The URL can be used to link to this page

04-27-1970 - Regular Meeting - MinutesMINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL CITY OF WEST COV:INA;, CALIFORNIA APRIL 2.7, 1970 The regular meeting was called to order by Mayor Ken.Chappell at 7:30 P.M. in the West Covina Council Chambers. The Pledge of Allegiance was .led by Councilman Russ Nichols. The Invocation was given by the Reverend John L. Reid, Jr., of the Community Presbyterian Church of West Covina. ROLL CALL Present. Mayor Chappell; Councilmen Shearer, Nichols, Young, Lloyd Also Present! George Aiassa, City Manager George Wakefield, City Attorney Lela Preston, City Clerk George Zimmerman, City Engineer Ho R. .Fast, Public Service.Director Richard Munsell, Planning .Director Douglas Dawson, Administrative Analyst William Vanettes, Communications Director Leonard Eliot, Controller APPROVAL OF MINUTES April 13, 1970 W Minutes approved as corrected! Councilman Nichols! On page 6, middle paragraph, third line, first word, should be "been", On page 13, first para- graph; last. sentence, please eliminated I would, ask that the Minutes clerk review the tape for the statements attributed to Councilman Nichols in the. middle of: ;gage 17, they seem to be somewhat confused in substance and I cannot correct them; but I would appreciate a review of the tape and a retyping of that portion. On page 18, I would ask that in the second paragraph from the top of the page the word "tremor" within that paragraph be corrected to read "tremble Motion by Councilman 'Nichols, seconded by Councilman Lloyd, and. onrriinH nnnrnvinU minntaC-- of QnriI I 197n nc rnrrartpH i REG.-C.C.„ 4-27-70 Approval of Minutes - Cont 4 d . Page Two C Mr. Wakefield: If ..we may add to: the first sentence under. City Attorney certification of..Flection of .r.esults. of .General Municipal:Ele6.t.ion-Aprl__14,'1970 the following words " a copy of which is attached hereto and':made'a part hereof", the -minutes will.'.than conform to the requirements' -:of the law. Councilman Lloyd: Page 5, fourth line from the top, the word 'amenity" should be "unanimity". Councilman Nichols: Page 4, middle paragraph, eleventh line, the word "choose" should be "chose" and the same word in line twelve should be changed to "chose". Councilman Young: A correction on Page 5, middle paragraph, last line should read "....counsel of the two men.that have served the Cityo" Motion by Councilman Nichols, seconded by Councilman Young, and carried, approving minutes of the meeting of April 21, 1970, as corrected. PUBLIC WORKS ITEMS PRECISE PLAN 502-R LOCATION: North Garvey Avenue STORM DRAIN.IMPROVEMENTS easterly of Barranca Street. Jo K. Eichenbaum, and Ben Weincgart Motion by.Councilman Nichols, seconded by Councilman Lloyd, accept- ing storm drain improvements and authorizing the release of the General Insurance Company of America faithful performance Bond No. 544889*in the amount of $9,000. Motion carried on roll call vote as follows: AYES: Councilmen Shearer, Nichols, Young, Lloyd, Mayor Chappell NOES: None ABSENT: None PROJECT MP-69018-11 LOCATION: Galster Park STREET IMPROVEMENTS Galster Park Motion by Councilman Young, seconded by Councilman Nichols, accepting street improvements consisting of paving and minor grading of roadway and parking lots, and authorizing release of Fireman°s Fund American Insurance Companies' faithful performance bond No. SCR707 25 55 in the amount of $27,437.25. Motion carried on roll call vote as follows: AYES: Councilmen Shearer, Nichols, Young, Lloyd, Mayor Chappell NOESa None ABSENT,. None PROJECT MP-69018-7 PLANS .& SPECIFICATIONS GRADING & COMFORT, STATION. Galster Park LOCATION., Galster Park boys' camp area. Council reviewed Engineer's report. Lee Sharfman, Architect The scope of the project of incre- Armstrong & Sharfman ment No. 2, involves the grading of the Boys' Camp area at Galster Park, for its total ultimate develop- ment and the construction for the Boys' area comfort station and a dedication plaque and certain local development around that plaque'.in the area which will be shortly developed as the picnic area. This location was chosen for its minimum grading, high up amongst the hills. The grading will consist of creating two plateaus of cut and fill for a 201 difference in elevation and cross cutting ramps. These plateaus 2 - REG. C.C. 4-27-70 Page Three Public Works Items Pr °off etNo. MP-690j18-7 - cort'o will accommodate the comfort station now and the future camp area, and the firing and all the other activities associated with the Boys' Camp site. The grading will also provide the access road for the grading operations and later the servicing of the area. (Ex- plained the Boys' Comfort station structure.) The dedication plaque which is the last item necessary to complete the Deed of Gift from Mr. Galster, will occur in a little island of turf at the picnic area.,(Explained location and structure of plaque.) The contract calls for leaving the facility with all the utilities in operation. The estimate prepared at the time of the preliminary presentation has not changed during the course of working drawings, nor have the materials from the original structure. Mr: Aassa, Will this meet all the requirements of the covenant,provided by Mr. Galster towards the dedication of the 35 acres? Mr. Sharfman: The completion of this project will meet the terms of the Deed of Gift. Motion by Councilman Nichols, seconded by Councilman Shearer, and carried, approving the plans and specifications, C.tp Pr•c'ject MP =69018-' -7 and-, authorizing,. the City Engineer to call for bids. DESIGN OF 1970 STORM LOCATION: Sunset and Vincent DRAIN BOND ISSUE. -PROJECTS Avenues. Council reviewed Engineer's Report. Mr., Aiassa: These storm drains are to be integrated into the Master Plan development of the 1970 bond issue and we will probably be required to construct some,even if the 1970 bond issue does not pass, in .order to comply with the freeway widening. Motion by Councilman Nichols, seconded by Councilman Young, and carried, approving the agreements between the City and the Engineering consulting firms. Motion by Councilman Young, seconded by Councilman Nichols, and carried, authorizing the Mayor and City Clerk to execute the agreements with the three consulting engineers. Motion by Councilman Young, seconded by Councilman Nichols, authorizing the consulting engineers who are doing the storm drain design to proceed with the design of Vincent Avenue and Sunset Avenue street plans at the approved hourly rates,.. and charge cost to the budget item for storm drain design. Councilman Nichols: Mr. City Manager - what is the reason for the utilization of the consulting engineers for this work at the hourly rate rather than staff? Mr... Aiassa: This requires quite a large utilization of man hours and instead of increasing our man hours in staff time, over a period of years we have found out it is less expensive and we get the projects done quicker by farming them out. We have a universally accepted fee for the hours for such projects. Councilman Nichols: Who are the two consulting engineering firms? P,Ir. Aiassa:= Municipal engineering consultants - Walsh & Forkett, and Evans & Associates. Councilman Young: Can you project the number of hours involved by the outside consultants? Mr. Aiassa: We have the Flood Control and also use the 3 . REG. C.C. 4-27-70 Page Four Des i �oi 1970 Stg,,)rpi Dra inBond ss— e_ Pr. of ect s-- coKit ' d ) State Division of Highways'engineer's computation figures and in this way we get a reasonable approximate figure. Councilman Young.- Do you have any for this particular project? Mr. Zimmerman° It would appear in this particular project there could be certain economies made over what would normally be done because the consulting engineer will have to lay out the projects in order to design the storm drain and by using the same engineer he can do the street design at the same time. With regard to the hours involved, we generally go by the ASCE curve, which is a nationally accepted standard and while it doesn't work definitely in terms of hours, it works in terms of percentages of cost in relationship to construction costs and in this case runs about 5% of the construction costs. Councilman Shearer,. Mr. Mayor - a comment. I believe,.if I am not mistaken, that this is a standard practice in most medium and smaller cities for the engineering work of this type to be done by consultants rather than staff. Motion carried on -roll call vote as follows,. AYES.- Councilmen Shearer, Nichols, Young, Lloyd, Chappell _. NOES: None ABSENT,* None AD 1-70 CIVIC CENTER LOCATION,. Northwest corner Sunset LIGHTING DISTRICT Avenue and West Covina Parkway. Council reviewed Engineer's report. Motion by Councilman Lloyd, seconded by Councilman Nichols, and carried, accepting and filing .Engineer's report. RESOLUTION NO. 4143 The City Clerk presented,. ADOPTED "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF WEST COVINA, ACCEPTING THE GRANT OF EASEMENT :EXECUTED BY THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AND DIRECTING THE RECORDATION THEREOF." Motion by Councilman Shearer, seconded by Councilman Young, and carried, waiving further reading of the body of said Resolution. Motion by Councilman Lloyd, seconded by Councilman Young, adopting said Resolution. Motion carried on roll, call vote as follows.- AYES,* Councilmen Shearer, Nichols, Young, Lloyd, Mayor Chappell NOES,* None ABSENT,*.None PLANNING COMMISSION Review Action of April 15, 1970 Councilman Lloyd. - Council reviewed action items individually. Mr. Mayor m I would the Unclassified Use Sandy Gourlaso like to call up Item 4 Permit No. 152 Councilman Nichols,. A comment, Mr. Mayor. For the benefit of the new Councilmen, by council policy on matters that the councilmen wish to call up may be called up if the majority of the Council concurs, Normally as a matter of courtesy we do concur, but the Council reserves unto itself the right not to call up any given item should the majority decide not to do so. Mayor Chappell,* If there are no objections, this item will be called up on our agenda of May lltho (No objections) 4 R..BG, C.C. 4-27-a70 Page Five Planning Commission (Item 1) Cont°do _ Motion by Councilman Lloyd, seconded by Councilman Nichols, and carried, to accept and file the action of the Planning Commission of April 15, 1970, with the .exception of Item 4 - the Unclassified Use Permit No. 152. HEARINGS ZONE CHANGE NO. 436 LOCATION° Approximately 1,126 WOODSIDE VILLAGE acres generally located on the MASTER PLAN north and south sides of the easterly Umark, Inc. extension of Amar Road between Azusa Avenue and the proposed northerly extension of Nogales Avenue, 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 (Neighbor- hood Commercial) and CLL- 3 ( Heavy Commercial) to PC,D No. I ( Planned Community Development No. 1). Recommended by Planning Commission Resolution No. 2238o Held over from April 13, 1970, to this date. (Mr. Munsell, Planning Director, summarized a quick review of the original presentation for the benefit of the new Councilm ne) Mr. Munsell: I think it might be well to point out that the Planning Director current commercial zoning on this parcel, as indicated by the maps, calls for 116.8 acres of C-3 (Heavy Commercial) and 9.4 of Neighborhood Commerciale The plan being applied by Umark, removed 100 acres of C-3 and 9.4 neighborhood and will come back with 56 acres of combination neighborhood commercial and community commercial. There is a net loss of 53.4 acres of C-3 zoning, I might also state that one of the goals of the plan and the citizens committee was to eliminate some of this unnecessary commercial zoning in the area. (Went on to explain the park areas, schools, library, churches, etc. Slides shown along with the maps displayed and explained.) THIS IS THE TIME AND PLACE FOR THE CONTINUANCE OF THE PUBLIC HEARING ON ZONE CHANGE NO. 436 'IN OPPOSITION Joanne Wilner (Sworn In) One of the comments I would like to 2108 Casa Linda Drive make is in regards to the proposed West Covina Huntington Beach Freeway that is to come through this area per the General Plan on the particular piece of property, west.of Azusa Avenue. Since the proposed plan here becomes a zoning matter it does not seem that we should put a high density zone on this area now when we think a freeway will -be coming through. And I am not sure but what there is also some possible additional.commercial that would be changed at that time, The other comment - I would like to ask of Mr. Munsell - the definition of multiple family in his talks with Mro Mocine - how was multiple family defined? Because in my calcula- tions it seems like the ratio was going to be more than the 30/ mentioned. The other aspect not mentioned as yet is that I don't .feel there is a need at this point in time for more mobile home type homes in this community other than those which we have already - As I understand it from the Planning Commission hearing, it is locked into this PCD that 62 acres will be in fact zoned with the Mobile Home overlay. I would like to see that aspect of it removed and just left at 8 dwelling units per acre for that area until we decide there .is a need for this type of home development. The reason in relationship to that is there is still a tremendous number of acres of undeveloped - 5 - REG. C.C. 4-2770 Page Six Public'Hearings (Unfinished) Item 1 -.Continued multiple family. in the rest of this City and also being related to the area where a freeway will come through, I don't see. the need to p guarantee that kind -of zoning so we can ay a much higher price for the land when we have to buy it back. REBUTTAL Ron Sloane In,rebut.tal on the point mentioned regarding Umark, Inc. the Huntington Beach Freeway. (pointed out 12016 Wilshire Blvd. on. Exhibit A the location of the present freeway and, that of the proposed Huntington :Beach Freeway.) The route has not yet been established; we understand the hearings will start in late 1971. We have worked with the Highway Department rather extensively and it is difficult to acquire a map of any proposed route until it .is actually adopted. So at the moment it is very: tentative but will probably be a thing that will. happen. We feel the Huntington Beach Freeway can still be accomplished without disrupting too much of our property. The property owners that live north and south of our property, I am sure are much more concerned than we are because we have.tri.ed to plan and design accordingly so that the freeway can become a reality without disrupting our future homeowners. On the multiple. -family, we met with Williams and Mocine, at a staff meeting, and went over their plan and have applied their numbers and definitions to our property and in comparison we have a maximum of 7000 dwelling units in the multiple between 15-25 units per acre - something in'the neighborhood of . 