Loading...
04-13-1970 - Regular Meeting - MinutesMINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF•THE CITY COUNCIL. CITY OF'WEST COVINA, CALIFORNIA APRIL 13, 1970. The -regular meeting of'the City Council was"called to order by Mayor.Leonard So Gleckman at 7:30 P.M. in the West Covina City Hall.. The Pledge of Allegiance was''led.by Councilman Tom Gillum. The invocation was given by=.Herman R. Fast, Public -Services Director. ROLL CALL Present: Chairman Gleckman; Councilmen'Gillum, Nichols, .Chappell Absent: Councilman Jim Lloyd Also Present: George Aiassa, City Manager Lela.Preston,City Clerk George Wakefield, City Attorney H. R. Fast, Public Services Director George Zimmerman, City Engineer Richard Munsell, Planning Director Ross Nammar, Administrative Analyst. Terry Brandt, Administrative Analyst Jr. APPROVAL OF MINUTES March•9, 1970 - Motion by Councilman Chappell, seconded by Councilman Nichols, and carried, approving minutes as submitted. AWARD OF BIDS PROJECT NO. AD 1-70 (Item -held over to Item B-2 (c). CIVIC CENTER LIGHTING -DISTRICT PUBLIC WORKS ITEMS PRECISE PLAN 492 LOCATION: Northerly corner of STREET .IMPROVEMENTS Vincent Avenue and Center.Street. CROWELL & LARSON Motion by Councilman Nichols"accepting street.improvements and 'authorizing release of General Insurance Company of America, "faithful performance bond No.'62273 in the amount of $2,500. Seconded by Councilman'Chappell, and carried® PRECISE PLAN 502-R, LOCATION: North Garvey Avenue easter STORM DRAIN IMPROVEMENTS ly of.Barranca Street. J. K. EICHENBAUM" and BEN WEINGART Mr. Aiassa: Mr. Mayor - staff advises there seems to be a City Manager problem here and we. would like to carry over .to the next regular Council meeting, if there are no objections. Motion by.Councilman Chappell, seconded by Councilman Nichols, and carried, that this item be carried over to the next regular Council meeting. PRECISE PLAN 562 LOCATION: Azusa Avenue northerly STREET.IMPROVEMENTS of Garvey Avenue. CHARLES R. CRICKS Motion by Councilman Chappell, seconded by Councilman Nichols, and carried, accepting street improvements and'authorizing the release of Maryland Casualty Company f aithful,performance bond No. 94-208914 in the amount .of $1,200. - 1 REG. C.C. 4-13®70 Page Two 'Public Works Items - Cont°d> PROJECT MP-69018-2 LOCATION: Galster•Wilderness Park GALSTER'PARK COMFORT STATIONS AL R, GRAY Motion by Councilman Chappell, seconded by Councilman Nichols, and carried, accepting Comfort Stations and authorizing the release of N American Bonding.Company, faithful performance bond No. 16-91 in the- amount of $57®692. 56®. PROJECT.NO. SIP-70017 LOCATION: West side of Hollenbeck GRANT DEED Street between Alaska and Thackery WALLIS C. & JOLENE HANNAH Streets. Motion by.'Councilman Chappell, `seconded by Councilman Nichols, and carried, accepting and filing the Engineer's report. RESOLUTION NO. 4132 The'City Clerk presented: ADOPTED "A RESOLUTION OF.THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY.OF WEST COVINA, ACCEPTING,THE GRANT DEED'EXECUTED BY WALLIS.C© HANNAH AND JOLENE HANNAH, AND DIRECTING THE RECORDATION THEREOF." .Mayor..Gleckman: Hearing no objections, waive further reading of the body of said Resolution. • Motion by Councilman Chappell; seconded.by Councilman Nichols, adopt- ing.said Resolution. Motion carried on roll call vote as follows: AYES: Councilmen Gillum, Nichols, Chappell, Mayor Gleckman NOES None ABSENT! Councilman Lloyd PROJECT S.P-69007 LOCATION:.Azusa Avenue SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT FOR AZU.SA AVENUE Council reviewed Engineer's report. Motion by Councilman Chappell, seconded by Councilman Nichols, accept- ing the terms of the agreement set ',forth in the letter from Griffith Company dated March 18, 1970,.and authorizing the Mayor to sign said letter. Mayor Gleckman: Mr. Aiassa - on condition #6, page 2, it states: "Griffith will install storm drainsprior to the water main construction. The value of the storm drain work -is approximately $120,000.00....°° Is this in.the bond issue? Mr. Fast: That storm drain is approved in the project for Public Services "Dir Azusa Avenue. It is not part of the bond issue for 1970. Motion carried. QUITCLAIM of STORM_DRAIN LOCATION:" North Garvey Avenue EASEMENTS easterly of Barranca Avenue. CHARLEY BROWN Motion.by-Councilman Chappell, seconded by Councilman Nichols, and carr.ied,,accepting.and filing the Engineer's report. . RESOLUTION NO. 4133 The City Clerk presented: ADOPTED "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL. OF THE CITY OF WEST COVINA, AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION OF.A QUITCLAIM DEED IN'FAVOR OF JOSEPH K. EICHENBAUM AND BEN WEINGART.'° Mayor Gleckman: .,Hearing no objections, waive further reading of the body o�f , said Resolution. ® 2 - REGo C.C. 4-13-70 Page Three Public Works Items — (Item 7) Cont°d. Motion by Councilman Chappell, seconded by Councilman Nichols, adopt- ing said Resolution. Motion carried on roll call vote as follows: AYES: Councilmen Gillum, Nichols, Chappell, Mayor Gleckman NOES: None ABSENT: Councilman Lloyd RESOLUTION NO. 4134 The City Clerk presented: ADOPTED "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL • OF THE CITY OF WEST COVINA, AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION OF A QUITCLAIM DEED IN FAVOR OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT." Mayor.Gleckman: Hearing no objections, waive further reading of the body of said Resolution. Motion by Councilman Nichols, seconded .by Councilman Chappell, adopt- ing said -Resolution. Motion carried on roll call vote as follows: AYES: Councilmen Gillum, Nichols, Chappell, Mayor Gleckman NOES• None ABSENT: Councilman Lloyd RESOLUTION NO 4135 The City Clerk presented: ADOPTED "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF WEST COVINA, ACCEPT- ING CORPORATION GRANT DEED AND DIRECTING RECORDATION THEREOF - AMERICAN MOBILEHOME CORPORATION (Unclassified Use Permit 145)." Mayor Gleckman: Hearing no objections, waive further reading of the body of said Resolution, • Motion ley Councilman Chappell, seconded by.Councilman Nichols, adopting said Resolution. Motion carried on roll call vote as follows: AYES: Councilmen Gillum, Nichols, Chappell, Mayor.Gleckman NOES : ` None ABSENT.,. Councilman Lloyd (Mr. Aiassa asked that Council carry over the adopting of a resolution declaring intention to vacate a portion of future street, Tract 12292.) Council indicated they had no objections.and ordered this item held over. TRAFFIC SIGNAL MAINTENANCE LOCATION: Throughout City. STANDBY & EMERGENCY SERVICE AGREEMENT Council reviewed,,Engineer's report. Motion by Councilman Chappell, seconded by Councilman.Nichols,. and carried, authorizing the Mayor and City Clerk to execute the agree- ment with Traffic Signal Maintenance Company, Inc., for standby maintenance service. PLANNING COMMISSION 1) Review Action of: March 24, 1970. April 1, 1970 Motion by Councilman Chappell, carried, accepting and filing March 24, 1970. Council reviewed items of action individually. . seconded by Councilman Nichols, and action of the Planning Commission of. Motion by Councilman Chappell, seconded by Councilman Nichols, and carried, accepting and filing the action of the.Planning Commission of April 1, 1970. 