The URL can be used to link to this page

03-09-1981 - Regular Meeting - Minutes0 • M I N U T E S REGULAR "1EETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL CITY OF l�!EST COVINA, CALIFORNIA March 9, 1981 The regular meeting of the City Council of the City of 14est Covina was called to order by Mayor Shearer at 7:30 PM in the City Hall Council Chambers, 1444 W. Garvey Avenue, West Covina, California. The Pledge of Alleqiance was led by Councilman Chappell and the invocation was given by Father Ray Smith of '.St. Martha's Episcopal Church. ROLL CALL Present: Mayor Shearer, Mayor Pro Tem Tice, Councilmembers Chappell and Tennant Absent: Councilman Bacon (due to illness) Others Present: Mooney, Fast, Newton, Thomas, Miller, Eliot, Salazar, Hunter, Fowler, Wolff, R. Holmes, Meacham,.McClelland, Pryor, Keating, Varela, Yoshizaki, Berry APPROVAL OF MINUTES Motion by Tice, seconded by Chappell, and unanimously carried to approve the Minutes of the regular meeting held February 23, 1981. CONSENT CALENDAR Written Communications Calif. Regional !,later Compliance Inspection Report for BKK Class I Landfill Control Board, L.A. received February 12, 1981. (receive and file) County Sanitation Notices received of public hearings to be held on April 2 Districts and 8 re sanitation rates. (receive and file) Planninq Commission Summary of Action of March 4, 1981. (accept and file) Recreation and Park Commission Summary of Action of February 24, 1981. (accept and file) Human Resources Commission Summary of Action of February 26, 1981. (accept and file) ABC Applications (Chief of Police reports no legal basis for protest) Sav-On Drugs, Inc. dba S.AV-ON DRUGS, INC. 3650 S. Nogales St. 3650 S. Nogales St. West Covina !Jest Covina Visit Thongsiri • 839 S. Redlen Avenue Whittier Lorraine & William Ormsby 3831 Gilman Road El Monte dba, VISIT LIQUOR'BARREL 1827 W. Badillo Street !lest .Covina dba CHAPARRAL 642 S. Sunset Avenue I -lest Covina Claims for Action (Deny and notify claimant) Marciela Montezuma Filed a claim on February 13, 1981, for property damages amountinq.to $381.36. • • Y CITY COUNCIL MINUTES March 9, 1981 Page Two James Comaroto Filed an application to file a late claim on February 9, 1981, amounting to $1104.00. Acceptances of Improvements and/or Release of Bonds SP-81023 Location: Merced and Shasta, east of Hollenbeck BACKHOE JERRY, INC. Staff recommends accepting trenching and backfill and releasing Faithful Performance Bond for $5,557.50. Unclassified Use Permit Location: Northwest corner of Azusa and Puente No. 224 Staff recommends acceptinn street and sewer improvements OLIVE TREE TERRACE a'nd acknowledging completion of grading, and releasing the Faithful Performance Bond for $17,700. Southwest Sururban Rate Increase informational Review Engineer's Report. receive and file) CONSENT CALENDAR MOTION Motion by Chappell, seconded by Tice to approve all items listed on the Consent Calendar. Motion carried by roll call vote: AYES: Tennant, Chappell, Tice, Shearer NOES: None ABSENT: Bacon ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Comments to items under Oral Communications CLOSED David Rosen, 2829 Rosemary, West Covina, stated that he had just opened a business in West Covina on East Garvey Avenue and had been informed that his business lion did not conform to Municipal Code requirements. He stated the Planning Department had offered two options for his consideration, but that both were too expensive for him. Rosen submitted pictures of his business and sign. Leslie Cooke, 2724 Miranda, blest Covina, stated that the residents around the landfill were still complaining of odors. City Attorney Newton outlined the procedures for a variance from the sign regulations. Mr. Rosen was en- couraged to speak with Acting Planning Director Mike Miller regarding the variance process and fees. AWARD OF BIDS 1) VEHICLE MAINTENANCE BUILDING - GP 80031 Council reviewed staff's report. Vehicle Maintenance bldg. Motion by Chappell, seconded by Tennant to award GP 80031 the project to McALPINE CONSTRUCTION, INC., Paramount, McALPINE.CONSTRUCTION in the amount of $406,987.00 and authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute the agreement. Motion car- ried by roll call vote: AYES: Tennant, Chappell, Tice, Shearer NOES: None ABSENT: Bacon 2) AD 80-1 PROSPERO DRIVE ASSESSMENT DISTRICT Ad 80-1 Prospero Council reviewed staff's report. Drive Assessment Dist. Motion by Tice, seconded by Tennant, and unani- mously carried to reject all bids received at the bid opening of February 17, 1981. - 2 - • • CITY COUNCIL MINUTES March 9, 1981 Page Three 3) BID NO. 81-97 ONE -TON TRUCK AND ONE DUMP TRUCK Bid No. 81-97 Council reviewed staff's report. Motion by Tennant, seconded by Tice to a) authorize One -ton truck: the transfer of $1,238.85 from the 812-61 account to LEO HOFFMAN CHEVROLET the 853-61 account, b) award Bid No. 81-97 for a one - .Industry, CA ton truck to Leo Hoffman Chevrolet in the amount of Dump truck: $11,438.86, including tax, c) authorize the transfer PECK ROAD FORD TRUCK SALES of $4,509.66 from the 812-61 account to the 853-61 Whittier, CA account, and d) award Bid No. 81-97 for a dump truck to Peck Road Ford Sales, Inc. in the amount of $16,509.66, including tax. Motion carried by roll call vote: AYES: Tennant, Chappell, Tice, Shearer NOES: None ABSENT: Bacon 4) BID NO. 81-96 A TWO -THREE TON ROLLER Bid No. 81-96 Council reviewed staff's report. Motion by Tennant, seconded by Chappell to award Two -three ton roller: the bid for a two -three ton roller to Adco Equipment ADCO EQUIPMENT INC. Inc., La Puente, in the amount of $10,508.20 (net 3% discount), including tax. Motion carried by roll call vote: AYES: Tennant, Chappell, Tice, Shearer NOES: None ABSENT: Bacon PUBLIC WORKS 1) PARCEL MAP NO.-13674 - APPROVAL OF FINAL MAP - PHIL MASON " Final Parcel Map Approval Location: Northeast quadrant Francisquito & Willow No. 13674 Council reviewed Engineer's Report. PHIL MASON CityAttorney y presented: RESOLUTION NO. 6282 a- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF 14EST COVINA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING FINAL MAP OF PARCEL MAP NO. 13674 Motion by Tice, seconded by Chappell, and unani- Adoption of mously carried to waive further reading of the reso- .:Resolution No. 6282a lution and to adopt. 2) UNCLASSIFIED USE PERMIT.224 - VACATION AND QUITCLAIM OF SANITARY SEWER EASEMENT - OLIVE TREE TERRACE Unclassified Use Permit 224 Location: Northwest quadrant Azusa & Puente Avenues OLIVE TREE TERRACE Council reviewed Engineer's Report. City Attorney presented: Resolution No. 6283 RESOLUTION NO. 6283 - A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF 14EST COVINA, CALIFORNIA, VA- CATING AND ABANDONING A SANITARY SEWER EASEMENT WHICH HAS BEEN SUPERSEDED BY RELOCATION Resolution No. 6284 RESOLUTION NO. 6284 - A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF WEST COVINA, CALIFORNIA, RES- CINDING RESOLUTION NO. 6013 AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND CITY CLERK TO EXECUTE A CORPORATION QUITCLAIM DEED IN FAVOR OF OLIVE TREE TERRACE Motion by Chappell, seconded by Tice, and unani- Adoption of mously carried to waive further reading of the reso- �.foregoing resol.utions lutions and to adopt. - 3 - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES March 9, 1981 Page Four 3) ISLAND ANNEXATIONS - PROPOSED STREET LIGHTING INSTAL- LATIONS #Proposed lighting for Location: East of Citrus, south of San Bernardino island annexations. Freeway in the vicinty of Francisquito and Willow Council reviewed Engineer's Report. Motion by Tice, seconded by Tennant, and unanimously carried to authorize the City Engineer to conduct informational -meetings and/or a post card survey as appropriate to determine the interest of residents of the island annexations concerning the installation of street lighting. 4) CITYWIDE STREET LIGHTING AND LANDSCAPING DISTRICT NO. 1981-82 .- RENEWAL Location:, Citywide Resolution re renewal of Council reviewed Engineer's Report. citywide street lighting City Attorney presented: & maintenance district RESOLUTION.NO. 6285 - A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY 1981ten COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF WEST COVINA, CALIFORNIA, ORDER- ING THE CITY ENGINEER TO PREPARE AND FILE A REPORT IN ACCORDANCE WITH ARTICLE 4, CHAPTER 1, PART 2, "LAND- SCAPING AND LIGHTING ACT OF 1972, BEING DIVISION 15, STREETS AND HIGHWAYS CODE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ORDERING CERTAIN STREET LIGHTING FIXTURES AND APPUR- TENANCES TO -BE INSTALLED, ELECTRICAL ENERGY AND MAIN- TENANCE TO BE FURNISHED FOR ALL STREET LIGHTS THROUGH- OUT THE CITY, AND FOR THE FURNISHING OF LANDSCAPING MAINTENANCE, APPURTENANCES AND APPURTENANT WORK IN THE CITY OF WEST COVINA, CALIFORNIA, AS SHOWN ON PLAN AND DIAGRAM NO. 1981-82, FOR THE FISCAL YEAR COMMENCING JULY 1, 1981 AND ENDING JUNE 30, 1982 WEST COVINA STREET LIGHTING AND LANDSCAPING MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 1981-82 Motion by Chappell, seconded by Tice, and unani- Adoption of mously carried to waive further reading of the reso- Resolution No. 6285 lution and to adopt. a 5) WOODSIDE VILLAGE LANDSCAPING MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 4 - 1981-82 RENE14AL `,Resolution re renewal of Location: West', of Azusa Avenue, north & south of Woodside Village land- Amar Road scape maintenance dis- Council reviewed Engineer's Report. trict No. 4 CityAttorney presented: RESOLUTION NO. 6286 - A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF WEST COVINA, CALIFORNIA, ORDER- ING THE CITY ENGINEER TO PREPARE AND FILE A REPORT IN ACCORDANCE WITH ARTICLE 4, CHAPTER 1, PART 2, "LAND- SCAPING AND HIGHWAY ACT OF 1972% BEING DIVISION 15, STREETS AND HIGHWAYS CODE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, FOR THE INSTALLATION OF LANDSCAPING AND THE MAINTENANCE THEREOF IN THE CITY OF WEST COVINA, CALIFORNIA, FOR THE FISCAL YEAR COMMENCING ON JULY 1, 1981, AND ENDING JUNE 30, 1982 Adoption of WEST COVINA WOODSIDE VILLAGE LANDSCAPING MAINTENANCE Resolution No. 6286 DISTRICT NO. 4 (1981-82) Motion by Chappell, seconded by Tennant, and unani- mously carried to waive further reading of the resolu- tion and to adopt. -4- CITY COUNCIL MINUTES March 9, 1981 Page Five • 6) MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 7 - CONTRACT FOR ASSESSMENT ENGINEERING SERVICES - PONDEROSA HOMES Assessment Engineering Location: South of Citrus and easterly thereof Services - Pat. Rossetti Council reviewed Engineer's Report. Main. Dist. No. 7 Motion by Tice, seconded by Chappell to authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute the agreement with Patrick N. Rossetti for assessment engineering services for Maintenance District No. 7. Motion carried by roll call vote: AYES: Tennant, Chappell, Tice, Shearer NOES: None ABSENT: Bacon COMMISSIONS & DEPARTMENTAL ITEMS RECREATION AND PARK COMMISSION GRANT APPLICATIONS FOR PARK DEVELOPMENT Council reviewed staff's report. Motion by Tice, seconded by Chappell to a) approve the Grant Applications following projects: for park development Friendship Park Security Lighting . Del Norte Tennis Courts Woodgrove Park - Phase I Development Shadow Oak Concession/Storage Facility Shadow Oak Athletic Lighting and b) approve the following allocation of matching funds from Park Dedication Fees: Friendship Park - $10,000 Del Norte Park - $15,000 Motion carried by roll call vote: AYES: Tennant, Chappell, Tice, Shearer .NOES: None ABSENT: Bacon City Attorney presented three resolutions: Resolution No. 6287 RESOLUTION NO. 6287 - A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF 14EST COVINA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING THE APPLICATION FOR GRANT FUNDS UNDER THE ROBERTI-Z'BERG URBAN OPEN 'SPACE -AND RECREATION PROGRAM - FIFTH & SIXTH YEARS Resolution No. 6288 RESOLUTION NO. 6288 - A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF +JEST COVINA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING THE APPLICATION FOR GRANT FUNDS UNDER THE ROBERTI-Z'BERG URBAN OPEN SPACE AND RECREATION PROGRAM BOND Resolution No. 6289, RESOLUTION NO. 6289 - A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF WEST COVINA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING THE APPLICATION FOR GRANT FUNDS UNDER THE 1980 PARKLANDS BOND ACT Motion by Tice, seconded by Chappell, and unanimously Adoption of carried to waive further reading of the resolutions and to foregoing resolutions adopt. - 5 - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES March 9, 1981 Page Six • POLICE DEPARTMENT POLICE CANINE UNIT PROPOSAL Council reviewed staff's report. Council comments sup- ported the proposal. Police canine unit Motion by Tice, seconded by Chappell to authorize the approved Chief of Police to transfer approximately $15,000 in un- expended funds in the existing police budget to implement a canine program consisting of two specifically bred and trained dogs. Motion carried by roll call vote: AYES: Tennant, Chappell, Tice, Shearer NOES: None ABSENT: Bacon PERSONNEL DEPARTMENT IMPLEMENTATION OF AMENDMENTS TO PERSONNEL RULES AND MASTER CLASSIFICATION AND COMPENSATION .RESOL`UTION Council reviewed staff's report. Amendments to personnel City Attorney presented: rules and master RESOLUTION NO. 6290 - A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL classification reso. OF THE CITY OF WEST COVINA, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING THE MASTER CLASSIFICATION AND COMPENSATION RESOLUTION NO. 1277 RE- LATING TO ACTING PAY FOR SWORN POLICE EMPLOYEES, ACTING ASSIGNMENTS IN.THE FIRE_ DEPARTMENT, AUTHORITY TO REQUIRE A PHYSICIAN'S CERTIFICATE, AUTHORITY TO REQUIRE A PHYSICAL EXAMINATION, COURT STANDBY PAY FOR S14ORN POLICE EMPLOYEES, ANNUAL SICK LEAVE PAYOFF PROGRAM; AND ALSO AMENDING THE PERSONNEL RULES AS THEY. RELATE TO UNAUTHORIZED LEAVE .AND AUTOMATIC TERMINATION Motion by Chappell, seconded by Tennant, and unani- Adoption of mously carried to waive further reading of the resolution Resolution No. 6290 and to adopt. FINANCE DEPARTMENT 1) ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION DECLARING VARIOUS ITEMS OF CITY PROPERTY AS SURPLUS Disposal of suplus City Council reviewed ,staff's report. Council clarified items- that the particular items listed in the resolution would be disposed of through governmental agencies, rather than through an auction. City Attorney presented: RESOLUTION NO. 6291 - A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF WEST COVINA, CALIFORNIA, DE- CLARING'VARIOUS ITEMS OF CITY PROPERTY AS SURPLUS Motion by Tice, seconded by Chappell, and unani- Adoption of mously carried to waive further reading of the reso- Resolution No. 6291 lution and to adopt. HEARINGS The hour of 8:00 PM having arrived, Mayor Shearer announced that it was the time and place to consider the scheduled hearings. 1) APPEAL OF PRECISE PLAN NO. 746 AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 1980=1 (.VERBATIM TRANSCRIPTION) 6 _ VERBATIM TRANSCRIPTION City Council Minutes March 9, 1981 HEARINGS Precise Plan;of Design No. 746 Environmental Impact Report- No. 1980-1 Shapell Government Housing, Inc. Request: Applicant is requesting approval of a precise plan of design for an 81-ui2it apartment complex on a 6.11-acre.site in the Low Density (MF-15) and Medium: Density (MF-20).Multiple Family Zones. Location: Easterly end of Aroma Dr-Lve north of Ga lster Wilderness Park. Development Services Director Mi".e Miller presented the staff report. Mayor Shearer asked if, there were questions from the Council. Tennant: What is.the density per acre of the neigh- boring units? Miller: The neighboring units `are approximately 14 to 15 units per acre. Tennant: 14 or 151, and this is 13? Miller: Yes. Tennant: That is number one, and number cwo, at -the Planning Commission hearings -in January, residents'- the area asked that.a number of things be done, including the wall, and, I believe, the swinim,ing pool, and a number of things'. Was there anything that they asked to have done that.has not been done'? Miller: The only things that were asked that were not done, to Trey knowledge, were the deed for additional traffic studies,,rioise studies and items .of that nature, as pertains o physical or drainage studies. As it pertains to a physical element- in this project, it -was required by the Planning Commission. Tennant: Could you refresh for my memory what those major things were that the residents in the area asked for at tha : time. Miller: The first item was to address the noise consideration... Tennant: I am to piing about the physical structure. — I` ': — 7` City Council Minutes March 9, 1981 • Miller: The physical structure, I am leading to that. The six,foot high masonry wall at the top of the slope above this project to help miti- gate the noise was a condition added by the Planning Commission unless waived by the property owner because the property owner may have a wall or fence he desires. In addition, we required additional landscaping to address noise. Secondly, the swimming pool to be located in the project for adults and children was added as a result of a request. The renter's awareness package to notify renters, if possible, was a requirement to address the mitigation, or to help mitigate, air pollution. There was a requirement added that there shall be prepared a drainage plan to the satisfaction of the City Engineer to adequately eliminate any foreseeable impact of storm run-off on adjacent property. That was added in response to a request of the homeowners. And, the landscaping plan, again, regarding the treatment of the northerly slope, which also was in response to the concerns raised by the residents. Tice.: Maybe I better ask this question so that the proponents of the project can maybe answer it during the course of their presentation. Shearer: Go ahead. Tice: Do we have any specifics as far as the drainage situation? You mentioned that there are require- ments. Does that have to do with the capacity of the drainage, and so forth? Miller: At this point in time, no. Tice: So, there is nothing on that. Miller: Nothing in precise terms, they are just... Tice: They have had some flooding problems up there in the northeast area in the past years. Miller: They would be required to address or accept that water entering the site at that location and satisfactorily disposing of it on Aroma Drive. Tice: Down Aroma Drive, or through the drain? Miller: Through the drain. • �J City Council Minutes March 9, 1981 Tice: Through the drain. The Lot lot, is that over here by the... Where about is the tot lot located? Miller: Right in here. This is the tot lot. The pool is over here. Tice: That is 7,500 square foot? Miller: The pool is over 750 square feet. Tice: 750. Is there any mention in there about a recreation building during the Planning Commission hearing? Miller: To my knowledge, no. Tice: Alright. Do you have a little more information regarding the elevation. The one blueprint that we have doesn't show too much. Miller: As far as the specific materials used on the elevation?. Tice: Well, the colors and so forth. Miller: I think the applicant might be able to address that more precisely than I could. Tice: Okay. And, has anything been done in the way of talking to the RTD about public transporta- tion in that particular area? Miller: At this point in time, there has been.no dis- cussion. Tice: I see. That is all the questions I have at this time. I might have some more later. Tennant: I have one more question. I am :a little con- cerned that you haven't made more comment about traffic because we have all of this commercial development going into the front end.of Aroma Drive, and that thoroughfare doesn't go through. What about all of this traffic? To put more units at all along Aroma right now, can that street carry that? Miller: At the time the San Jose Hills development to the east was considered and the Aroma • • City Council Minutes March 9, 1981 connector was analyzed as a means of servicing that area, we did a complete traffic analysis of the impact of the San Jose Hills.development and at a full development of the Aroma Drive area at its maximum density. This included the commercial on the corner of Aroma and Azusa, and assumes all projects, or all vacant land on Aroma, would achieve the maximum density, which was 15 units to the acre, which is not the case. At that time, it was determined that the width of.Aroma Drive was adequate to address and handle the traffic satisfactorily. The one matter that needed to be addressed or added as a physical improvement was the signal at Aroma and