3200 dwelling units. In Williams & Mocine°s plan�as appliedAwe have 8,107. We have a total on the West Covina portion of this property of only 7,162. Williams & Mocine figure for medium-denisy went up to 15,626 and. for their high 23, 70.8o So our projections of 7,1162 fall actually lower than ''Williams &. Mocine low density calculations. In their review of our plan they were not disturbed. The industrial park area was one area they were concerned with and realized, the changing times and felt what we had was reasonable. They did not offer any other corrective items along that .line. The mobile home park - as Mr. M.unse.11 pointed out, we are trying to provide here ® and this is almost 2400 acres including the Walnut portion of the property - a variety:t.,ype of dwelling units for the home buyers. Most Mobile Home Parks that come before you is a piece of property that is either a remnant* of land or left over land and rarely planned in advance as a Mobile Home Park. In this case we are taking a total°of 2400 acres and planning in a Mobile Home Park so when the people buy this they don't live here for five or ten years and suddenly are faced. with a change of zone in the neighborhood. In .thise case we are showing it on the Master .Plan as a Mobile Home Park, subject to the West Covina overlay ordinance, which means that the conditions can be applied at that time. We feel. it is'a definite need.° If you have been following the various projections of planners in the housing market today there is a definite need for Mobile Homes and there are some very attractive and unique mobile homes being created at this time. We don't look on the Mobile Home use on our property as a detriment at all. We look on it'as a definite asset. In f act•some condominums in use today you find a particular type.of person that moves into them to take advantage of the lack of yard work, the lack of painting,,etco So we feel we are trying to provide housing for the needs of the community and by showing a Mobile Home Park you have at least provided the vehicle to future homeowners. Also it is shown here when the homeowners come in, it is well planned out and reviewing the overlay conditions they are very restrictive, This will be a 5 Star Mobile Parke. One of the conditions by the City calls for a review period every 5 years, so that it is not some monster you are heaping upon future homeowners but something they can be proud ofo Since the new Councilmen have not had the benefit of the full presentation, if there are questions we will be happy to answer them. We have spent a great deal of time on this with the 6 PEG. C. Co 4-27-70 Public Hearings (Item 1) Cont°do Page Seven I I staff and the Planning Commission and have come in with aIgreat many maps, some of which we have changed to"meet the recommenda- tions made, A question of Mr. Munsell, if I may. At a previous meeting, Mr. Grudzinski of the Bren Company, builders of these homes, - there .were one or two items in the text that were to be worked out with staff prior to this meeting and I wonder if he may comment if he wishes too. Councilman Nichols' There were two items, one was a staff latitude item, and I was going to ask staff to restate and bring up for discussion here. THERE BEING NO FURTHER PUBLIC TESTIMONY, PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED. .COUNCIL DISCUSSION. Councilman Lloyd,, Do we have any clear indication of the place- ment of the Freeway, and do we have a better idea as to the date when there will be a completion of the Freeway? Mr. Munsell: I had a call from the State Division of Highways, Friday, indicating they were review- ing the Development•Plans and the Master Plan and their only comment was that they have plans in the area and that we will be building some structures, potentially,.in the way of a Freeway, They also indicated, however, they haven't anything firmed and haven't the inclination to start purchasing prgoer•ty until they have something firmed. Perhaps Mr. Zimmerman can add to my comments. Mr. Zimmerman: I can add nothing to Mr. M.unsell°s statements. They are what they have been -telling us for -some period of time. I believe, Mr. Sloane, indicated he was advised the hearings will probably be held about a year from this Fall, and as far as we can tell that is accurate information. Councilman Nichols: There was a statement - someone said that we were building in the path of the Freeway? Mr, Munsell: the Master Plan is laid out in density segments and shows construction of certain densities that could be built where they.would like to' build the Freeway, but they also have indicated they do not have the money to purchase the property at this time. They have two study routes within the planned area and.either one means that structures would be built in the way of .the Freeway, but they are not willing to take the action necessary so that we could restrict building in those areas. Councilman Lloyd Is there any time table which indicates that this Freeway will be under construction or the purchase of land will be made in how many years? Mr, Zimmerman: No exact figures are available, because the State has been indicating the timing of hearings for the past several years and every year they postpone the hearings and reestablish the schedule. We have no firm schedule because of that fact. Councilman Lloyd: For the timing of your City projects, both in your planning and engineering developments, are you talking 5, 10 or 15 years? Mr. Zimmerman: About 10 years is our best estimate. - 7 REG. .0 Co 4-27-70 Page Eight Public Hearings (Item .1.) Contd. Councilman Nichols: I think it would be appropriate if Mr. Munsell would bring up at this ,time the points of contention on the additional requests that B.ren Company indicated they would like to have incorporated into the City°s action on this matter. Mr. Munsell,, There are two items: 1 - a requirement that we have in the text: which says that when a garage faces the street there must be a minimum of 221 between -the property line and the garage door. The applicant has indicated in certain corner lots, cul de sacs, etc., that the lot configuration is such that minor modifications might be desirable and he has proposed. an addition into the text allowing an administrative change subject to conditions indicated that the layout of the structure would be better served by a slight modification of the 2210 The staff has no feeling one way or the other on this. If the applicant feels this would give him administrative latitude I might add normally speaking we have one or two of this type of administrative latitude items and they are not; exercised very often. The second item is in the single family attached housing called by the applicant a court yard program. The .Fire Department has indicated they wish to have access to the rear portions of she lots or the center of the block every two hundred or three hundred feet plus or minus. on some of the preliminary material brought in by the applicant, it showed a whole block long with continued building in effect and the Fire Department indicated they had to have accessway because of safety factors. In discussion -with the Fire Chief he indicated he could survive with a 31 accessway every so many hundred feet. The applicant has adjusted his text to meet this standard in his Development'Plan, but left one minor area in the text which indicated even though this type of development could go to the zero side.yeard where it was not attached it must have a 101 side yard. The applicant has attempted to correct this oversight by indicating a 31 side yard would be okay except at the ends of the" blocks where a side street would be in effect. Staff°s position on this particular item is that there are provisions available for the applicant to request some waivers and staff would frankly like to see what happens and take a look at some of these court house developments with 31 side yards before committing to a whole community of 31 side yard openings. I night also add that even though the Fire Chief has indicated this would be acceptable, he is also hoping that if it turns out -not to be as desirable that he would be able to come back and require additional side yards, if he felt it was necessary at a later point. Councilman Shearer, The revision allows 31 minimum but does it specify where they are to be? Mr. Munsell: The text indicates there shall be 101 between structures when not attached. (Explained in further detail). The.applicant was apparently in his.long range planning, anticipating that he might have clusters of buildings with 101 side yards between them, but have apparently determined in the economy of construction that the closer he can get them the better off he is, and. as a consequence would like to have the minimum fire acceptable accessway. Councilman Shearer: My question was -- is there something in the text that specifies every X-humber of feet in a row of attached town houses there will be a separation? Mr. Munsell-. No there is not. This is a Fire Department requirements and is one of the conditions which will be applied to the Development Plan itself and not of the zoning. REGo C.C. 4-27•70 Page Nine. Public Hearings (Item 1) Cont°d Councilman Nichols: Mr,, Munsell - the alignment of the Huntington Beach Freeway as it goes through that particular parcel of land that we were- dis-cussing e goes through residential? Mr. Munsell-, It would go through residential property to the north and south,, Councilman Nichols., And the buildings you talked about having discussed with the Highway Department, were residential buildings - is that correct? Mr. Munsell� All structures contemplated by this plan which might fall in either of the two design schemes of the Division of Highways, would be residential structures. Councilman Nichols: What has been the zoning of the land in that particular area? Mr. Munsellm R-1 Area District I, which is 7500 sq. ft. lots, all of it. The commercial area is outside of both of the study areas. Councilman Nichols-, I don't have a great deal of.concern about a person building. on land that may ultimately be taken fora Freeway use if the type of uti.lization.doesn°t greatly.esca.late the land value per se as compared to the way it would be if that particular land use were not there. I can recall we just had a rather stormy time in West Covina .where there were discussions about placing commercial zoning on land where a Freeway might be and many of the citizens who objected to the granting of a commercial type utilization of the land were rather anxious to urge upon the owner of the land that he build houses, and this developer is proposing just to do that very' thing on this land. So if it was compatible in the path of the Freeway in one section of the City it certainly would be compatible - in another section of the City where a Freeway might ultimately come, to build houses. Housing.land or residential land being far less. costly than commercially zoned land. So unless we are prepared to say to the person "thou shalt never use that land because some years hence the State will come through with a Freeway000.." then we must allow some use of the land. I am not prepared to say to anyone that owns vacant land in West Covina that they may never build on it because one day the State may align a route in that area. The second point I want to make is where -there was controversy on route -alignment the flexibility of that alignment was very limited because of the need of additional planning involving major interchanges, off ramps, etc. In this area, this tentative alignment shown is very flexible and the State planners will have many possible ways of skirting around one area or the other.: So I think, with all things taken into consideration here, I could in' -good -conscience support the concept of allowing uses in that area even though the Freeway alignment has not been adopted. My only other comment 'would be, I.have studied the material presented in the hearing session, I am aware of literally,the hundreds of hours gone into certain of these matters by our staff, the Planning Commission, the developers, and I think we are headed for a very high quality and well.controlled development in this area and although there are some isolated matters I might take objection to, I believe in general it is an excellent .proposal and oneI can and will support. Finally in respect to the points suggested for inclusion in the Council°s action, I would tend to go along with staff and,be prepared to support the inclusion of the administrative discretion -on the first point relative to minimum ® 9 REG, C.C. 4-27-70 Page Ten Public Hearings (Item 1) Cont ° do setbacks for garages, -.I would be inclined to suggest that the developer seek waivers in his initial developments in respect to the separations between buildings, because I am also a little skeptical about the 31 distance between buildings and I would like to see it in f actAbefore allowing it as a general commitment. That would be my position on.these matters and that will be the way my vote will go*. Councilman Shearer- A couple of questions. The commercial property shown at the extreme bottom - is that in West Covina or the City of Walnut? Mr. Munsell: (Explained a portion is i.n.West Covina but the majority of the land is in Walnut. Pointed out area on map.) Councilman Shearer: -So in reality the development of that corner, which I understand is across from Nogales - High School, is in the City of Walnut.. Mr, Munsell: That is correct. Councilman Shearer: I think I had better make -that clear due to what Councilman Nichols referred to, we have been through a great controversy in the City and I would not be prepared to support that development in that area however, it .is beyond the control. of this body so I.cannot object to that. point. In regard to the Freeway development, as I stated publicly recently and will restate here,'the Freeway was not a factor in that controversy, nor should it be in this zoning. In regard to the question of Mobile Homes. I am not now nor have I ever been an enthusiast of Mobile Homes. However, I think the type of developments proposed here are not bad. I think the need for Mobile Homes can be demonstrated by the development and because of the type of development of the Mobile Park it is not a tremendous investment and if it proves to be uneconomical.frot the standpoint of the developers.it is not a great loss to redevelop in another•manner. So I believe I am also prepared to.support the proposal. I have studied it in depth - lest anyone think this is a spur of the moment decision on my part. Councilman Young- I don't have any speeches .to make. I have studied the plan and it seems to be well thought out. I am particularly impressed by the one factor which is that anyone who invests in that area as an individual buying a home, he knows what he is buying within reasonable .limits of flexibility as the entire project is developed. I do think with respect to the Mobile Home aspect -- I have viewed many of these things and.they can be done very nicely and are an important opportunity for various economic classes - retired people and the like, to live within limited incomes. The fact it is there and we know it is there - now, plus the fact there is. provision in the code for "review every five years so the City maintains, control over it, with that I don't find it to be a serious thing in my own thinking. Motion by Councilman Nichols, seconded by Councilman Lloyd, and carried, that the proposed Revision No. 1, to wit.