2) League of California Cities. Planners' Institute June 3-5, 1970'Report 3 - REG. C.C. 4-13-70 Page Four Planning Commission - Cont°d. Mayor Gleckman: I would like to see this matter held over to our next regular meeting unless there•is some discussion or objection? So moved..by Councilman Nichols, seconded by Councilman Chappell, and carried. RECREATION & PARK COMMISSION Review Action of March 24, 1970 Council reviewed items of action March 6, 1970 individually. Motion by Councilman Chappell, seconded by Councilman Nichols, and carried, acceptingand filing the action of the Recreation & Park Commission.of March 6, 1970, with the exception of Items 1 and 3, to'be held to the Council meeting_of April 27, 1970 for further staff review. Mr. Aiassa: Mr. Mayor, Item 3 of the March 24th action, I -City Manager believe the Council took action about these temporary signs to be mounted on the fence on a trial basis. Mr. -Wakefield has a ruling on this. Mr. Wakefield: There is no present authority in our zoning City Attorney ordinances or elsewhere for the erection or maintenance of on -site advertising signs and apparently that is the type of signs involved. In addition, I think, the total number of signs exceeds that which would be authorized for the total that would be used. So for a number of reasons it seems that this•proposal exceeds the limits.established•.by our zoning ordinances. Mayor Gleckman: Can you give me an idea of the zoning ordinance that reflects on these signs? Mr. Wakefield: The zoning ordinance is a negative kind of City Attorney ordinance so far as signs are concerned. It simply provides no signs are permitted except those authorized by the ordinance and the ordinance does not authorize any on -site advertising. The other problem relates to the number of signs and their placement upon the fences around the field. It is simply a fact that the total number in sizes and quantity exceeds that which would be authorized for on -site advertising. Mayox Gleckman: So in order to receive this they would have to request a variance? Mr. Wakefield: That is correct. City Attorney Councilman Chappell.: They could probably, each time the team played, hang up one sign stating the teams that are playing at that time, would that be permissable? Mr. Wakefield: Yes. Councilman Nichols: The variance procedure would be applicable to this situation - Mr. Wakefield? Mr. Wakefield: Yes. Councilman Nichols: I think it is a worthwhile;.thought and I hope the Council won't drop it. Mayor Gleckman: I agree. I would entertain a motion.to accept the .action of"thee Recreation & Park Commission of March 24, '1970. - 4 REG. C,aCo 4-13-70 Page Five Recreation & Park Commission - Cont'd, So moved by Councilman Chappell, seconded by Councilman Nichols; and carried. Councilman Chappell: I would like to recommend that we instruct the Mayor to contact the League at Maverick Field and advise them of what has happened this evening, so that they may take the appropriate action. ..Seconded by Councilman Nichols, and carried. PERSONNEL BOARD 1) Park Superintendent - Modification Motion by Councilman Nichols, seconded by.Councilman Chappell, accepting the recommendation of the Personnel Board. Councilman Chappell: They talk strictly "about a valid California .-Motor Vehicle Operators' license and that necessarily would not indicate a good driving record. I thought we might tighten that up a little bit and have it read "a driver's license acceptable to the city's insurance carrier." You can have a license 'and -still have the insurance company not want to insure the man. Mr. A.iassa: If he comes in with the City we make a complete check. The only reason we are specifying a California license is if we.have any out of State applicants applying then we want to be sure that they do obtain a California Driver's licensed Motion carried. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS a) Mrs. Elsworth Shay, 734 'N. Broadmoor.Avenue - inquiring as to possibility of another "West Covina Beautiful Day. Motion by Councilman Chappell, seconded by Councilman Nichols, and carried, referring this inquiry to staff. b) LeRoy Boys' Home, 233 West Base Line, LaVerne Request.Permission to open a Thrift.Store in West Covina Motion by Councilman Chappell, secondedbyCouncilman.Nichols, and carried,.referring to staff.. c) City of Hope - Request Permission to Solicit Funds, House to House on "Hope Sunday June 7, 1970. Motion by Councilman Chappell, seconded by Councilman Nichols, and . carried, approving the request as done in previous years. d).Chamber of Commerce - re connecting Amar Road to Temple Avenue in City of Walnut Motion by Councilman Chappell, seconded by Councilman Nichols, and carried, referring to staff.. e) Complaint from David E. Cole, 2618 E. Cortez `Stree t re. Disposal Company Motion by Councilman Chappell, seconded by Councilman Nichols, and carried, referring to staff. f) "Visto Program" operated by Los Angeles County Probation Dept. requests fee-exempt.permit to solicit in West Covina. �Iw REG. C.C. 4-13-70 Written Communications (Item f).Cont°d. Page Six Councilman Nichols: I would move that we refer this to staff. I am not familiar with Vista program and I am not prepared to vote on it without a recommendation from staff. Seconded by Councilman Chappell, and carried. g) "Teens in Action" request permission to raise funds for Edgewood Family Counseling through candy sales, car washes • and rummage sales. Motion by Councilman Nichols, to refer to staff for a recommendation. Seconded by Councilman Chappell, Councilman Chappell: We should put a time limit on it because they are asking for April 25th as the starting date and I think we.will be hitting pretty close to that if we ask that it be brought back at our next meeting. Mr. Aiassa: ..Your next meeting will be April 27th, unless you adjourn to April 21st. Councilman Nichols: Mr. Mayor.- I have knowledge of the Edgewood Family Counseling Agency, having some years ago being,President of the Board of Directors - it certainly.comes highly recommended. and it is a totally ethical operation, although I do'not know of the particular group of Teen Agers involved but if they are in fact sponsored by Edgewood, officially so, which we should know, I would be willing to change my recommendation and offer an amended motion subject to staff recommendation and determination that this organization in fact officially represents the Edgewood Family Counseling, I would,move that permission be granted. Councilman Chappell: The amended motion is acceptable and I would second it. I might comment.that I am on the. Board of Edgewood Family Counseling and it was brought to our attention and it is gratifying to know that we have Teen Agers that are willing to go ou t• and work for the benefit.of somebody else and I know this will, be properly supervised and it is something that we would like to.see, the involvement of our Teen Agers and I am certainly all for it. Mayor Gleckman: They have us surrounded. I am a,former Director of this organization also.. Motion carried. Mr. Aiassa: Mr. Mayor, I assume by the motion that this group will meet with staff........ Mayor Gleckman: Staff has permission granted if they feel it is a worthwhile legitimate organization as far as the activity is.concerned. CITY ATTORNEY ORDINANCE The City.Attorney presented: INTRODUCTION "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF WEST COVINA, AMEND- ING SECTIONS 5218.1, 5245, 5250 and 5250.14 OF THE WEST COVINA MUNICIPAL CODE, RELATING TO PUBLIC WORK.." Motion by Councilman Chappell, seconded by Councilman Nichols, and carried, waivingfurther reading of the body of said Ordinance. Motion by Councilman Chappell, seconded by Councilman Nichols, and carried, introducing said Ordinance. REGo C.C. 4-13-70 City Attorney - Cont°d. Page Seven ORDINANCE NO. 1123 The City Attorney presented: ADOPTED "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF WEST COVINA, AMEND- ING SECTIONS 7200, 7219, 7221, 7237, 7239, 7241 and 7242 OF THE WEST COVINA MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO EXCAVATIONS IN PUBLIC STREETS." Motion by Councilman'Chappell, seconded by Councilman Nichols, and carried, waiving further reading of the:body of said Ordinance. Motion by Councilman Chappell, seconded by Councilman Nichols, adopt- ing.said Ordinance. Motion carried on roll call vote as follows: AYES: Councilmen Gillum, Nichols, Chappell, Mayor Gleckman NOES None ABSENT Councilman. Lloyd RESOLUTION NO. 4136 The City Attorney presented: ADOPTED. "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF WEST COVINA,.OF INTENTION TO APPROVE AN AMENDMENT TO THE CONTRACT BETWEEN THE BOARD OF ADMINISTRATION OF THE PUBLIC EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT SYSTEM AND THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF WEST COVINA." Mayor Gleckman: Hearing no objections, waive further reading of the body of said Resolution. Motion by Councilman Chappell, seconded by Councilman Nichols, adopt- ing said Resolution. Motion carried on roll call vote as follows: AYES: Councilmen Gillum, Nichols, Chappell, Mayor Gleckman. NOES: None ABSENT: Councilman Lloyd Mr. Wakefield: In connection with Item 3 an Ordinance will . ultimately be required to be adopted by the City Council. The law,requires that the Ordinance be delayed in its actual adoption until twenty days after the adoption of the Resolution of Intention. However, the Ordinance could be introduced tonight and it would then appear on your agenda on the second meeting from this date. If it is not introduced tonight it would have to be held over for an additional meeting. (Council had no objection to the introduction of said Ordinance.) ORDINANCE The City'Attorney presented: INTRODUCTION "AN ORDINANCE,OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF WEST COVINA, AUTHORIZING AN AMENDMENT TO THE CONTRACT BETWEEN THE CITY COUNCIL AND THE BOARD OF ADMINISTRATION OF THE.CALIFORNIA PUBLIC EMPLOYEES, RETIREMENT SYSTEM." Motion by Councilman Chappell, seconded by Councilman.Nichols, and carried, waiving further reading of the body of said Ordinance. Motion by Councilman.Chappell, seconded by Councilman Nichols, and carried, introducing said Ordinance. RESOLUTION NO. 4137. The City Attorney presented: ADOPTED "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF WEST COVINA, ORDERING THE CANVASS OF THE GENERAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION TO BE HELD ON THE 14TH DAY OF APRTL,,1970, TO BE MADE BY THE CITY CLERK OF THE CITY OF WEST COVINA." Mayor Gleckman: Hearing no objections, waive further reading of the body of said Resolution. 