial:'mean"'Center":Street? I am looking at the Precise Plan and the amount of area that Mr. Fraser has, and the idea of putting a curb cut. I drive it every day too and the free right hand turn that is sometimes permitted there, and the traffic that goes along there, and I'm looking at another curb cut, looking east to Center Street further down toward the medical building. I don't know which is better or which is worse; but I do think we have some standards. Mr. Winter-..: Well, the curb cut to the property line is approximately 86 feet. Mayor Gleckman: Do we have any minimum standards, Mr. Winter,:. or Mr. Zimmerman? Mr. Winter,, -I: ' No; we don't. Mayor Gleckman: This would be a proper recommended safe distance as far as the traffic is concerned? Mr. Zimmerman: There are, of course, heavy traffic volumes on California Street which turn right on Center Street and go east and past this property. Occasionally they may back up due to traffic signal operations which blocks the driveway. However, there is a right turn arrow which operates a good share of the time and actually this lane should be fairly clear, and it should operate satisfactorily in its present situation. Mayor Gleckman: The reason I asked: I was under the impression from Mr. Fraser's testimony that it was a request to the staff that he put his driveway ;der. here. -in d@ference to putting the driveway on Center ,St . is that correct, Mr. Fraser? - 23 - 9/8/69 COUNCIL DISCUSSION (Cont'd.) page twenty-four • Mr. Fraser: The driveway of Center Street is an in -an - out in the middle of Center Street. At the present there are two driveways going in and out up close to Bob's. There was to be a driveway down California Street. The traffic department and the street department recommended a driveway. We could have a driveway, and they gave us approximately 90 feet back from the corner, "8v6 feet or whatever the figure was back from the corner as to that,to put it there. Now, the reason we put it there, gentlemen, it was because if we move the building up, we have an in -an -out 'line. Now, in planning traffic: flow in any parking area, you try to have the traffic move to whatever area that you are driving in, rather than cross over and get into cross traffic on your thru,:area,,. Now, since we have changed this to all parking, on this new thing, we have got the problem on the driveway. We have people coming in and crossing over, but it isn't into a specific building; whereas with the Allstate building if We-1:.would;;-hen::movec d that building up and did away with that driveway and put it back farther along the property line. We would have people coming in and driving in there. I have experienced with Automobile Club of Southern California buildings which have had some buildings which we .had-:biis.ifaesss with,-andc.done:`some.and:�in 7a11,.of'°:th-ese insur:ancd:`61aims"'office,:m.they-3.don':tywant:,..:any..:aclaims,f.l appeningz--at.z their�:4-ront door Mayor Gleckman: I can understand that. My thought along line is whether the City of West Covina wants to admit it tonight. We do have some type of obligation, or if you want to call it, the blame, for the situation that's being created. We are constantly creating this by updating our buildings in aesthetic values, and I think this is a typical example. It is very difficult for a city to come along with the zoning ordinance that it has unless it does require side yards in every zone to not instruct whoever is building on any piece of property the liability.that they may be incurring by trying to aesthetically improve that particular building, and I think that probably is the number one prob.lemr we have in our entire commercial district, probably, with the exception of Eastland; and even in some cases there, I have seen the same situation. So, I can feel for the opposition, and I can surely appreciate. Mr. Fraser's position, having come in and bought a piece of g,lc property &:.�Want.inohave available to him every opportunity to get the full value out of that piece of property without some negotiations, if at all possible. If itJs the staff's report and the applicant's and the opponent's report that there's no way they can get together with the three or four foot setback with Amaybe"taking;-outrthe wall to give it the aesthetic value. I could understand tae aoctors. needs, but I can't for the life of me see the needs of the Allstate building wanting it, because I gather that it is going to be a.,blank,_; a wall all the way down the line. Am I right, Mr. Fraser? Mr. Fraser: Mayor Gleckman: piece of propert do feel that the that the city by aesthethic value those cases where advise for either Councilman Lloyd: Yes. y I don't -think there is anything we can do and make both parties happy here; unless, Mr. Fraser was able to obtain another in the back that I know he's been trying to obtain. I doctors have a building West Covina can be proud of; being an -accomplice to the ignorance, may destroy the of that side of the building. It's another one of what can you do? I really don't have a good piece of party. you so desire. Would make a determination of property. Mr-.. Fras-er, Would. you be willing to hold off to the point -- you have every right to request the Council to act, and it will act, if you be willing to do so until such time you can of what you are going to do on the southern piece 9/8/69 twenty-five COUNCIL DISCUSSION (Cont'd.) Mr. Fraser: I am in a position of Allstate, of having signed a lease on which they want a building by a specific time. I am still not happy with what I've got. I've told the City Manager in as far as the lease is concerned, it's_a-very good lease as far as the tenement is concerned. • You can't get better monies than theirs you know. But where the building is located, and how it's located, I'm not really happy about it. The only reason that I am here, gentlemen, is to determine whether I have a right to build to my property line or whether this Council, or Commission, is going to allow me to. Councilman Lloyd: I understand that, but at this point we have pretty clearly indicated you have that right. So far you have no apparent opposi- tion on this Council. What we are really asking -- not the right or the legal entity that building -- what we are really asking for is it possible in your timing -- could you possibly, in view of the fact that you are engaged in these other negotiations, could you at least give the doctors the opportunities -- they can't do anything about it -- the opportunities of somehow resolving their problem in view of the fact that you are trying to acquire the other.property, If that's so, we will have to achieve some equity otherwise well, call for the vote. Your presentation is through. Mr. Fraser: I need a yes or no answer. I offered at this last commission meeting that if the, commissioners