- "The Planning Director may approve reductions from the 221 minimum to property,line, for individua.l..l.ots where tbpog.raphy, odd shaped, -lots, structures, or subdivision design make compliance with 221 impractical," that text - be incorporated into the Master Plan. Mayor Chappell: Mr. Munsell - I believe Council would like to have a report back from time to time on this item. (Mr. Munsell acknowledged.) ® 10 - REG. .C.C.. 4-27-70 Page Eleven Public Hearings (Item 1) Cont°d.' Motion by Councilman Nichols, seconded by Councilman Lloyd., approv- ing Zone Change No, 436 and, the ""H"° Hillside Overlay Zone o City initiated. Mr. Wakefield.- Councilman Nicholsjas I recall the .°"H" Hillside Overlay Zone was simply continued. without public hearing and cannot as yet be applied. Councilman Nichols amended the motion to exclude "H0° Hillside Overlay Zone, Councilman Lloyd accepted the amended motion. Motion carried on roll call, vote as follows. - AYES., Councilmen Shearer, Nichols, Young, Lloyd, Mayor Chappell NOES! None ABSENT.- None "H" HILLSIDE OVERLAP' LOCATION.- Generally located on ZONE NO, 1. the -southeast quadrant of the City Initiated_ City, east of Azusa Avenue, north of Valley Blvd.,, sov.t.h of Merced and to the easterly city boundary. REQUEST.- An 90H00 Overlay Zone. to be applied to those areas which are defined as hillside areas with a medium slope before grading of 10/ or more on 50/ of the site, or less steep lands which are related areas of greater slope.. Recommended by Planning Commission Resolution No. 2239. Held over. from April 13, 1970�- to this date. (Mr. Munsell, Planning Director, verbally summarized the Hillside Overlay Zone No. 1-, read :Planning Commission Resolution No. 2239, slides shown and explained; and pointed out the following facts.- There is a provision in the Planned Community Development Master Plan just adopted which automatically has the applicant under the Hillside Overlay Zone, so this particular action tonight would officially overlay the °"H" zone not only on the Woodside Village but on all of the hill area in West Covina. And where the property does not meet the standards of the zone, the Overlay does not affect, that property; so if there are vast level. areas they would not have to be concerned with the Hillside Overlay Zone. (Mr. Munsell indicated the area covered by the I°HI' Overlay zone and stated the action of the Planning Commission excluded the Brutocao. property.) THIS IS THE TIME AND PLACE FOR THE PUBLIC HEARING ON 00H'' HILLSIDE OVERLAY ZONE NO. 1 m CITY INITIATED. IN FAVOR Joanne Wilner (Sworn In) I am finally able to get up here .21.08 Casa Linda Drive and speak favorably for something. West Covina I want to commend the .Planning Department and the City Council for creating this Hillside Overlay Ordinance and now for initiating its use for the first time, if approved. I feel that we should instill this particular Overlay on all of this hill land. In keeping with Mr. Munsell°s comments pertaining to Mr. Brutocaoas property, land that is level would be automatically excluded from it. And as far as any of his land being excluded he has had plenty of time up to now to develop and now that we are.wiser we should see that no more of our hillside lands are not properly treated. Ron Sloane (Sworn In) We are.most concerned and.we were Umark, Inc. somewhat instrumental in working out 'this Ordinance with the planning staff, so we can't very well'be against it. I want to point out that caution,has.to be used in the administration of this Ordinance. If you look at the limits REG —C.C.' 4-27-70 Page Twelve Public Hearinqs (Item 2) Cont°do of the Hillside Overlay and Exhibit A ® there are some 3600 acres there. We purchased the lower 2400 from Home Savings & .Loan and have an option on the upper 1,200 acres, Basically the total limits of this Overlay affects us more than any other developer. Our con- cern is that there is a great deal, of land that is obviously not hillside. In percentages over 65% of our property including that in Walnut, is from-0 to 20% slope. In hillside subdivision this is almost considered flat. We have from 0 to 5% = 12/0 5 to 10% = 16%0 And as far as outcroppings - I think we have some 12 trees on the property. At one time we considered this area for a park but it didn't work out. because it was between the two cities So these 12 trees willprobably come out and will be replaced with specimens. When you pass an ordinance of this magnitude covering this much land, and as time goes on you may have different people administe'.ring it tomorrow than you do today and with this in mind, we want to caution that there is flat land here. On Page 2 of the. Ordinance, Section 9229.5, there is a statement "Hillside developments. The base natural topography shall remain. Where grading is necessary it shall follow and relate to existing topography...." And you can ask any three civil, engineers exactly what that means and you will find it is somewhat ambiguous in itself. At the present time we have no qualm with the 'Ordinance, but in the administration of it we hope that they do appreciate the effect this has and that in fact this is not entirely hillside land. As a land owner we could come in and oppose and say this is not a true hillside area, but we don"t feel this would, be fair to the City or ourselves, to try and say this one hundred acres is flat and this one hundred acres is hillside, etc,, We are willing.to accept the Hillside Overlay have faith that the various departments involved in and administering quote m it will do so wisely..." and take it on that basis. We are in favor -of the Hillside Overlay.' Louie Brutocao (Sworn In) A matter of qualification. I am 1060 W. San Bernardino Rd. in favor of the Hillside Overlay Covina Ordinance as shown. The reason it was requested:removed from our property is because we already had.Tentative Tract 29216 through the City and it .is due to timing that. the tract will have to come back. into the City again and go through, but there has been a certain amount of grading completed as required by the City previously and also for the Wilderness Park area we.complied with those requirements. So as far as the plantings, etc., everything .necessary - the City will make me do that anyway. So the reason :it was asked for exclusion was because of the engineering and staff time having been done which would be .wasted if it were not excluded. THERE BEING NO FURTHER PUBLIC TESTIMONY, PUBLIC.HEARING CLOSED. COUNCIL DISCUSSION. Councilman Young.- Referring to -Section 9229.3, Page 2, it states . here that the developer of the land shall pre- serve certain natural features which appears to be an aesthetic requirement primarily. It also says,to compensate for this require- ment which benefits the entire community, the developer shall be allowed to make up for any loss of density by increasing the density equal to that lo.sslelsewhere/on any suitable location on its property. I address this question - is this essentially a Pandora's Box for shifting densities to places where it might not be desirable? Mr. Munsello No, the intent here is that if, for example, much of the land is still R-l'Area District I a 7500 sq. ft. lot, and an individual came in under that existing zone, he would have an opportunity if the City.says you cannot have a one-half acre of land or whatever, because of some rather unusual terrain ® he would be allowed to.still have the same number of dwelling units that he would ordinarily be able to get on the property. This - 12 REG, C X. 4-27-70 .Public Hearings .(Item 2) Cont°do Page Thirteen would have to be done with rather extensive plans and showing by this individual to the Planning Director before being approved. The Director's decision would also be available to the Planning Commission or Council, for review. So if something was done that. was not 'thought appropriate these bodies would have an opportunity -to react. In the case of the Master Plan that you acted upon a few -moments ago, the topography is taken into account at the time the Master Plan and Developments Plans come in. So we don't anticipate that there would be an opportunity to -shift densities around any more than is already available in.the planning. In fact this PCD plan does essentially what this Ordinance now allows to be done in areas where existing zoning .is other than the PCD. Councilman Young,.. Who is to say that his particular feature of aesthetic value is .left there? At the request of planning or the request of the owner? Does the owner come in and say he wants this out in order to develop and planning says, no, and at that point compensatory adjustment is made? How would that work? Mr. Munsell: As you will see in the next section m the Site Plan Review the, plans are quite extensive showing all topography and all proposals. The applicant may propose and the staff may also propose .alterations. We always encourage the .developer to come in and work out most of the kinks prior to the submittal of the Development Plans, so we are not posed with this problem. However, if for example, the developer proposed and the staff disagreed, the developer has the opportunity to present it to the Commission and the City Council, if he disagrees with staff's opinion,. If the staff wishes to have something that the developer doesn't want, then this is yet available. Councilman Young But it would always be a package deal - I take it - the compensatory angle? Mr. Munsell*. It is the intent of this Ordinance for staff to always look at it as a package deal. Motion by Councilman Nichols, seconded by Councilman Lloyd, that Council approve the NeH'1 Hillside Overlay Zone Noo 1 - City Initiated. Motion carried on roll call vote as follows: AYES., Councilmen Shearer, .Nichols, Young, Lloyd,. Mayor Chappell NOES., None ABSENT, None THE' CHAIR DECLARED A RECESS AT 9:10 P.M. COUNCIL RECONVENED AT 9:23 PM.' ZONE CHANGE NO. 429 and LOCATION: Southeast corner of Roseway PRECISE PLAN NO. 580 Street and Sunset Avenue. ..Dr. Henry Ho Moghtader REQUEST: a) approval of a change of zone from R®1 to O-P-, b) approval of. a precise plan of design for a medical facility on an 18,700+ square foot parcel. Recommended by Planning Commission Resolutions Nos. 224.1 and 2242. (Items to be heard concurrently.) (Mr.: Munsello Planning Director, summarized Planning Commission Resolutions Nos. 2241 and 2242; slides shown and explained.) Mr. Munsell*. I received one letter;. late Friday afternoon from Barbara B.Leoni addressed to the City of West .Covina, Planning Director and City Council, stating*. "Gentlemen*. Thanks for turning down the zone change that Dr. M.oghtader seeks. He seems so sure of getting.his way that he.has torn down a house in a residential area. As our house is within 300° of the property requested for a zone change, I -13- REG. C.C. 427-70 Page Fourteen Public Hearings (Item 3) Cont°do would like to protest this action as -there already exists medical buildings on Merced Avenue with office spaces available,and ample parking and Dr, Moghtader°s plan does_not include ample parking." The letter goes on to indicate that the granting of the request over the protest of land owners because it was considered�ari odd parcel, has created some -problems in the area and this property does not fit into that classification. "It is always much cheaper for the builder to try and buy residential..property and have the zoning changed than to buy property already zoned. The General Plan of_the City of West Covina is supposed to safeguard existing residential areas and provide a more efficient use of land that is already classified and available for commercial and professional office use. I strongly urge that this zone change be denied.." The letter is somewhat confusing and as a consequence staff did talk with this individual by phone early today and indicated that as the letter,opens, the action by the Council actually had not been taken approving or denying the zone change, but that the Planning Commission had recommended approval. The individual was al.so,informe.d that .while they were 3 spaces shy on the existing site the'.applicant was ,meeting the code based on providing parking spaces within a 1501 on.property immediately adjacent across the street. THIS IS THE TIME AND PLACE FOR THE PUBLIC -HEARING ON ZONE CHANGE NO.