Azusa, and that is now in operation. At the time we did the San Jose Hills development, we did a complete traffic analysis for this area as well as the San Jose Hills development, and it conformed to City codes, City standards, Tice: I have one additional question, Mr. Mayor. Shearer: Councilman Tice. Tice: Has any discussion been held with the developer with regard to relocation of the guest parking, or is that... Miller: Yes, we have. We are faced with a number of alternatives. We could work out a way of doing it. The one problem that we,were faced with was trying to provide the security devices that were desired and felt needed in this particular project to protect the project, as well as, you know, adequate on -site parking spaces. That certainly can be modified. It would be difficult. The location that we have worked out at this point in time is consistent with the security devices and the locations for same. As I indicated in my Staff presentation, there are other projects that have similar situations where the guest parking is on -site behind the security gates, and there is no significant parking problem, or any greater significant parking problem than in other apart- ment projects that we are aware of. Tice: I think that is all I have for now. Chappell: Mr. Mayor, I have one comment.. There is one pool in this project, and it is about 18' x 40'. Basically, it is about the size of a good pool in the backyard. I would say some studies should be done. There would be about 81 families using the pool, and it doesn't really look to me like phis pool is going to be any- where near adequate to service these families. Seeing as there is only one pool in the project, i think we should hear some- thing about enlargening that pool �to the point where more than just a backyard pool is going to be placed in this project. \ -1I0 - City Council Minutes March 9, 1981 Shearer: Before I entertain any more questions, I am going to ask the City Attorney if these questions are proper to be asked now, or if we should wait for the hearing to be conducted. Is there any -problem with asking them now? Attorney: Well, there really isn't a problem in asking them now in that they may provide subject matter for the applicant or the opponents. Shearer: Okay. We will proceed. Are there any other questions? Councilman Tennant? Tennant: Yes, I have seen a rendition of what the apart- ments are to look like at the Planning Commission. Mr. Miller, do you have the pictures of what these will look like, number one, and, do they look any less attractive than any others in the area, and number two, do you have any reason to believe that they will be made of inferior materials to like apartments in the area? Miller: In answer to the first question, we will get the rendering. And, in answer to your second question as to whether or not the attractive- ness of it is any different, the answer is no. In fact, it is probably just as attractive as any other apartment project we have had. And, as far as the materials that would be used as being inferior or possibly being inferior, there is no doubt in my mind that there would not be any inferior materials used in this project. It would be just as good as any other apart- ment project built in this City. Shearer: Any further questions at this time? (None indicated.) Alright then, we will enter into the public portion of our hearing. All testimony will be taken on the matter before us with regard to the precise plan itself, as well as the Environmental Impact Report. If you have specific testimony on the Environ- mental Impact Report and are able to differentiate that from other portions of your testimony, we would appreciate you high- lighting that to enable Staff to take specific note of questions that might be raised because as a matter of our process, those questions must either.be addressed this evening at the close of the hearing, or at a later date, but in any case prior to final action on the Environmental Impact Report. The process for our hearing will be that those who wish to testify in favor of the project will be allowed the opportunity to speak first, followed by those who are opposed, and then a rebuttal period to enable those who are in favor - 11- City Council Minutes of the project the opportunity to r are raised in opposition. I will r City has a three minute limitation believe this evening we will be som viding you ask for it. If you don' get. So, I would encourage you bef mony, if you are going to need more ask and I am sure that within reaso will respond to that request. March 9, 1981 but only those items that peat, by ordinance the n testimony, however, I what liberal on that pro - ask, you probably won't re you start your testi- than three minutes, please , at least, the Council Is there anyone here this evening wishing to testify in favor of the matter before us, the precise plan as well as the Environmental Impact Report? Public Testimony In Favor: Mark Maltzman By proponent, I presume you mean in favor Vice President of the project going ahead as opposed to Shapell Govt. being in favor of the appeal brought forth Housing, Inc. tonight. Shearer: Yes, that is correct. Maltzman: Okay. Mr. Miller, the Planning Director, I think has very lucidly brought forth all of the issues that have revolved around this project for the past many months. What I would like to say to you is that I do have our architect, who is here to answer any questions that either the Council members might have or that might be brought up by anybody raising any comments, and also I would like to submit to the Council a letter regarding the general plan verses zoning issue that seems to have been raised. I would like to say that unless you have any questions immediately, I would reserve any comments that I might make further down the road in response to the questions or comments that anybody else might have. Shearer: Well, I would remind you that now is your opportunity, if you care to, to address any of the questions that have been raised by the City Council. If no one who testifies in opposition 40 raises those same questions, then your opportunity to address them is gone. Maltzman: Well, okay. With respect to some of the questions that you have brought up, one of them is drainage. We have not only had a _12 - City Council Minutes March 9, 1981 soils investigation done with respect to the project, but we have also had surveys and engineering reports that are pretty detailed with respect to the manner in which not only will the property drain, but it will be designed so that there won't be run-off from the property to the other neighbors. Also, I would like to point out that the land is in a state of fill or natural, which is probably the worst possible condition that a piece of land could be in. Right now there are really no measures that have been taken on that land to improve upon any drainage problems. We are aware that there have been drainage problems in the past, and it is our opinion, and the opinion of our civil engineer, that all of those problems will be completely taken care of. There is planned an underground drainage sys- tem paralleling the carports that will take the water from the, I believe it would be the, southeast portion of the site. out to Aroma Drive. Basically, what we have is irrigation throughout the developed portions of the project to see that the things that we plant stay there so that there is no additional erosion. We have also planted all of the areas in the landscape plan, which is, of course, subject to the approval of the Planning Director, as is the grading plan. In addition, I believe the question has been brought up regarding the location of the guest parking spaces. I might point out that this project has probably the most elaborate security system of any project that has been brought forth into the City of West Covina. We are trying to preserve the integrity of that system. The way to do that is to bring the guest spaces into the project, so that is what we have done. We realize that there is the possibility that somebody could park on the street, however, they won't be able to get into the project if he does that. So, we think that is a sufficient deterent. The other thing,,too, is that we have tried to keep the parking for the units close to the units. That is because typically the person who goes out shopping wants to take his groceries into the unit, and he is the one who really needs to have it close by. Therefore, we have tried to put the parking spaces reserved for the tenants close to the units. If anybody has any other questions, why I would be happy to answer them. Shearer: I have a couple of questions, Mr. Maltzman. I am not trying to pick up on words, but you said it was your desire to keep the guest spaces in the project. How do you get the guests into the spaces? Maltzman: Signs. -13- • • City Council Minutes March 9, 1981 Shearer: Well, how do they get through the security gate? If I am going there to visit a friend, how do I get physically into the space,.assuming that it is empty, to park? Maltzman: It will be necessary to have some system set up with management to enable somebody to get into the project. Shearer: Yes, but how do I get to the manager? You said that if I park on the street, I can't get into the project. I can't get into the project by walking. I can't get into the project by driving. How do I get into the project if I am a guest? Maltzman: There will be a way to get into the project. Shearer: I want you to tell me how that is. Maltzman: Through a gate. There will be a gate. Shearer: So, you didn't really mean that if I park on the street... Maltzman: With an intercom system to the manager's unit. Shearer: What if the manager isn't there? What provi- sions will be made? Maltzman: Well, the manager is a full time manager, 24 hours, who will also have an assistant manager, who will be in charge in his absence. Shearer: So the method would be some sort of communica- tion device that is available outside of the perimeter to trigger the manager opening to the guest. Maltzman: Yes. Shearer: Are there any further questions from the Council? Tice: What is the size of that tot lot? Maltzman: That would be something that the architect would have to describe to you. Shearer: Are there any other questions? Tice: I would like to see the elevations. I would like to see that addressed. - 14- City Council Minutes March 9, 1981 • Shearer: Alright. Do you have some pictures you would like to show us? If you don't show them, we are not going to get to see them. It is your time. Maltzman: Well, we have submitted to the Planning Commis- sion and the Staff a rendering... Tice: Have you determined at this point the landscap- ing, the types of shrubs, and so forth that will be planted? Maltzman: Yes, we have delivered to the Planning Director copies of the landscape plan, which set forth the location of each tree, bush, and... Tice: That sounds more descriptive than the blueprint that I have showing the elevation. It would be a little easier to visualize. Maltzman: So, at this point, if there are no other questions... Shearer: Are there any other questions? (None indicated.) Ma ltzman: I would like to introduce the architect, Mr. Tim Smith. Shearer: Alright, Mr. Smith. Tim Smith Regarding the area for the tot lot, I would Architect for guestimate the area to be some place between the Project 800 and 1,000 square feet. That is the area within the area that we define as the tot lot. There is open space all around the tot lot, so there is additional space besides that defined area where there are swings, a sand tot lot, and benches and so forth. I don't know whether the rendering was self- explanatory. I could go into some materials, if you wish. The building basically is more of a Spanish style. It has a Spanish tile roof. The basic material on the body of the building is stucco with wood trim. The balconies are all wood handrails and wood pickets. We think the project is, • in terms of design, as nice a project as there is in West Covina. I think the rendering more or less explains that. In terms of the question on the landscaping on the rendering, there is sort of an artists license when we render these.. The landscaping will be pretty much like this. _15_ City Council Minutes March 9, 1981 However, the landscape plan was developed after the rendering. • The rendering was done relatively early in the stage of the project. I think the only other thing that I might have further comments on would be the drainage system. We have a full underground drainage system, which will collect all of the water from the east of us and the water from on -site will also dump into that system. There will be some surface drainage that will be collected on -site. There will be a secondary sys- tem. But the majority of the drainage will go directly into the underground system, which will connect with the existing system on Aroma Drive. Are there any questions? Shearer: Are there any questions at this time? I have one, Mr. Smith. In your profession, the type of complex here, the size,the number of units, number of bedrooms, and so forth, do you consider the 800 to 1,0.00 square foot tot lot and the approximate'750 square foot swimming pool, in addition to the open space that is provided, do you consider that standard in the types of projecLs,-:.the cross-section of projects, that you have been involved with for family type apartments? Smith: is basically a and... I would say in terms of the open space and the tot lot, that it is standard or above standard. In terms of the pool, the pool requirement passed on by the Planning Commission, Shearer: fessionally been Smith: That wasn't my question. My question was, is the size of the pool consistent on this pro- ject with similar projects that you have pro - involved with. I would say that it is on the small side. Shearer: On the small side. Thank you. Anyone else wishing to testify in favor of the project before us this evening? Mr. L. Brutoco Good evening. I am Louis Brutoco, the owner Brutoco Develop- of the land, who has entered into an agreement ment Corporation with Shapell Housing to build this project. I would like to specifically comment on the removal of parkland, which was brought up at prior hearings. It is referred to as the baseball diamonds. It is not true that the baseball field is being removed or anything else - 16 - City Council Minutes March 9, 1981 or parkland being diminished. For the last 20 years, we have • made available to the'City of West Covina and the residents of this area the free use of the property for recreation, the'Rocket Society, horseback riding, Cub, and Boy Scout Camps, baseball and numerous other recreational projects. There was an urgent need when the San Jose school cancelled the Little League permit to play baseball on the school ground. The parents and the members and friends of theleague built a temporary baseball diamond on our property. It was never considered a permanent baseball facility. From the very beginning, the use of that property was limited`at our discretion until it was deeded. Yes, we deeded 3.4 acres, but besides that, we deeded many, many more. We have dedi- cated more than 45 acres of land for park purposes out of a plan development of 1,91 acres. In.1964, 32.86 acres were dedicated. In 1970, 3.4 acres were dedicated. The last dedication was February, 1976, of 9.66 acres, making a total of 45.9 acres of property, which is over 24% of the original 191 acres.".that we had underdevelopment. Eighty-one units on the 6.11 acres of land, as Shapell Government Housing has proposed, is a fine develop- raent, and will be beneficial to the City of West Covina and its residents. With the approval of the City Council, this fine project will begin and bring a benefit for many years to come If ,yOtc=have .any questions, I would be happy to answer them. Shearer: Are there any questions of Mr. Brutoco? (None indicated.) Thank you, Louis. Anyone else wishing to testify in support of the project before us this evening.? If not, we will close that portion. Anyone here this evening wishing to testify in opposition to the project? Please come forward. P bl-ic Tes r::i ao_r,,, In Opposition: Michael. Jenkins I have been retained by and am here 333 South Hope St. tonight representing a group of resi- Los Angeles, CA dents of the City of West Covina called Act III, a group who has organ- ized in order to be 'involved with and to assure the future development of the Aroma Drive area consistent both with the character of the neighborhood and with the environment. Inasmuch as I am speaking in a repre- _ .17 _ City Council Minutes March 9, 1981 sentative capacity, I would like at this time to request a few • more than the three minutes allotted to me. I assure you I won't talk your ears off. Shearer: What is "a few"? Jenkins: A few is - how about no: -more than ten minutes. Shearer: Fine. Jenkins.: Thank you. I would now like to briefly summar- ize and present to the Council some of the major concerns and problems 'which my clients, other residents of the area, have with respect to the proposed development and which I believe should be brought to the Council's attention as it considers the precise plan. First, and one of the more. -important areas I would like to raise, is the question of the proximity of this apartment complex to the B.K.K. dump site, and the potential health hazards which could arise as a result. There has not been a single document which has demonstrated that there are • no.health hazards connected with the residential development of the area surrounding the dump site. Certainly the E.I.R. which was prepared for this particular project did not address that issue, and to my -knowledge there is no document which discusses that particular concern. It seems to me, and it seems to many residents in the area who already find them- selves living in an area in which there is a potential health hazard, that the placement of new development, the approval of new development with the possibility of placing future residents in a possible health hazard zone is both incautious and unreasonable. Moreover, it seems to us a rather synical approach to the placement of low and moderate income housing in both this community and any community to place that type of housing in such proximity to potential health hazards. Now, there has been, as you all well know, State law inacted with respect to areas surrounding toxic dump sites. And, that law, as the City Attorney has no doubt opined, does not preclude this Council from moving ahead with development approval. However, this Council clearly does have the power, and may clearly exercise the power, to not grant approvals for new development projects in this area until it has been conclusively established that two years, three years, four years down the road there will not arise a significant health • hazard which will require removal of people from this area. And, I would also like to point out in this connection before I move on to my next point, that the Department of Housing and Urban Development and their Environmental Section has not yet approved this project, and it is still studying the environmental consequences of placing this project in such - 18 _ 0 • City Council Minutes proximity to the dump site. The next point th the density question, which has ar General Plan for. :the "'City calls fo 15 units per acre. The zoning is been all along our contention that with the General Plan and should b development approvals so that the consistency with the General Plan, larger, developmental goal of this B91t, beyond that doesn't seem reasonable in calcula site to include unuseable land, hi in calculating the amount of acrea development. If one deducts the e the hillside areas which cannot be slightly under 4 acres left to bui of the apartments, which are on th flat land, e-ceeds the 15 units pe It is for that reason that we have issue and raise it again. March 9, 1981 t I would like to discuss is sen a number of times. The a density of this area of 0 units per acre. It has the zoning is inconsistent revised prior to any oning is brought into which does present the rea . at'ner technical point, it ing the density of this lside areas and easements e which is useable for sements and if one deducts built Ripon, there is d upon. And, the density se less than 4 acres of acre of the General Plan. been raising the density Now, the Environmental Impact Report, we have contended before the Planning Commission and will contend again here, is not adequate. It is concl�sory in approach, does not specifically discuss