were to okay my Precise Plan with.conditions on it, I have then the time to negotiate and do what. I have to do; but I wanted a decision whether I was going to be allowed to build up to the property line. It wasn't a matter of -- I'm willing to wait as long as I know I'm within my legal rights. • Counc.ilinan..Uo{yd: Is the gentleman within his right, Mr. Wakefield? He wants to know whether or not he is within his right to build up to the property line, and he is as far as I can see, but I am not making that determination without you giving.us a legal interpretation of that. Mr. Wakefield: The ordinance does not require any setback so far as the side yard is concerned in the C-2 Zone. As I indicated to you, C-2 Zone provisions provide that the minimum requirements so.far as the approval of the Precise Plan is concerned. The existing plan meets the minimum requirement of the ordinance. Councilman Lloyd: Mr. Fraser, that answers your question. We are now awaiting your answer. Would you be willing to wait for a little while, or do you want a decision right now? Mr. Fraser: I think, gentlemen, that I am in a position to wait if there is a possible chance of the right to build my. building. Councilman Lloyd: I think you have been very gracious, Mr. • Fraser. Mr. Aiassa, what would be a time on this? Mr. Aiassa: Well, what I would like to do is to carry this over to the 22nd and give us an opportunity to meet with the property owners on Vincent Avenue. We did meet with the property owners this morning, and in turn, Mr. Fraser got in contact with them, and they have not been able to compare notes as to what is agreeable. I think we should explore that, because the property now on Vincent Ls�to a - 25 - 9/8/69 twenty-six COUNCIL DISUSSION (Cont'd) point where there are vacancies and their property will not develop itself because of its limited size. This property would not only give a good ingress and egress on Vincent, but also, a better c-rculation • on California. �. Mayor Gleckman: Any other comments by the Council? Now, a motion would be in order. Councilman Nichols: I would move the approval of the Precise Plan No. 575 as amended.according to the Exhibit on the board. Can we number that, Mr. Winter.?, Mr. Winters: Study Plan B. Councilman Nichols: Requested as according to Study Plan B. Councilman Gillum: Seconded. Councilman Lloyd: I was under the impression that if we waited or held this over to the 22nd, that we could then go forward with'the thing. That was all we were trying to achieve, and we haven't achieved that if we are going ahead and revise it. Councilman Nichols: My reaction to Councilman Lloyd would be that the applicant has other developments; that he will be coming to Council. His need to return to thecity and work is certainly his bond. In my judgment he would make every reasonable effort to cooperate and work out anything that he, can along the lines that we have been talking about, tonight. �Councilmari..N cho;1s: I think the applicant has made a very good (continued) point. He either has a right to build to the property line or he doesn't. Either the Council will allow it if there is no other alternative or the Council won't; and if he holds this matter off, we have placed the applicant at a disadvantage. We have placed him in the position of having to make negotiations with someone else. I feel he has the right of the use, and I feel he has indicated his desire to try to work this out. I believe, in fact, that he will, but I would prefer from my own point of view to approve the Precise Plan as revised and then wait for performance. Motion by Councilman Nichols, seconded by Councilman Gillum to approve Precise Plan No. 575 as per Study Plan B. Motion passed on roll call vote as follows: AYES: Councilmen Gillum, Nichols, Chappell, Lloyd, Mayor Gleckman. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. Mayor Gleckman: I am going to vote .aye -on the same premise that we are passing it this evening rather than holding it over; but I would like to see performance and what efforts are being made by Mr. Frasers' and the doctors' part to make us the heroes rather than the villains. - 26 - 9/8/69 HEARINGS twenty-seven THE CHAIR DECLARED THIS WAS THE TIME FOR THE PUBLIC HEARING ON TIME LIMIT PARKING BETWEEN 2:00 A. M. and 4:00 A. M. TIME LIMIT PARKING BETWEEN 2:00 A. M. and 4:00 A. M. as Proposed in ORDINANCE introduced August 25, 1969, entitled • 'AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF WEST COVINA ADDING SECTION 3174.5 TO THE WEST COVINA MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO PARKING ON CITY STREETS" is 0 Mayor Gleckman: Mr. Aiassa have you got a report? Mr. Aiassa: The Council had requested that we give public notice and that we carried our last report over to this meeting so that the public had an opportunity to voice their feelings one way or the other. Mayor Gleckman: The Council have been requested at.. different intervals to introduce some type of a parking ordinance in the City of West Covina in an attempt to see if it would be possible in a city of our size to J*nforce.;e a 2:00 A. M. to 4:00 A. M. time limit parking in order to remove some of the problems of overnight parking on our city streets with the idea and•..the=>hope tAat.ihost of� of r residential areas had garages and driveways and maybe in some way for the street sweeping and police protectipn,,;,.: that would in some way help the city; but this was a mixed emotion on the Council, and we felt that by introducing this we could then hold some type of public hearing and get some type of indication how the citizens of the com- munity felt. George Mioch (No address given) Mr. Mioch was sworn in by the City Clerk. I am a parole officer of the State of California. I don't know if I am exactly for or against this, but I don't want to see it passed until I under- stand a little more of the philosophies behind it. One thing is the size of your city. I think if this is passed, generally, you have to have exceptions to the rule. And in most cities I know that have a parking limit, visitors visiting are allowed to phone the police station to have an exception for that night. In a city of this size I wonder if your switchboard police station would be tied up keeping away real police emergencies. Number two: I'm a little interested in the philoso- phy behind this. If we are substituting rules for sense._: and courtesy, there are some flagrant violators of keeping their cars in the street. At the same time, in regard to police work, I've worked in most of the cities of the L. A. County. Generally, any competent police officers know what cars.belong on a street and which ones don't. He can go down the street and almost tell you the nationality of the owner by looking at the car. I don't think the West Covina Police Department is that crowded