- 429 AND ,PRECISE PLAN NO. 580. Dr,. Ho.Moghtader (Sworn In) I would like to bringto the 910 South Sunset attention of Council again that West Covina this property does not belong to me alone. I represent,a group of doctors, all -owners of the property. During.our last appearance the City.Council) after the close of the'Public Hearing ® one of the Councilmen, I believe Councilman .Nichols, had a remark concerning patients parking across .the street from the,medical facility and mentioned he didn't' like it, We don't like it either. However, we are going to use 8 hospital parking spaces for'the purpose of the doctors, and if necessary our employees, and not our patients.. At the. present time there are 8 offices and we are proposing 6 more,.making a total of 14o These 14 offices will have at least 14 doctors.and 14 employees,' which makes 28 staff cars and we will be using 8.spaces at least at the hospital. At -the present time'the doctors�before.coming to their office in the morning make their rounds at the hospital and walk over to their office; after finishing office hours they go back to the hospital and finish their work and then take their cars and go on where ever they have to goo It is not practical to take your car just to go across the street and repark and then do it again in the afternoon, especially when a street— like Sunset ® has a divider in the middle. This is the use.that the 8 spaces will be used for. In regard to the letter„ The hots e.was removed some time in December, -The house was not in question that property had been zoned about 2 years ago and we had the place empty and as long as we were going to build we decided to remove it at this time, It has nothing to do with the presentrequesto' If there are any questions? Thank you. IN OPPOSITION Robert Jansen (Sworn in) Speaking for myself, any family, 1310 Roseway and neighbors, we are actually West Covina. not in opposition to .the zone change because the doctors have purchased the property and already have..one lot.changed and we are not really in opposition to the whole Precise Plana The opposition.,. we have is to the parking problem we will have. with the exit: on Roseway. We prefer they keep the parking entrance',in essence on Sunset, which is a commercial business street.. Roseway is .a dead 14 "REG. C.C. 4-27-70 Public Hearings (Item 3) Cont'd. Page Fifteen end street and we have enough parking and traffic problems there now. People pull in and go to the end of the street and turn around and barrel back up the street. We do not have sidewalks and the children play,in the street with their wheeled vehicles. (Asked for Slide #2 to be shown) The original plan as presented called for 38 parking spots and in the Precise Plan now it shows 24 parking spots which leaves 14 short. In the existing plan when they redesigned it will have 11 additional spaces which gives.them a net shortage o.f,3 park- ing spaces. Even though the 11 are not adjacent to the proposed medical building this will put parking on the streets because I know my own customers will not go across the street to park but will go where ,it is most convenient and I am sure the doctor's patients will do the same. So we feel with.the shortage of parking spots it does not conform to the City code. If they would close the entrances on Roseway and have them open onto Sunset this would eliminate the problem of traffic and parking on our residential street. (Discussed the distance from the present parking lot to the hospital, parking site, stating it was a distance of approximately 560'.) We don't really object to the doctors or the medical facility but we would like'to have the exit kept off of our residential street. REBUTTAL Dr. Moghtadero As you are aware we are offering one parcel now for a total change in the building. I don't think it is fair to measure from the corner of the new building to the parking. You measure from the closest point. Nobody is going to tell anyone where to park in the parking areas. (Mentioned the various parking areas) The parking doesn't have to be exactly in one spot because someone is going to one office or another and they can park anywhere in the vicinity. Furthermore, about the traffic going down Roseway, if there was any way of avoiding that we would be glad to do it, but the City told us that is the way they want it because of the.traffic on Sunset it would make a better traffic pattern that way. At the present time if a car wants to go south on Sunset it has to go first north, come to the corner of Roseway and make a U turn to go south. There is no speciallane allowed for this U turn. The traffic stops for the car.to make the U turn. Now by going to Roseway it is'going to be less of a problem and much safer° I am sure when there is a sign posted "No Right Turn" and a sign posted "This is not.a Through Street" no one will turn right. Of course some people can make a mistake and not see it, but it should not create.a traffic problem. As suggested last time, we are going to post signs at the exit to Roseway "Left turn Only." So people who will go out of there will know they can go to the left only. Thank you. THERE BEING NO FURTHER PUBLIC TESTIMONY, PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED. COUNCIL DISCUSSION. Councilman .Nichols. I wonder what would happen if someone lived on Roseway and entered the parking lot and found out they could not turn right - where would.they have to go before they could get home - Mr. Munsell? It might prove a little bit of a problem. I thought about this quite a bit since this matter came before the Council previously, and I certainly share the concern of those living in the residential area adjacent to this development. When I heard this item beforelthe thought in my mind was to close off the access to Roseway Street in order to prevent traffic on Rose.way,.put u:p.with a.poorertraffic circula- tion pattern in order to prevent traffic entering the -residential area, but the more I thought about it the more I reached the con- clusion that to have no driveway onto Roseway-would-in.f.act probably generate more unnecessary traffic on.Rose.way than to have the driveway there. My logic goes something like this - the people that will make the turn into Roseway Street can use the driveway, and if they turn 15 - REG, C.C. 4-27-70 Page Sixteen Public Hearings (Item 3) Cont°do into Roseway Street as their choice of access to the property they will get to the property, but if they get to Roseway Street think- ing they are going to achieve access to this facility and they find there is no driveway - well in that case they would have to travel. down .Roseway and make the U turn to get out. So I think in fact the only sensible way to minimize traffic on Roseway will be ,. to put the driveway there. I don't think anything we do is going to prevent some people from turning into Roseway and parking there. They will park as close to the medical facility as they can get, so unfortunately I can see no way of preventing some utilization of the area. With regard to the 3 parking spaces short and using 8 spaces across the street. I just can't buy it. I couldn't before and I can°t now. I think it is a subterfuge. Dr. Moghtader says the doctors will park there and the employees will park there,, but the fact of the matter is they are short of parking on site and I don't think the intent of the law was ever to allow individuals to got 1501 or whatever, across a busy highway and pick up the extra spaces there. My own personal thinking is that I would rather be honest and say I am accepting a plan that is short 3 parking spaces. I don't want history to show that I voted for a plan using an offsite parking that was that distance removed and across a busy street. Generally, I think this is a good plan. I believe I can accept it, I think it is reasonable and I will accept any reasonable approach to approving it but I am not going to lend myself to this concept of approving offsite parking spaces situated in this fashion. If there is such a way that it can be done so I can approve it, then I will. Other than that I think the plan is a good one and I could support it. Councilman Lloyd,. Does this fill the Mr. Munsell,. Councilman .Lloyd,. Mr. Jansen,. Mr. Munsell - one of the things that did come up - it was brought out in a statement made, that this did not come up to the city code. requirements? to be here tonight but Yes - it does now, Mr. Jansen, a question, please. You indicated you were representing your neighbors - how many do you represent and where are they located? Mrs. Hamilton is with me and she lives on Lot 18, and I live on Lot 17, and a Mr. White on Lot 15 and the renter on Lot 19. They were supposed were unable to come. Councilman Lloyd: In other words you represent yourself plus 3 others. (Answer. Yes) All in all I would certainly concur with the remarks that tl Councilman Nichols has made. I, too, would have to question the idea that someone would park 150' away. However, Dr. Moghtader in good conscience has indicated that the doctors will park there and will ask their employees .to park there - so I will accept that. As long as .it meets all the basic requirements I think that in the final analysis this is not an offensive development to the people in the area. While the.request is certainly reasonable, I think the explanation of why the traffic flow pattern is required is also a very reasonable explanation, and I also think you really are better off having an opening on Roseway because the very fact that this street is a cul de sac street tends to reduce traffic. This street is properly marked? Mr. Zimmerman. Yes. We checked it after the Planning Commission hearing and we find there is a sign on Roseway stating"Not a Thru Street". Councilman Lloyd: In view of the proximity to the other medical building plus the hospital, this is not an unrealistic development on a major street. Mr. Zimmerman how many - 16 - Is I REG. C.C. 4-27-70 Page Seventeen Public Hearings (Item 3) Contad. cars do we have flowing on Sunset? Mr. Zimmerman. Offhand my recollection is about eighteen to twenty thousand cars per day. Councilman Lloyd. In view of that and the area, I would be this development. the obvious thrust of favorably disposed to Councilman Shearer: Item 5 of the Planning Commission Resolution refers to an eventual 2 story structure and when this is done there will be provided the proper amount of parking. I would like to know where that parking will be provided? If you can't get it on a 1 story building how can you get it for a 2 story building? What is proposed here that we are not seeing tonight? Mr. Munsell: There are properties adjacent to this particular Precise Plan which the applicant is anticipating purchasing at such time the applicant is able to add to the structure. At this time it is being structured for a 2 story building and these purchases would be required at the time they would add to the building. It is all contingent on another package coming through at a future date. The City Attorney has indicated to staff that it would be difficult to require that at this time he meet parking requirements needed at that time, although it was urged in the recommendation of the Planning Commission, so that at the time the doctor and his group would want to add the 2nd story the feelings of the Commission and Council would be known to them with regard to the parking requirements. Councilman Shearer: Do you know what lot the doctors have in mind? Mr. Munsell: I understand they have negotiated with the owner of the property of Lot 19. Also Lot 49 to the south is owned by Suburban Water with a well on it and there has been some discussion with the applicant in terms of meeting with Suburban and making arrangements for leasing of some parking spaces on that parcel. Councilman Shearer: A question of the City Attorney. A statement has been made that this is not in conformance with the code - this, I assume, is contingent upon the 8 spaces across the street.' Is there any basis on which we can deny the Precise Plan because the 3 lacking spaces are across the street and not adjacent? Would this be legal grounds for voting against the Precise Plan? Mr. Wakefield: The Precise Plan as it pends before you does meet the requirements of our existing ordinance so far as off street parking is concerned. The property owner has complied to .the extent that it is possible by providing the parking areas across the street pursuant to a park- ing agreement which does conform to our present ordinance require- ments. If the parking agreement were not available then the site itself would not meet the existing requirements in more than the 3 spaces you referred to, because certain of the existing spaces were removed to -provide a circulation pattern between the two .areas - the new parking arEa and the existing parking area. So actually with some additional landscaping required in the parking area there is a net shortage of 8 parking spaces on site. So the 8 spaces are proposed to be provided in the agreement with the hospi- tal. The plan does meet .the code requirements. Councilman Shearer: Are there enough free spaces across the street to accommodate this? I assume a check was made. - 17 REG. C.C. 427-70 Public :Hearing's (Item 3) Cont°d. Page Eighteen Mr. M.unse.11. Queen of the Valley Hospital has in excess of 150 spaces over its requirement and a check of the hospital parking area indicates there are spaces available during .the day and these 8 spaces will be reserved, Councilman Shearer.' I cazm tonight prepared to vote against the Precise Plan, however, in light of the fact it does meet the code requirements I don't feel I can. Perhaps the code needs some changes when we can allow such a situation to exist. I don't feel the closing of the accessway on Roseway will affect the number of cars that may or may not park on Roseway. I think that is a matter of the individual judging how close he can get to the Doctor°s office, whether he likes to walk or not. So I guess by default I will have to support the Precise Plano Councilman .Nichols: Mr. City Attorneyiyour statement to the Council that the parking meets the require- ments of the code is an interpretative statement ® is it not? Mr. Wakefield: Yes, to the extent that our parking provisions in the ordinance do permit the meeting of parking requirements through a parking agree-, ment with an adjacent property owner. Measuring the distance by a specified number of feet and the parking that has been done, indicates the parking lot at the Queen of the Valley Hospital is within the limits of our existing ordinance requirements. Councilman Nichols: Thank you. It would be interesting to conjecture what was the intent of the Council Is at the time it accepted the thesis that adjacent parking would suffice, and I note that the Planning Commission itself expressed strong doubts about the validity of utilizing the space across a major street as the space that would meet the definition of adjacent parking. I still find it a very difficult concept to accept. One other point- Mr..Munsell., the City Attorney says there is a deficit of 8 spaces and the plan shows 3 spaces ® will you clarify that? (Mr. Munsell explained with