7 - REG. C..C. 4-13-70 Page Eight City Attorney - Cont'd. BURKE, WILLIAMS & SORENSON STATEMENT re MAYER vs CITY OF WEST COVINA Mr. Wakefield: This is our statement for, the legal services which were rendered in connection with the litigation involving the employees who sought to enjoin the City from proceeding with the termination of Social Security. A total, of seven hours was involved in terms of the various court appearances. Motion by Councilman Chappell,. seconded by Councilman Nichols, .approving payment of $433.00 to"Burke, Williams & Sorensen for services rendered. Motion carried on roll call vote as follows: AYES° Councilmen Gillum, Nichols, Chappell, Mayor Gleckman NOES • *None ABSENT: Councilman Lloyd ORDINANCE (This item held -over until later INTRODUCTION in the agenda. EXECUTIVE SESSION, (Wild be held later.in the evening.) HEARINGS STREET VACATION OF A PORTION LOCATION: Southwesterly corner of OF TRUMAN PLACE &,WESCOVE PLACE the intersection of Truman and Wescove Places. Hearing of protests or objections set for this date'by Resolution No..4119 adopted March.9, 1970. Council reviewed Engineer's report. Mayor.Gleckman: Madam City Clerk do you have the affidavits of posting and publication? City Clerk: Yes, I do.. Motion by Councilman Chappell, seconded by Councilman Nichols, and carried,. to receive and file affidavits of posting and publication. Mayor. Gleckman: 'Mr. Public Service Director,do you have a statement to make regarding the necessity of the vacation of a portion of Truman and Wescove Places? Mr. Fast: There is a completed construction of improvements Public Services Dir. on,the southerly side of Truman Place under Project C22. This parcel of land at the inter- section of Truman Place and Wescove Place is no longer needed for street purposes. Mayor,Gleckman: Madam City Clerk, have you received any written protests or objections against the abandonment of this street? City Clerk: No, I,have not. THIS IS -THE TIME AND PLACE FOR THE PUBLIC HEARING OF PROTEST ON THE VACATION OF A PORTION -OF TRUMAN PLACE AND WESCOVE PLACE. THERE BEING NO PUBLIC TESTIMONY, PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED. RESOLUTION NO'. 4138 The City Clerk presented: ADOPTED "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY -OF WEST COVINA, ORDERING THE VACATION OF A CERTAIN'PORTION OF TRUMAN PLACE AND WESCOVE PLACE AND RESERVING AND.EXCEPTING IN FAVOR OF THE'CITY OF WEST COVINA CERTAIN RIGHTS -AND EASEMENTS LOCATED THEREIN FOR PUBLIC UTILITY PURPOSES." Mayor Gleckman: Hearing no objections, waive further reading of the body of said Resolution. - 8 - M 0 REG.,C.C. 4-13-70 Page Nine Hearings (Item 1) Cont°.d. Motion by Councilman Chappell, seconded by Councilman Nichols, that said Resolution be adopted. Motion carried on roll call vote as follows AYES: Councilmen Gillum, Nichols, Chappell, Mayor Gleckman NOES: None ABSENT: Councilman Lloyd PROJECT MP-70013 LOCATION: Civic Center CIVIC dtNTER LIGHTING Council reviewed Engineer's report. DISTii-CT AD 1-70 (lkl ACT) a) DEBT.LIMIT REPORT - Protest Hearing - Set for hearing for this date by Resolution No. 4115 adopted February 24, 1970. Mayor Gleckman: Madam City Clerk, do. -you have '. the affidavits of mailing and posting? City Clerk: Yes, I have. Motion by Councilman Chappell, seconded by Councilman Nichols, and carried, to receive and file the affidavits of posting and mailing. Mayor Gleckman: Madam City Clerk, have you received any written protests or objections? City Clerk: I have not. THIS IS THE TIME AND PLACE FOR THE PUBLIC HEARING ON PROJECT MP-70013, CIVIC CENTER LIGHTING DISTRICT AD 1-70 (1911 Act). THERE BEING NO PUBLIC TESTIMONY, PUBLIC -HEARING CLOSED. RESOLUTION.NO. 4139 The City Clerk presented: ADOPTED "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF WEST COVINA, MAKING FINDING OF FEASIBILITY OF THE IMPROVEMENT OF THE CIVIC CENTER LIGHTING IN ASSESSMENT DISTRICT AD 1-70." Mayor Gleckman: Hearing no objections, waive further reading of the body of said Resolution. Motion by Councilman Chappell, seconded by Councilman Nichols, adopt- ing said Resolution. Motion carried on roll call vote as follows: AYES: Councilmen Gillum, Nichols, Chappell, Mayor Gleckman NOES: None ABSENT: Councilman Lloyd b) HEARING OF PROTESTS AND OBJECTIONS TO FORMING 1911 ACT ASSESSMENT DISTRICT Installation of street lights and work.appurtenant thereto on Sunset Avenue and West Covina Parkway in the Civic Center Lighting District AD 1-70 set for hearing for this date by Resolution of Intention No. 4116 adopted, on February 24, 1970. Mayor Gleckman: Madam City Clerk, d.o.. yott':hav&._the.-,-iff idavits :.of pdbl-ica�t. dri-;._mai.l-ing and:cposaing?::. City Clerk: Yes, J. have'. Motion by Councilman Chappell, seconded by Councilman Nichols, and carried, -to receive and file the affidavits of publication, mailing and posting. Mayor Gleckman: Madam City Clerk, have you received any written protests or objections? City Clerk: I have not. 0 THIS IS THE TIME AND PLACE FOR THE PUBLIC HEARING OF PROTESTS. NO PUBLIC TESTIMONY, HEARING CLOSED. - 9 - REG C-Co 4-13-70 Page Ten Hearings (Item 2'.- b) Cont'd RE50LUTION,NO. 4140 The City Clerk presented: ADOPTED "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF WEST COVINA, ORDERING .WORK TO BE DONE ON SUNSET AVENUE AND;WEST COVINA PARKWAY IN ACCORDANCE WITH RESOLUTION OF INTENTION NO. 4116." Mayor Gleckman: Hearing no objections, waive further -reading of the body of said Resolution. • Motion by Councilman_Chappe11, seconded by Councilman Nichols, adopting said Resolution.' Motion carried on roll call vote as follows: AYES: Councilmen Gillum, Nichols, Chappell, Mayor Gleckman NOES: None ABSENT: Councilman Lloyd c) CONTRACT AWARD —CIVIC CENTER (Refers to AA-1) LIGHTING DISTRICT Bids were received in the office of the City Clerk at 10:00 A.M., on .April 8, 1970. A total of 6 bids received, reviewed and checked for error and determined to be"valid bid proposals: Steiny & Co., Los Angeles $16 103.00 Smith Electric, Stanton $17,451.00 Walterscheid Elec., San Dimas $23,156.00 McBride Elec., Lynwood $23,354.00 Delta Elec., Temple City $23,574.00 Seco Elec., Azusa $23, 985.00 Council reviewed Engineer's report. • RESOLUTION NO, 4141 The City Clerk presented: ADOPTED "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL • OF THE CITY OF WEST COVINA, AWARD- ING CONTRACT TO IMPROVE SUNSET AVENUE AND WEST COVINA PARKWAY IN ACCORDANCE WITH.RESOLUTION OF INTENTION NO, 4116." Mayor Gleckman: Hearing Ino objections, waive further reading of the body of said Resolution. Motion -by Councilman Chappell, seconded by Councilman Nichols, adopt- ing .said Resolution. Motion carried on roll call vote as follows: AYES: Councilmen Gillum, Nichols, Chappell, Mayor Gleckman NOES: None ABSENT: Councilman Lloyd ZONE CHANGE NO, 436 LOCATION: Approximately 1,126 acres WOODSIDE VILLAGE MASTER PLAN. generally located on the north and UMARK, INC.,south sides of the easterly extension of Amar Road between Azusa Avenue and the proposed northerly extension,of Nogales Avenues another portion being on the west side of Azusa Avenue, east side of Pass and Covina Road; north of Amar Road. REQUEST approval of a zone change from R-1 (Single -Family Zone, Area District I and II), N-C (Neighborhood Commercial and C-3 Heavy Commercial) to PCD No. 1 (Planned Community Development No. 1) Recommended by Planning Commission Resolution No. 2238. •Mr. Munsell, Planning Director, summarized Planning Commission Resolution No. 2238; slides shown and explained; Master Plan text summarized. THIS IS THE TIME AND PLACE FOR THE PUBLIC HEARING ON ZONE CHANGE NO. 436. IN FAVOR Ron Sloane (Sworn IN) I will speak with regard to the Zone Change 12016 Wilshire Blvd. request and Mr. Grudzinski of the Donald L. Bren Umark, Inc. Company, the developers of this project with regard to the building construction, will. address himself to two particular items on the site development standards. 