with the problem. West Covina is one of the few cities -- and I'm proud of them -- they have air conditioned squad cars or they did have. I'm for it. The one other thing that concerns me is I think that most of the adults -- if you do pass fliis -- would comply with the law. I don't think there would be any problem. The thing'I'm wondering about is the police are in a position of again being forced to have problems with juveniles. I'm a juvenile parole officer, so I am con- cerned particularly with juveniles and police. If this is passed, I do feel that the juveniles will probably be the worst offenders. I don't want to get more antagonism between the police and juveniles. Mayor Gleckman: Thank you very much. Only one thing -- as for the air conditioned squad cars -- 27 - 9/8/69 twenty-eight HFARINGS ( Cont ' d . ) By Mayor Gleckman (Cont'd.) you are a trouble maker. We don't have them. •Jerome Scritsmier Mr. Scritsmier was sworn in by the City 20219 Shadow Mountin Clerk. Road, Walnut I'm speaking specifically regarding the property which I am an owner at 228 and 229 South Bandy. This is a 24-unit apartment building built approxi- mately in 1956 when the parking ratio was one to one. Up to the present time we have not had a serious problem with the particular ratio, but it's entirely possible as the years go'by, this could be a serious problem. The safety valve has always been the possibility of parking on the street, and at the time the building was designed, I'm sure this was a consideration. I would like to point out that I am sure as we as owners of property, are not unique. There are other buildings of substantial nature built on South Bandy with the same ratio of parking. If the City Council and the City should feel the over- night parking ban would have merit for the city, I would like to suggest that serious thought be given to the opportunities for exceptions for .guests. for not applying it for specific areas, for a serious problem may be there with the overnight parking could be a serious problem. 'Bar.ney•..Goldman Mr. Goldman was sworn in by the City Clerk. 2037 Cameron Avenue West_Covina I'm for the parking limit. I find that driving through the city there are many, many driving hazards; cars being parked near the corners, for one thing, of various intersections, and in the • evening.making it difficult to enter and leave these various inter- sections. You might have to jut out into the street far enough to see that it's clear. If you make a misjudgment, you have to move quickly back or whatever. There's also problems in the various areas where people entering and leaving their driveways are subject to hazardous conditions: not being able to see the street properly to watch for traffic and watch for the children; if there are sidewalks there, enter- ing into these driveways and then being unable to see the children moving on the sidewalk. The street cleaning was mentioned, and I think that's important. We pay for the street cleaning service; we are entitled to it. The city is entitled to be clean. If it's not our, property, it's other people's property. These cars to stay on the street more than overnight.and several nights -- I know there is a three-day limit, but that's not always observed, and the streets are not being (cleaned.. The sweepers have to jut out in large areas and Imis*s complete frontage areas of various homes. I do believe that it's necessary in some areas that permission be granted for parking. There are areas, apartment buildings, or certain areas where it would be bad, but I feel that the ordinance should be passed and give the county or the city permission to approve or disapprove of those areas that they wish controlled. With no controlling you have a haphazard way of doing things. Just prior to this meeting they voted-- the Council voted -- on an • ordinance saying they have commercial development so that the city would have control over the development. I think this is a similar condition if you want control over certain parcels of land, so that it can be developed the way the city would like to have it developed. I think the city should have the ordinance so you can control certain parking areas. 9/8/69 twenty-nine HEARINGS (Cont'd.) jarn'eyt B;.Goldmaia (Cont Id.) If these people want to have guests or visitors, they should know in advance. They don't have to call the police department that night and get a permit to do so if it's for that night or several nights or whatever. I don't.know whether to go so far as to say have a yearly • permit, a sticker permit on their windows allowing them to park. If the cars are tagged it•doesn'.'.t_need much administrative function. However, whatever the way of doing it would be, the main thing is that the city should have a control of the city streets and protect people traveling through, protect the children. Edward Duggan Mr. Duggan was sworn in by the City Clerk. 2355 East Garvey West Covina I don't believe that backing out of your driveway at 2:00 o'clock 6r 4:00 o'clock in the morning is going to create a problem for most of us, and if your children are running in your streets between 2 and 4, you have more problems than automobiles. By Counci.l's own admission, you have no real reason for this -- maybe street cleaning, but no concrete reason for that. If you want to keep the streets clean, why not have an ordinance on Wednesday morning from 2 to 4? But other than that, there is absolutely no logical reason for this law. That's all I have to say. Kenneth Tompkins 628 Fairview Mr. Tompkins was sworn in by the City Clerk. Arcadia I am the owner of the 20-unit apartment house at 253 South Pima. Several years ago when this apartment was built, you • required a certain number of parking spaces which was one for each apartment house or apartment unit. Times have changed a little since then. We are not necessarily a one car family any more. Over 50 per cent of the tenants in our apartment house are people where the husband and the wife both work and they have to have two cars. If you would pass an ordinance like this, it would create really a desperate situation for us as far as parking is concerned. We have 20 parking stalls, and we have four other parking places which we all use, but still we have cars on the street in front of our apartment house. I'm for controlling the youth as much as we can and all that, but we still don't have a place a put, these. automobiles. For the life of me, if you would pass an ordinance like this, I can't see where my tenants would be able to put their cars. Jack Hokan Mr. Hokan was sworn in by the City Clerk. 