mitigation rpea�ures for the impacts which have been raised. Some of these impacts will be discussed by a number of other people, and I will not go into them in any greater detail with the exception o the traffic and recrea- tion questions. As far as recreatign is concerned, we quite agree - the pool is too small. The pool was put into the project 'by the Planning Commaission after the Commission unanimously con- cluded that a swimmingpool is apprdpriate for this type of development in the.Cit_y. This pool is not responsive to that need. It is a joke, basically, and will not satisfy the recrea- tional needs of the residents of this proposed project. We would suggest that the plan be taker back and revised so that a pool which is adequate can be plaged in there. In addition, we wound request that the precise plan include conditions establishing time tables for the con- struction of the pool. during the course of the construction of the project so that the apartments are not constructed and then the developer would come back and request a modification of the precise.plan to delete the pool, which he is entitled to do under the Zoning Ordinance. _ 19 _ City Council Minutes • In that connectio table for construction of.the reta which is to be constructed on the of*the property to separate the pr residences so as to reduce noise. • As far as traffic are concerned about the placement the entrance of Galster Park and C street connecting Alpine Drive wit traffic problem has not really bee And, moreover, we quite agree with regarding the placement of guest p is located at the far back to the Not only is it going to be very di the project, but human nature tell a blockade is going to park on Aro street which is in the area, and w a .guest manages to get by the nume by the developer of this project, mobile into the project, human nat park nearest to where they are goi person they are visiting,) and not way to the back of the project and This plan is simply unreasonable i be revised to show guest parking s gate towards the front of the proj off the street and walk into the p project and then park in resident March 9, 1981 1, we would also ask for a time _ping wall, the masonry wall :rest of the hill to the north >perty from the single family and parking is concerned, we f the project driveway at nnection 5, the approved Aroma Drive. This potential addressed or mitigated. some of the concerns raised eking. The guest parking ear of the apartment project. ficult for people to get into us that the person who finds a Drive, or any other surface lk into the project. And, if ous hurdles put in their path nd manages to get their auto - re tells us that they will g (to the apartment of the rive their car all of the then park and get out. that respect and should aces outside the security ct so that the guests park oject, and not get into the arking spaces. I am speaking faster than normal, and I am almost done, and I ha-ren L even used all of my ten minutes. Shearer: Not quite. Jenkins: Right. I am not oing to discuss this final issue in too much detail, but I know that a number of the residents are concerned as citizens and taxpayers of the City of West Covina that there will be government funding on this project, both from the point of::vie:w-_`of the federal government and the City govern- ment possibly in the use of block rant funds. The residents are concerned'about the price or t e value of the property as it compares with comparable property sold in the area. This is a concern I think they will perhaps want to get into more. But, it is a concern and although Staff has indicated that it is not a concern that is involved with the precise plan or the E.I.R., it is certainly something to take into consideration if the price of the property is inflated (it is too high), and if the result is an excessive expenditure of the public money. - 20 - City Council Minutes March 9, 1981 Ire conclusion, I would ask on behalf of the many residents of West Covina who are seriously concerned about both this development and any other development in this vicinity, that the Council take into consideration these concerns, look carefully at the E.I.R., and at the other deficiencies that have been raised and will be raised, and consider sending this back to the Planning Commission for the kind of revision that it really requires, or simply denying the precise plan and the E.I.R. If you have any questions, I would be happy to answer them. Shearer: Any questions of Mr. Jenkins? (None indicated.) None at this time, thank you. You had about a minute to go. This gentleman... I didn't see the lady on the aisle, so she will ,be next. Ken Camerella I don't think I will take more than three minutes. 214.4 Kings Crest I might. There are just three items I_ am going West Covina, CA to address myself to. I would like to discuss some of the concerns that I have regarding Precise Plan No. 746 with the inL-ention that the City Council will deny approval of that plan because of,the following reasons. What was once a beautiful land preserve for the City of West Covina is fast becoming a high density subdivision accompanied by all of the more negative aspects usually associ- ated with high density housing. Specifically, number one, the aesthetic decline in the park. There is no question that a sericus, demonstrable negative aesthetic effect has already occurred regarding Galster Wildnerness Park. The intersection. of Azusa and Aroma Drive no longer resembles the entrance to a wilderness park. Instead, there are now developments on both sides of Azusa, traffic lights, and, of course, a dump located just to the south of'the park. Not only does the dump add traffic of a very hazardous and serious nature, it also spoils the aesthetics of being in a park because the park smells like a dump. To include more negative aesthetic effects by approving Precise Plan No. 746, with its subsequent high density dwellings, noise, traffic, and parking just adiacent to the park, would compound the already serious aesthetic danger to the Galster area. To abandon the upper ballfield and sell it to a developer would further aggravate the situation. Number two, substantial population growth and increase of traffic. Already the strains of over-populationn 21- - City Council Minutes March 9, 1981 iand traffic congestion are beginning to surface at the intersec- tion of Azusa'and Aroma Drive. I drive through this intersection on my way to work each morning and I see traffic moving at 50 to 60 miles per hour. The speed limit is 50, but they drive 50 to 60 miles per hour past children standing at the corner. In addition,, the lights don't stop vehicles moving at that speed 'when they turn amber. Most cars accelerate through the light changes, especially from the downhill side, rather than brake suddenly. This intersection has suddenly become one of the most dangerous in the City. Since Aroma and Granoval, the street directly to the west of Aroma Drive, can only_exit�to Azusa, more high density units at Aroma will cause substantial problems between vehicle and vehicle, and vehicle and children. It can only increase an already dangerous situation if Precise Plan No. 746 is approved. And, my last point, the proximity to the dump. Now, this, I feel, is the most important, and I want the Council members to consider what I have to say very carefully, and think of the long range aspec s of what I have to say. Why should the City Council take the chance that no adverse biological effects will take place as a result of leakage of toxic wastes from the B.K.K. Landfill. We all know that the dump is situated to the south and above the proposed plan. Who is to say that an earth- quake won't allow these wastes to flow and contaminate the entire area in four directions, including the proposed site. Does the Council want to be held responsible for making a decision now that is frought with all kinds of adverse possi- bilities and could effect the population in -:much the same way as happened at Love Canal? You can't be expected to predict what might really happen, but if the possibility does exist, shouldn't a course of action that protects the citizens of West Covina be the smart choice? Precise Plan No. 746 has far too many strikes against it from the beginning for an enlightened Council to give its approval to such an undertaking. Thank you. Shearer: The lady down here. Karen Camsdaren On behalf of Congressman Drier, I am here to District Rep. urge that until such time as a new Environ- Cong. D. Drier mental Impact Report is prepared by a pro- fessional consultant which properly addresses i the potential significant impacts in greater detail in compliance with the City's E.I.R. guidelines contained in Resolution No. 5423, that you hold in abeyance any final decision with respect to further building in any location in and around the landfill site. While the Congressman lauds the efforts of the City Council in attempting - -22' - City Council Minutes March 9, 1981 to resolve this difficult overall issue of the B.K.K.' Landfill site, his recommendation supports that held not only by the Act III group, but other concerned citizens groups, and is entirely consistent with the position he ha.s held all along, that is, the landfill should be closed to all dumping of Level I toxic and hazardous waste, inasmuch as these wastes represent a threatto the physical well-being of the surrounding citizenry. Now, with respect to what the Congressman is doing with specificity with regard to the HUD matter, we are presently researching it in detail in Washington, and we are holding discussions with various HUD officials. In addition, we are looking at different prospects of federal legislation in order to prevent future problems with hazardous waste dumping by considering the following three possibilities: (1) Tax incentives for the detoxification at the production point; (2) shipped contain- ment; and (3) the possibility for alternative siting for disposal of these Level I wastes. In conclusion, it is hoped that ultimately the City Council will address this matter with great care. Thank you very much. Shearer: Anyone else wishing to testify in opposition to the matter before us? Richard Callahan I speak in opposition to Precise Plan No. 746. 2115 Aroma Drive This plan would introduce an estimated 200 plus West Covina, CA children to approximately 3-1/2 to 4 actual acres of flat land. The existing condominium development to .the north and west has approxi- marely 25 to 30 children on approximately 7 acres of flat land. Eac'uz of the existing three condominium developments in the neighborhood (the one that is occupied and the two that are being constructed) were designed as open type developments. I- would require an excessive amount of money to enclose these de,;.,elopments, as was required at Aspen Village. To illustrate, one of the problems is that one of the most direct routes for tl:zis nu«iber of children to Hollencrest or Vine School is through our development and up the hillside. The cost to us for maintenance, repair and replacement can easily run into many -thousands of dollars every year. The existing develop- mets in this neighborhood are all of the open design. This was a very nice feature when we were buying, but, as was proven at Aspen Village, it is an easily abused feature by people who contribute only damage by their trespass. Approximately 320 units are being built in the neighborhood currently. They :will probably add approximately 70 more children. - 23 - City Council Minutes March 9, 1981 The City is on record for abandonment of the only recreational facility in the neighborhood so that Aroma Gardens may be built. Since there would be no satisfactory recreational facilities for the 30 existing and 70 anticipated youths, there'is even less logic in authorizing construction of a development that would bring triple that number to a smaller area. One solution would be a reduction in the number of units from 81 to approximately 40. Even better would be the development of the land as a City park for the existing four developments and the San Jose Hills development. The vandalism that can be anticipated at Galster Park would dwarf the $44,000.00 estimate that is needed to reopen the park. Our expenses have only begun. The E.I.R. never approached the cost of vandalism that could be caused by the residents of government subsidized low income housing. Supervision of these youths will probably be nonexistent. The City and County of Los Angeles recently recommended the closing of Nickerson Gardens projects. Must West Covina make the same mistakes, or can we learn from the other people's mistakes? Dr. Tennant is a resident of Aspen Village condominiums. He can tell you the horror stories that forced the citizens to.bear the expense to enclose their community. The E.I.R. should review and develop mitigating measures. I am sure that an outside firm of environmental con- sultants would be knowledgable and experienced in this concern. The Staff should remember the concerns of Woodside Village and Hearthstone residents expressed when the owner of the land at Nogales and Amar proposed apartments You ignored their pleas and -approved the precise plan. Only when they took court action did the developer reconsider. Canyon Crest condominiums are the result. Condominiums do not cause the problems associ- ated with apartments. The E.I.R. is deficient in numerous areas. You should return it to the Planning Commission and order it redone by a professional firm experienced with the differences between apartments and condominiums. I request a vote against Precise Plan No. 746 until after a proper E.I.R. has been published and diseminated to the public for review. The public should have a chance to fully understand all that is involved. Thank you. 24 - is • City Council Minutes March 9, 1981 Shearer: I would like to make one comment, Mr. Callahan. The abandoned ballfield is not included in this proiect. So, the statement that this was done to enable this project to be built is incorrect. Anyone else wishing to testify in opposition? Derek Aubrey I back tip Mr. Callahan's talk there on the 2167 Aroma Dr. Section 8 housing. I feel it is a very West Covina, CA integral part of this whole project. It should be addressed as it is since it will affect the surroundings, definitely in a possible and historical rise in crime level, property damage and vandalism, property devaluation, grafetti, noise and traffic level, nuisance, and police and fire activity. I request that a study be done by the City Council on the impact of such. housing, realizing that approval of such a project in this City and its likely negative impact will be on the Council's conscience, the police and fire service's shoulders, and our property and pocketbook, and its finger in :..he public funds. I recommend you consult police files on similar pro- iects and the areas around such projects in pu)lic and busi- ness. Realize that this is not simply a building group, but this is a threat to peace and harmony in our area and in West Covina. Benefits, if any, derived from this project will be far offset by the support costs involved at a later date. I recommend (1) at least make the recorimiended survey, and (2) delay such a decision until information is available, or (3) cancel the whole works. Thank vou. Shearer: Anyone else wishing to testify in opposition? Pat McGrath I would like to address the Council with regard 2133 Aroma Dr. to the 81'-,unit apartment complex to be consid- West Covina, CA ered for development on Aroma Drive north of G&later Wilderness Park. I am a social worker for Los Angeles County, and for nine years worked in the Pasadena area. My expertise is working with children in need of.protective services. During the years ghat., I have worked in Pasadena, I know that I have probably been in more low cost or subsidized housing than the average homeowner. This may not make me an expert, but I do have some personal concerns in regard to this kind of development being considered for property next to where I live. - 25 - • • City Council Minutes March 9, 1.981 It ha.s been my observation when large apartment complexes, any- where from 50 to 75 units or more, or a housing development such as Kings Manor at Washington and Fairoaks in Pasadena, have large numbers of people either receiving welfare or living on marginally low incomes, that the whole atmosphere of the living goes down. During this time that I was in Pasadena, Kings Manor complex had to be completely redone because of the destruction and defacement of the property. The buildings had broken windows; the carports had holes in the walls; the grass died; the plants disappeared; cars were derelict in the carports. Along with the gradual decline of the property, was a decline in the attitude of the people living there. There was a feeling of being trapped, and each family sup- porting the next in the hopelessness and depression that occurred. With this comes -drugs, liquor and violence. Boys Market built a beautiful new grocery store in 1977, right across from the project. Three years later, as you may have observed in the newspaper, it closed because of the crime on its property. Purse snatchings, stabbings of customers, and hold-ups at the store itself occurred. This store was right across the street. We have a new market going in not too far from where this project is going to be built. Friends of mine in the Pasadena Police Depart- ment say that a large percentage of their manpower is spent attending to the families in low cost housing. They say that with these families comes an increased need not only for police protection to the immediate residents, but to the areas surrounding the sites because of the burglaries and physical accosting of the people. With this also comes higher costs for fire protection and increased health costs. I hope that as a City Council, you are taking these costs into consideration and anticipating them in your future budgets. I know that cities look favorably on these kinds of projects because of the federal money involved. However, long after the federal money is spent, the cost to the community goes on and on. If this project becomes reality, I hope that the City is planning on increased fire and police patrol units for our area as we.'will all be vulnerable to theft during the hours that we are at work, and when no one is at home to protect our property. I would suggest three items for the City Council to consider before making a decision as to whether it is advisable to approve this 81-unit complex or not. One, recognizing the need that low income families have to have a decent.place to live, setting up a subsidized 26 - City Council Minutes March. 