10 - REG. C.C. 4-13-70 Hearings (Zone Change No. 436) Cont'.do Page Eleven Our planners and engineers went through a. total.slope analysis of the property (pointed out the slope elevations as per areas with.the use of a displayed map. Maps .were shown and explained of the view analysis, geology, various utility companies involves, school districts, a map showing the uses now in the area, street patterns both proposed and existing depicting the -major', primary and secondary streets, local streets not shown; a map showing the basic land with the ridges and valleys laid out.) Our planners then took the time to evolve the Master Plan text and we are at the present time in agreement with the Planning Commission other than the two items Mr. Grudzinski will speak to you about. Ron Grudzinski (Sworn in) As Mr. Sloane has indicated there Donald Lo Bren Co. has been a great deal of work undertaken with 15233 Ventura Blvd. staff and.the Planning Commission in the Sherman Oaks preparatory stages, however, two items have crept up subsequent 'to'*- the adoption of the Planning Commission text. Detached'Single Family Dwelling Units,,Yards &-Building Setbacks, 1st paragraph: Front. Our first proposal to the City was for a distance that would equal the FHA and VA requirements for front yard setbacks. Staff and Planning Commission felt the sets would be more receptive to a minimum 221. setback from the property line for straight in garages. What we are asking at the present time is a request to add a sentence to that first -paragraph: "The Planning Director may'approve reductions from the twenty-two (22) feet minimum to property line, for individual lots where topography, odd shaped lots, structures, or sub - .division design make compliance with twenty-two (22) feet impractical," •In short, there, are certain situations in the design of the subdivision'that could require administrative leeway. We will leave it up to the Council's discretion whether to include that sentence. We would like the same inclusion on Page 9 in the attached single family dwelling unit townhouse section. On the bottom of Page 9, there is a request on the side yard. During the preparatory phases of our first development plan which will be coming before the Planning Commission this Wednesday we had a review at various staff levels and we had a request from.Chief Wetherbee 'that in townhouse situations where we have a length of attached houses that approximately a 4 dwelling unit distance for each 4 units would be a 3' fire access to the rear yards of one of the units. This would assist him in locating fires in the townhouse community. We have responded to the request but inadvertently didn't change the text prior to Planning Commission adoption. So the wording we are asking now is "Zero (0) foot minimum between attached structures. Three (3) feet minimum between detached structures. Ten (10) feet minimum between unattached building wall and street sideyard property line." These are the only two requests. We thank you for your considerations IN OPPOSITION Joanne Wilner (Sworn in) I want to say I have been follow- 21.08 Casa Linda Drive ing the General Plan through all West Covina its numberous studies and I helped to get it shown to people by arranging coffees, etc., before it.was adopted'... I wanted to mention that I think .this plan for Woodside Village is in nonconformance with the General Plan. It removes the industrial park and does not show it anyplace else in this particu- lar development. It removes the city yard, and it reduces the amount of commercial that was set aside by the plan to be designated as regional commercial by 50% in the area around Azusa Avenue. It also does not comply with the proposal of the plan that 33% of the city. by 1990 would be in apartments. This would give us 80% for this area. As the plan shows the density of the developed area for the City at the time the statistics of the General Plan were being created which _ 11. . REG. C.C. 4-13-70 Page Twelve Hearings (Zone Change No. 436) Cont°d. was 1967, at that time we had 14.5/ apartments. I have had the data updated for 1970 as of March and that would show 17.5/ giving a rough,estimate of an increase in single family dwellings. To this now I would take the undeveloped land that rests in this area outside of Woodside plus that which is developed and that would bring our city to a ratio of 30% which was what was forecast for 1990. Therefore, any development of Woodside should maintain the ratio of not to exceed 30/ multiple family dwelling units which would be • anything of greater density than 4.4 after the public streets were removed, because as we understand multiple family it would be anything that would exceed our single family zone requirements at its densest level. I would also like to ask what evidence is there that the quality of environment of the present citizens of West Covina will be maintained if this development is approved? Will there be an adequate source of water for not only all present residents but this influx of 20,000 to'25,000 being proposed? The California water project at present has been stopped and there either has been or might be an adjucation of the pumping rights from the ground in the area here.. Will the City have a source of water to keep the standards? Also, waste disposal. Will there be adequate land fill? It recently stated in the papers that there is in the County a problem in that they are trying to arrange for adequate land fill and do we have it? Also, the fact of education of citizens. Would this development diminish that by having them in double sessions? I feel that you have several alternatives here. One to deny this plan, because of these things which I state; second, to hold over until you found further evidence here to verify that the quality will not be reduced for the citizens; and thirdly, to hold over until public hearings would be opened to amend the General Plan, because new evidence has come up and based on new evidence and • the amended General Plan you would then rehear this issue and change it on the basis of the new plan. Thank you. REBUTTAL Ron Sloane I might comment in your own text that you have before you there is a summary of the percentages applied. I am at a loss because I am not -sure where Mrs. Wilner°s statistics came from. On.the total project including Walnut and West Covina we have a total of 13.7/ in multiple. In West Covina alone it is 11.2/ and 6.4/. So it is considerably less. During the processing of our plan, Williams & Mocine were kind enough to come down from San Francisco and we discussed the plan with them and the fact, as you can see, that there is a great deal of commercial already existing on the property. 