151 Ho l lyoak West Covina I moved here 15 years ago, and I bought a house with a 2-car garage. Now, my wife and I both have to work and both have to have a car. Now, we've got two children of college age, and in order to go to college with no public transportation, they have to have a car. That makes four cars. After 15 years I'm lucky to get one car in the garage. So, what do you do with the other cars? So, now,.the • curs are out in the street between 2:00 and 4:00 A. M. I go to work between 2 and 4, so that eliminates one, but you still have two cars out in the street. What are they supposed to do with them? My neighbors are in a comparable position. They all have children, either college age or working, and they have cars. Where do they hide the cars? You can't hide them in a two car garage if you've got four cars.; so if you have an ordinance like this I don't see what everybody - 29 - 9/8/69 thirty HEARINGS (Cont'd.) By M. Hokan (Cont'd.) is going to do -- that's excluding the people in apartment houses. The People's homes with the two car garages have got more than two cars because the kids are all grown up and all have to have a car. • Mrs. Gomber Mrs..IGomber was sworn in by the City Clerk. 1214 West Devers West Covina I would like to hope that the Municipal Court body here can use wisdom and in- telligence and vision in this matter. Thank you very much. Robert Roudebush Mr. Roudebush was sworn in by the City Clerk. .206 North Lang Avenue West Covina I am very much in favor of this and some of my reasons are not original. Where they say, "What are we going to do if we have a ban like this?" Well, several of our sister cities have this. They must have an answer to it somewhere. I do think there should be some exceptions for apartment houses, but in the way of our residential streets, the single family homes, we have problems; such as having commercial vehicles that are being driven home by people, and they park them overnight and not only do you get them all week,, then you begin to get them all weekend, especially when you get.them in front of your house and not their house. The public streets belong to everyone, and I can't say move the car from the front of my house. This -is one of the problems we have, and as far as the police go, I think it -would really help them out. I don't know if the same police come by my house and remember all the cars out, and who owns them. I • just donut think its possible if he could give a glance down and just see. I know he has to investigate and find out what the problem is. Like I say, many of our sister cities have this, and they are living .with the ordinance; and there are exceptions in the other cities for apartment houses. I think this proposed ordinance could work very well in West Covina, and it would help. We might set this aside even as beauty; and you might say well what's the beauty between 2 and 4; but it's more or less making a habit for them. Some people are just in the habit of parking their cars on the street and not pulling up in the driveway or in the garage. When you have a law they change their habits. This way from the time they come home or when they last use the car, then the streets become free of it. It's not only the beauty of walking up the street. There are several or lots of streets that don't have sidewalks, and the people have to use the street to walk up, and the children and when -it comes to the car, go around them all. This is just anotAer one of my reasons. So, myself, I am in favor of this, and I would like to see this City Council pass this proposed ordinance. Thank you. Mr., Bell Mr. Bell was sworn in by the City Clerk. 2355 East Garvey West Covina I live in an apartment house. I have two cars, one car goes into our stall; my car • goes on the street. If I cannot park on the street, I park at the Eastland Shopping Center; I walk one mile home. I will not leave my car at the Eastland Shopping Center overnight. Therefore, I have one conclusion: If it's passed, I pay $15.00 or $60.00 a month fine -- $2.00 for each fine. That's all I have to say. - 30 - 9/8/69 HEARINGS (Cont'd.) thirty-one Mr. Albert Mr. Albert was sworn in by the City Clerk. 303 Walnut haven::�-Street West Covina I would just like to say I'm opposed to it. The gentleman before me and some of the other people have more or less given the same reasons. The only thing I might add is: if we have no where • to park, and we start parking on the lawns, I think this would detract from the appearance of the city. Thank you. L� Ka th lene Bales 245 South Pima Miss Bales was sworn in by the City Clerk. West Covina I live in an apartment house and have two cars. I came here this evening very dead set against this ordinance. However, I now feel more confused than anything else, because there are some very real problems with the parking on the,streets. Unfortunately I think that the worse problem with the cars parked on this street are in the areas where there are apartment houses; this is where the biggest problem will occur if the ordinance is passed. The situation on the street where..I live is very bad. It's hard to find a place to park on the street, and the cars park close to the corner, so on and so forth. However, I don't know where the cars will go if the ordinance is passed. If such an ordinance is passed, I think that you start making exceptions, this is an exception, and that's an exception and so and so forth. Then you get pretty confused and my lose the whole purpose of the thing anyway, and I think just that the whole solution of the problem is I think that.the time limit parking at night is the answer. Richard Hartman 816 North Azusa Mr' . -Har,tman .was sworn in by ,the .City Clerk. West Covina I am the manager of the Riviera Palms apartments and the undersigned are opposed to the bill which would prohibit overnight parking on the streets of West Covina, because it appears to be great injustice to the tenants of apartment houses. The real error in judgment was made by your own city Planning Commission when they permitted construction of the apartment buildings with a one to one ratio. Now, the tenants who have two cars are left with no alternative but to park one of their cars on the street overnight. If you would change the ordinance and prohibit overnight parking the tenants would have to either sell the second car which is highly improbable, or move to other areas which have greater parking facilities. In any case, the tenant is left holding the bag because of the error in judgment made by the city. Is this really fair? J. R. Winkless Mr. Winkless was sworn in by the City Clerk. 