9, 1981 • housing practice, whereby renterswill locate their own housing and the Citv directl': pays the costs. This is a practice used in Pasadena that works very well because the families are then not ,concentrated in one area, but a�~e distri�uted tl�rougnout the whole City. Two, if the complex i_s.approved, consider it for senior citizens housing. I went to a hearing in these very chambers in October, 1980, given by the U.S. House of Representa- tives Subcommittee on Human Services, Select Committee on Aging, and.one fact stood out to me - 10% of West Covina's populateion is 60 years and over, and West Covina only has one building for senior citizens, which took three years in the 'building. For that building there was at that time a waiting list of 300 persons. That would more than fill this 81-unit complex that is proposed. Also, in this area, 40% of the seniors live in rentals, which means that a high percentage of their income goes to rent. This kind of building would be a bless_ -fig to them. And, thirdly, and most important, please talk with the Pasadena City Council. Talk to their Police Depar-- ment and their Fire Department 'before making your decision. I know that they can give you the pluses and the minuses regarding a project of this kind. Thank you. Shearer: Before we proceed any further, I have been debating whether to say this or not, but now I want to advise that the City Attorney has indicated to us, as some of you are already aware, that the matter before us this evening is that of the precise plan. It is very difficult, I recognize, to separate that issue from the question of HUD.and housing, and so forth. I would encourage those who testify to try to emphasize if you feel_ that the project plan is.not a good one; to emphasize the aspects of plan, not the quality of the people who will live there. That does present this Council with a problem. We will let it go at that. It is really not an issue the West Covina City Council can address, but it will be an issue that Congressman Drier can address. It is not an issue that the five of us can address. We do not make the rules with regard to federal agencies, and our review and control is on the precise plan itself with issues such as parking, landscaping, and so forth. So,.I would trust that we will not have nuch more testimony with regard to the question of the financing or the funding because if we do, the Chair may have to rule that testi.monv out of order in the best interest of proceeding in a reasonable manner. Tennant: Mayor, perhaps there is another thing that. _ 27' _ City Council Minutes March 9, 1981 • you could clarify. I heard a couple of comments that the City of West Covina was somehow funding this, or paid for something. There were a couple of comments. That should perhaps be clari- fied. Shearer: Well, perhaps at this time we might address that. There is no City money involved in this project. I am not aware of where the money is coming from. It is not the government's concern, and I think that was demonstrated by our last election in November, that less involvement by government in private enterprise is the will of the people. I don't know where the money is coming from. I am not asking the developers to tell me either because it is not germain to -the item before us this evening. But, I can assure you that there is no money cording from the City or through the City. Is that... Tennant: Yes, that is enough. Shearer: Anyone else wishing to testify in opposition to the project? • McCracken I would like to address the Council un the 2136 Kings Crest general unhealthy conditions that will develop West Covina, CA for the residents of the 81 apartments to be built on the former Little League ball diamond. B.K.K. toxic liquid waste dump,is_ in -the -hills above Precise Plan 746. The 81-unit apartments will be less than 1,000 feet away from the dump, and about 500 feet below it. This site is a valley inviting a disaster. All that is needed 'ar.e 'people, time and the right conditions. The California legislature recognized the danger of allowing developments near a Class I hazardous waste disposal site last September, and passed a law forbidding development within 2,000 yards. Through a matter of semantics, this Council has been able to rationalize this law as not applying to the B.K.K. dump and the 81 family apartments to be built in this little valley. The liquid toxic wastes being dumped in the hills above this valley are not going to stay up there in the hills. Liquids do not stay in hills; they run and seep into lower levels. Eventually, they arrive at sea level. A long time before they get to sea level, the toxic wastes above these 81 apartments are going to find their way to the level of this valley. It puzzles me how arty sensible person can say these liquid toxic wastes will have no effect on the people in the valley. The B.K.K, people say that there is no danger of this happening because the soil is leak -proof.. If the soil is leak -proof, then why are their no ponds or lakes up there. When I walked the area after the rains last year, I couldn't even find a puddle. Where did the water go? It drained into the ground leaching out the toxic liquids that are there to settle in the surrounding lower areas. It came E • City Council Minutes March 9, 1981 out in springs and it drained off into the valley. A lot of the residue is probably in this little valley right now. And, year after year, it is going to build up. It might Lake twenty years, just like it did at Love Canal. Love Canal was supposed to have a safe place to dump toxic waste. Highly paid experts said so. Ever_ the local government said so. A few months ago, B.K.K. hired some highly paid experts who stated that there was no problem with the poisons from the dump affecting any of the people who lived nearby. _This is exactly what you would expect of.a highly paid expert. The people who live around the dump say otherwise. Their doctors say the wastes are poisonness and may be contributing to some of their ailments. I need not/go into the hell that has been raised about the odors from the dump. I do not think much credence should be given to self-serving reports financed by B.'K.K. The point is, there are odors, and lots of them. They are from the dump. They will continue to come from the dump for the next twenty or thirty years. These are toxic odors. They emanate from toxic liquid wastes that evaporate. They are then toxic gases. You would not allow anyone 'co drink the liquid being dumped, yet there seems to be very little empathy from this body for those who will be and are being forced to breathe these toxic wastes every day. This development is a gamble with the lives of 81 families that need not be taken. There are hundreds of other areas in this City that could serve the same purpose for these 81 families that would be safe for the life of the building project. It puzzles me why this body would even consider, let alone go to bat for he'developer who wants to stick 81 families in a hole with.a toxic waste dump up above. To participate in the development of an 81-unit comiplex where there is a strong likelihood of toxic liquids and gases affecting these families adversely borders on the criminal. Yet, that is exactly what this body is doing. The City of Montebello is currently having_a problem with their dump giving off potentially explosive methane gases. The B.K.K. dump also gives off these same methanegases, as well as other gases that Montebello does not have to contend with. Methane gas could easily come downhill above the 81 apartments... Shearer: how much more time do you think you will need? You have extended your three minutes and beyond. McCracken: Have I had my three minutes? Shearer: Well beyond three -minutes. McCracken: Okay. I will take just.another half a second. - 29 - City Council Minutes March 9, 1981 The methane gases could easily come down the hill above the 81 apartments into the valley some night or day when the atmospheric conditions there are just right and kill or disable many of the people in the complex. Some people may call this an act of God. I would call it an act of stupidity on the part of the City Council of West Covina for letting people live where this can happen. Thank you. Tice: I have a question for Mr. McCracken, if I may. Shearer: Councilman Tice. Tice: Mr. McCracken, did you attend any of the public hearings concerned with the condominium project south of Aroma Drive? McCracken: I never knew they were going to build one. W. Whisenhunt, Jr. I am a voter and a taxpayer in the City. Kings Crest Dr. I am opposed to Precise Plan No. 746 for West Covina, CA the following reasons: With the assistance of Mr. Miller, I also have brought some slides in hopes of giving you a different perspec- tive. However, before I start, I mould like to say that I am here on behalf of members represented by an --organization called Act III, aroused citizens troubled by a number of issues. Also, I represent concerned homeowners on Kings Crest Drive.. Now-, as you know, this is a free speech forum. I do not anticipate that any comments made here this evening on a philosophical issue will be attributable to me, nor would I expect you to take any statement that I make and attribute it to.Congressman Drier. His representative was present tonight. I think she sufficiently stated Drier's position on these issues, and I don't think that any of my statements, or anyone else's statements, should also be attributed to the Congressman. With that, I would like to start with my slide presentation. I anticipate that I will take more than three minutes, and with your indulgence, I will try to move quickly through these. Shearer: How much time do you think you will need, Mr. Whisenhunt? Whisenhunt: I would ask for ten minutes Shearer: (After polling the Council.) Alright ten minutes. Whisenhunt: Thank you. What this represents is a sketch pretty much to scale of the proposed project, with the assistance of Mr. Tom Walsh, who will - 30 - City Council Minutes March 9, 1981 designate the area. Tom will run the outline and show the hill- side overlay. The upper righthand corner is the area that borders the single family residences, and then along the condo minium site to the lower baseball diamond. Immediately to the right is the existing abandoned baseball diamond, and immedi- ately to the bottom would be the border with the B.K.K.... I am sorry, that is the border of the Galster Park leading up to the border of the B.K.K. site. This particular project site has been recomputed. It was recomputed in light of sub- tracting the hillside overlay as well as the unuseable slope, as well as taking away the easement (where the pointer is now), as well as the fire easement all of the way from that point down to Aroma Drive. The subtraction.of all of these ease- ments, hillside overlay as well as the slope area, computes to approximately 3.85 acres. Putting 81 unit-ssinto that 3.85 acres comes out to a density of approximately 40 units per acre, which far exceeds the allowable zoning. In addition to that, HUD is going to spend $1.2 million for this property, where comparables by City fact show that 5.8 acres... Shearer: Excuse me, Mr. Whisenhunt, I don't want to interrupt into your time, but I don't want to let it go. What was the acreage that that you came up with? • you said using your calculations Whisenhunt: 3.85. Shearer: 3.85? Whisenhunt: Yes, sir. Shearer: And, what was the density you said you calculated? Whisenhunt: I believe that comes out to something like about 40 units per acre. I am sorry, it is probably closer to something like about twenty. .Twenty plus. Shearer: Thank you. I just wanted to make sure that I heard you correctly. Whisenhunt: Thank you. I am thinking four acres. This particular piece of property HUD is going to pay $1.2 million for. A comparable piece of property, which is all flat, consisting of 5.67 acres is going to sell for $742,000.00. That is a considerable profit margin. I am opposed on the basis that taxpayers money is going to be used to offset this cost and underwrite the project. In addition to that, I understand that there may be $100,000.00 of West Covina Block Grant Funds that can be used to offset the developer's purchase price for the.land. - 31 - City Council Minutes March 9, 1981 I am going to move along to the next slide. This is.an aerial photograph of the surrounding area. To the right side of the picture is the B.K.K. working face, and if Tom will go along the borderline up to the side, the border of B.K.K. extends a little further to the left, or to the north. Now, the green area in the center is the Galster Wilderness Park. Then, following down the green area toward the left, you will see an area that is the site of the housing project. That is within the 2,000 foot border zone of the B,K;K`. hazardous waste disposal site. The other brown area that you see in the foreground is other development that you can see are leading right up to the perimeter adjacent to the B.K.K. dump site. The question was asked, "Did anyone oppose . the construction of those units?". I concur with Mr. McCracken's statement that I was never informed. I never knew of it. I prefer to come home and watch television than be down here. This is. the working face of the B.K.K. dump, aerial view. To the left and up over the hill�and down the other side would be the project site. This shows the ptoximity of the working face of the dump with the proposed project. Again, we have an aerial view showing the ball di&(mond in the middle of the photograph. That is referred to as the "upper ball diamond". The one to the right is the lower ball diamond, as we commonly refer to it, and is the location of the site. This gives you a pretty good indication of some of the traffic problems that you are going to have. Immediately above Mr. Walsh's pointer shows the entrance to Galster Pars.. It also shows a very steep bend in the roadway. To dae, no traffic surveys have been conducted to determine ,chat the total traffic.. is. Tom is also going to show you where the alternate 5 proposed connector is going to be with the San Jose Hills area. It will proceed up over the gully, to the left over the top of the hill, approximately in that area, and connect up with another street that will join Alpine. Between where the top street is (where the little red roofs are of the houses), through the gully, and down to approximately along that border- line, will be 150 feet of fill. That gully is a natural drain- age into the upper_ ball diamond, leading down and across the • lower ball diamond. Where the pointer is will also be the access route leading into the proposed project. You now have the entrance to Galster Park, alternate 5, and the entrance and exit to the housing project all coming in at exactly the same point. That is immediately where the curve of the road is, showing where the traffic coming from the San Jose Hills project as well as going over to Nogales will be filtering �-32'.- City Council Minutes March 9, 1981 Ift through the area. Again I mention, no traffic survey has been conducted. There has been no mitigation of these particular traffic issues. On this basis alone, the project should be sent back for further evaluation. It really should be denied just on the traffic issues. Okay. This will show the bottom corner of Galster Park. To the left you will see a roadway. I believe that is Aroma Drive leading into the condominium area up above on the hill. It connects into alternate 5, and leads up to an unnamed street. That will be on 150 feet of fill above the project. It will then lead into Alpine and over to other proposed roadways to service the 625 homes of the San. Jose Hills project. This is again an aerial view. I hope you don't get too dizzy. This is a better view showing the entry way into the Galster Park area. It also shows the easement leading up to the baseball diamond, around to the shack, and up to the upper diamond. It also shows where the entry way will be to the proposed project. It also shows a very tight bend in the road. The traffic coming down is going to intersect with • alternate 5, Galster Park, as well as the proposed project. You will note, too, at the bottom left hand corner, about the middle of the screen, a driveway. That is the entry into the existing condominiums that are in the pre- paration of being erected. So, within.a very short distance, you are going to have an entry -exit to the condominium complex immediately across the street, the entry and exit to the Galster Wood development now in existence, and immediately adjacent to that you are going to have a row of garages and an exit or entry way immediately opposite the driveway of the existing project. All within 100 feet, you are going to have three, four, five, or maybe six driveways by a bend in the road. Again, this shows a complete lack of planning and consideration of the traffic issues here. This is a floor plan, if you will, of the proposed project. The upper left hand corner shows the open area, the guest parking all of the way into the back, garages running along the north side all of the way down from the driveway. That driveway will exit immediately across from the entry -exit of the project across the street as well as Galster Wood driveway entry and exit. :That project driveway then runs totally around the project and comes back out. Guest parking is in the back. You are going to have a problem with 300 plus kids who will be living in this project. You are going to have cars driving back and forth across them. - 33: - City Council Minutes - March 9, 1981 I see people turning around when I say 300 kids. West Covina does not have a people density code, so as long as you have a family, that entire family is eligible to live within the residence. So, you cannot say that you are going to limit crze bedroom to two people. You could have whatever the family presents. So, you could have as many as 300 children living here, running back and forth in front of these vehicles that have to drive all of the 'way to the.back. The project for visiZ-_or parking is poorly planned. I think that has already been Drought out once. Okay. This is another view. I told you that I was going to show you the winding roadway. This is Arozna Drive leading all of the 'way up to the top, and turning right at the top and going all of the 'way over, cuts to the left, and over the top. Now, we have our water drain to the roadway. That is going to make a nice waterfall in heavy rain. That water running down the roadway is going to run immediately into those project sites unless you have sufficient drainage and the drainage is adequate. The dater that overruns i:he project site is going to spill into the Galster Wood project site. That is going to cause a tremendous water inundation problem. The ground in the area, prior to this, used to absorb the water. It used to run through natural channels and it has all been changed. Hopefully, we have planned for the proper drainage. I don't see that it has been properly planned for, as I see there is also an issue existing with the traffic flow. This is a view of the project site showing basically the area facing Aroma. It shows the driveway i:lmediately across from the entrance and exit -of the proposed project, with the other three roads immediately to the left; all coming together at the bend of the road. I keep bringing this up because nobody ever considered it. _It wasn't properly mitigated. We are going to have a tremendous_a.mount of traffic impact.in that area, and I draw a ttention to the children in this particular area as well as the surrounding environment. Okay. Now, I have put this one back in to show you some drainage: To the left where it looks like the street dead ends at the top, there is a natural drainage flow coming down gnat particular area. Also, the hill slope leads down to 'the :_:.all park area. Immediately to the +-eft of the little white spot, there is another gully. That gully empties directly unto the project site. There is going to be a tremendous water floc, coming unto this area. We have already had erosion. Galster Wood apartments have bordered on suffering a tremendous amount of water and like damage from the breakaway of mud from the improper fill on the upper 314 - City Council Minutes March 9, 1981 ball diamond. The City, as well as others, have gotten in there and attempted to correct that particular issue, but you still have the drainage problem, and the issue of 150,feet of fill at this particular location. This is another photograph that shows the working face of the B.K.K. dump. The top of the photograph shows just about where the boundry is. It shows Galster Park. It shows the project site immediately at the bottom. You can see how the natural drainage and flow of the hills go right down and appears to empty into the face of the project site. So, regardless of what they do to the left hand side, where the upper baseball diamond is, you are still going to have the problem with the water flow from the other side, as well as the water flow unto the street (you can see how the road bends) leading immediately into the project site. This is a contour map that merely restates what I previously stated about the contour lines and the floe of the water. I am sorry there is insufficient clarity to the photo- graph, but I think I have already covered it. With that, I would like to say that West Covina is a beautiful place to live. All of us would like to stay here and enjoy this beautiful environment, and we would like to keep it close to that. I have one or two other photographs that I will run through briefly. This shows the gully to the left, where the water drains down to the upper'ball diamond, and then down to the lower ball diamond. It also shows, as you can see, people using the park. This is a Saturday. There are qui-;=e a number of people up there on weekends enjoying the environment. Again the road. It shows the area that would be the back. It shows the easement leading to the back area of the ball diamond. And, I understand the reason that that particular hall diamond was abandoned was because it was unuseable because of this project being built there. It seems to me that it would only be appropriate that the individual who owns that particular piece of property in the front, would also add to it the piece of property in the back,'.'s Tice the argument that I heard on the abandonment issuesdealt primarily with access to the back ball diamond::. M This area was flooded two g ears ago. Y This is an easement along the wall. It also shows where the water flooded through. This particular area here was filled with mud, silt and other debris. 