'This ..was done.well inadvance of the needs as our marketing studies.f.eflected this was not the area to generate a regional center with. -what has already taken place in other areas of the City. As far as our schools, we are working very closely with the Rowland School District and feel that we are more than adequately covered. Of course, they have their bond problem, etc., but this has nothing to do with any development. On the water, there is a water line going up Azusa road and at the present time the con- tract has-been let which will tie in with the City and we have been . dealing with Suburban water. So we feel more than adequately covered for water to the property. The waste treatment was all _part of the studies and there are adequate systems available to dispose of our sewerage. The water willbe provided and all the on site facilities will be built by us. So I firdit difficult to hold up the plan on amending the General Plan. The General Plan, ashas been mentioned before, is basically a guide to the standards wanted and these standards are changed and modified accordingly. Thank you. THERE BEING NO FURTHER PUBLIC TESTIMONY, PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED. COUNCIL DISCUSSION. - 12 - REG, C.C. 4-13-70 Page Thirteen Hearings (Zone Change No. 436) Cont'd. a • Councilman Nichols: This is a matter of very great importance, probably one of the more significant develop- ments in the community's history, and I feel that the Council should attempt to devote all the time necesssary to reach a considered decision. There is a possibility that there might be a change in the Council in the next week, we don't know that but there is that remote chance, and certainly a new Council willuant to play a role in these considerations. I also think more involved council discussions prior to the ability of the council to determine its own make up might be wise, therefore, it would be my feeling that we,as a council should postpone any further deliberation on this matter tonight. Motion by Councilman Nichols, seconded by Councilman Chappell, and carried, that this matter be held over for two weeks to the next regular Council meeting with the hearing held open, and at that time if necessary4 - devote an entire evening to the discussion of this` -:plan. Mayor Gleckman: I hope the applicant understands the motion and that it wasn't that we felt we couldn't act on it tonight but felt we needed more time and wanted to know the results of tomorrow's election before we went ahead on it. Councilman Gillum: A comment - Mr. Nichols is correct, this is a very large undertaking and I think it is of great benefit to the community and I hope at the time when the hearing is held that after the decision of the Council, that enough discussion is made within the community so that everyone is informed of what.is being developed and they make their feelings known during the public hearing; so when it is completed and accepted by the City that it will be to the majority of the people in the City. I think .it is something -this community desperately needs. This land has been standing there for quite sometime and I think this is the appropriate development. I would like to commend the planning staff and Planning Commission for the long hours they have put in with the developers. I would be willing to determine this issue tonight but will go along with the motion... RECESS CALLED AT 8:55 P.M. COUNCIL RECONVENED AT 9:10 P.M. (THE MAYOR DECLARED ITEMS 4-5-6-7-8 will BE HEARD CONCURRENTLY.) ZONE CHANGE NO. 435 LOCATION: The parcel generally MACCO CORPORATION bounded on the north by Maplegrove Street, on the east by Pass and Covina Road, on the south by Amar Road, and on the west by the proposed extension of .Valinda Avenue. REQUEST: R-1 6000 (Single -Family Residential) to R-1 ( Single -Family Residential) Area District I, R-2 (Restricted -Multiple Family); and N-C (Neighborhood Commercial). Portions approved and portions denied by Planning Commission Resolution 2233. UNCLASSIFIED USE PERMIT NO. 150 LOCATION: Northeasterly corner of MACCO CORPORATION the proposed extension of Valinda Avenue and Amar Road. fied use for a service station. Resolution 2234. 7RECISE PLAN NO. 589 MACCO CORPORATION of design for a shopping center. Resolution 2235. REQUEST: Approval of an unclassi- Recommended by Planning Commission LOCATION: Northeasterly the proposed extension Avenue and Amar Road. REQUEST: Approval of a Recommended by Planning corner of of Valinda precise plan Commission - 13 - t REG. C.C. 4­13-70 Page Fourteen Public Hearings (Macco Corp.) Cont°d. PRECISE PLAN NO. 590 LOCATION,. Northwesterl-.y.corner of MACCO CORPORATION the intersection of Amar Road and Pass and Covina Road. of design for a shopping center. Resolution Noe 2236. PRECISE PLAN NO. 591 MACCO CORPORATION Recommended by Planning Commission REQUEST: Approval of a precise plan Recommended by Planning Commission' LOCATION' Southeasterly corner of the intersection of the proposed exten sion of Valinda Avenue and Maplegrove Street. REQUEST: Approval of a precise plan of design for a shopping center. Resolution No. 2237. Mayon Gleckman: There.is some comment regarding Items 7 and 8, as to approval, depending upon the.zoning. We will hear from the Planning Director on these issues. (Mr. Munsell, Planning Director, verbally summarized Planning Commission Resolutions of the items, slides were shown and explained.) Mr. Munsell: Precise Plan 590 relates to the triangle piece of property and shows a.proposed shopping center had the zoning been approved by the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission approved the precise plan based on the fact it met all the criteria for a commercial center, however, one of the criteria fog it actually to go on the land is that the zoning be approved and the Planning Commission felt the zoning was not appropriate and so denied the zoning. Precise Plan 591,,. . the Planning Commission also denied this zone change feeling the zoning should be R-2 as is the surrounding area and the precise plan was approved because it meets the standards. However, the intention of the Commission was that the shopping center should not be allowed in this location. THIS IS THE TIME AND PLACE FOR THE PUBLIC HEARING ON ITEMS 4-5-6-7-8 MACCO CORPORATION. IN FAVOR Tom Andre, Representing (Sworn In) Because of the late hour I would Macco Corporation merely like to state that we have Newport Beach endeavored to work with the Planning Commission and staff and we are in agreement with the recommendations of the Planning. Commission and staff as set forth in the appropriate Planning Commission resolutions. Mrs. Lollie Bergman (Sworn IN) I would like to commend the 426 So. Leaf Avenue Planning Commission and the Planning West Covina Department staff for the final report. in this particular annexation.that they brought before Council tonight, Knowing that the staff and the City now has ordinance- provisions for zoning :that I felt have been a great improvement over past times, I was very disheartened when I first saw the proposal brought in by this triangular piece of property. Since development had been discussed as being appropriately placed and logically situated, it seemed to me that. even I as an amateur could have picked commercial for all three corners, but then to find that they did not buy that type of piece -meal development but really took the plan through as we know can be done, I think •is most commendable and I look for great things with the ordinances that have now been made for the City. Thank you. IN OPPOSITION Joanne.Wilner (Sworn In) As YOU may know I do not live in 2108 Casa Linda Drive this area, but I am interested in West Covina, the welfare of the entire citizenry of West Covina and the proper orderly development of'the City. The reasons for which I ask you to deny the application are as follows,. - 14 - REG. C.C. 4-13-70 Page Fifteen Public Hearings (Macco Corp.) Cont°d. le It does not conform to the General Plan for the following reasons: It creates a zone not shown on the General Plan, this is called spot zoning; the area around, the property zoned commercial.and developed is not saturated as far as the number of customers going to the commercial area; an area a short distance from the property on Amar and Azusa is zoned commer- cial and not yet developed, and there are also numerous other areas undeveloped, details of which you probably read in the Planning Commission minutes, when I spoke to this before that body. It also calls for a density greater than called for in the General Plano Based on a development of all R-1 Area District IA the density would be 90 acres x .7.3 dwelling units x 3.5 persons per dwelling units or 2300 people. The neighborhood commercial zone says that in figuring out the needs for commercial that 1 acre per thousand population is necessary. There is now in this neighborhood over 2.3 acres of vacant commercial. The existing shopping centers are not overcrowded with customers. A neighborhood commercial is supposed to cover the neighborhood only and not adjacent neighborhoods, therefore, this particular neighborhood commercial would not have adequate population to take care of the 12 acres spoken to here and the people outside of the neighborhood already have adequate shopping. Based on the granting of the R-2 zone change for the 36 acres and the balance being as shown on the map, excluding 12 acres for commercial, the density would be about 15,750. With an anticipated density of this volume more commercial would have been shown on the General Plan but it was not. Also the General Plan says by 1990 one in three dwelling units will be