2000 W. Pacific West Covina I just wish to voice my opposition to this. I think it's a hardship on people who have multiple vehicles. Thank you. Mayor Gleckman: I would also like to include a letter from E. J. Zorns. They are completely against the overnight parking. In other words, they would like the parking ordinance. A Mr. and Mrs. A. B. Noble says we should do something about our overnight parking - 31 - 9/8/69 HEARINGS (Cont Id.) thirty-two By Mayor Gleckman (Cont'd) situation in the city, and another 206 North Lang. He is against the letter from Frances Aiello at 216 letter: of course, Mr. Roudebush, proposed ordinance; and another South Pima, is against the ordinance. • THE CHAIR DECLARED THE PUBLIC HEARING ON TIME LIMIT PARKING CLOSED. DISCUSSION BY COUNCIL Councilman Lloyd: I think that we are facing a problem. I think it':s very clear that there is a problem here with regard to apartment houses. I do have a small problem in my family which means I have to face the problem of an additional vehicle, so I'm no different than the rest of the people here. I would be less than honest not to say that if we are going to have a problem with vehicle traffic with automobiles parked on the street, we are going to have to find a solution. I don't think the solution at this point is to immediately inact this ordinance. Although, we are going to face this requirement. I think those of you who feel that in the dynamics of our city development, that it continue forever, and that we may park indiscrimi- nately in the streets -- as one gentleman pointed out -- if nothing else by mere force of habit. I think that you would be very wrong. On the other hand, I think we as a city -- and elected body of a city -- have a very real duty to you as citizens to bring about a change in an orderly manner. That orderly manner, I think, at this point, requires a holdoff. I think it's.in the relative future that we are going to have to do something about it. The people of the city, the administrators, have very clearly indicated that we have our necessity. We have a requirement on us to find.a solution to this and that's why • this has been proposed it isn't the final solution. On the other hand, we as representatives have a..responsibility to'..the people. I, for one, would recommend to the Council again -- maybe I am'procrastinating, I don't know -- but I think we should put this off with the real intention of taking it up again at some future date, that maybe within the next year we can find some solution to the problems which have been presented. Councilman Gillum: I think that I was the one that requested the Council to consider this type of ordinance. I'm also faced with the same problem that many of you have =- three cars and five children, and we have lived in the house 15 years. I can't get into a two car garage either. I think there is good argument on both sides. I can understand and appreciate the apartment house problem, and I can understand and appreciate the concern which I have heard expressed to me by many residents of your community who support this type of ordinance. I agree that it does cause a hardship, and I am inclined to go along with Mr. Lloyd. Mr. Aiassa, we are in the process of now entering a new Planning Director; is that correct? I am wondering if the Council would be receptive to holding this over for six months to a year and giving the staff and the new Planning Director an opportunity to investigate it thoroughly and return to this Council with some type of recommendation and also with a recommendation for the areas that could create hardships; • that we might be able to give some relief to. Councilman Nichols: In response to you, Councilman Gillum, I think that if we refer back to the staff for another study and another - 32...- 9/8/69 thirty-three DISCUSSION BY COUNCIL (Cont'd.) By Councilman Nichols (Cont'd.) report, we'll get the same kind of ordinance before us that we have gotten. I think three times in the last five years -- that I know of -- I just feel that it's so difficult that any efforts to make any wide spread overnight parking will be just as futile then. We will have to be prepared to hire at least another half dozen officers just • to spend the time writing citations and trying to.handle it. The only thoughts I have that I would like to express here is: Someone said they have a problem with commercial vehicles parking in their neighbor- hood. I don't believe there is any reason why we should have. Certain types of commercial vehicles are automatically banned from parking out on the street. Perhaps we should look into this and see if our laws and regulations against the commercial vehicles on the city streets are being violated, and perhaps we should tighten up our enforcement. The other thought I have is that I would be in sympathy that those who take the point of view that the city fathers have created most of the problems that we have faced. Only one of which is the large number of apartment buildings with only one space per,,, -,tenant. I think also of the fact that we, as the City Council, have, over the years, have come along and put sidewalks along many of our streets, and Vine Avenue would be an example of the side yards where the driveways enter the garages to the extent that anyone who attempts to park in their driveway short of their garage. is 6n.the sidewalk. :In..those cases the people real ' ly could not physically park on the property off of the street and on he sidewalk anyway. There are areas of our city where the city only required one car garages to be built in the residential area, and most of those garages have :the normal equipment in them, so they don't park vehicles in them anyway;, So all of their vehicles are out on the street. It's the failure of the city itself. It would require us to make so many exceptions. I feel we should approach it on that basis, so I would .continue to say that I would favor tabling this. If genius appears in the planning department -- that I don't forsee at the moment -- I didn't mean it in that sense at all. I mean greater than human • genius appears in the Planning Department and could come up with a solution, I would like to see it back. Councilman Gillum: I agree with you Mr. Nichols, that there are areas which have created problems, but I think the city in the past year or so in other areas such as zoning and'things of size, by putting in the -- as you want to refer to it -- as restrictions and things of this type. I think it's something that we have to investigate,:and we have to look into. I think it's something that would be beneficial to the city. The staff may come up with a completely different program. Returning this to staff and giving the Planning Director a chance to come back with recommendations if it would be suitable to institute this kind of thing in the community. Councilman Chappell: I.have to agree with everyone who is thinking in terms of voting to hold this over, maybe to eliminate it at the present time. We have a problem that would only cause us a tremendous amount of money to try to police. There are some areas of commercial .vehicles we do not want parking on the streets.. In some of our commercial areas we probably could control the parking that might be there, where people leave their cars for