3.5 - City Council Minutes March 9, 1981 'Again, you can see that there has been some movement of dirt unto the area. You can see the fresh tracks. Somebody has been there. It is not land in an untilled state, as previously represented. People have been on the property and have been moving and grading. This document, which is a very poor document, is from HUD, signed by one of their environmental specialists, and says that a hold has been put on this project until the Environmental Protection Agency has conducted a study on the impact of the B.K.K, hazardous landfill on a governmental pro- ject. My conversation with the environmental specialist is that that particular study will not be ready for over two or three weeks at the earliest, and may well be longer. There has been a tremendous congressional input into this, inquiry. Priority has been assigned. I would like the opportunity to continue whatever the final determination of the Council may be tonight until we can affect our rights under the freedom of information in order to find out exactly what the E.P.A. did, and what the final results were. The results of that study could be used in consideration by the Council for ei_her approving or disapproving this project. And, in conclusion, West Covina is a beautiful City, and we would like to keep it that way in the years to come. Thank you. Shearer: I just have one comment I would like to make that addresses a couple of.comments that the last two speakers have made with regard to hearings. I am not disputing that_some people may or may not have heard. It may have been when somebody moved into the community, or so forth. I was on the Council, as was Mr. Chappell, at the time that the first development on Aroma Drive, other than Galster Park, was proposed. And, believe me, some- body must have heard about the development because this chamber must have had two, to L_hree, to four times as -many people in it in opposition to the first condominium development, and many of the points that are being made here were made at that time in opposition to the very first one. So, there were plenty of people aware of the first development. Do you recall that, Councilman Chappell? Chappell: Absolutely. I was.going to bring it up when I had some comments to make. Whisenhunt: Mayor Shearer, members of the Council, if I could, I have a few other points I would like to make. . - 36 - City Council Minutes March 9, 1981 Shearer: You have extended your time to almost twenty • minutes. How much more time do you think you need? Whisenhunt: I hopefully won't go beyond another five, maybe three. Chappell: Is it anything we haven't heard before? Is it new? Whisenhunt: I would hope so. Chappell: If we.haven't heard it before, Mayor, I am willing to listen, but if it is something we have heard before, I would like to say that we have other people who want to speak. Whisenhunt: How about if you have heard it before... Shearer: We mean this evening. You have heard the testimony. If it is new testimony, fine. Whisenhunt: I will try to make it as pertinent as I can. Most of these points I have covered, but this is the time for the appeal to be heard, and I would like the opportunity to give as much input as I can because I can foresee a time when a proper record will be necessary at some future judicial proceeding, if that becomes necessary. Shearer: You don't need to argue that point now, go ahead. Whisenhunt: Thank you very much. Shearer: Go ahead with your testimony that is germane to nonlegal minds. Our one attorney is sick this evening, and the rest of us are not attorneys. Whisenhunt: I want to pass my condolences. I missed him. I was hopeful that he would be here this evening. He heard the first part of this while he was sitting on the Planning Commission, and I would have liked to have had him here to hear the end of this, hopefully. . • Again, I just draw attention to the hillside overlay that should be considered when calculating the number of units per acre so as not to exceed the allowable density. The issue with the dump under AB 2370, I would at this time like to.ask the City Council to request of the City Attorney to get an Attorney General's opinion as to the applic- ability of AB 2370 to the project site and Precise Plan No. 746, - 37 - City Council Minutes March 92 1981 whether or not that particular project, as well as any other • project to be built within a 2,000 foot border zone of this property is within the ambit of the law. If the law does apply, then I think the necessary precautions should be had. But, that should.be made pars_ of the Environmental Impact Report because it is a very real and live issue. This statutory law is in existence and the City Attorney could request from the A.G. an opinion. And, I would request that the City Council would ask for that. That would be to determine the environmental impact on this proposed site within the ambiance of the active legislation. Also, I would like to make mention of the noise factor.. Just to cover that briefly. There is going to be a tremendous amount of noise. Some mitigating factors have been permitted in the way of a block wall surrounding the upper land area that borders it, but that does not take into consideration those people who live in the Galster Park area, nor those who live up on the Alpine area, nor those who will live in the immediate future in the San Jose Hills project. I think that noise mitigation should be considered in lighL. of the project. California law does require that the Environmental Impact Report consider not just the four corners of the project site, but how it is going to impact on the environment, as far as traffic, pollutants, and other types of things. Also, I would like to just make a very quiclk mention, and this is only to protect the record, as to Article 34 of the California State Constitution, as it applies to refereidum,'prior to the'construction of Section 8 housing.. This would be applicable if the City has participated in some way in helping to develop this. And; I would suggest at this time that the City has become sufficiently intermingled through Staff in the. development of this property, and that an Article 34 referendum should be 'seriously considered. I bring this up, as I said, to protect the record. Also, a number of articles, one of 2/4/81, in the Highlander points out that the .local .realtors state, and I am quoting, "This is a healthy competitive situation existing for apartment owners in the City of West Covina." One of the issues in the mitigation is.that there is insuffi- cient living environment, and I thinL that the news articles tend to somewhat dispute that, although I have not personally taken a count. We did _.have recently some other units built which took as long as a year to fill up. There are units in the immediate vicinity that are renting at rather low rents that are yet to be filled up with residents in the area. As far as the recreation, I just want to may{e mention briefly of the basketball court that was proposed in City Council Minutes March 9, 1981 • some of the early proposals. Some mention was made as to a "rec" room. A basketball court is probably going to have a lot more utility when you have kids in the environment, as opposed to a "rec" room. We don't have that much of a rainy season here, so it probably would serve a much better purpose. Galster Wood has a pool pretty much the same size as the pool proposed. That is the condominium project immediately.adjacent to it. However, the children in that area are about 15 to 20, as opposed to 200 to 300.kids, and they are going to use... Shearer: How many units are in Galster Wood? Whisenhunt: I think there are 121.units there, and there are about 15 kids. Most of the people who are living there are working or traveling at any one particular time. The noise element. This is an amphitheater type of environment. Our concern iswth the type of noise that is going to be generated by music, car tuning, vehicular traffic, motorcycles in the area, kids, as well as the air conditioning and/,or heating units that may be placed on the tops and sides -of - these units. Also, there is the issue of aesthetics, -whether or not looking down onto the roofs of these particular facilities we are going to be burdened with the aesthetics, or lack of aesthetics, because we are going to be looking down at equipment. I haven't seen any rendering which determines whether or not we going to have that problem. Gentlemen, I. thank you very much for your time and your patience. I would ask only that if the Council feels at the conclusion of testimony tonight that there is a sufficient basis to warrant further consideration, that it would consider rejecting the project because of an improper Environmental Impact Report, and sending it back for further Planning Commission hearings, and waiting for the Environmental Protection Agency's final report that we anticipate will be coming in two to three weeks, and to consider that information in rendering a final decision. Thank you very much. Shearer: Anyone else wishing to testify in opposition? Could I get an idea how many more people wish to speak because we are going to need a recess. I see one gentleman standing, and three more hands, so we are going to declare a ten minute recess and then we will take up at that time. - 39 - City Council Minutes March 9, 1981 • Shearer: We will reconvene the City Council. I don't want to try to interfere with anyone's right of expression. I know that there are still a number of people who want to testify, and I would hope that you will try to limit your testimony to items that have not been raised before. I think we have heard a number of points, and the fact that someone echoes the same thing I don't believe lends any more credence as far as the Council is concerned. We are here for the evening, so there is no problem with that, but I would hope thatwetry:to not (as much as possible) repeat things that have already been said. Mr. Brown, you may go ahead. Royale Brown One of my neighbors cannot be here this evening, 2153 Aroma Drive and,he sent to me a copy of a letter that he West Covina, CA sent to the City. I don't know if it has been received by the City. I have a copy. It is a letter from Mr. Jerry Achstatter, and I would like for it to be entered into the record as a part of this hearing. I don't know whether it should be read, or what would be the procedure. Shearer: City Clerk for Brown: I guess that is up to you. It will be entered. We have all received a copy and read it on the Council. If you want, you can submit it to the inclusion in the record. Maybe that would shorten the Bearing. Shearer: Alright. I will ask that the letter be written into the record then. For those of you who are wondering, we are having a verbatim transcript of tonight's meeting. Mrs. Cedergreen, the young lady to my left here, a former City employee who used to take our verbatim minutes until we got out of that business and expense some time ago, is now this evening... I believe she is a licensed Court Reporter, are :you? Cedergreen: No. Shearer: But, she is the next thing to'it. She is very competent and is taking a verbatim transcript of this evening's testimony. .- Brown: I would also like to enter into the record some photographs of the historic flood that occurred on this property. The Planning Commission saw these in the form of slides. I would at this time like the Council to see the historical record of what the drainage in the canyon area has caused in the, past. The failure was on only one of the two main canyons, and the other canyon, which goes through a City City Council Minutes March 9, 1981 park, Galster Park, does cause a problem. Also, a potential same • type of problem. I would like to ask the Council to find out which of you have read the E.I.R. 80-1. Shearer: I don't think that is a valid question, but I'll answer i;:. I have. In fact, I have two copies here this evening. In case I didn't bring my own, they have furnished me with another one. (All of the other Councilmen indicated concurrence with the affirmative reply of Mayor Shearer.) Brown.: Are all of you also aware of the San Jose Hills E.I.R. that was prepared over a year ago? Shearer: Mr. Brown, this isn't the time to quiz the Council. If you have testimony that you want to give, go ahead with it, please. I don't .think we are :on trial. • Brown: I am trying to enter into the record the differ- ence between the two E.I.R.'s. And, one of the things is to make you aware of the things that were presented in both of those documents. You gentlemen have the duty this evening to judge the adequacies of the E.I.R., and that is what I am trying to enter into the record this evening, is the arguments against the E.I.R. The E.I.R. technically is approximately twenty pages. Attached to it is a series of appendixes of several hundred pages. Each time a hearing has been held, or a meeting has been held about this, the Staff has presented a paper that is a half dozen to a dozen or so pages long. In comparison to a short E.I.R. of twenty pages to have an an -analysis almost as long shows that there is an awful lot of missing information in the E.I.R. The E.I.R. omissions are such things as the ground water situation, the spring that is on the site, no traffic count on Aroma, portions of the site flooded in '78. These are all things that were not mentioned in the E,.I.R. The omission of these historical facts and situations makes the E.I.R. inadequate. The basis of any E.I.R. is to allow • the public and the decision makers a.proper foundation on Which to make a decision. Therefore, I ask that the E.I.R. be redone to`include all of the proper background information. In addition, such things like Galster Park being closed for two and one-half years. The City has abandoned - 41 - City Council Minutes March 9, 1981 isthe adjacent ball park site. These should all be things included in the E.I.R. The organization of the E.I.R. is very poor. Things are listed as impacts, but are not included in the environ- mental setting. You set the environment to base the decision of what is an impact. Things like the nearest City recreational site is over two miles away, or the proposed park is one and one - quarter raffles away. Odors from the sanitary landfill to the south. The lack of a history of all of the citations by the Air Pollution District. These are not included. These are all pertinent facts that should be included in the E.I.R. The distances to schools are left out as part of the impact - I mean as the environmental setting, but they were included as impact. You.cannot have an impact if you don't set it in the environment. The State of California has a document called Guidelines for the Implementation of the California Environ- mental Quality Control Act of 1970. Section 15141 of.that document requires a proper site map. The map that was included in the E.I.R. is out of date. It doesn't even show the proper legal descriptions for Galster. It shows the easement going across the development that does not even exist at this time. It failed to show the easement that does exist on this site for access to the upper ballfield. It doesn't show the planter that was required by previous Planning Commission action as of Resolution 2396. A proper map is a basic requirement for an E.I.R. The E.I.R. should be sent back for a proper map. I have done a little work on, let's say, a tracing that I obtained from the City Staff of the contours of the area. I colored in the existing asphalt pavement in black on the Galster Wood condos to the north part of the drawing. Aroma Drive is shown on the left hand side there .curving around, and the black,asphalt going into the A nden development. At the bottom will be the alignment, as I last heard of .it from the City Staff, for Connector.5 with a new entrance to Galster Park shown also in black. This is all tc scale. The little red spot in the center is the existing building that is called the "snack shack" for the ball park. The green there represents the trees that are existing on the site; the little green above right about in the center and right below the black of the parking lot of the Galster • development is the.spring location. The blue to the right of that is the drain that exists through the upper ballfieid. These are all physical things that should be shown on any map in an E.I.R: of this development. Section 15143, Paragraph C-, of the E.I.R. Guidelines contains a sentence, "The energy conservation - 42 - City Council Minutes . March 9, 1981 measures as well as other appropriate mitigating measures shall be discussed." Then they give a whole list as Appendix :'F" of the things that are supposed to be included in an E.I.R. as far as energy considerations on any development. This does not appear in the E.I.R. that you have before you this evening. There is also a list in the Guidelines of significant effects, all of the things that the State considers significant in any E.I.R. I would like to cite six items from that list, (1) aesthetics, (2) growth population, (3) traffic, (4) noise, (5) recreation, and (6) exposure sensitive receptors to:-:-substantial-pollutant coricentrations.> That is really fancy words to mean a dump. What mitigating measures can be provided? Aesthetics first. Aroma Gardens guest parking area is viewed from the existing condos in Galster Wood. If you look up on the map there, you will see in the red the Galster adjacent buildings to this site that we are discussing tonight. Ten units on the right hand side there face the guest parking for this development. They will be,denied the view of the greenery that they have right now and the existing planters that were allowed by your resolution, No. 2396, that will be destroyed by this development. This is the last open, flat area on the east end of Aroma Drive. We need open space for multiple family zoning in this area. This land should be preserved as a possible City site for some type of development compatible with open space. That would be a mitigating measure. Another mitigating measure would be to limit the height of these buildings in this development to one story. The units in the existing Galster Wood development would retain their view then of Galster Park. Fourth, the existing planter along the asphalt driveway of Galster Wood condos could be extended to the north as a mitigating measure, if you would so deem it worthy. The mitigating measure for the growth of the population would be to reduce the density. has previously been suggested that something like 40 would be more appropriate density for this s:aiall site. Mitigating measures as to traffic. You could requ.re that a stop sign Ile placed on alternate street where it joins Aroma at the foot of the hill. You could require :'_. ►.a - Aro;ia tenants not '_,e allowed to use the east exit. It would 'ae used only for fire access. You could create a guest parking ar:e.a. on the southwest side along Aroma Drive. Fourth, you 11,ight put in a stop light to patrol the exits from Galster Wood, Aror::;a Gardens and the Anden group condos, w?,ere they all come together there as previously pointed out. But, those are mitigating 43 - City Council Minutes March 9, 1981 measures that should be addressed (all of those) in the E.I.R. Mitigating measures for the noise questions. You can enclose the children's play area by requirement; select proper plantings to block noise from going to the surrounding areas; three, a standard method, erect barriers to prevent the noise from going to adjacent areas. Four, you could enclose the garages. You are right now required in the City of West Covina to have garages enclosed in condos. It is logical that if you do it for condos, you could also do it for apartment houses. You could require that none of the windows be of the type that can be opened. Thus, all of the noise generatlL g from within the unit wouldn't be allowed to escape through the open window. The recreational thing. I think Dr. Tennant asked some.questions before as to what things had been asked for by the homeowners previously. I would like to poi:yt out that.at the Planning Commission hearing I did ask that the requirements that were contained in Resolution 2396 be imposed upon this development also. Those things did include requests for a tot lot and a recreational building. I would like to expand -that and also mention that the basketball court be