the use of a displayed diagram, stating the original plan came in with a deficit of 3 parking spaces, however there were 3 additional parking spaces in the location and 2 removed because of landscaping requirements and 3 removed because of better traffic circulation in the interior of the parrling lot. So they are actually short 8 spaces, and even if the 3 spaces were not removed to give better interior circulation, they would still be short on site parking spaces.) Councilman Nichols: I can't go along with the thesis that we can move 8 parking spaces across Sunset. Councilman Shearer: Another question. Mr. City Attorney, this meeting of the code because of the across the street parking, is that still subject to the approval of the Council? In other words we can look at the plan proposed and we would not be at liberty to say the two spaces in the lower right hand corner do not meet what I like to see as far as parking is concerned? I am not at liberty to do that? Is this question of 3-6-8 spaces a matter of judgment on our part or do we have the prerogative to deny? If it meets the code then we have no choice? Mr. Wakefield: If it meets the code then in my opinion the Council is bound to approve the plan. Now the alternative is to modify by appropriate proceedings the parking requirements as they relate to the so- called parking agreement provision which authorizes offsite parking agreements to make up deficiencies'on site. REG, C.C. 4-27-70 Public Hearinqs (Item 3),Cont°do Page Nineteen Motion by Councilman Lloyd, seconded by Mayor Chappell, that Zone Change #429 and Precise Plan No. 580, be approved as recommended by the Planning Commission Resolutions No. 2241 and Nov 2242. Councilman Nichols: Mr, Mayor - I would prefer to vote on these items individually. Mr. Wkefield, is that an appropriate action to vote on a Precise Plan and a Zone Change in one motion? Mr. Wakefield: The matters are different and the considerations are different and a division of the question would be appropriate. I believe they should be considered on a separate role call vote. Mayor Chappell: Councilman Lloyd, based on what the City Attorney has stated, I would ask you to withdraw your motion. Councilman Lloyd: Mr. Wakefield - can we divide the question? Mr. Wakefield: Yes you may. Councilman Lloyd. I would then divide the motion and have one on the Zone Change No. 429, and the other motion on Precise Plan No. 580. We have a motion and second on both. Motion on Zone Change No. 429 carried on roll call vote as follows: AYES. Councilmen Shearer, Nichols, Young, Lloyd, Mayor Chappell NOES,, None ABSENT,. None Motion on Precise Plan No. 580 failed on roll call vote as follows: AYES: Councilman Lloyd, Mayor Chappell NOES. Councilmen Shearer, Nichols, Young ABSENT: None AMENDMENT NO. 107 REQUEST: Revision to the Zoning City Initiated Ordinance to provide a Model Home Marketing Complex consisting of models, a sales office, children°s play area, landscaping, and parking areas which may be permitted within.the area covered by a Tentative Map and/or Planned Community Development Zone prior to final approval of said map. Recommended by Planning Commission Resolution No. 2240.. (Mr. Menard, Planning Director, verbally summarized Planning Commission Resolution 2240. Slides shown of a model home complex in other areas and explained. Reemphasized that within the Resolution there were safeguards set to protect the City in the event the developer was unable to complete.a project, thus enabling the area to be returned to its original state without cost to the.City.) THIS IS THE TIME AND PLACE FOR THE PUBLIC HEARING ON AMENDMENT NO. 107. IN FAVOR Ron Grudzins-i I think Mr. Menard has very adequately covered Don L. Bren Co,,, the -marketing complex. The.procedure 15233 Ventura Blvd. is something we..would-like to utilize because. Sherman Oaks it does save a great deal of time in the development of any residential project. It allows us to activate our development program .prior to the recordation of a Tentative Tract Map and .as Mr.. Menard has.: already pointed out. there will be safeguards built into the,Ordinance that provides the City protection. I'would like to say we would like to go on record in support of the adoption of this Ordinance. - 19 - REG. C.C. 4-27-70 Public Hearings (Item 4) Cont°d. Page Twenty 1 iJ THERE BEING NO FURTHER PUBLIC TESTIMONY, PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED. COUNCIL DISCUSSION. Councilman Young: I think I understand this concept and it seems like a favorable concept to me, but I haven't had the opportunity of reviewing in any detail what is involved. I wonder if it would be appropriate to continue action so that I might have the opportunity to review in detail with staff. Motion by Councilman Nichols, seconded by Councilman Young, and carried, that Amendment No. 107 - City Initiated, be held over to the next regular Council meeting with the hearing closed. STREET VACATION OF A LOCATION: Westerly of Glendora PORTION OF VINCENT AVENUE Avenue between the intersection (AKA VINCENT PLACE) of Glendora Avenue with Walnut Protest Hearing Creek Channel. Hearing of protests or objections set for this date by Resolution No. 4120 adopted March 9, 1970. Council reviewed the Engineer's report. Mayor Chappell: Madam City Clerk> do you have the affidavits of posting and publication? City Clerk: Yes I do. Motion by Councilman Nichols, seconded by Councilman Shearer, and carried, to receive and file affidavits of posting and publication. Mayor Chappell: Mr. Public Service Director, do you have a statement to make? ,Mr. Fast, Public Services Director, stated as indicated in the South Glendora Avenue Plan I adopted by City Council upon the recommendation of the Planning Commission, this portion of Vincent Avenue commonly known as Vincent Place is no longer needed for street purposes, therefore, the staff has proposed the vacation of Vincent Place. The vacation will allow better parking and access for Precise Plan No. 587 and for the future development to the north of the proposed vacation, all in conformance with Glendora Avenue Plan Area I . . Mayor Chappell. City Clerk have you received any written protests or objections against the abandon- ment of this street? City Clerk: No, I have not. Mr. Aiassa: Mr. Mayor - we received a letter late this afternoon and I would like to ask the City Attorney a question. If we proceed with the vacating of this street but do not consummate the negotiation with Winchell°s Donut House pertaining to the exchange or sale of land, when will the vacating become effective? Mr. Wakefield: Mr. Aiassa: City Attorney: Mr. Aiassa: The vacation will become effective when the City Council adopts the resolution and when the required maps are filed. We don't have the Resolution tonight do we? Yes. How long will it take to record? Mr. Wakefield: Just a matter of days. t e REG..C.C. 4-27-70 Page Twenty-one Public Hearings (Item 5) Cont°d. Mr. Aiassa: In other words we can proceed with the vacating of this street and not have a transaction of sale with the Winchell Donut House for the street right-of-way because this is in fee entitled to the City? Mr. Wakefield: Yes, Mr. City Manager. The underlying fee in this street is owned by the City and in a situation where upon the vacation becoming effective the street easementis vacated and the adjoining property owners will automa- tically succeeed to the ownership of the property free and clear of the street easement, because it is an owned fee the title to the property will remain in the City until the City disposes of it. Mr. Aiassa: I have no objections to the vacating of the street but I do have an objection to the proposal that is being presented to you for your consideration. The net purchase by the Winchell Donut House will only be 269 sq. ft. and I would like to have authorization from Council to negotiate with these representatives. I believe that the City should receive a better portion of sale of this public land. Councilman Nichols: As a point of order I think we are talking about two distinct procedures here. We are in the middle of a hearing procedure and then action by Council. for -the consideration of any other recommendation the staff might want to make. So if the chair pleases, may we continue with the hearing? THIS IS THE TIME AND PLACE FOR THE PUBLIC HEARING ON THE STREET VACATION. THERE BEING NO .PUBLIC TESTIMONY. -EITHER FOR OR AGAINST, PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED. COUNCIL DISCUSSION. RESOLUTION NO. 4144 ADOPTED PORTION OF VINCENT AVENUE ACCEPTING IN FAVOR OF THE EASEMENTS LOCATED THEREIN The City Clerk presented: "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF WEST COVINA, ORDERING THE VACATION OF A CERTAIN (AKA VINCENT PLACE) AND RESERVING AND CITY OF WEST COVINA CERTAIN RIGHTS AND FOR PUBLIC UTILITY AND OTHER PURPOSES." Mayor Chappell: Hearing no objections, waive further reading of the body of said Resolution. Motion by Councilman Lloyd, seconded by Councilman Shearer., adopting said Resolution. Motion carried on roll call vote as follows: AYES.- Councilmen Shearer, Nichols, Young, Lloyd, Mayor Chappell NOES: None ABSENT,. None (Agenda Item Addition) PRECISE PLAN NO. 587 Mr.Munsell: Mr. Mayor - this is the individual who wishes to negotiate for the property that Mr. Aiassa was referring to in connection with the vacation of Vincent Place.- You have a letter from the City Engineer with a,map indicating the development plan and the proposed dedication and vacating of the .various portions of Vincent Way. Precise..Plan No. 587.was heard by the Planning Commission and approved, subject to the vacation of the street and favorable negotiations on the street to allow these Precise Plans to be adopted. Councilman Nichols: Mr. Mayor - how did this get on to the Council°s agenda? - 21 - REG. C.C. 4-27-70 Page Twenty-two Precise Plan No. 587 - Cont°d, Mr. Aiassa: This was brought about this afternoon. Council .had directed that an agreement with Winchell°s be negotiated by staff and I just gave you this report. Mr. Zimmerman does have slides on the proposed project. (Mr. Zimmerman, City Engineer, showed slides and explained what was proposed at the location, and advised that a letter was received late afternoon indicating they were agreeable to the configuration as shown on Study Plan A. However, slight modification would have to be done and are proposed by the Planning Director's conditions, which would again result in a satisfactorily square frontage and we are agreeable to it.) Mr. Aiassa: Mr. Zimmerman will you please explain to Council the transfer of square footage between the Winchell purchase on Vincent and the City°s acquisition at this point if we vacate the street? Mr. Zimmerman: The square footage to be purchased of City City Engineer property by Winchell°s is 3,156 sq. ft. Against this amount it is proposed that Winchell dedicate to the City 2,887 square feet, leaving a net purchase by Winchell°s of 269 sq. ft. Council previously approved an appraisal price of this property, and in addition Winchell will dedicate free of charge a part of their property which is required for the widening of Vincent Avenue under the Master Plan of Streets. Mayor Chappell: What are you recommending tonight- Mr. Aiassa? Mr, Aiassa: First of all I am concerned about -the little triangle piece of property. If they utilize the end parcel which is the triangle - wouldn°t they have to extend that 51 to the end? Mr. Zimmerman: If they follow the existing lot line to conform with the City°s Master Plan of Streets, they would have to donote 51 along the entire frontage. Mr. Aiassa: In other words we are rebuying the same 51 that was supposed to be part of the original site plan. If. they had developed the original site plan they would have had to donate that 51 strip for the entire length? Mr. Zimmerman: That is correct. Mr. Aiassa: So that means we are actually acquiring at our fee and charge appraisal price the 5° that normally would have been given to the City under the.old Precise Plan, which they are now modifying to a new Precise Plan. How:many square feet in that distance? Mr. Zimmerman: Perhaps 200 or 300 square -feet.. Mr. Aiassa: That is one of my contentions. I feel that Winchell°s should be paying for it because they would have to give that in lieu of their original Precise Plan and now we are turning around and giving them interior land and then buying the land that we normally would have gotten as a contingent of the Precise Plan. Mr. City Attorney, what is the disposition of public land of this nature in a sale of this type? Mr. Wakefield: It is simply a matter of negotiation at this point. The city owned property at the rear may be exchanged in whole or in part for that portion of the parcel that constitutes the triangle. I think it is simply a question of arriving at an understanding with - 22 - REG. C.C. 4-27-70 Precise Plan No. 587 - Cont°do Page Twenty-three respect to the number of dollars involved to complete the trans- action. Mr. Aiassa.* Mr. Munsell - what is the status of Precise Plan No. 587? Mt. Munsell: It has been approved by the Planning Commission subject to the vacation of Vincent Avenue and successful negotiation between the applicant and the City. So if negotiations are unsuccessful the plan is essentially dead. Mr. f_iassa: I was advised that there is a Precise Plan that can be developed on the parcel as is,,, without the vacating of the street. Is that a fact? Mr. Munsell: That is essentially true. It does require one waiver of landscaping which would have to be placed on city property in Vincent Way. Mr. Aiassa.* Does this fall under the prerogative of staff? Mr. Munsell.- This particular item would have to go before the Planning Commission for a whole new Precise Plano Councilman Nichols: Mr. Mayor - I think what we are engaged in this evening is a staff discussion rather than a Council decision. 