some unknown reason, but • around residential areas there are tremendous area of one car garages and there are apartment problems. I have a neighbor across the street that has a beautiful double car garage and they get two cars in there; but they have four cars. I don't want to see them on the front lawn, and I would even vote to drop the whole thing. - 33 - 9/8/69 :DI,SCUSSIONS BY COUNCIL (Cont'd.) thirty-four Mayor Gleckman: The only comment I would make is: One of the reasons why we introduced it was to get it before the public to test the water. We have had many people request it, and many in opposition to it; and I have to take into consideration, even though, the city is changing, we still have a tremendous amount of boats and campers and .three and four automobiles per residence. I think a lot of peope keep in mind when they move in this area, and I think that even at this particular time, that this city is not ready for that type of an ordinance. Whether it will ever be, I don't know; but I think the real reason for this public hearing was to test the water so far as I am concerned. I agree with Councilman Chappell. I think it would be wasting the staff's time and our time and the citizens' time at this particular time to ask the staff to investigate, come back with a report, and start this all over again. I think until the time comes, we'll let the city fathers and Planning Commission and the Traffic Department of our city, as well as the Police Department, come up with some type of request that we should look into the matter again, that at that particular time we take it up again. But, at this particular time, I agree with Councilman Chappell: I would just as soon drop it at this particular time or table it, that we don't take it up until that time. Motion by Councilman Lloyd, seconded by Councilman Gillum., and carried to refer to Staff the Time Limit Ordinance. THE CHAIR DECLARED A FIVE MINUTE RECESS AT 10:30 P. M. THE COUNCIL RECONVENED AT 10:42 P. M. • PUBLIC HEARINGS MASTER PLAN OF STREETS - CITY INITIATED Recommended by Planning Commission REQUEST: Approval of a proposed Master Plan of Streets for the City of West Covina showing existing and proposed streets and designating their major classifi- cations and right-of-way widths to serve as a guide for future right- of-way acquisitions. Resolution No. 2181. Mr. Winters, administrative engineer, read resolution No. 2181. Mr. Zimmerman, City Engineer, reviewed engineer's report with the aid of a displayed map. THE CHAIR DECLARED THIS IS THE TIME AND PLACE FOR PUBLIC HEARING ON THE MASTER PLAN OF STREETS. George Strachan Mr. Strachan was sworn in by the City Clerk. 5300 West Service Avenue • West Covina Mr. Mayor and gentlemen of the Council: At the meetings that took place this afternoon and consummated approximately 6:00 o'clock, the commercial committee of West Covina Chamber took up the subject of the Master Plan of Streets. They are very concerned, as most of the community is, regarding our circulation pattern, and the vital importance - 34 - 9/8/69 thirty-five PUBLIC HEARINGS (Cont'd.) By George Strachan (Cont'd.) of circulation and the street patterns are to your business community. As a result, they took formal action -that will be presented to the Board of Directors of the Chamber of Commerce, who won't be meeting until the last Thursday of this month; but requested that I relay their feelings •and their actions to this body so that they could be on record. The recommendation will be -- is at this point -- to endorse and recommend approval of the proposed Master Plan of Streets. and urged continued efforts to proceed with the development West Covina Parkway. The Chamber hasn't taken ami official stand through its Board of Directors. This is the action of the Commercial Commission, and they did want it presented to you. Ronald J. Grudzinski Mr. Grudzinski was sworn by the City Clerk. 15233 Ventura Boulevard Sherman Oaks Mayor Gleckman, and members of the City Council: Your comments to the hearing this evening have somewhat altered what I in- tended to say relative to the item before you. As you know, you've accepted a lot of information for both the Planning Commission and you as a City Council, and you no doubt would like to wait to hear from the new Planning Director at such time as that individual is hired. The comments Donald L. Bren Company would have made were relative to the -- shall I say -- static position of the adoption of a general- plaLi., At a later date, as you may well. know, the Bren Company is,Tfi co-opera't :on with Transun4on Company out of Qhicago, Illinois, will be builder developersof., what you'refer to as the Home Savings and Loan on the property on the hills south.of West Covina. The developer and also the Transunion Company could prepare a plan and give information to the city at a later.date, and then go through the process of amending the plan since you have already indicated the possibility of the continuance of this plan. Perhaps the simple thing for me to do would be to indicate the Bren Company and Transunion Company anticipate they will have some ;oonclusiv.'e;� statements or information to provide to your decision making process; shall I say within a period of 90 days if you would anticipate a continuance to that degree of time. I think Mr. Aiassa may have some im- pute'-con.cerning%taff problems and so forth; but if you are considering continuance, then there's no -further need for any comments at this particular time. Motion by Councilman Nichols, seconded by Councilman Lloyd, and carried to hold over Master Plan of Streets to December 8, 1969. PRECISE PLAN LOCATION: Southwesterly corner NO. 571 CHARLES of California Avenue and Walnut CAVUOTO Creek Parkway. REQUEST: Approval of a Precise Plan of design for a figure salon and reducing lounge. Recommended by Planning Commission Resolution No. 2155. Called up by City Council on June 9, 1969. Hearing held open and continued to this date. Review • Engineer's Report. Motion by Councilman Gillum, seconded by Councilman Lloyd to take Precise Plan No. 571 off calendar indefinitely until request by applicant. - 35 - 9/8/69 thirty-six ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Mayor Gleckman: We will now go to G-1, which is Oral Communications. That is the part within this particular agenda where anyone in the audience this evening would like to speak regarding any matter whatsoever. He may address the Council by stepping up to the micro- phone and giving his name and address. He will be permitted to speak three minutes. B. R. Barnett I was before the Council a few months 123 West Rexwood ago talking about the West Covina West Covina Disposal Company. It seemed to help for a little while, but I have two pictures, one on August 15, showing the drums again blocking the driveway, so again you have