imposed, as well as a volleyball court (which I previously brought up at the Planning Commission hearing), and tennis courts. These should also be imposed on this site to give it proper recreation for all of the youth that will be in this development. This will probably be one of the greatest concentrations of youth that the City of West Covina is going to ever have. Your Staff dismissed as unnecessary most of these mitigating measures by the use of an overriding statement. The statement is based upon assumption that there is an apart- ment shortage in the area. If you will check the rents within this area and immediately around the proposed project, you will find that the rents are $100.00 to $200.00 depressed from the rents charged in surrounding communities. This represents the market place decision that there is an excess of apartments in the central portion of West Covina. This project would just add to that excess. Down at the end of the street, the 1800 Aroma apartments took over one gear to get even close to being filled up, and they still have an appreciable vacancy factor. To dismiss the mitigating things with this statement is really inaccurate. The E.I.R. should "be revised to include a serious discussion of all of the mitigating measures that have been previously mentioned. There are other major impacts such.as the guest parking to the rear, drainage from the park, lack of off-street —44-— City Council Minutes March 9, 1981 parking, the zoning that was based on the adjacent park site, and 0 neighborhood security. Parking could be added along the access easement; right above Connector 5, the access easement has no parking along it as far as being proposed by the developer. This is another mitigating measure 'that could be utilized to reduce the parking problem in the area. What is going to physically happen? Let me carry you through. I have visited a lot of condos and apartments that have security. What you do physically is you drive up, if they don't have guest parking out'_front, you park along the street or in the neighbor's parking lots. That would mean Galster Wood condos would have the problem of accepting the guest parking for this development. The people then get out of the cars, go to the phone system, or whatever microphone has connection to the apartment manager, and ask to get in. And, since they are alreadV on foot, they are not going to go back to their car to go through the security gate to park their car in the rear lot. What they are going to do is get in through the walking gate because that is the easiest thing. The manager doesn't want to stay there for ten minutes while they move their car around. He -wants to get rid of them, too, by just letting them in the security gate. So, for however long they are going to be there:.visiting whoever they are going to visit at these Aroma Gardens, they are pro- bably going to be parked in the parking spaces reserved for the guests at Galster Wood, or along the street. That is a.major problem that could be mitigated simply by requiring a parking lot in front of this development, either along Aroma Drive, or along Connector 5. Another possible thing would be to widen the Connector 5 street for parking. That would mitigate also some of these problems. I saw in the City Staff's office the proposed drain plan for along the north side of this development. It seems as though the developer indicated there was another drainage possibility connector for the south side of this development. I would strongly urge that both drainage underground systems be required becatF.se both would serve a different geographical drain- age area. The one that historically flooded two years ago would be connected to the north side drains and the drainage area to the north side and east. The area to the south through the existing Galster Park would be connected to the drainage that would be along Connector 5. Historically, zoning ha's been based upon ade- quate parking and adequate parks and recreational facilities - 45 - City Council Minutes March 9, 1981 being available when you zone for multiple family. You gentlemen could possibly divide Galster Park and use it for a possible recreational site to mitigate the problems of lack of recreation for this development. You could also decide to keep the upper ball field as a recreational site to mitigate the proper necessity for recreation for this large development. The big worry of most of the citizens here is neighborhood security. Two hundred kids -will be going to schools that are generally north of this site. The shortest routes to these schools are existing through private property. South Hills Drive, you will see a lot of children going through up that street.`' to get to.their school. Hillward Drive would also see a lot of children going along to school. Those "would be the two most direct routes. The legal route is for all of the kids to walk down Aroma to its end, walk down Azusa until they get to the major cross -streets that lead to their schools. But, they don't do that. They do cross the property. That does cause a problem, and it needs to be solved. I think it is the duty of this developer to solve that problem, and, you should, as a Council, require its solution',before you approve this pre- cise plan. I ask you this evening to seriously consider the alternative.::open to you, that is, to recommit this precise plan and the associated E.I.R. to the Planning Commission for a revision by a professional'staff consultant that understands the needs of both condominiums and single family homes in a relationship to an apartment. I believe it would be a wise decision for the future of the City of West Covina to have a full, professional evaluation of all of the concerns of the citizens that have been brought up this evening. Therefore, I ask you this evening to vote to reconsider this matter in the future after a proper E.I.R. has been prepared. Thank you. G. A. Achstatter (Received written testimony as ordered into 2167 Aroma Drive the record by Mayor Shearer and delivered West Covina, CA by R. Brown to the Council.) "While I will be unable to be present at the hearing concerning Precise Plan No. 746, I want to have it on record that I vehemently oppose the plan for the following reasons,. (1) The area is a known problem drainage area. (2) No safeguards will be taken to protect my home from flood damage resulting from the proposed development. (3) The developer has no insurance that will protect my home should flood damage be caused by his development. - 46 - =,City Council Minutes March 9, 1981 .(4) The precise plan does not take into account future development plans for this water shed. (5) An Environmental Impact statement should be done on the whole water shed as one entity. The E.I.R. for Precise Plan 746 does not do this. (6) The water and soils study was performed by a company paid for by the developer. An impartial source should be sued. (7) Recent storm patterns have made_it obvious that we need more stringent drainage control. 'Precise Plan No. 746 does not call for this. (8) Due to the close proximity of the develop- ment to my home, the City should limit the hours of construction from 7:00 A.M. - 6:00 P.M. Monday through Friday. (9) No mitigating measures are planned to alleviate the rodent problem that will ensue once the development begins. (10) No mitigating measures are Planned to avoid disturbing the ground cover that may be destroyed due to the proximity of the development to my home. (11) My view of the Galster Park will be des- troyed by the development. (12) There will be a considerable los.s of recreational facilities in the area. (13) The rapid increase in population on Aroma Drive has not been properly studied for its negative impacts. (14) The City should make an attempt to purchase or lease the land from its current owner to avoid losing the use of the "lower ballfield". (15) It is my understanding that the inclusion of the pool is not mandatory -for this development. The City Council should assure that it is mandatory. (16) There is no overall plan for the San Jose Hills that has met with the approval of the residents of West Covina. (17) This development violates Assembly Bill 2370, which requires a 2,000,foot buffer zone surrounding a Class I landfill. - 47 - City Council Minutes March 9, 1981 (18) This development violates Article 34 of 10 the Public Housing Project Law. (19) The City Planning Commission did not do a thorough job in their Environmental Impact Report. Another one should be performed." Shearer: Anyone else wishing to testify this evening in opposition? This gentleman here. Who else? This gentleman on the aisle here. Anyone else? The gentleman in the last row will be third. Frank Overproler No matter how the decision goes.here today, 2124 Kings Crest good or bad, I am going to be at the brunt. West Covina, CA If it is a bad decision, I am going to have to bear the brunt of this because my property is adjacent right at the top of the hill. Now, I have attended both the Planning Commission hearings and these hearings, and the thing that I keep hearing from everyone is lack of recreation. Now, I have lived at that address for approximately five to six years, and the ball diamonds were always there and in use until this year. Now for some reason unbeknownst to me, someone spent a lot of money to build these ball diamonds and felt it was necessary to develop this recrea- tion for our youth. Now, all of a sudden... And, at that time there was nothing in the valley. There was Galster Park; it was open to the public; and there was Galster Wood condominium development. Now, the hillside is covered with apartments and condominiums and more are coming, and all of a sudden we don't need the ball diamonds any more. We apparently don't need Galster Park any more either. And, the only thing I see as additional recreation is a 750 square foot pool in this develop- ment, which speaks for itself. I don't think I have to tell you that is totally inadequate. I personally feel that unless this recreation is mitigated in some way, being at the top of the slope, that is the only natural place for kids to play. It is very steep. It is going to create vandalism along the top of the slope, which, again, is going to be my problem. I feel it is going to create some -erosion problems which won't be mine; it will be Galster Wood or the development by itself. So, I feel unless there are some other arrange- ments made for recreation in that area, I think you should send this back to the Planning Commission for some other plan. I just don't think introducing 200 children or 150 or even 100 children in that area without any parks and that small of a pool and a little tot lot is sufficient. I just don't think it will work and it is not fair to the neighbors. Thank you. City Council Minutes March 9, 1981 • Shearer: The gentleman on the aisle. Tom Walsh I am here also to appeal and voice my opposition 2205 Paseo to the Planning Commission's and the City Council's de Peak approval of Precise Plan 746. I fail to under - West Covina, CA stand the action of our City officials recommending approval of this project in light of the following: . The Environmental Impact Report identified many significant effects, but failed to provide adequate mitigating measures. One of the prime impacts was the identification and brief discussion in the E.I.R. of the B.K.K. problem. We call i C a sanitary landfill; B.K.K. Corporation calls it a corporation; it is known as a toxic waste landfill; and it is known by many other names by the adjacent homeowners. We are all quite aware of the present and possible long-term problems posed by the existence of the landfill and the view of the published position of the B.K.K. Corporation officials:.to fight any attempt of closure all of the 'way to the Supreme Court. I cannot understand the West Covina official's posture in approval of Precise Plan No. 746. It is my understanding based on the facts supplied by City Staff .that (1) the tenants of the project will be selected based on qualifications as established by HUD from the entire Los Angeles County area. The proposed project, in my opinion, will not provide any assistance to our own community, either the low income, the handicapped or the elderly. My opposition to acceptance is included in the Guidelines for the Environmental Quality Act of 1970, Title 14, Appendix "G", Significant Effects, and I quote, "A project will not normally have a significant effect on the environment if it will (under Item "X") violate any .ambient air quality standards, contribute substantially to the existing or projected air quality violation,'or (and I underline this) expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutants concentrations." The E.I.R. touched upon the B.K.K. situation, and by its very mention in the E.I.R., it automatically became identified as a significant effect. If you permit this project to continue, I maintain that the City Will become responsible for the health and well being of any person or persons granted rental rights in these units. Title 14, Section "G:', Item "X" was included to protect the elderly, who, because of age, may have respiratory problems; the handi- capped for the same reason; and/or children, who cannot protect themselves. Does this City not have responsibility to its citizens, present and future, regardless of their financial situation? I speak to this item mainly because of the Planning Commission's questions and Staff's response as included - 49 - i City Council Minutes • in the minutes of the Planning Cc Pages 4, 5, 13, 14 and 15. Thes( to you. The Planning Commissions ignore our responsibilities as c' by the action to postpone for Tel ness package, and the grandfather date. I don't believe that this ing and mitigating a significant priorities and our responsibilit • March 9, 1981 mmission meeting, January 21, 1981, minutes have been made available and the Staff have attempted to tizens to future project tenants i:ew the perspective renter aware- ing of the total issue at a later is the proper method of identify - impact. I ask, where are our es? Another point of interest is the fact supplied by HUD in 35A, and I quote, "A congressional inquiry has been made on this project, and it has been assigned an inquiry number." I believe this result of the action by the Cit instruct the Planning Commissio possible amendment, suspension permit'. A l l of the inf by the citizens of our communit and a recommendation returned t to solicit a corporation qualif Impact Report. The Staff's att vain effort, and it is my opini critical review by the courts. haotic situation is a direct of West Covina, and that was to to hold hearings for the d revoking of the B.K.K. use rmation presented to this Council should be reviewed by the Council, the Planning Commission for them ed to perform an Environmental mpt to perform the E.I.R. was a n that it would be subject to I also strongly urge you to recommend further action beyond a professional E.I.R. be postponed pending the results of the public hearing before the Planning Commission of B.K.K. Landfill operations. Thank you. Shearer: The gentleman in the back row. Going to pass? Gentleman: Yes, it has already been covered. Shearer: Anyone else wi (Done indicate portion. We a rebuttal. Anyone who is suppor to talk, and there was lots of you to confine your comments to in opposition. As best as I ca in that regard. Obviously, I t testimony that was given, we ar three minute rule. I think it that. So, if you will give me think you will need, we will pr Ching to testify in opposition? 1.) Alright, we will close that -e now into the period for :ing of the project who wishes :estimony given, I would urge those points that were raised i recall, I will try to keep you link because of the amount of not going to adhere to the vould be unfair to try to rebut ,ome idea of how much time you )bably give it. You may proceed. 50' - l� u • • City Council Minutes Public Testimony In Rebuttal K. Phillip Knierim, Esq. Fulop, Roston, Burns & McKittrick 96.65 Wilshire Blvd. 7th Floor Beverly Hills, CA March 9, 1981 I am here representing the project propq,aent. Even though I am repre- senting someone else, I will do r,y best to confine myself to the =�hree minutes with a very short exLe'asion of it'. One of the principle matters I wanted to address was the consistency with the General Plan. Rather than take ;lour time to do so, I have a letter with copies for .-he,Council that I would like to file with the City Clerk, and if I could, have it be part of the record. One thing that I would like to say about the plan consistency issue is that it is basically a "red herring". As the letter indicaltes and as your Staff indicated they are well aware, the whole idea about zoning and plans is to control land use, not to have arbitrary inconsistencies that lawyers can argue over between various paper designations. The project is consistent with the plan, and, as the letter points out, there is absolutely no legal requirement that it satisfy anything else to do with the plan. The law provides a very specific remedy for makirsg zoning consistent with the plan and disapproving projects isn't part of it. The Subdivision Map Act, which covers this project because it is a multi-3d:ait residential development, only requires that consistency with she plan be shown. I think one other point is worL-h mentioning in that regard, and this is the idea that once you have a large piece of property that has been planned and zoned and considered by your ocan Staff, you don't start chopping away at it, cut it in half, and then try to apply the designation that was made for all of it to half of it. I think that if you look at what the opponents have submitted suggesting that you be treating this as a 3.8 or 4 acre tract instead of a 6.11 acre tract, 170u see that they don't have any legal authority for their position at all. There is a very good reason for that. There is none. The Planning Sitaff took a look at a whole area, planned it for a particular kind of residential density, and you looked at it again in the (zoning process and zoned it for a particular density that included the whole land. There is no reason now not to include the whole land in assessing the merits of the project, which leaves 5I07. open space, and, if I can say so, a very finely designed cluster development over the whole parcel. - 51 - LJ • City Council Minutes One other thi and I come to this rather late attending any of your other he hear over and over again the s Environmental Impact Report sh but.instead should be sent .out I think that if you look at th are. supposed to do, you would. what you have done because the almost everybody who gets invo the side of developers or proje biased. I am paid to be biased The other lawyer who was up he of the opponents. The develop a project and make a profit. most of the project opponents a issues that they have stated, a don't want the development. T State E.I.R. Guidelines that y thing above everything else, a Impact Report that is put out s judgment of the.lead agency. of West Covina. This is becaus men, as elected officials, and are the people who are charged decisions for the best benefit recognize that you and your Sta be depended on to assess the co and come out with not only a fa and environmentally sound decis are'doing the finest thing poss done -in-house by your.own impar� very much urge you to take into your Staff has said, and to go shown very, very compelling rea, an I think only One a very small one. With re; heard criticism about the fact entrance to this project appar( from the entrance to another pi that any number of traffic eng: is much sounder planning, part: going to have intersections on It is easier to control the st< is easier to provide visibilit, you have a blind approach comic approach coming off here, and off there. Many, many traffic you that cross streets are mucl random lights going off to the March 9, 1981 e r hie o ng that. I . have found very 'interes having not had the privilege of a rings., but I was enchanted to ugges_tion that somehow your ould not be prepared by the Staff, to some.kind of.private consulta enviro'rimental -laws and what the find that they would prefer exact environmental laws recognize tha lied in these disputes, either on ect opponents, is biased. I am ,here in favor of the developer. le was paid to be biased in favor er is biased. He wants to build I think it is safe to assume that re biased -some because of the nd some because they simply environmental laws in the u heard referred to say one that is that the