1 Mr. Aiassa: Legal. Councilman Nichols: Mr. Aiassa - I don't quite understand your concern with regard to the property at the point of the triangle. It is true the City would be paying for property it would have received had the Precise Plan been developed originally, but the essential fact is it is not and because it is not the Precise Plan)the applicant is buying a substantial portion of city property, and I think in a matter of equity if they included that point in their land and therefore, were required to dedicate/ they would then not feel the need to purchase as extensive a parcel of the city vacated land and the end result would probably be the same. It seems to me it is a pretty reasonable procedure. Mr. Mayor - my point is we either need a staff recommendation here this evening and we need to take action, or refer back to staff and move along with our agenda. We can't go on all evening while staff debates the merits of the issue, Mayor Chappell: Do you wish to make a motion referring back to staff? Councilman Nichols: I prefer to do so unless the City Manager is prepared to make a recommendation. Mr. Aiassa: I make the one recommendation - and I think Mr. Zimmerman touched on the subject, that if the net purchase by Winchell will be .269 + the 300 feet - which they would have to grant to the City on the basis of the original Precise Plan - is that right Mr. Zimmerman? Mr. Zimmerman: Mr. City Manager the question of the 300 sq. feet along i�he point is a question of interpretation, I think, as to whether it refers to the original precise plan or not, - 23 - REG. C.C. 4-27-70 Precise Plan No,, 587 Page Twenty-four Mr. Aiassag I would like to have Council accept the recommendation of the staff with one proviso that the net purchase by Winchell°s be increased by 269 sq. ft. to approximately 569 sq. ft subject to negotiation by staff. Councilman Lloyd: What would be lost if we referred back to staff for a recommendation? Mr. Aiassa: They might lose their escrow. The land is owned by Enco Stations and they now have a 30 day extension to the escrow. It is actually in escrow now to acquire the land on this Precise Plan and that is why we brought it up tonight. Councilman Shearer. Mr. Aiassa - have you had any contact with the Winchell people as to what reception you will have if you up -the price from $700. to approximately $15000? Mr. Aiassa: Yes, I reviewed this matter with them last week and at that time I didn't foresee that they were going to exclude the triangle with the 51 they.would have originally granted us under the Precise Plan and then come back and ask us to exchange interior land for the land they would have given us anyway under the Precise Plan that was really filed with us in the beginning. Motion by Councilman Nichols, seconded by Councilman Shearer, that the staff recommendations involving Precise Plan No. 587 be accepted with the understanding that the net purchase figure of 269_ sqo ft. be a, not less than figure and if staff can negotiate a larger purchase figure it be so authorized. Councilman 'Young: Will that meet the needs of the staff at this particular time? Mr. Aiassa: I believe it will meet our requirements. Motion carried on roll call vote as follows: AYES: Councilmen Shearer, Nichols, Young, Lloyd, Mayor Chappell NOES: None ABSENT: None PLANNING COMMISSION - Cont°do League of. Calif. Cities - Planning Commissioners' Institute, June 3-5, 1970 Mr. Aiassa: You.have a staff report and we would like to have authorization of $45.00 per person, attending covering the cost of registration and meals. Motion by Councilman Lloyd, seconded by Councilman Young, and carried, authorizing the attendance of the Planning Commissioners at the League of California Cities, Planning Institute, June 3-5-, 1970, at a cost of $45.00per person, total not to exceed $180.00 allocated from Planning Commission account 744.149. Motion carried on roll call vote as follows: AYES: Councilmen Shearer, Nichols, Young, Lloyd, Mayor Chappell NOES:, None ABSENT.* None Joint Meetina Reauest (Discussion by Council with regard to date. Both Councilmen Lloyd and Shearer indicated previous dates for May 4th. Final decision: Joint meeting of Planning Commission and Council on May 18th at 7:30 P.M.) - 24 - 'REG,.C.C. 4-27-70 Page:Twenty-five Recreation, &_ Park Commission Action of March 6, 1970 A) Liaison;to West Covina Beautiful Mr. Aiasss.: You do have a staff report and the only change I would suggest.- instead of naming a pro- fessional from my staff that. it be a representative from the Recreation &. Park Department and a representative from the City Manager's Administrative staff. Councilman Nichols: The report we received from the Recreation & Park Commission comes to the Council as a result of a council suggestion and request that this matter be looked into. A great deal of work went into the report and on Page 12 of that report, there are certain recommenda- tions made to Council, which indicates that the Recreation & Park Commissioners believe that a representative to West Covina Beautiful would be desirable with certain provisos attached and these are rather extensive. It would seem to me it would be inappropriate for Council to act specifically on this matter until such time as there are indications from West Covina Beautiful as to whether West Covina Beautiful is prepared to comply with these provisions. All in all,,, this is predicated on Council accepting the recommendations in this report. It is.my understanding the entire Recreation & Park Commission has acted favorably on this report. Is that corect, Mrs. Wilson? (Commissioner Wilson answered: "Yes".) Consequently if we do accept the report we have some additional work ahead of us before we can take action. I think our first action would be to decide as a body if we accept the report, and then delegate one of our own to meet with West Covina Beautiful and discuss the limitations of the report, and finally decide whether we are to appoint city representatives. Mayor Chappell'. I r ay app ° o s there any further discussion. If not, will you make a motion Councilman Nichols. Motion by Councilman Nichols, seconded by Councilman Lloyd, and carried, that the Council accept and file the report of the Recreation & Park Commission originally submitted February 24, 1970, and direct the Mayor to meet with the appropriate representatives of West Covina Beautiful to discuss the contents of this report and determine the capability or willingness of West Covina Beautiful to comply with the salient features prior to any further consideration by this body for:appointment of a representative to West Covina Beautiful. Councilman Nichols: Mr. Mayor - we have two representatives of the Recreation & Park Commission with us this evening. Would the chair entertain inviting them to express any comments they may want to make. I would be interested in their reaction in terms of our action - do they feel this would be an appropriate course for the City to follow? (The chair recognized.Mrs. Betty Plesko,.Chairman of the Recreation & Park Commission and Commissioner Joanne Wilson. Both indicated that the action just taken was appropriate.) b) Public Address System Motion by Councilman Nichols, seconded by Councilman --.Lloyd, and carried, referring this item pertaining to the Public Address System to the budget -sessions for consideration. (Personnel Board minutes to be held over to City Attorneys item H-2) - 25 - REG. C,C. 4"27-70 Human Relations Commission Minutes of March 26, 1970 ORAL COMMUNICATIONS WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS Page Twenty-six Motion by Councilman Nichols, seconded by Councilman Lloyd, and carried, receiving and filing. None a) La Puente Vallev Council of Social Service. Inca Motion by Councilman Nichols, seconded by Councilman Lloyd, and carried, referring the reauest for .permission"t6'.s'alicit-�funds :received from •La' *Puepte,_:Valley._.Council. of Social Service, Inc., to staff. b) West Covina Post 8620 Veterans of Foreign Wars Request Permission to Sell Buddy Poppies SZ22 and 5 23.70_ Motion by Councilman Shearer, seconded by Councilman Young, and carried, granting permission as requested. c) Carl. Cline Mayor Chappell.: We have a letter from Carl Cline, offering his services to the City of West Covina. I certainly think he should be commended and I guarantee him that we will find someplace to use his services. This is somewhat unusual where a person running for City Council comes forth afterwards and continues to want to help the City. Councilman Shearer: Mr. Mayor, I understand there is a list Is maintained by the City Manager of volunteers for appointments to various positions, I would like to have his name added to that list. (Mayor Chappell directed Mr. Aiassa to add Carl Cline's name, to the list.) d) Petition from Residents on North Shadydale Avenue to Cul de sac south end of 200 Block of North Shadydale Avenue adjacent to the Freeway Motion by Councilman Young, seconded by Councilman Shearer, and carried, to refer this to staff. e) Copy,of Resolution of Intention to Construct, Maintain and Operate a Refuse Transfer and Disposal System - From Board of Directors of County Sanitation District No. 15 Motion by Councilman Nichols, seconded by Councilman Young, and carried, to refer this item -to City. Manager. CITY ATTORNEY ORDINANCE INTRODUCTION CODE SO AS TO REZONE Corporation.) The City Attorney presented: "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF WEST COVINA, AMENDING THE WEST COVINA MUNICIPAL CERTAIN PREMISES. (Zone Change No. 435 - Macco Motion by Councilman Nichols, seconded by Councilman Young, and carried, waiving further reading of the body of said Ordinance. Motion by Councilman Lloyd, seconded by Councilman Young, and carried, introducing said Ordinance. ORDINANCE The City Attorney presented: INTRODUCTION "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF WEST COVINA, AMEND- - 26 'REG. C.C. 4-27-70 Page Twenty-seven City Attorney - Cont°d. 'ING SECTION 2434 AND REPEALING SECTION 2435 OF THE WEST COVINA MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO THE POLITICAL ACTIVITIES OF CITY EMPLOYEES." Motion by Councilman Lloyd, seconded by Councilman Young, and .carried, waiving further reading of the body of said Ordinance. Motion by Councilman Lloyd, seconded by Councilman Young,,introduc- ing said Ordinance. Councilman Shearer: A question of the City Attorney. In the eventuality a city employee should decide to run and be elected to City Council what kind of provision is made? I have no objection but it might be embarrassing for - say the City Engineer or City Manager to decide to run? Mr. -Wakefield: Under the proposed provisions of the Ordinance the City employee would be legally entitled to become a candidate for election to the City Council. The only prohibition would be that he could not carry on any of his campaign activities during the city working hours. This would be in conformance with the State Supreme Court. The present provisions of our Ordinance are in conflict with the opinions of the State Supreme .Court and have been superceded by those opinions. Councilman Nichols: What if he were elected? Mr. Wakefield: Then he would have to resign from the other s City position. Motion carried. ORDINANCE NO. 1124 The City Attorney presented: ADOPTED "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF WEST COVINA, AMENDING SECTIONS 521801, 5245, 5250 and 5250.14, OF THE WEST COVINA MUNICIPAL CODE, RELATING TO PUBLIC WORK.cl Motion by Councilman Lloyd, seconded by Councilman Young, and carried, waiving further reading of the body of said Ordinance. Motion by Councilman.Shearer, seconded by Councilman Lloyd, adopting said Ordinance. Motion carried on roll call vote as follows: AYES: Councilmen Shearer, Nichols, Young, Lloyd, Mayor Chappell NOES: None ABSENT: None ORDINANCE NO. 1125 The City Attorney presented: ADOPTED "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF WEST COVINA, APPROVING THE ANNEXATION TO, INCORPORATING IN, AND MAKING A PART OF SAID CITY OF WEST COVINA, CERTAIN TERRITORY OUTSIDE THE SAID CITY AND CONTIGUOUS THERETO, KNOWN AS "SOUTHERLY ANNEXATION NO. 212.11 Motion by Councilman Nichols seconded b Councilman Lloyd, and Y Y , carried, waiving further reading of the body of said Ordinance. Motion by Councilman Nichols, seconded by Councilman Young, adopting said Ordinance.- Motion carried on roll call vote as follows: AYES: Councilmen Shearer, .Nichols, Young, Lloyd, Mayor Chappell NOES: None ABSENT: None -27- REG. C.C. 4-27-70 City Attorney - Cont°d. Page Twenty-eight • [7 RESOLUTION NO. 4145 The City Attorney presented: ADOPTED "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF WEST COVINA, APPROV- ING PRECISE PLAN OF DESIGN NO. 589 (Macco Corporation)." Mayor Chappell: Hearing no objections waive further reading of the body of said Resolution. Councilman Young: Mr. Mayor - one clarifying question. I believe this was included in the rather extensive program of orientation that I participated in on Friday, although I would like to be sure? Mr. MunSell: The item you refer to was included - Council- man Young. This was the shopping center with the Market Basket Food Store on the 6 acres. Mr. Wakefield: With reference to the matter of the approval of this Resolution I should point out that this Resolution and the two Resolutions which follow really involve quasi-judicial determinations by City Council. Those members who did not participate in the hearings of those matters may properly decide not to vote on these matters simply because the only way they could put themselves in a position to really evaluate the matters would be to have a transcript prepared of the evidence presented at the hearing. There being no transcript available tonight it would be entirely in order for them not to vote on any of the next three items, should they elect not to. Councilman Nichols: Mr. Wakefield, posing a supposition. If the two new councilmen choose not to vote on a Precise Plan could the Precise Plan be approved on a 2 to l vote? Mr. Wakefield: They would be abstaining from voting simply on the basis they had not participated in the original hearing,.but it would still require three votes. Councilman Nichols: We have a situation that might prove rather difficult this evening. I am on record as opposing the Precise Plan and we have two Councilmen on record supporting it and we have two new councilmen who may find it appropriate not to vote. Mr. Wakefield: Under the circumstances which you pose there are two possible alternatives. One to readvertise the matter for hearing and rehear; and the second, to have a transcript of that portion of the hearing prepared from the tape of the meeting and authorize the newly elected members of the City Council to read the tape and then they would be entitled to vote on the matter. Mayor Chappell: First I would ask the new Councilmen if they are prepared to vote on this item? Councilman Shearer: Assuming I have a legal right to - yes. Councilman Young: I carte prepared to vote but after what the City Attorney has pointed out and what I have experienced the last few days, it would be greatly preferred to have it held over. I would prefer a further and more precise presentation. Of course; if four Council- men are ready to vote, I can abstain. Mayor Chappell: Councilman Nichols - if I remember correctly it was the next item you voted against, but I could be wrong. 