apartments. The ratio on this property is three apartment of every.four dwelling units. The proponents will tell us they are not building apartments, but the intent and understanding in this City of what is an apartment is based on density and not whether one rents or owns his dwelling. Any density greater than the 4.4 dwelling units per acre except in • the special case of .the"County'annexiation bearing 7.3 dwelling units per acre, is considered multiple family living. The need for additional types of housing is met by the 'annexation acceptance of the R-1 AD-lA density permitted on the sites allows for a bonus of 60/ increase in West Covina standards throughout the City. The size of a unit allowed is a minimum 900 sq. feet rather than the 950 sq. feet for R-1 AD -IA. To get cluster type apartments I would recommend to the developer that he apply -for the PRD overlay on his acreage. The benefits to him, if he agrees, and the Planning Commission requests additional open space than what R-1 density allows, he could have another bonus of 10/ and build 8 dwelling units per acre. Also the size of his units could be anything from 900 sq. feet up rather than the minimum of 1100.sq. feet called for in our R-2 zone. There is no public need for this neighborhood zone change. There is already adequate shopping existing. Williams & Mocine research report dated January, 1968, section 2, page 2, says "West Covina°s immediate concern is more productive utilization of its commercial areas rather than encouraging an increase in .commercial area." There is an inventory of undeveloped commercial in the area and therefore, no need for more. The density is already too much for the city°s R-1 area presently enjoyed. Progress is not made by increasing the number of people in our community. As'to the triangle portion, that would be a problem because the extension of Lark Ellen would cut it off from the rest of the development. I would suggest that the owner get in touch with the Umark people and have,some joint development with them since the property is contiguous. Regarding the Unclassified Use Permit, it should now be obvious that this request should be denied. Gas Stations belong in commercial developments and the neighborhood commercial adjacent to the Unclassified Use Permit should be denied. Gas Stations do not belong in residential areas where the fumes and noise can pollute the environment. There is a vacant station less than a half mile to the west which demonstrates there is no need for more. Reaffirming - 15 - REG. C.C. 4-13-70 Page Sixteen Public Hearings (Macco-Corp.)' old'stations and business areas should improve their locations and there is no need to intrude on other residential areas for additional commercial. It was Mr. Menard, then Planning Director, who explained to me how the General. Plan operates. He said it'is a guide that means request for zone changes should be•shown on the general map. Something shown on the northeast corner need not be located there but the plan would be in conformance if you put it on the southwest. Planing it where none exists is a violation, which means a denial is called for, or opening new hearings on the General Plan to amend it. I believe I have shown you numerous reasons and just causes to deny the applicant's request. But, should you feel these applications should be approved then your duty is to hold over the applications until such time as the.Planning Commission has held hearings and the City Council has held.he arings on amending the General Plan. If the information presented at those hearings shows evidence that life .and goals of the citizens in the City have changed since August of 1969 and that a different land use picture is warranted, then and only then, if these applications conform to the amended General Plan, could you in good faith as representatives to all the people in the City, adopt such'a proposal. This is the same proposal that was --.---- put before you on Azusa and Cameron which ended in a referendum. The ultimate decision of that one will be made tomorrow. Should you approve this zone change fore you, this too will likely go to a referendum. Robert Cleveland I feel kind of like a fish out of water because 10.22 Elsberry I am not a politician and not much on political Valinda. matters. I have lived here 7 years and all of my neighbors and I, feel that if.you put a shopping center and these stations,here..it will be a detriment because there are already plenty of gas stations and shopping centers that are not doing sufficient business -to keep their doors open. I would like to present a petition to you signed by many people, all the..neighbors in the area. We would like to encourage single family dwellings there but we don't feel gas stations and shopping centers are proper for the area. REBUTTAL . Tom Andre There are a couple of things I would like to say Macco Corporation in way of rebuttal. I would mention what the gentleman from Umark said - about the purpose of the General Plan and how it changes from time to time as the need arises.- I, too, am at a loss to examine the statistics quoted in the Mocine report, so I really can't intelligently address myself to that. There was a comment made about a neighborhood commercial is for a neighborhood. Again I only ask what is:a neighborhood? Do you define it as being so many feet one way or the other or can it be in a general area? I would like to point out as we pointed out earlier at Planning Commission meetings and that is we are striving. to.meet the city°s standards in terms of the single dwellings, multiple, etc., and the shopping centers. Finally, and I believe it was demon- strated before at the Planning'Commission.meeting, that there is a need for the items requested, whether by the Planning Commission approving or not approving what we requested, and as I said earlier we are in complete agreement with them now, so I am at a bit of loss in that area. Thank you. THERE BEING NO FURTHER PUBLIC TESTIMONY, PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED. COUNCIL DISCUSSION. Councilman Chappell: I sat through a large number of the Planning Commission meetings on this proposed arinexa tion to our City and I certainly find -that the final results are something we can live with in West Covina, and I think will point with pride to the typeof development that will finally be completed in this area. Councilman Nichols: I would like to address a question to the Planning Director. A statement was made about a service 16 - REG. C..C. 4-13-70 Page Seventeen Public Hearings (Macco Corp,) area of approximately seven thousand people - would you define the geographical limits of that area? Mr. Munsell: Basically, a radius drawn from the proposed shopping center location and I believe it .is a half mile to three-quarters mile radius. It includes the 110 acres the applicant has under development and the property to the south and west. (Explained area on map and discussed in detail.) Councilman Nichols: I am not quite clear on the explanation. It just seems to me geographically speaking the existing rather large shopping center at Amar and Azusa would be rather competitive with people living in the area and would indicate that market surveys "ain't necessarily so" - is that correct? Mr. Munsell: That is correct. Councilman Nichols: I think my response essentially would be that I have significant reservations about the commercial zoning. I would have.to do some additional. thinking on this. As far as the residential land uses described, I think they are rather good. I am a bit concerned by the comments of one person in the audience, that the plan per se is in violation of the General Plan and I am attempting to think through,as I go,the areas that it would be in violation. If applied exclusively to itself one could create a violation in the General Plan area but I think the R-2 density is a fairly reasonable approach to that area. I have always had a strong feeling that when you begin developing new uses that you not only have the criteria of need, but you have a very strong criteria of what the implication of those developments upon uses that are already existing in the area. I,have always intended to speak out very strongly about those uses that come into our community and are proposed for areas where they are not compatible with those uses already established. I think we have somewhat of a different situation in.this type of a setting. 