Environmental hould reflect the independent That is, in this case, the City e they recognize that you gentle - your very fine Planning Staff, with being impartial and making of all of the citizens. They Cff are the.people who can most mpeting biasses of both sides it and equitable, but rational ion. I would submit that you ible by .having your E.I.R.'s tial City Staff, and.I would serious consideration what with your Staff unless you are sons to do lotherwise. �Ine... Well) two final points. pect to the traffic, you have that there is going to be an �ntly right across the street oJect. I think you will find neers will tell you that:this cularly on a curve, if you are a main street to have them cross. plights or traffic signals. It from both directions than if g off here, and another blind nother blind approach coming engineers would suggest to much sounder planning than left or right at various.points. ting, • • • City Council Minutes With respect t I think you should ask yourself likely to live in this developm whatever supposed risk may exis to that is very clear, they cer should ask yourself .then whethe to make an informed choice to ii get better housing for themselv choice to be made for them by p perhaps an excuse to deny them opponents already have. Thank March.9, 1981 the B.K.K. Sanitary Landfill, whether the people that are ,nt are going to be informed of to them. I think the answer ainly are. And, I think you you want to entitle people .prove their lot in life, to s, or whether you want the ople who use the landfill as he opportunities the project ou Shearer: Anyone else wishing to speak in rebuttal? Tim Smith I would lik Project Architect physical fe by the vari community. five minute First of a the gentleman before me pretty that. I think one of the fact is that I am biased and the pe their viewpoints when they wer easements and things like that that they were deducting from space, which would be on our s there or not. So, I don't thi were a fair analysis of the tr- they were trying to get across In terms o was some question whether a ba A basketball court will be pro half -court facility, not a ful to address myself to the tures that were brought up us citizens who live in the I will take.about three to 11, in terms of density, I think iwell described our position on rs you need to take into concern ple before me were biased in calculating density and moving Some of the various easements ur site included flat open to whether the easement was k some of the areas they deducted e density, or the true point that to the Council. the recreation facilities, there ketball court would be provided. ided on the site. It will be a court. Also, I think the suggestion that the plan should be brought back for re-evaluation of the exact positioning of the pool, whatever size it might be, is basically a waste of everybody's time. I think the idea would be to basically state th-e condition as to what the requirements of the pool should be, and let the Planning Department determine whether it is placed in a proper location. I think the concept of what the pool will end up is approximately correct. It will vary depending on what the final dimensions of the pool will be. Guest parking. I really can't imagine such an issue over guest parking. IThe guest parking meets the City requirements. It is not arbitrarily positioned. It is positioned 53 • 1J • City Council Minutes March 9, 1981 first of all to make parking a major concern for the occupants of the project, and not for the guests. Number two, it is also positioned in such a way that it is at the most remote end of the site and in the most critical acoustical area of the site leading up to the valley. The idea was to limit the use of that part of the site as.much as possible and that was the one use that we could find that potentially would not be used all of the time. So, as an acoustical factor, that is 'why the guest parking was placed there, as well as for the conven- ience of the people occupying the project and not the guests. There was some Iconcern about children from our project crossing through the projects to the north. I ;would just remind everybody that we are providing a six foot high wall all of the way around the site. There are also changes in grade between the adjacent sites. So, children would have to cross over a six foot barrier and some embankments to get across to the neighboring site.l So, we will provide the barrier and I think that is as much as physically can be done. Traffic. Aga Engineer) evaluated the traffi neutral position, has indicate that he doesn't feel the impac project will significantly imp Drive. In terms of the confli like to again point out that t the project is a secondary roa to the rear of our project. T northerly side of the site and is;_Positioned so that it will with the adjacent projects. I condominium project that is no you ask most traffic engineers location. Drainage. I is a drainage problem on this it would still be a problem.. is definitely improving the si water. I would say 90% of it connect directly to an existin Through regrading and recompac there will be no surface water Although there was mention of soils reports haven't verified I would imagine that it is mor off of the hill. Again, I am ing the soils report, that is In, the City Engineer (Traffic input on Aroma, and in his to us, as stated in the E.I.R., of the cars coming out of this ct -the traffic flow on Aroma t points and the bend, I would e lower road to.the south of 'and is basically an easement e rna j or entrance is o_1 the again, as pointed out before, inimize the..conflict points is directly across from the under development, which, if would be the most desirable will be the first to admit, there site. Left in its natural state, I think what we are doing there tuation. We are controlling all through underground systems which g storm drain life on Aroma Drive. Ling the existing fill on the site, spill -off onto the adjacent sites. a natural spring on the site, our that there is a natural spring. of a ponding of the water coming Zot a soils expert, but in review- --he basic indication. -54 - Minutes of the City Council There was a qu The air conditioning units will positioned in such a 'way that t within our project or people on Drive. March 9, 1981 stion about air conditioning units. be located on the roof. They are ey cannot be seen from any people the surrounding projects on Aroma Acoustics. We have provided a solid masonry wall around the project, which acts as an acoustical 'Duffer. We have been asked to provide additional, landscaping, which will, again, absorb the sound. I mentioned the factor about the guest parking in an effort to take the potential least active use on the site and put it in the most critical area. The buildings themselves, although you cannot see the raster plan,right now, betray a cluster. Most of the units turn in... Tice: Excuse me. Mr the other draw what this is. Miller, would you take down ng so that we can visualize Smith: Okay. As -you 'can see, the units turn in within themselves, so the buildings them- selves create is wall around the common facility and open space, and will create a sound baffle for sound going up the hill. Also,l in terms of noise coming out of the units, I would say approximately 25% of the units would be radiating out towards the surrounding developments, and 75% of the units will 'be turned back into the courts or unto Aroma Drive. The noise coming out of the units has_been basically minimized by the master planning. The idea of trying to put in solid windows, I don't think is a feasible idea. I am not going to get into all of the ramifications of that: Also, the car lit --le red line drawn around t That red line is a block wall noise generating out the carpo be bounced back from the surro the carports you can also see, are secondary walls, block wal carport would be on the entran directed away from the adjacen I think that physical points of the master up, unless there is another q Shearer: Are there an time? orts themselves, you can see a e perimeter of the carports. set there as a baffle. The is will hit the block wall and nding residents. In back of ed lines coming down, those S. The only open part of the e side, which in all cases is projects. retty well covers most of the Ian that the citizens brought stion that I might have missed. questions of Mr. Smith at this Chappell: One question! A comment was made by the opponents in showing one of the pictures Z5 City Council Minutes that the wa-1_er from your pro4ec-t Could we go into that one a 'Litt. hear it? March 9, 190"1 could be running down the street. e bit more so trjat everybody can Smith: Yes. We are pllanning an underground storm drain system which•-:, will basically parallel and go down t1he parking on Ithe north .side. Tire entrance point of that system will pick up the majority of the water coming off of the slopes above. Connecting into that system will be a catch'basin as a secondary smaller system to collect the -,;pater on -site and put it back into that storm drain line. That storm drain lime will then connect into the street. At least 90% of the surface water that now comes into teat area will be collected underground and taken directly into the storm drain lime so that number one, the po ynding that it creates... Vo.at happens on that site now, caahica is relatively flat, tice water comes doc�an into it and the water `tas no place to go because there are no drains out to the Aroma property, so it saturates the site and seeps into the surrounding developments. Our pro- ject will eliminate that. It will collect all of L at water and take it directly out to the street. Shearer: When it gets to the street, though, it. is disctoarged under the surface. Smith: No. It is di- slharged Y basicall into the drain, the storm drain. Shearer: Is there a storm. drain in Aroma Drive: Smith: Yes. Shearer: Is that correct, Mr. Thomas? Thomas: Yes. Shearer: What size is the storm drain there on Aroma Drive? Thomas: I believe it is about a sixty inch. Shearer: So, your system will connect into... S:Ylith Aroma Drive. So, t1ke illusion of a sheet of surface water coming over our site to Aroma would not be -there. Literally, 90% of the water tilat comes off of that slope wi-1.1 be connected into our i system and never 17et onto Al oiiia Drive. Shearer: Any other questions? (None indicated.) Thank you,. Mr.,. Smite., Anyone else wishing to testify in rebuttalZ I - City Council Minutes March 9, 1981 Mark Maltz -man I 'would just like to say a few things. With Shapell Govt. respect to One dump site and its relationship Dousing, Inc. to the E.I.R., I.would just like to make a few comments. Number one, our soils engineer has been out there and specifically looked at the issue of whether or not there might be any chemical migration. Ize tested the soil, and he tested the water, and not only did he find that there was no indication of any abnormalities, it was also his opinion that that is just a very unlikely possi- bility after having studied it. Also, with respect to HUD, I don't think that it is up to this Council here to protect HUD's interest. If they are going to make any separate sort of studies or what have you, they are a very. largebureaucracy,.and -they are capable of making plenty of studies. I think, you know, that the Council should make w atever determination it feels best. With respect to the traffic, I think that the man proceding me, Mr. Smith, has pretty accurately rebutted that. I just would like to point out that the side of the street that this project is on enables someone coming out of that drive- way to .look both ways. At school that is uhat they always cold • me to look to the rigid and look to the left. You can do that Llhere and you can see because you are basically at i.he apex of the curve. You can see one side, and you can see for a long way, and you can look to the other side and you can also see for a long 'way. I really think that had this project been on the other street, this.comment-would have -been -appropriate, but I don't think that it is here. I would like to just say that 'with respect to the parking, we do meet the City requirements. It has been suggested that we park.on the easement. I would like to point out that the easement has a very limited use and it is only for ingress and egress to that rear property there, and parking would not be allowed on it. Also, I would just like to state that we are a very large company and this is sort of like the small division of this large company. The majority of our company develops luxury houses and vae sort of have a reputation to uphold, and if we came in here and developed something that immediately became an eyesore or problem in the ,community, why it would reflect adversely on the rest of our • company, and that is some- thing that we don't have any intention of doing. Also, we intend to develope4 ture apartment developments in the Southern California area, and if we were to have developed an eyesore or something that was detrimental or something that had a bad reputation, why that would prohibit us from ever ,,developing elsewhere. So, when we put our name on something, we chink 57 - City Council Minutes March 9, 1981 I hat it is developed in a very high quality fashion. We think • that as this project is developed, it is going to be something that as the years go by'we are all going to look back on and be proud of. Thank you. Shearer: Any questions? (None indicated.) Thank you. Anyone else wishing to testify in rebuttal? (None indicated.) If not, we will close the public portion of the hearing. At this time I am going d.-o ask the City Attorney two questions. Would you care to continent, number one, on what is relevant and what is not as it -relates. to some of the testimony that has been presented .there this evening as far as the Council's consideration in making our decision? I am speaking specifically to the question of financing, HUD's involvement, and so forth. And, secondly, if you feel that you can, and I hope you can, address AB 2370, the 2,000 foot perimeter issue. How does that, in your opinion, relate to the item before us this evening? Attorney: Yes, Mr. Mayor. Relative to the first question, this is a precise plan matter. That is, a zoning determination for the City Counci+_. As such, only land use considerations are appropriately considered 'by t1le Council in making a determination on this matter. By land use considerations, of course, I am referring to matters such as traffic, density, and other traditional land use and zoning matters. The economics of the program, the funding.of the pro- gram, are all inappropriate considerations to be taken into account by the Council in making a decision, reaching a decision, on this project because they are not land use determinations or land.use issues, and they should be specifically excluded from your consideration in reaching a decision on this matter. Relative to the second question, I must plead personal ignorance on the issue of the assembly bill that you referred to. however, it is my understanding that my partner, Colin Lennard, has provided an opinion to the'. City Staff on this issue to the effect that consideration ofa precise plan is by no means precluded from activities of the City Council in relation to a project of this kind based upon the findings that have been made to this point. So, it is my understanding that his familiarity with the bill and his opinion would be that (and has been communicated to Staff),you are not prevented by reason of that recent legislation fropi'' `proceeding with a determination on this matter. • S`aearer: Thank you. Gentlemen, the matter is now open for Council discussion. C'i,appe?_l:, I would like to bring some history into this project, if I may. The ball diamond is the item that I will discuss at the moment. -58i- • • City Council Minutes March 9, 1981 Back in the days when San Jose Little League played at the San Jose School, the facility became inadequate for size. The league at that time started looking around for a ball diamond, and they went to Hollencrest School. Hollen- crest School being at that time an intermediate school; it was the opinion of Staff and the School Board that Hollencrest School was not.an appropriate site for a :Little League bail diamond, or two diamonds is what they needed. Being on the School Board at the time and knowing Mr. Brutoco from Junior Footeall (in those days, Pop Warner), and knowing that he was youth -oriented, I approached him and asked him if.he wouldn't sit down with the officers of,the San Jose Little League to attempt to work out some place to play ball. It was his decision that he had a lot of land over on the site that Happens to be located, and that he was willing to sit:_ down with the league. He sat down.with them and allowed them to build the ball diamonds that are there so that they could play baseball. He allowed them to build it on his sit-e. The league itself built the fields along with some of his help with heavy equipment and things of that nature. I think he should be commended for allowing something like.this 'Co happen because there are not many citizens in our cor�Triunity that would allow their property to be tied up and used for many years as it was. We did receive one of the ball diamonds, the northern site, as a site for the City, and we determined it to be a mini -park up there for the ball diamond. He retained the lower diamond, and told the people at.San Jose Little League that at the time that he was going to develop that property, they, of course, would have to find new sites. It was the wisdom of this City Council that we relocate this league. It is an important part of our community, and we therefore have relocated this league, and Mr_. Louis=Brutoco, I assume, now is selling the property to Shapell (not spelled the same way as.my name and no relative). That is where we stand as far as the ball dia- monds go. Once again, I would say that he should be comrtiended rather than the remarks made somewhere along the way about taking the ball diamond away from the children. Also, when we held the ;hearings on Aroma"�, Drive and the condominiums that were built along there (she Mayor stated this a few minutes ago), there`.