28 REG. C.C. 4-27-70 City Attorney - Conted. Page Twenty-nine Councilman Nichols: You are correct, it will be the next one. But the problem will be the same. Motion by Councilman Lloyd, seconded by Councilman Nichols, adopting said Resolution. Councilman Shearer: A question of clarification ° The Precise Plan we are voting on includes the service station. Mayor Chappell: No.... Councilman Shearer: But there is a vacant piece of land that obviously will be a service station. If I vote "yes" on the Precise Plan then I am approving everything but this corner and if I then in turn vote "no8e on the Conditional Use Permit - what does that mean? Mr. Wakefield: The Precise Plan would apply to - as I understand it and Mr. Munsell can correct me, to the entire 6 acres which provides a Development Plan for all except the corner piece which is proposed for use as a service station. If the plan is approved and the owners of the property desire to develop the proposed service station site in some different fashion that would have to come under another Precise Plan for that specific area. Councilman Shearer: I am still at a loss as to a Precise Plan with a big hole in the corner which in effect, we will have if the Use Permit is turned down. Doesn't that require Plan? the applicant to come back in with a new Precise Mr. Wakefield: Yes, if he desires to do anything with the corner he would have to come back with a new Precise Plan covering that particular piece unless he wished to change the Development Plan for the entire 6 acres. Councilman Lloyd: I would say to Councilman Shearer that he might still like to have this item held over. Councilman Shearer: I am convinced on the corner but my question is if you take out the corner then the whole plan goes down the drain. The man is not going to develop the property with the corner sitting in weeds. Mr. Wakefield: I am not prepared, of course, to say what. use he might or could make of that corner parcel consistent with the existing Precise Plan, but if he desired to put any structures on it he would have to come in with a new Precise Plan. Councilman Shearer: Can he do it just for that piece? Mr. Wakefield: Yes. Councilman Shearer: Mr. Mayor - call for the question. Motion carried on roll call vote as follows: AYES: Councilmen Shearer, Nichols, Lloyd, Mayor Chappell NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: Councilman Young - 29 - 'REG. C.C. 4-27-70 Page Thirty City Attorney - Cont'd. RESOLUTION - GRANTING AN UNCLASSIFIED USE PERMIT (Application No, 150 - Macco Corporation) Councilman Young: Mr. Mayor- If this is proper procedure would it be in'order to continue this item to the next regular meeting of the City Council. I would so move. Seconded by Councilman Lloyd. Mr, Wakefield: Yes and if the motion is carried it would provide an opportunity for Councilman Young to listen to the taping of that portion of the hearing. Motion carried. RESOLUTION NO. 4146 The City Attorney presented: ADOPTED "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF WEST COVINA, DENYING TWO REQUESTS FOR APPROVAL OF A PRECISE PLAN OF DESIGN (PRECISE PLAN APPLICATIONS NO. 590 and 591 - MACCO CORPORATION)." Motion by Councilman Lloyd, seconded by Councilman Shearer, and carried, waiving further reading of the body of said Resolution. Motion by Councilman Lloyd, seconded by Councilman Young, adopting said Resolution. Motion carried on roll call vote as follows': AYES: Councilmen Shearer, Nichols, Young, Lloyd, Mayor Chappell NOES: None ABSENT: None RESOLUTION NO.. 4147 The City Attorney presented: ADOPTED "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF WEST COVINA, DESIGNATING AN, ALTERNATE:MEMBER`ON:.THE DISTRICT.'GOVERNING BOARDS OF COUNTY.- SANITATION 1:5:2' 21'.AND' 22.". Mr. Wakefield: Mr. Mayor - if the City Council will indicate r" ~ the' name of the member of the City Council. you -desire to designate as the alternate it will be _included in -the Resolution. :.:I might point.ou.t the Mayor is automatically by law the member of the --governing board of the Sanitation Districts and the alternate would serve instead of the Mayor on any occasion he .was unable to attend the meeting: Councilman Nichols: As has been customary I would move that the Mayor Pro Tem - Councilman Young be nominated as the alternate. Seconded by Councilman Shearer. Motion carried on roll call vote as follows: AYES: Councilmen Shearer, Nichols, Young, Lloyd, Mayor Chappell NOES: None ABSENT: None Motion by Councilman Young, seconded by Councilman Shearer, and carried, waiving further reading of the body of said Resolution, Motion by Councilman.Shearer, seconded by Councilman Nichols, adopting said -Resolution. Motion carried on roll• call vote as follows: AYES: Councilmen Shearer, Nichols, Young, Lloyd, Mayor Chappell NOES: None ABSENT: None 30 - I REG. CC. 4-27-70 Cit:v Attornev - Cont' d. Page Thirty-one RESOLUTION NO. 4148 ADOPTED COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF WEST FOR THE SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA The City Attorney presented: "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF WEST COVINA, APPOINTING A MEMBER OF CITY COVINA TO THE CITY SELECTION COMMITTEE RAPID TRANSIT DISTRICT." Mr. Wakefield: This! also would require an indication from the City Council as to the member of the City Council you desire to appoint for that purpose. Simply for clarification, there are really two City Selection Committees that are provided for by law. One is the City Selection Committee that selects the City members of the local Agency Formation Commission. The local Agency Formation Commission statute provides that the Mayor shall be the member of that City Selection Committee.. In connection with the statute providing for the creation of the Southern California Rapid Transit District, however, while it also provides for a City Selection Committee it provides that that member shall be designated by the City Council by resolution and it need not be the.Mayor. Motion by Councilman Nichols, seconded by Councilman Shearer, and carried, nominating Mayor Chappell as the representative. Motion by Councilman Nichols, seconded by Councilman Shearer, and carried, waiving further reading of the body of said Resolution. Motion by Councilman Shearer, seconded by Councilman Nichols, adopting said Resolution. Motion carried on roll call vote as follows: AYES: Councilmen Shearer, Nichols, Young, Lloyd, Chappell NOES: None ABSENT: None CITY MANAGER TRAFFIC COMMITTEE MINUTES Council considered items APRIL 21, 1970 individually. (Discussion by Council on Item 5 of Minutes; City Manager suggesting it go back to the Traffic Committee for 30 days for further study.) Councilman Lloyd: I would like to point out the residents in this area have asked repeatedly through both collect- ive action by the East Hill Homeowners' Associ- ation and through individual action, that the speed limit be held to 25. I would remind Council that this matter has been brought up before -- they had a presentation on it, and although I recognize the problems we face but knowing the area and the people there I don't think we will gain much by moving the speed up. I think we should continue to cite and issue tickets. I don't think there is any need for it going back because. I.know what the recommendation wil..l be from the Traffic Com- mittee. I think, in this case, you have a very strong feeling on the part of the residents in the area. Councilman Nichols: I am confident that the higher speed recorded here is the speed recorded subsequent; to the street improvement project. There is no question about that. Mr. Zimmerman: Yes - the construction was completed about a year ago. Councilman Nichols: It would be my thinking that 99 citations should in fact be very therapeutic. I would imagine that a great many people that use that road use it repeatedly for local travel and I would.s.uspect if enforcement continues those people will begin slowing down and perhaps subsequent speed studies will show slower traffic in the area. If that does not occur then I think I would have to take a long hard look at the 25 miles an hour limit, because if in fact the average - 31 - REG. C.C. 4-27-70 City Manager (Item 1) Cont!d. Page Thirty-two speed is 43 miles an hour in a 25 mile an hour speed zone and in another few months we haven't gotten it down then I would think we must really look at it. Councilman Young: Are there sidewalks? Councilman Lloyd: Yes they are on Virginia Avenue. Mayor Chappell: It sounds like the opinion of the Council is to continue citing and look at it again - say in 90 days? (Council agreed) Councilman Shearer: Pertaining to Item 7 - I am not sure what went into this request from Mayor Gleckman, but I am sure it was probably one of the constituents in that area. I think , recommendation No. 2 should be very carefully worded, if at all. If I.were a parent who lived in that area and I asked the Mayor of the City to see about putting in a crosswalk and the answer I got Iback was to teach your children to obey traffic rules, I don't think it would set too well with me. While it may be true - I think thatltype of an answer might be a little affront to some of our constituents in that area. So I would seriously question in response to a request for a crosswall5 that we reply by saying teach the children to obey the traffic. rules. So I don't agree with recommendation No. 2. Mr. Aiassa: Mr. Sheared, your suggestion that we use another approach in that area, well Mr. Zimmermlan is Chairman of the Traffic Committee and I am sure he will understand. Mr. Zimmerman: Yes, Mr. Shearer - this is something that the Police Department does fairly routinely and possibly could be worked in as a normal part of their procedures. Councilman Shearer: That would be fine but not as a response to this request. Mayor Chappell: I would hope that they would be doing this all the time - using the softer approach. Motion by Councilman Nichols, seconded by Councilman Lloyd, and carried, approving the Traffic Committee minutes of April 21, 1970, with the noted recommendations. Royal Blues Request for City Sanction Motion by Councilman Nichols, seconded by Councilman Lloyd, and carried, that the Council deny the Royal Blues request for the use of the City of West Covina name as the official marching group; and that a letter be prepared for the Mayor's signature so advising that based on City -policies .as outlined in memorandum dated April 22, 1970, and signed by the City Manager, Public Service Director, Recreation & Park Director and the Administrative Analyst Jr., their request is denied. Chamber Letter re Solicitors Motion by Councilman Nichols, seconded by Councilman Lloyd, and carried, that St'aiff Report be received and filed. I.B.M. SEMINAR AT SAN JOSE May 18-22, 1970 Notion by Councilman Nichols, that permission be granted to the City Manager to attend the I.B.M. Seminar and that the sum not to exceed $50.00 be authorized from the City Manager's account. Councilman Shearer: A question. The City M:nager's request was "or a member of his staff." I'am wondering if he would like to have the motion amended. 32 - -REG. C.C. 4-27-70 Page Thirty-three City Manager (Item 4) Cont'd. Councilman Nichols: I will amend my motion to so state that. Seconded by Councilman Lloyd. Motion carried on roll call vote as follows: AYES: Councilmen Shearer, Nichols, Young, Lloyd, Mayor Chappell NOES: None ABSENT: None Visto Program and LeRoy�Boys' Home Solicitation Requests M�tion by Councilman Nichols that Council give approval of the Vista request on the condition that they comply with the staff requests and submission of copies of their non-profit corporation papers; and furthermore that the LeRoy Boys' Home request be approved on the same basis. Seconded by Councilman Lloyd, and carried. .;Chamber Letter re Connecting Amar Road to Temple Avenue Motion by Councilman Lloyd, seconded by Councilman Young, and carried, to receive and file. Nogales Street Railroad Crossing Motion by Councilman Nichols, seconded by Councilman Lloyd, that Council authorize the transfer of $1,924.39 from the Sunset Avenue.Improvement Account No. 135-69006 to Account No. 131-70018 and authorize payment of the bill for the Nogales Street Railroad Crossing gate protection. Councilman Shearer; A question. I am interested in the statement of Mr. City Attorney on the first page of our agenda item. It says "The City Attorney has indicated that the City of West Covina has no legal obligation under the terms of Public Utilities Commission Decision No. 67887 to assume the County's cost of allocation unless the. Public Utilities Commission amends the decision." Am I correct in assuming that although we don't have a legal obligation to do so we have a legal right to do so? Mr. Wakefield: The original Public Utilities Commission order in this matter was directed to the City of Los Angeles because the area in question was unincorporated; subsequently the area was incorporated in the City and then the improvements were actually made and the County requested that the Public Utilities Commission amend its order to order the City to make payment and requesting a reaction from the City, and my advice to them was that under the circumstances the City had at least a moral obligation to make the payment and if they did not consent the Public Utilities Commission would undoubtedly amend its order to require the City to pay and under the circumstances I recommended that the City assume its obligation,. Motion carried on roll call vote as follows: AYES: Councilmen Shearer, Nichols, Young, Lloyd, Mayor Chappell NOES: None ABSENT: None Motion by Councilman Nichols, seconded by Councilman Lloyd, directing the City Attorney to draft a resolution requesting an allocation of $962.20 from the Public Utilities Commission Grade Crossing Protection Fund. Motion carried on roll call vote as follows: AYES: Councilmen Shearer, Nichols, Young, Lloyd, Mayor Chappell NOES: None ABSENT: None RESOLUTION NO. 4149 The City Manager presented: ADOPTED "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF WEST COVINA, BEAUTIFYING RAILROAD RIGHT-OF-WAYS." - 33 - ,REG. .C.C. 4-27-70 