'It is a virgin area and totally developing in a new atmosphere and the uses being prescribed as long as they are not in violation of the current standards of the city°s General Plan, I think we can look at them in terms of the need in that area somewhat more than in the terms of the needs in somewhat more traditional areas of the City. As one person indicated, the plan seems to be substantially a conservative one. The City staff and Planning Commission working with the developers have imposed a'considerable number of restrictions. I think there is one other *thing that I would like to pursue briefly which I think must dominate the Councils' thinking.and the City°s thinking. Mr. Planning Director, if the applicant should chose to disagree with the planning staff°s recommendations and -the Planning Commissions' recommendations and the City Councils, observations, what would be the applicant's right in terms of the pending annexation proposal? Could the applicant in fact withdraw the proposal and continue the entire acreage in the County of Los Angeles, subject to more liberal county zoning? Or would this annexation continue no matter what restrictions the City should choose to put on it? Mr, Munsell: The indication the staff has is that the applicant would like the zoning the Planning Commission has recommended and is continuing with the annexation application. There has been no indication to staff as to what would happen if City Council should deny. Councilman Nichols: What are their prerogatives? Mr., Munsell: The applicant has the prerogative of accepting the City Council°s decision and annexing to the City under whatever the Council should determine is acceptable to it and the community in terms of zoning. And it has the option of not - 17 - REG. C.C. 4-13-70 Page Eighteen Public Hearings (Macco Corp.) Cont°d. placing a formal application for annexation to the City and in effect remaining. in the County. This would give it an immediate effect of development within the existing R-1 6000 Tentative Tract Map, which is already approved by the County. There are additional opportunities for them within .the County to apply for zoning other than what is currently on the land. I might add the experience of staff, especially in this area, the County has been quite liberal in zoning allowed.. I might also add the zoning located more westerly on Amar Avenue is considerably less restrictive than our zoning. So the applicant does have the right to remain in the County and develop under less restrictive standards. Councilman Nichols: I think we, in West Covina, must be realistic in terms of what we can and cannot accomplish. This property is not in the City of West Covina. Any one of us can drive down Amar Road and look at the type of development in all of that area in the County and we would certainly serve ourselves not at all by being so restrictive that the area remain in the County and develop under far inferior standards than our City calls for. So I think we have to be aware that we have accomplished a great deal on these kinds of proposals and that this development coming up in 1970. would be about the finest thing we could hope to bring into the City. I would tremor to think of it staying in the County and developing under the standards in the County. Essentially that is my feeling. If this area were in the City and abutted current uses I would be much more restrictive but I. tend to favor the development with reservations on the commercial. Mayor Gleckman: I would only say that I concur in the comments made by Councilman Nichols. I feel this is not only an opportunity for the City,.but I think it is excellent for the City, and I think staff is to be commended, also Macco Corporation, • for their cooperation to bring into the City this development. I think also that it was one of the strong points in our finally getting .a West Covina mailing address for'Annexation 192, which is going to start May 2nd. I compliment both staff and Maccb Corporation for working together and I think they are a welcome addition to the City of West Covina. Motion by Councilman Chappell, seconded by Councilman Nichols, and carried, accepting the portions approved and the portions denied by Planning Commission Resolution 2233.on Zone Change No. 435. Motion by Councilman Chappell., seconded by Councilman Gillum, that Unclassified Use Permit No. 150, be approved as -'recommended by Planning Commission Resolution No. 2234. Motion carried, Council- man Nichols voting."Naye" and Councilman Lloyd being absent. Motion by Councilman Chappell, seconded by Councilman Nichols, and carried, that Precise Plan 589 be approved as recommended by the Planning Commission Resolution No. 2235. Motion by Councilman Nichols, seconded by Councilman Chappell, and carried, denying approval of°Precise Plans 590 and 591 on the basis the zoning has not been granted. "H°' HILLSIDE OVERLAY (Mayor Gleckman suggested that ZONE NO. 1 this item be held over pending City Initiated the results of the election.) Motion by Councilman Chappell, seconded by Councilman.Nichols, and carried, to hold -over Item 9 to the next regular City Council meeting. STREET VACATION OF A CERTAIN PORTION OF CALIFORNIA AVE.. LOCATION: California Avenue and San Bernardino Freeway. Hearing of protests or objections Resolution No. 4014, adopted July time to time to this date. set for August 11, 1969, by 9, 1969. Hearing held over from REG. C.C. 4-13-70 Page Nineteen Public Hearings (Item 10) Contd., Mayor. Gleckman: We have a report and request recommending this matter be held over for 60 days. So -moved by.Councilman Chappell, seconded -.by Councilman Nichols, and carried. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS • Don Sinclair I would like' at this time to present this. 426 South Fircroft trophy which was won by a team of thirteen year. West Covina old boys - the Maverick Division, to be displayed in the City°s display case for such items. This is a perpetual,trophy and will be moving on from year to year. This past year it was won by the Edgewood League and we are the 5th participant of this trophy. (Presented trophy to the Mayor) Mayor Gleckman: I might also add that.I saw that tournament and it got me in all kinds of trouble at home, because I was supposed to be out shopping for soft -drinks and I couldn't miss the ball game after seeing the first one. So it is with a great deal of pleasure that I accept this trophy on behalf of the City. Congratulations! Mrs. Dorothy Davis I would like to. say "thanks" after three and a Valinda half years of waiting, I am "very appreciative of what Council has done in getting my mailing address changed to West Covina. Councilman Gillum: Mr. Mayor, while on the subject, may I check with Mr. Aiassa? When do we notify the residents of the area - - I believe we will have to re- number ouf homes, won't we? Mr. Aiassa:. Staff will review this, we just received the information today and you willhave a report shortly. Mayor Gleckman: Will you also, with Council's permission, direct a vote of thanks to Congressman Wiggins for his efforts. (Council agreed) CITY ATTORNEY - Cont'd. SOUTHERLY ANNEXATION LOCATION: Generally bounded by DISTRICT NO. 212 Maplegrove Street, Pass and Covina Road, Amar Road and Valinda Avenue. Mr.. Wakefield: As a preliminary to the introduction of this Ordinance there should be filed with the City Council a copy.of the consent of all of the property owners within the area to the annexation. As you will recall the Local Agency Formation Commission approved of the annexation of this area to the City without the necessity'of holding hearings, or without notice, and without an election in the area on the basis that all the property owners in the area had consented., to the annexation before the Local Agency Formation Commission and would also consent before the City Council. Mr. Aiassa: 'We have such a letter® Mr. Wakefield: The consent having been filed it would now be in order to introduce .the ordinance for the annexation of the area. ORDINANCE .The City Attorney presented:. INTRODUCTION "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF WEST COVINA, APPROVING THE ANNEXATION TO AND INCORPORATING IN AND MAKING IT A PART OF THE SAID CITY OF WEST COVINA, CERTAIN TERRITORY OUTSIDE OF THE CITY AND CONTIGUOUS THERETO ANNEXATION NO. 212," 19 - REG. C.C. 4-13-70 City Attorney (Item 6) Cont°d. Page Twenty Motion by Councilman Chappell, seconded by Councilman