__was more.opposition in those hearings than there is here. And, the opposition, with the exception of the landfill gave almost the same reasoning for not wanting that site there. You can go back to the record, and it is there.. I have hadrit reviewed, and it is there. So, 59r City Council Minutes March 9, 1981 'we as a City Council (and,. only two of us were around at that time) • are seeing almost the same things prevailing again by the people who live in the site that was opposed by other residents of our City. So, it is kind of tough as -we sit here to come up with a... I thought we had a logical decision in those days, and we may make a logical_ decision tonight. I don't know. A comment was made that,,S$100,000.00 was going to be.a block grant from this City. This City Council makes those decisions, and this City Council has not made a decision to give any money to this site. And, as long as I sit here, I will vote ,against usproviding any funds for this site.. So, whoever made that comment did not quite have all his facts. Pools can be removed only by this City Council. The Planning Commission put a Ipool in this site as they have in most all other apartment type and condominium type projects in West Covina, and once again I will state to you, that as a City Councilman, I will not vote to have this pool removed. I will encourage Staff and the developer .to enlarge the pool. I think that right now.as far as the health hazard from B,K.K., some of you in the audience have had the • privilege of listening to the people from the State and from .the County Health Department, Water Quality Control, Air Quality Control, Solid Waste Management and others tell us that is a safe site. If our good congressman feels that through his influence with HUD he can stop this project(.:. We do not negoti- ate with HUD in any manner, way, shape or form, and that would be his prerogative. But, as far as I am concerned, 'we have a good project here. It meets the criteria that this City Council has. in the decision making process. Hopefully, it will turn out as well as the other project on Aroma Drive. That is all I have, Mayor. Tennant: Mayor_, I share most of Councilman Chappell's views;- on this matter. I think it is important, at least for me to say, 'what I view ray job is as City Councilman and w1-iat I think a City Council is to do. As a City Council., we are not to be concerned with where someone gets their money to build a project. Our job is to do two things. Number one is to protect the private property rights of individuals, and, secondly, to insure that our zoning and building codes are enforced. This individual.,Who owns this property, Mr. Brutoco, its his property. He _can do whatever he wants to do. with it a•s long as. he meets our zoning and ordinances, and we have to go along with it. It is also my understanding (perhaps the City Attorney might want to correct this) that some cities and some individual councilmen have been sued when they attempted to • City Council Minutes March 9, 1981 make decisions other than on those basis.. So, obviously, I am going to have to go along with this project with the exception that I share the views that the recreation facilities are not adequate for this many units. They need a bigger pool and perhaps more open Ispace. I want to see something done with the guest parking. I am not just real happy with the traffic situation and what is going to happen to the entrance of this. So, I would suggest that it go back to the Planning Commission for another reworking. If they can work out these details and it stays within our zoning and ordinances, and it is his private property, he can pretty well do with it what he wants. I see some unhappy shaking of the heads in the audience. I think most of you know that I was voted against selling off the other land next to it since that is our private property. That belongs to this City. It was my_view that I wanted covenants on that land to make sure that ;it- di_c not go to HUD housing. !would just like to close by saying that HUD is a financing mechanism that has nothing to do with this City. I really don't know how they are going to finance this property, and I am not quite sure who they are going to rent it to. That is sort of their business. That is really in the congressman's "balley-wick" at the federal level. The federal government has to stop that financing. We can't stop it. And, it seems to me, and that is my opinion, that we have no choice but to vote for this project if they can meet these other requirements. I don't think we have any choice. I think it is our legal responsibility. Tice: I spent several portions of this weekend reviewing the E.I.R. in some detail and.the other supporting documentation. Since our dete):urination here has to be whether it meets the zoning ordinances or the building code, I don't think we have too much of a choice in our'decision. My concern is for the amount of children that are going to be in that project and the recreational facilities. That is one concern. The other concern is'the location of the guest parking. I would like to see another look at the guest parking area. Perhaps it could be moved down south more. I think, as my fellow Councilmen have said, that the pool is not really adequate for the number of children that will be in that project before it is over with. I do think that 'we have to consider the recreationalfacilities for these children. - 61 - • • • City Council Minutes March 9, 1981 There will be quite a few children. So, under the circumstances., I am requesting those issues to be addressed. In fact, I would like to hold off making any decision until I find out what the consensus is of the developer, whether he can meet this criteria or not. to enlarge the recreational facilities. Perhaps they could tell us tonight, I don't know. The plans as submitted to do meet zoning requirements and the building code, as far as I can tell. As to the density matter that came up, I might repeat that in all of our projects (as you can see in tlhe newest ones that have come up), there is a density trade-off. The entire piece of property is.taken into consideration in deter_- mining.the amount of units to be put on a piece of property. This project is 6.11 acre,,s', and that has all been considered in their density. So, they meet the density requirements, I don't -think there is any question on.that point. I would like to see some more done in the recrea- tional area. That is all I have, Mr. Mayor.. Shearer: As I sat for two and one-half, well, maybe three hours, listening to testimony, I attempted to jot down a number of factors. There is no that I can address each one. During testimony in opposition, I considered some of the things that I would like to maybe see myself, but perhaps cannot impose. Some other factors I didn't consider valid. Some:"I did consider valid and within my prerogative. I would like to address three or four that I think are important or with which I have some quarrel, so that you people can understand my.position. Going back in history, I can join with Councilman Chappell. I believe what is before us this evening is consistent with what was before us before there was anything there at all. This whole area was... I won't say it was master planned, but it was prezoned prior to annexation to the City of West Covina, if my memory serves me correct. At the time that the first pro- ject came in.`(I believe it was Galster Wood condominiums), there was considerable opposition.- At that time I offered to con- sider jiving the owner the op.poxtunity to de -annex and go back to the County because when he came into the City of West Covina, it was under the condition that certain development would be allowed. The County has less stringent requirements in most cases, I believe, than the City of West Covina., That offer was not taken. I think it would be unfair at this point to suggest - 62 - City Council Minutes .' March 9., 1981 . that we are going to (even though*it might be within the Council's prerogative, it would��be unfair.:and•.questionable morally, I believe) impose.a reduced density on this. which is, one of the last few remaining parcels. In regard to the question of_health as it relates to B.K.K., I believe that we have heard repeatedly from the people in this'State who are in the power to make those kinds of decisions, that it is not a health hazard. There is no.question that there may well be nuisance odors. I don't quarrel with teat issue. But, as to the question of health., the people who are empowered to make those kinds of decisions, the experts in the field, have repeatedly said that there isno health problem and that it is a safe site. One other point, the question of access to schools. When that 'testimony`.was given, I thought, "Wow, maybe this would be-an,opportunity.to develop some sort of pedestrian access directly:from the site up over -the hill." Then I recalled, as Councilman Ken (Chappell) -remembers, 'we met down with the Rowland School District some time ago -to develop such a facility in. Woodside Village It looked great on paper. We went ahead and it was constructed. Then, shortly after the area began to develop and the youngsters began to use-the'path, the "arenas came in and asked us to tear it up and close it because it was a source of problems. Children were accosted on their way to and from school because it was not along the pib is street. So, you create what looks good.on-paper,'and when ile is actually built and in practice, it doesn`t worrt.� So, I will reject that.. I..find the -plan deficient in two aspects, and I will not vote to approve it this evening, Number one is the recreation. 'I believe it was Mr. Smith in response to my question, by his own admission, who said that a pool for this type of development was on the small side. I didn't make the statement. That came from a witness for the project; In Mr. Smith's rebuttal (I believe it was Mr.:Smith),-he.makes mention of a basketball court, which I find not designated on the.plans before us. I find that unacceptable. I-f it is going to be a part of the precise plan and something that this City can later.enforce, then I think it should*be included on the pre- cise plan. I am not.saying'mhat I would accept as adequate recreation, but for the number of potential youngsters.(I look at 16 three -bedroom and 65 two-bedroom.apartments, and there will no doubt be a great number, whether there are 200 or 150),, I am going to have to'be convinced by'more than just some .vague lines -on a drawing that, there- are adequate recreational :facilities., I think that is one thing that this Council has ,.acommitment to do. Whether it meets other people's involve- ment�=-,-(I am not supposed to'get into HUD, but I guess I have to in this case), w'ryether it qualifies.or not., as a luxury or, as a necessity in their view, I think adequate on -site recrea- tiona_1 -facilities for the -youngsters is dust as important as City Council Minutes . March 9, 1981 a flush toilet inside. So, if that is important inside, then I think the recreational facilities outside are just as important, and that is where I do have the authority to say "yea" or "nay" to. I want to see a more precise evaluation of recreational facilities and a.comparison of it between similar projects in the City. Whether this has to go back to. the Planning Commission or not, I do not know. Perhaps the City Attorney can tell us. My second concern for not being ale to vote on this, and I don't know what the answer is, is the conflict between the project security and the guest parr:ing. I have not yet been able to resolve that conflict. It is great to have.guest parking, but if guests can't get to it, it is as useless as... There is an expression that fits that. I don't like the answer that I got that you can go some place and ring a bell and the apartment.manager will answer it and open the gate, and then you can go back and get in your car and drive into the project. I don't buy that. I just can't imagine that happening. I think something has to give. I don't 'know what that is. I am not going to sit -here and design the pro- ject any more than I am going to determine how it is going to be financed. But, I cannot see the compatibility between guest parking... I can see what is going to happen. They are going to park on the street, as was said by Mr. Brown, and they won't go back in and move their car. They will•leave it out on the street, and if there is no parking on the street, they might drive into Galster Wood and find a place to park. I think that the plan can be redesigned to accomr.:odate guest parking outside of the security gate. If you take a look at the plan, the security gate could be moved in.further on the site. Yes, the potential is that the resi- dents will use it, but that 24 hour a day manager will have to spend some of his time policing the parking spaces rather than answering the buzzer for guests. So, until those two factors are worked out to my satisfaction... number one, there is recreation on -site compatible with other types of development, hard recreation - I don't mean just a lot of grass, I mean a basketball court, an adequate size pool, or something, I am not saying what it is, volley ball or a variety of things, and number two, the question of guest parking... I cannot vote to approve this precise plan. I would like to hear from the City Attorney whether the matter, if my colleagues share my concern, has to go back to the Planning Commission or whether the developer, if he chooses, can merely pursue the matter, add these features, make them more precise, City Council,Minites March 9, 1981 on the plan, or whatever, and come back directly to the Council. -Attorney: Yes, Mr. Mayor. The City Council has the choice as to whether it wishes to refer the matter to Staff, and ask the developer to work with Staff in bringing additional information back to the Council for your consideration on the issues which you have identified as those of concern, or you may refer the matter back to the Planning (Commission and have the developer bring additional information to the Planning Commission for the purpose of having the Commission review and provide their input to -you prior to a decision being made. Shearer: So, it does'not have to go back'to the Planning Commission? Attorney: No, -it is not required.. The code says "may". "The Council may because of making substantial changes or because of a desire for additional information, or due to the submission of significant new materials or evidence) refer the matter back to the Planning Commission." But, that is permissive. It is "may" rather'than "shall". Shearer: My recommendation on these two points would be rather than... To expedite the matter... Since the. Planning Commission has already said "okay" to this, to send it back to them for a revision, I find a little bit incompatible. I think the Staff has heard our comments here. I would recommend that we refer the matter back to Staff for a resolution of these matters for submission back, at the earliest possible date, to theCity Council, as far as I am concerned incorporating those two matters and if there are any other matters that my colleagues want to add, now would be the time before we have the motion. Tice: Those two concerns are Ithe only two that I had with it. I would rather have it that way. I would rather have it go right back to the Council. Tennant: Just tied in with that, I am still not clear on how that front entrance is going to work. Are they going to have gates, steel bars and cement? How is the front gate going to work as far as security and as far as guest parking? I.am not quite sure how it is going to work. Shearer: Alright. Then, we would add a more precise description of the security method to the guest parking and the recreational facilities. Tennant: That.'s right. "65; - 4 1 :I • I* City Council Minutes March 9, 1931 Chappell: i think if we are going to refer it 'back, it should be referred to Staff because if we go through the process of sending it back to the Planning Commission, we are liable to delay sixty or ninety days more, and that certainly, wouldn't be fair if the Sta.f.'J" and the dEvcloper can work it vit prior to our next- meeting, which would 'be sat -is - factory to me. Tice: Iwill make almotion on this matter, if you want, to refer it back to Staff to see what can be worked out, and then to come back to the Council as soon as possible. Shearer: That would include the three items? Tice: That would include the three items. Shearer: Tice: Tennant: Shearer: .. Recreation,, security and guest parking. Recreation, security and guest parking. Second. Is there any further discussion? (None indicated.) All in favor. All oral votes in the affirmative. Motion carries in the affirmative, four in favor, one absent. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES March 9, 1981 HEARINGS (CONT) 2) AD 80-1 PROSPERO DRIVE ASSESSMENT DISTRICT - PUBLIC HEARING ON THE DEBT LIMIT REPORT Council reviewed staff'-s report. The recommendation Hearing re Debt Limit Report was to hold over, with the hearing open, the action on (AD 80-1) .the. Debt Limit Report until the next City Council meeting of March 23, 1981. 3) AD 80-1 PROSPERO DRIVE ASSESSMENT DISTRICT - HEARING ON THE RESOLUTION OF INTENTION Hearing re Resolution of Council review staff's report. The recommendation was Intention to hold over, with the hearing open, the action on the (AD 80-1) Resolution of Intention and the Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact until the next City Council meeting of March.23, 1981. Motion to hold over Motion by Tice, seconded by Chappell, and unanimously hearing until 3/23/81 carried to approve staff's recommendations to hold over both the above hearings until March 23, 1981. COMMISSIONS & DEPARTMENTAL ITEMS (CONT) FINANCE DEPARTMENT (CONT 2) PLACEMENT OF GENERAL AND AUTO LIABILITY COVERAGE General & Auto Liability Council reviewed staff's report. coverage Motion by Tice, seconded by Tennant to approve the, CHRIST & SPANG, -INC. proposal of Christ & Spang, Inc., wherein coverages for General and Auto Liability will be procured with a self=insured retention of $100,000.00 aggregate/stop loss of $400,000.00 with a combined upper limit of $10 million. The premium for the coverage is $35,252. Motion carried by roll call vote: AYES: Tennant, Chappell, Tice, Shearer NOES: None ABSENT: Bacon 3) RENEWAL OF LIABILITY ADMINISTRATION AGREEMENT Renewal of Liability Council reviewed staff's report. , Administration Agreement Motion by Chappell, seconded by Tennant to authorizE R.L. KAUTZ & CO. the Mayor and City Clerk to execute an amendment to the Services Agreement with R.L.Kautz & Co. establishin( service fees of $5,700 per annum. Motion carried by roll call vote: AYES: Tennant, Chappell*, Tice, Shearer NOES: None ABSENT: Bacon DEVELOPMENT SERVICES 1) SOUTHERLY ANNEXATION NO. 235 Council reviewed staff's report. Southerly Annexation City Attorney presented: No. 235 RESOLUTION NO. 6292 - A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE -CITY OF !JEST COVINA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING THE ANNEXATION OF CERTAIN UNINHABITED TER- RITORY (SOUTHERLY ANNEXATION NO. 235) Motion by Chappell, seconded by Tice, and unani- Adoption of mously carried to waive further reading of the reso- Resolution No. 6292 lution and to adopt. — 67 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES March 9, 1981 2) EASTERLY ANNEXATION N0. 236 Council reviewed staff's report Easterly Annexation C.ity Attorney presented: No. 236 RESOLUTION NO. 6293 - A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF WEST COVINA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING THE ANNEXATION OF CERTAIN UNINHABITED TERRITORY (EASTERLY ANNEXATION NO. 236) Motion by Chappell, seconded by Tennant, and unani- Adoption of mously carried to waive further reading of the reso- Resolution No. 6293 lution and to adopt. HUMAN RESOURCES DEPARTMENT SENIOR CITIZEN CENTER DESIGN SERVICES Council reviewed staff's report. Senior Citizen Center Motion by Chappell, seconded by Tice to a) reallocate Design Services a "not -to -exceed". -amount of $70,000 from the Housing Development Support Program to the senior citizen center -project for architectural and engineering services, and b) authorize staff to solicit architectural and engineering services. Motion carried by roll call vote: AYES: Tennant, Chappell, Tice, Shearer NOES: None ABSENT: Bacon "CITY ATTORNEY ORDINANCE FOR ADOPTION RE CABLE TELEVISION Council reviewed staff's report. City Attorney presented: CABLE T.U. Ordinance ORDINANCE NO. 1506 - AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF WEST COVINA, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING ARTICLE II OF CHAPTER 11 RELATING TO FRANCHISES FOR COMMUNITY ANTENNA TELEVISION SYSTEMS Motion by Chappell, seconded by Tennant, and unani- mously carried to waive further reading of the ordinance. Motion by Chappell, seconded by Tennant to adopt the ordinance. Motion carried by roll call vote: AYES: Tennant, Chappell, Tice, Shearer Adoption of NOES: None Ordinance No. 1506 ABSENT: Bacon Recess for Mayor Shearer called,a recess at 11:23 PM for the purpose Redevelopment Agency of conducting the Redevelopment Agency meeting. Council reconvened at 11:28 PM. CITY MANAGER 1) LEGISLATION - SB 6 Council reviewed staff's report. Motion by Chappell, seconded by Tice, and unani- mously carried to oppose SB 6 and authorize the Mayor to communicate.with appropriate legislators. 2) LEGISLATION - SB 314 Council reviewed staff's report. Motion by Chappell, seconded by Tice, and unani- mously carried to oppose SB 314 and authorize the Mayor to communicate with appropriate legislators. A • • ATTEST: CITY COUNCIL MINUTES March 9, 1981 SCAG Executive Committee City Manager Fast stated that the Southern California appointees Association of Governments requested a delegate and an. alternate..to the Executive .Committee. Mayor Shearer appointed the Mayor as the delegate and Tice volunteered to be the alternate. Motion by Cha.ppel-l. seconded by Tennant, and carried unanimously to,approve the appointments. MAYOR'S REPORTS 1) RELOCATION APPEALS BOARD Motion by Chappell, seconded by Tice, and unani- mously carried to instruct the City Manager to prepare letters,'for the ten candidates and the Mayor to con- tact- each:. Mayor Shearer proclaimed the month of April as CPR MONTH. COUNCILMEN'S REPORTS/COMMENTS No reports or comments offered at the meeting. APPROVAL OF DEMANDS Motion by Tice, seconded by Chappell to approve Demands totaling $958,924.00 as listed on three check registers: UCB 84493, UCB 84826, and the third number to be supplied at the next Council meeting. Motion carried by roll call vote: AYES:. Tennant, Chappell, Tice, Shearer NOES: None ABSENT: Bacon ADJOURNMENT City Cl Motion by Chappell, seconded by Tennant, and unanimously carried to adjourn the meeting at 11:35 PM. Mayor 69 —