to move the drums back where you have a concrete apron where you put them. Again, on September 6, with the .car in the driveway -- so,,to get out of the driveway you have the same problem as you had before. Mr. Lloyd brought up a good point as far as I am concerned: Competition. Why do we have a monopoly? This trashy trash outfit -- why can't we have a choice of who we want by getting some other company in here and letting the people have a choice. We have anti -litter laws. These people invariably load their dumpers up to the point of overflowing. Then, they try to dump it. Where does it go =- on the streets. I think it's about time the City Council does something. If you want to see these pictures of the street, you could show them to them or whatever you want to do, because I have,got to,the point where I am about to shoot some;_.of, their .st,u.pid Mexicans, u. Mayor Gleckman: We wouldn't advise that, but we would • like to have the pictures so we can take the matter up with them. R. W. Smith I don't like to sound like a broken record, 1216 South Sunkist but I have been on a vacation the last West Covina two weeks. When we got back, it seems our barn situation.on Merced is worsened -We have ten head of horses now, instead of the five.we did have. They have done a little bit of cleaning up; but now, we have mice and mi_c'sdroppings The situation overall seems to be worse. So, I just wanted to stay with it, and see that we are getting something done. Mayor Gleckman: I hope the staff is cognizant of what is going on. We have been fighting this thing for quite some time. Mr. Wakefield: I hope to seek an injunction by next week. Councilman Nichols: Relative to the oral communication from Mr.,Barnett, I would think that it would be appropriate for the Council to direct Mr. Barnett to some source where he might achieve an answer to his complaint; but whether it would be an answer to his satisfaction or not is something -yet to be determined. Could we direct the City Manager or the office of the City Manager to get in touch with Mr. Barnett to register his complaint in detail? - 36 - 9/8/69 'ORAL COMMUNICATIONS (Cont'd.) thirty-seven • CJ 0 Mr. Aiassa: CITY MANAGER CONTRACT FOR MINUTES CLERK SERVICES Let me have the pictures. Mr. Aiassa: I think we would like to proceed after the lst.bf.October. We have made arrangements. If she is willing to take all the meetings of all the various Commissions and there is a provision if she doesn't work out satisfac- tori:ly, we have a cancellation .,p-ovision in the contract Motion by Councilman Gillum,. seconded by Councilman.qhappell;, and..carr ed to approve contract with Nancy Beardsley for minutes clerk services. BALDWIN PARK GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT Motion by Councilman Gillum, seconded by Councilman Chappell, and carried to refer Baldwin Park General Plan Amendment to Planning Commission. 1 MONTHLY STATUS REPORT SAN BERNARDINO FREEWAY WIDENING Mr. Aiassa gave a brief report to Council. Motion by Councilman Gillum, seconded by Councilman Lloyd, and carried to receive and file Monthly Status Report on the San Bernardino Freeway widening. GALSTER PARK FINAL PRELIMINARY PLANS Mr-.L.j5har,fmgan.- made a very thorough presentation to Council regarding the services and facilities of Gals.ter Park. He further explained this recreational facility with displayed slides drawings of the park. Motion by Councilman Gillum, seconded by Councilman Lloyd to approve the preliminary plans_as outlined in the terms of the agreement. Motion was passed on roll call vote as follows: AYES: Councilman Gillum, Gleckman. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. Nichols, Chappell, Lloyd, Mayor - 37 - 9/8/69 thirty-eight .CITY MANAGER (Cont'd.) • BASSETT SCHOOL DISTRICT AGREEMENT FOR RECREATION'.SERVICES Motion by.Councilman Gillum, seconded by Councilman Chappell, and carried to approve the Bassett School District Agreement for Recreation Services. EARTH WORK FOR HELIPORT SITE Councilman Nichols: It just strikes me as being a little bit like the cart before the horse. We scheduled a hearing to decide whether or not we are officially to decide whether or not to go ahead and authorize the use in the city. We changed the landscaping and prepared for the facility,and it seems a little strange in a -way. Councilman Lloyd: Mr. Mayor, I concur with, and I think Mr. Nichols has a very valid point, and I'm sorry .:for the rush approach on the thing. However, I did hear from Mr. Cable,tod.ay, but I think it's appropriate at this time. I don't hold the letter right now from him or Los Angeles Airways, wherein the FAA has approved this heliport installation, which of course, in no way affects the final decision of this Council. In addition to that, the people from L.A..'Airways in talking both to staff and myself and some of the other people have indicated that in order —to get into the official airline guide, they have to go ahead and cgmm t'.on:t I explained this very fully to L. A. Airways -that they don't have the authority from this Council. Motion by Councilman Gillum, seconded by Councilman Lloyd to make an amendment to read if the Council is favorable to the heliport site on the 22nd, to develop such site. • Motion passed on roll call vote as follows: AYES: Councilman. Gillum, Nichols, Chappell, Lloyd, Mayor Gleckman. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. AUTHORIZATION OF PLANNING COMMISSION TO GO TO LEAGUE MEETING IN SAN FRANCISCO Mr. Aiasso: It pertains to the authorization that you allowed certain.commissions to go to the league, and it appeared we have not quite budgeted sufficiently. I believe it was to be three or fourt members, but it seems now, we are funning five members across the board. Mayor Gleckman: Mr. A.iassa, what commissions are you referring to? I have asked the Council for the Planning Commission. Mr. Aiasso: That's the one. Is anyone from Parks and . Recreation going? Mayor Gleckman: There is only one that is actually lacking, and we would have to authorize the $350.00 more for the two commissioners. 9/8/69 ;CITY MANAGER (Cont'd.) thirty-nine Motion by Councilman Lloyd, seconded by Councilman Chappell that the Planning Commission attend the league meeting in San Francisco. Motion was passed on roll call vote as follows: AYES: Councilman Gillum, Nichols, Chappell, Lloyd, Mayor Gleckman. NOES: None. ABSENT: :.None . ACCIDENT CLAIM: JUNE 23, 1969 AT WEST COVINA MUNICIPAL POOL Mrs. Preston: We have had a bodily injury claim arise from an accident on June 23, 1969 at the West Covina Municipal Pool where an ankle was sprained. Motion was made by Councilman Lloyd, seconded by Councilman Gillum, and carried to deny claim and refer t.o:-insurance company. CITY CLERK Mayor Gleckman: Madam City Clerk, do you have anything else to add? Mrs. Preston: No. MAYOR' S REPORTS COMMITTEE APPOINTMENTS September. .through December, 1969. Councilman Nichols: Some years ago I mentioned -- and I think you -remember, I forget even to refresh your memory recently -- the first of and third Wednesdays of the months are my PTA nights. The PTA is one of the only two obligatory nights in the month. Mayor Gleckman: Is there any one of the members of the Council that would care to volunteer for the Planning Commission.'s first and third Wednesday? Councilman Chappell: What does he want to take the School Board.