Nichols, and carried; waiving further reading of the body of said Ordinance. Motion by Councilman Chappell, seconded by.Mayor Gleckman, and carried, introducing said Ordinance. Mr. Wakefield:. One further comment with reference to the Ordinance introduced. The.representatives of the Macco Corporation indicated to me because of the impending improvements of Vplinda Avenue and the cooperation of the County in portions of the improvement, that the annexation really should not be effective or adopted until sometime around the first of June. So far as the City is concerned we have taken the initial steps required and the actual adoption can be delayed, or you can adopt it with an effective date of June 1. Mr. Aiassa: Mr. Mayor - I think we ought to make it June 30th. The reason for this, prior to the annexation date, they have made some commitments and these have to be filled with the County. Mayor Gleckman: If Council agrees - as long as they know they are in and we know they are in, you can put any date on it you want. Mr. Wakefield: For the purpose of the Ordinance then is it the desire of the City Council when the Ordinance is presented for adoption that the ordinance contain an effective date of June 30th? (Council had no objections.) CITY MANAGER Freeway Widening Report Councilman Gillum: In the County going through the area and making arrangements for the widening, I have had a number of residents call me in the area of Lark Ellen that they are being given information as to the location and development of the Huntington Beach Freeway. In fact I have seen a copy of some correspondence listing dates of hearings. I would like very much for you to check with the Division of Highways as to who is putting out this information. This has caused some great concern. Mayor Gleckman: You might check Mr. Aiassa. I had discussions this last week with both Mr. Erlich and Mr. Aiken of the State Division of Highways and in .both discussions I was told hearings for Huntington Beach Freeway would be the latter part of 1971. Councilman Gillum: This differs from the information they had in their hand. Mr. Aiassa: We have a copy of the letter and we will check in the morning. Motion by Councilman Chappell, seconded by Councilman Nichols, and carried, to receive and file the Freeway Widening -Report. ,assembly Bill No. 98 (Mandatory Arbitration) (Council discussed the fact that they had already done this; Mr. Aiassa advised they are requested to reaffirm council action.) Motion by Councilman Gillum, seconded by Councilman Chappell, and carried, that Council opposes Assembly Bill No. 98. - 20 - REG. C.C. 4713-70 " City.'Manager - Cont'd. Page Twenty-one Williams & Mocine Statement (Central Business District Report) Motion by Councilman Gillum, seconded by Councilman approving payment of Williams & Mocine statement in $1,053.00 for the Central Business District study. on roll call vote as follows: AYES: Councilmen Gillum, Nichols, Chappell; Mayor NOES: None ABSENT: Councilman Lloyd Street Maintenance Report Chappell, the amount of Motion carried Gleckman Motion by Councilman Nichols, seconded by Councilman Chappell, and carried, to receive and file report.. "Hot Line" Reproduction Costs - Staff Report Mayor Gleckman: I would like to make one comment. Mr. Aiassa, I am pleased to see that you found us $50.00 but I might also say one of our good citizens donated.,$50.QO.One of the conditions, although he didn't tell me directly, but I gathered it was that you also present your $50.00. Motion by Councilman Chappell, seconded by Councilman Gillum, that Council continue its support of the "Hot Line" program with a further donation of $50.00. Motion carried on roll call vote as follows: AYES: Councilmen Gillum, Nichols, Chappell, Mayor Gleckman NOES: None ABSENT: Councilman Lloyd Mr. Aiassa: Mr. Mayor - one other item. As you know we are sharing the expense of the election with the School District due,to their override -issue, and we have a letter addressed to the City Clerk dated April 7th and I would like the Council to accept their recommendation that they share in the expense in the amount of $570.00 towards our Municipal election. So moved by Councilman Chappell, seconded by Councilman Nichols, and carried. CITY CLERK Application for Non-profit Exempt Business License California College of Law, 652 S. Sunset Avenue Mr. Wakefield: This application has come in for a business license exemption under the provisions of the Ordinance adopted by the Council last Fall authorizing the issuance of non -fee licenses to educational institu- tions, etc. So moved by Councilman Chappell. Seconded by Councilman Nichols. - Councilman Nichols: How long has this institution been active and on what basis have they been operating? Without a license? Mr. Wakefield: Yes they have simply been operating without a license on the theory they were an educational institution and therefore, exempt under the license ordinance. According to the letter filed the incorporation itself is exempt from Federal and State taxes. It is non-profit on the basis that it is an educational institution and is recognized as such for tax purposes by both the State and Federal Governments as being exempt from federal income taxes and State Franchise taxes. Motion carried. - 21 - REG. C..C. 4-13-70 Page Twenty-two City,Clerk - Cont°d. Parade Permit Application American Freedom from Hunger Foundation Motion by Councilman Chappell, seconded by Councilman Nichols, and carried, referring to staff. MABC Application Motion by Councilman Chappell, seconded by Councilman Nichols, and carried, that no protest be filed on the ABC Application of the Pacific Liquor Mart - Morris/Betty/Ralph Snookal, at 2017 Pacific Avenue. MAYOR°s REPORTS (Mayor Gleckman stated both, roclamation requests had already been proclaimed by City Council...rt Law Day USA, and Chamber of Commerce Week) Mayor Gleckman: I also have a request that the week from May 10 to May 16th be proclaimed as Peace Week; and May 15th as Peace Officer's Memorial Day. If there are no objections I would recommend that the recommendation from Blair & Associates be approved by this Council. So moved by Councilman Chappell, seconded by Councilman Nichols, and carried. Mayor Gleckman: I would also like to make an additional appoint- ment to the Youth Advisory Steering Committee and that being Henry Alf aro. He has been active in the City with our youth, both,baseball and football. If • there are no objections, Madam City Clerk, will you notify that he has been officially appointed to this Committee. .(No objections) COUNCIL COMMITTEE REPORTS Councilman Chappell: I would like to recommend to the. Council that they.. ask the . Planning -Director to set up a field trip for those interested to survey the area that we will be talking about in two weeks . I took the tour with the Planning Commission and found it very helpful and well worth the four or five hours required to make the trip. (Councilmen' indicated interest.) Mayor Gleckman:- I would like to take' this opportunity to thank the Council,(and it is unfortunate that Councilman Lloyd is not here tonight but he had to,be in Sacramento,) for what I considered two years of their making it a lot easier for the Chair to operate as Mayor at these meetings. I think the cooperation shown to me I wish for my successor and I can only say with the cooperation I received from the staff, the City Attorney, and Nancy Beardsley, it makes the job a lot easier and it has-been a very enjoyable two years for me and win, lose, or draw, I hope that your next Mayor will get as much pleasure out of the job as I have. Thank you! THE CHAIR CALLED THE EXECUTIVE SESSION AT 10:19 P.M. -TO DISCUSS LITIGATION. COUNCIL RECONVENED AT 10:25 P.M. (Mayor Gleckman appointed Councilman Nichols to sign the demands, in the absence of Councilman Lloyd.) DFMANDS Motion by Councilman Chappell, seconded by Councilman Nichols, approving demands totalling $341,191.27 as'listed on Demand Sheets - 22 - PEG. C.C. 4-13-70 Page Twenty-three Demands - Cont'd. C 697,; C 698 and C 701. This total includes the payroll account and time deposit. Motion carried on roll call vote as follows: AYES: Councilmen Gillum,.Nichols, Chappell, Mayor Gleckman NOES: None ASSENT: Councilman Lloyd Motion by Councilman Nichols, seconded by Councilman Chappell, and PP • carried, that at 10:30 P.M. this meeting adjourn to April 21, 1970, at .7:30 P.M. APPROVED: . MAYOR ATTEST: City Clerk