City Manager (Item 8) Cont'd. Page Thirty. -four Motion by Councilman Young, seconded by Councilman Lloyd, and carried, waiving further reading of the body of said Resolution. Motion by Councilman Lloyd, seconded by Councilman Young, adopting said Resolution. Motion carried on roll call vote as follows: AYES: Councilmen Shearer, Nichols, Young, Lloyd, Mayor Chappell NOES: None ABSENT: None Safety Town Application Motion by Councilman Lloyd, seconded by Councilman Young, sanctioning the application as stated in staff report dated April 24, 1970. Councilman Shearer: Do I understand the application has been made and now, later, we are being asked to okay? Mr. Aias.s.a: We made the application because we had a time limit in which to make the request. If Council doesn't approve we can wait until the application is accepted and then Council would have to make a decision whether or not to accept the grant. Councilman Shearer: I don't argue with the application but if we are going to approve after the fact - it seems kind of late. Mr. Aiassa: This was rather an unusual application. It got complicated because we were not planning to go -into it but intended to use.the usual Eastland program for Safety Town, but after further investiga- tion we decided to go ahead and file an application. Councilman Shearer: One further question - where is the other $27,000 cost coming from? Mr. Aiassa: We are planning to utlize the Safety Town program with more than just our City. It would be an East San Gabriel Valley project. Councilman Shearer: Does this total sum include the cost for the officers time .to implement? Mr. Aiassa: This will cost the utilization of offiers time. As you know we have done this at Eastland Center and it has been at a con- siderable cost and was a private program. This will be owned and operated by the City. Councilman Shearer: But the additional $27,000 not covered by the grant will not .come from City of West Covina funds? (City Manager explained this cost is already covered in other budget items because of the program previously used. Also it was explained that some of this money is covered under the Crossing Guard program.) Councilman Lloyd: And under the suggested plan we may also recoup some of the monies assuming some of the other cities participate. Mr. Aiassa: We will definitely try for participation. At present we are the only City that has sponsored a Safety Town. What is being proposed is similar to other projects that we have used. For example, when we applied for federal and state planning money the Planning Director's salary and expenditures already.made, were also used as credit towards the total amount the City has to put up as their part. 34 - REG, C.C. 4-27-70 Page Thirty-five City Manager (Item 9) Cont'd. Also this does not bind the Council to accept the grant. All we have done is made application. Motion carried. Perma Plaque Council Election Certificates and Council Commendations Mr. Aiassa: The request is made because it seems that everytime we give Election Certificates or Council commendations we seem to forget to note whether they are to be perma plaqued or not. I would like to have Council initiate a policy that anytime we give a Council commendation in resolution form and election certificates that we automatically perma plaque and I will put a certain amount in the budget to cover so we don't have to argue vi�hether it is to be perma plaqued or not. Councilman Lloyd: What :ind of money are we talking about? Mr. Aiassa: Between $150 and $200 - this would cover resolutions of election certificates, retir- ing employees, commissioners leaving - anything other than the Blue Ribbon commendations. Councilman Nichols: My reaction would be if we adopted such a Resolution we may find ourselves hung out to dry (explained). We may not want to perma plaque all those resolutions. Mr. Aiassa: I would like to stipulate on perma plaque that it be to employees retiring, commissioners leaving, election certificates. This is strictly up to Council but it does get rather delicate because we have given resolutions to governmental•agencies and then all of a sudden I have to poll 3 Councilmen to determine if it is to be perma plaqued. Councilman Young: There have been indications that resolutions were given out somewhat indiscriminately and it might be better simply to hold it on a "as is" basis. Mr. Aiassa: I have no quarrel as long -as somebody doesn't come back later after the action has been taken and want it perma plaqued. Councilman Nichols: Yes I believe it does pose a problem and probably could be solved by Council giving it a little more attention in the initial motion and perhaps using the words "a perma plaqued resolution...." and staff using the same terminology and when that terminology isn't present the assumption would be it would not be done. In that spirit I would move that we table Item 10. Seconded.by Councilman Young, and carried. Natural Gas Fleet Conversion - Staff Re ort Councilman Lloyd: Since this was one of my projects and I feel rather close to it - how many kits are we getting? Mr. Fast: 6 kits and if delivered on May 4th as Public Service Dir., promised they have also indicated they will install them and we hope it will be within a period of 2 weeks to 20 days. This will use compressed natural - 35 - REG. C.C. 4-27-70 Page Thirty-six City Manager (Item 11) Cont°d. gas and the refueling station will be at Vincent Avenue and if they put in 2 bottles we may have to go in only every other day. Depend- ing on the units we pick. (Explained) We will not be refueling on the same basis that their vehicles will which is on the basis of an overnight stay. Councilman Lloyd: I would like to point out to the new members that the object of this is the conversion of the major portion of the operable vehicle fleet of the City as a smog reducing element and an efficiency situation. (Explained the operation and how it functions.) Mr. Aiassa: I would also like to advise Council that the staff is investigating what zone is required to develop our own fueling station and also provide a means so that other vehicles can be converted. Councilman Shearer: In this report - and I am all for this conversion I hope to be driving a vehicle of that type myself within 3 months, but 712 miles total, less than 25/ were driven on the natural gas - this seems sort of a poor utilization of this facility - is it because of the difficulty of refueling? Mr. Aiassa: First it was the difficulty of getting the kits and then the establishment of fueling stations. Councilman Lloyd: That was liquid natural gas, but what we are now talking about is compressed natural 00 gas. The problem simply was there was no unit in the immediate area where you could get the liquid natural gas. (Explained) Councilman Shearer: And the 6 kits will be utilizing more than 25/ in total - I would hope? Councilman Lloyd: Yes and another thing to be considered is the savings we will get - cars will go anywhere from 3 to 5 times further before major over- hauls are experienced and there is no requirement to change the oil. (Explained) Mayor Chappell: On this, if Councilman Lloyd has time on that day, I certainly hope he can come with US. His enthusiasm has put the effort behind this project. (Councilman Lloyd indicated he would.) Sister City Status Report Councilman Nichols: This is a terribly disappointing report. It indicates to me that the Sister City Foundation is virtually inactive and having been a very very active group this comes to me with a great deal of concern. I would hope that the Council through the leadership of the Mayor will be able to encourage the Foundation to greater activities than this indicates. Mayor Chappell: I was going to ask if you and perhaps Councilman Lloyd, could get together with the acting Chairman of the _Foundation and see if we can stimulate this organization. We do have a budget for this group and if we can get" them meeting regularly we might have better programs. Councilman Nichols: It states there are no projects or programs planned for the last several months. I 36 - REG. C.C. 4-27-70 City Manager (Item 12) Cont'd. Page Thirty-seven think Councilman Lloyd and I should get together and discuss. Councilman Lloyd: 'I concur. Councilman Young: This wouldn't be an idea of how to spend $750.00? Councilman Lloyd: No. I think our problem is although we have allocated the funds, our Sister City activities have fallen to a point of almost non -extinction. I attended a meeting over a year ago and we had a rather emotionally charged meeting wherein they felt we were being too critical. Since that time we both withdrew, not wanting to rock the boat. We offered aid but since that meeting we have heard nothing. I assure you we are not out to spend the money, but to create a feeling of warmth and friendliness with our Sister City in Mexico. Chamber Letter Re Orange/Merced Avenue Plan Motion by Councilman Nichols, seconded by Councilman Lloyd, and carried, to hold this over to May 11, 1970: CITY CLERK Parade Permit Application American Freedom From Hunger Foundation Motion by Councilman Nichols, seconded by Councilman Lloyd, and carried, that the parade permit be granted to the American Freedom from Hunger Foundation, with the waiver of the permit fee and the bond. CITY TREASURER'S REPORT Motion by Councilman Nichols, seconded by Councilman Lloyd, and carried, that Council receive and file City Treasurer's report for the month of March, 1970. MAYOR'S REPORTS City Council Committee Appointments Mayor Chappell: If any of you find the scheduled dates do not meet with your approval will you please advise and changes will be made. Motion by Councilman Shearer, seconded,by Councilman Young, accepting Council Committee appointments. Councilman Lloyd: Would you please enlighten me or at least reiterate for my benefit what the require- ments are pertaining to these appointments. I was under the impression that we could go to any meeting or that we need not go. Mayor Chappell: You may attend any meeting you would like to go to, but these are the meetings you are scheduled to attend and if you cannot make the meeting you would call your alternate. We like to have all the various.meetings attended by a Council representative, if possible. Councilman Lloyd: The point I make, it is an excellent thing and we would want to keep it going, but it is an ancillary function of our duties rather than a primary. Mayor Chappell: Definitely it is not compulsory. If you can't go, ' you don't go. Motion carried.( appointment Sched,_ile attached) 37 - COMMITTEE APPOINTMENTS for MAY; JUNE, .JULY, AUGUST, 1970 Representative Alternate PLANNING COn7MISSION Young Shearer RECREATION AND :PARK COMMISSION. Lloyd Young PERSONNEL BOARD Nichols Lloyd HUMAN RELATIONS COMMISSION Shearer Nichols CHAMBER OF COMMERCE Chappell Nichols WEST COVINA SCHOOL BOARD Shearer Chappell ANNUAL APPOINTMENTS for MAY, 1970 THROUGH APRIL, 1971 EAST SAN GABRIEL VALLEY PLANNING COMMITTEE. Shearer Chappell SCAG - TASC Lloyd Chappell LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES (Executive. Board) Chappell Young RAPID TRANSIT Chappell Young CIVIL DEFENSE PLANNING BOARD Aiassa SANITATION DISTRICT BOARD Chappell Young REGIONAL LIBRARY COUNCIL Nichols Aiassa INDEPENDENT CITIES Nichols Shearer USGVMWD Young Nichols REG. C.C. 4-27-70 Page Thirty-eight Mayor's Reports - Cont'd. Mayor Chappell: We have a letter from Burke, Williams & Sorensen regarding the Azusa Avenue Bridge settlement, also the bill from the Assistant City Attorney in connection with this ;settlement. Motion by Councilman Nichols, seconded by Councilman Lloyd, that Council accept the $16,000 settlement for the collapse of the Azusa Avenue Bridge in 1965. Motion carried on roll call vote as follows: AYES: Councilmen'Shearer, Nichols, Young, Lloyd, Mayor Chappell NOES: None ABSENT: None Motion by Councilman Nichols, that Council authorize the payment of $994.25 to the Assistant City Attorney, Richard Terzian, for services rendered in connection with settlement obtained on the Azusa Avenue Bridge. Councilman Young: May I recommend that the motion read: "$500. for professional services and $494.25 for costs incurred." Councilman Nichols accepted the amended motion; seconded by Councilman Young. Motion carried on roll call vote as follows; AYES: Councilmen Shearer, Nichols, Young, Lloyd, Mayor Chappell NOES: None ABSENT: None Mr. Aiassa: Mr. Mayor - I have an item that came in this morning, a notice regarding the Mayors and Councilmen:'$ institute to be held on May 20 - 22 at the Hilton Hotel in Los Angeles. We have to get the reservations in by May llth. I would like to know who might` be attending, and I would suggest that it would be advisable if the new Councilmen could attend. May 21 and 22 will be the most important dates and you may attend in half day sessions, if you pre- fer. (Council decided that Mr. Aiassa was to make reservations for all and cancel if some could not attend.) PROCLAMATION Mayor Chappell: If there are no objections I will proclaim May 3-9, 1970 as Correct Posture Week. So proclaimed. COUNCIL COMMITTEE REPORTS Mayor Chappell: I have one item. I would like to have a motion approving Mayor Pro Tem Young and Councilman Shearer being appointed to sign the Demands. Motion by Councilman Nichols, seconded by Councilman Lloyd, and carried, authorizing Councilman Shearer and Councilman Young to be appointed to the -Audit Committee .to audi:t:the -demands.-. (The Mayor called a short recess to allow the two newly appointed Councilmen an opportunity to go over the Demands before approving.) RECESS CALLED AT 12:20. COUNCIL RECONVENED AT 12:23 A.M. " -REG. C.C. 4-27-70 DEMANDS ...Page Thirty-nine Motion by Councilman Young, seconded by Councilman Shearer, approves ing demands totalling $532,847.97 as listed on Demand Sheets C702- 704. This total includes payroll account and time deposit. Motion carried on roll call vote as follows: AYES: Councilmen Shearer, Nichols, Young, Lloyd, Mayor Chappell NOES: None ABSENT: None Mr. Wakefield: Mr. Mayor, the Minutes Clerk has called my attention to the fact that the Council has not accepted the minutes of the Personnel Board meeting of March 3, 1970. Motion by Councilman Nichols, seconded by Councilman Lloyd, and carried, that: -Council accept and file the minutes of the Personnel Board meeting of March 3, 1970, Motion by Councilman Nichols, seconded by Councilman Lloyd, and carried, adjourning meeting at 1225 A.M. ATTEST: CITY CLERK APPROVED• MAYOR - 39 -