-_. _- Mayor Gleckman: I don't think it would be really appropriate, but I'll tell you what I would do. Councilman Lloyd: I don't see any reason why Councilman Nichols can't go to the School Board. • I think he's probably capable of interpreting the actions of the School Board. Councilman Nichols: I would prefer to remain friends with the School Board. Mayor Gleckman: I might make a suggestion: Councilman Gi 1 lum . - 39 - 9/8/69 Foray MAYOR'S REPORTS (Contd.) Councilman Gillum: How much is it worth? Councilman Nichols: I will carry the assignment. Mayor Gleckman: No.' Let's work it out. Councilman Niclols to the Recreation and Parks Commission, and Councilman Gillum to the Planning Commission. PROCLAMATIONS: "CONSTITUTION WEEK" - SEPTEMBER 17 - 23, 1969 and "RED CROSS DISASTER WEEK OF HELP" SEPTEMBER 13 - 19, 1969 were so proclaimed by Mayor Gleckman. ADVANCE REGISTRATION CONGRESS OF CITIES Mayor Gleckman: Oh, that's for the league meeting in San Diego. Mr. Aiassa: That's right, Mr. Mayor. Does the Council wish to have a second delegate? Councilman Gillum: Do we have to decide this? Mayor Gleckman: Let's hold it over. Motion by Councilman Gillum, seconded by Councilman Lloyd, and carried to hold over advance registration of Congress of Cities. • TRAFFIC SIGNAL AT LARK ELLEN AND CAMERON AVENUE Mayor Gleckman: Mr. Aiassa, I have one comment, and that is, I would appreciate if the Traffic Department would look into the traffic light at Lark Ellen and Cameron coming up, going south -- north and south -- on Lark Ellen. That light is an awful short light, and if it allows more than one car to go through without the other getting hit, we are very lucky. So, I think it should be regulated so that it has maybe equal time, or at least a yellow light before the red comes on. But, it's a problem. Councilman Nichols: It's terrible, absolutely terrible. Mayor Gleckman: And the other one, is I wish would -- I have had some people complain and request -- the necessity for_�,some type of signal at the corner of Service and California. We have many people crossing there and the traffic has increased greatly. Let them come back to us for the recommendation. COUNCIL COMMITTEE REPORTS • SISTER CITY BUDGET (Nichols and Lloyd) Councilman Lloyd: Mr. Nichols and I have attended several meetings from the people of Sister City and I would like to say that we are very much in favor of this program. I think a great deal could be done on it. At the present moment there seems to be the question as to what - 40 - • • 9/8/69 forty-one COUNCIL COMMITTEE REPORTS (Cont'd.) By Councilman Lloyd (Cont'd.) the specific plans for the ensuing merger will be, and it was recommended by myself, and concurred in by Councilman Nichols, that perhaps we should fund this as the requirements are provided by Sister City Program, other than going ahead and just finding,:a normal fund into it. There- fore, we are recommending to the Council that we do away with this funding at the present moment, and then as they need funds they can come forward to the Council, and these will be approved on request. There was a question with regard to the timing that perhaps they would have to have funds instantaneously. It's of such nature as they formulate their programs. They have adequate time to get the funds that are needed. Therefore, it is recommended that no fund be made at this time. ACTUARY FROM STATE ON EMPLOYEE RETIREMENT Councilman Gillum: I would like to inform the Council we have received information on the Actuary from the state on this employee retire- ment. The committee is planning a meeting Friday, and I hope to have some type of a report back to the Council by the next regular meeting. COVINA RE WATER PROBLEM Councilman Gillum: Mr. Aiassa: and we will have a little more STREET DEPARTMENT REPORT One question of Mr. Aiassa: What have we decided, Mr. Aiassa, in our negotia- tions with the City of Covina and the water problem`? We are waiting for them to bring forth a proposal. Mr. Wakefield and I have, discussed it before I went on vacation to report to the Council next meeting. Councilman Nichols: Mr. Aiassa, I was very impressed with the comprehensive Street Department'report that came through in my mail. That was the best and most thoroughly done report of any that I have seen of its type since I have been on the Council and certainly a very extensive volume of work by the department. I hope that you would pass along to Mr. Wolfe that I thought he did a very fine job. POLICE DEPARTMENT AUCTION 9/27 Councilman Nichols: I would like to have benefit of consulting with you, Mr. Aiassa and sharing with you some views that I have about the Police Department,'s auction which is scheduled for the 27th of the month if you saw fit to take advantage of my wisdom. That's all. . Mayor Gleckman: I agree with your comments on the report, also. I thought the report was excellent. Councilman Lloyd: I have nothing to report. - 41 - 9/8/69 forty-two %COUNCIL COMMITTEE REPORTS (Cont'd.) A PROCLAMATION FOR JUNIOR VARSITY FOOTBALL CONFERENCE WEEK COMMENCING 9/15 Councilman Chappell: 1-would like to have the Council proclaim the week of September 5th as Junior • Football Conference, and a proclamation for their use. Mayor Gleckman: If there is no objection I would so proclaim. SPECIAL HEARING 9/22 FOR J. A. CLOUSER Mayor Gleckman: I have a letter that we received from J. A. Clouser, 1305 West Service Avenue. It was special delivery. I would like, if possible, to put this on the public hearing of 9/22 since it has got to do with the helicopters site. It should be part of written communications. APPROVE DEMANDS Motion by Councilman Chappell, seconded by Councilman Gillum authorizing payment of demands totaling $274,227.39 as listed on Demand Sheets C-644 through C-647 and Payroll Reimbursement Sheet. Motion passed on roll call vote as follows: AYES: Councilman Gillum, Gleckman. NOES: None. 40 ABSENT: None. ADJOURNMENT Nichols, Chappell, Lloyd, Mayor Mqtion by Councilman Chappell, seconded by Councilman Lloyd, and carried that at 11:40 P. M. this meeting adjourned to September 22, 1969 at 7:30 P. M. Respectfully submitte y X. lN�le, Reporter OFFICIAL SEAL o rM GAY J. NOBLE $ NOTARY PUBLIC CALIFORNIA • LCIS ANGELES COUNTY u.om+`r MyCommissionExpiresAug.18,1973 • 1G4 Brisbane St., Monrovia, Calif. 91016 - 42 -