The URL can be used to link to this page

06-08-1970 - Regular Meeting - Minutesi MINUTES OF TH'• REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL CITY OF WEST COVINA, CALIFORNIA JUNE 8, 19700 The regular meeting of the City Council was called to order at 7:33 P.M., in the West Covina Council Chambers by Mayor Ken Chappell. The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Councilman Russ Nichols; and the invocation was given by Mayor Pro tem Robert Young. ROLT, CALL Present: Mayor Chappell; Councilmen Shearer, Nichols, Young, Lloyd Also Present: George Aiassa, City Manager Lela Preston, City Clerk George Wakefield, City Attorney H. R. Fast, Public Service Director Richard Munsell, Planning Director George Zimmerman, City Engineer Douglas Dawson, Administrative Analyst Terry Brandt, Administrative Analyst, Jr. Leonard Eliot, Controller William Fowler, Director of Bldg. & Safety William Vanettes, Communications Director APPROVAL OF MINUTES September 8, 1969 On motion made by Councilman Nichols, seconded by Councilman Lloyd, and carried, minutes approved as submitted. Councilman Young and Councilman Shearer abstained from voting, stating the action of the minutes transpired prior to their election to Council. PRESENTATION - Antique Fire Truck Troph Mr. Aiassa: Our Antique Fire Truck participated in a parade in Santa Fe Springs and won first place. Battalion Chief Joe .:'-Sein: is present' -to -say a few words. Batt. Chief.S.e.in.: I have this trophy to present to you, but before I do and not being aware of how much you gentlemen know about our Antique Fire -'Engine.,, I think a little background information might be helpful. Our Antique Engine is a.1923, donated to the City by a private citizen in 1961. Most of us that looked at it thought it wasn't much, but a number of the firemen and interested citizens got together and restored the antique completely.- We now have one we are very proud of. Since 1961 it has been going on parades, shows, fire prevention programs, etc., and doing a very good job. We were invited to participate on May 23rd in the,Santa Fe Springs parade. We have a little innovation we use now, the Azusa Banjo Band - an Azusa Fire Department group that has asked to play on the Antique Engine in some of the events we participate in. And it is a tremendous hit. So with their assistance I think this is the first time we have taken first place in our class. I would also like. to mention the driver of the truck was Fireman Kingjalong with Captain Swartz. Both are dedicated men' -.to the program, also Dick Patterson - who has been working on the Antique since the day it was hauled in and is still working on it and will be driving in the 4th of July Parade, We have been asked to attend the Fireworks Show and the La France Antique Engine will be the first vehicle entering the grounds. So with that I would like to present to you - Mr. Mayor, this trophy from the Fire Department and the City. Mayor Chappell: Thank you - let's fill the Trophy Case - congratulations! REG. C.C. 6-8-70 Page Two Award of Bids PROJECT NO. MP-69018-7 LOCATION. Galster Park GALSTER PARK BOYS' CAMP and DEDICATION PLAQUE Council reviewed Engineer's report. The City Clerk stated bids were received in the office of the City Clerk at 10900 A.M. on May 27, 1970, were checked and found to be correct. W.C. Cline Co. Alternate No. I $33,537 Alternate II $30,887 Upland Al R. Gray Alternate No. I $37,500 Alternate II $33,327 Covina Mr. Wakefield: In connection with this item there was a protest City Attorney received from Al R. Gray, which you will find on your agenda under Written Communications, Item (e). The basis of the protest was that W. C. Cline had not listed sub- contractors for certain portions of the work, those being primarily., electrical and sewer work. The allegation .was made by Mr. Gray that Cline could not perform these items of work under its contractor's license. We bheeked, with the'..Cohtraetor ° s,-L- ieense. Board and were_,adyised.:: . the holder of a BI License, which W. C. Cline holds, is authorized to perform both electrical and sewer work when in connection with other items of work on the project. Under the circumstances it would be in order for __the City Council to reject the protest of Mr. Gray if it is the determination of the Council to proceed with the awarding of the contract. Motion by Councilman Nichols, seconded by Councilman Shearer, and carried, that Council acknowledge the letter from Al R. Gray and reject the complaint, and explain to him the rejection is based upon the advice of the City Attorney. Motion by Councilman Shearer, seconded by Councilman Young, authorizing the Mayor and City Clerk to execute a contract for Project MP 69018-7 in the lump sum amount of $33,537 in favor of W.C. Cline Company of Upland, California. Motion carried on roll call vote as follows: AYES: Councilmen Shearer, Nichols, Young, Lloyd, Mayor Chappell NOES: None ABSENT: None PUBLIC WORKS ITEMS PARCEL MAP 1696 LOCATION: Westerly side of RIGHT-OF-WAY DEDICATION FOR Hollenbeck Street between Alaska HOLLENBECK STREET IMPROVE- and Thackery Streets. MENTS - James Meyers: Council Reviewed Engineer's Report. Motion by Councilman Nichols, seconded by Councilman Young, and carried, authorizing the Engineering Staff to exchange right-of-way for improvements. Motion by Councilman Nichols, seconded by Councilman Young, and carried, directing the Engineering Staff to prepare instruments for the mutual exchange of right-of-way for improvements. RESOLUTION NO. 4164 The City Clerk presented. ADOPTED "A RESOLUTION.OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF WEST COVINA, ACCEPTING GRANT DEED EXECUTED BY VINCENT D. MANNO AND ARCHIMEDE Go PIZZO & LUIGIA A. PIZZO, AND DIRECTING THE RECORDATION THEREOF. (Precise P1an.No. 578)." Mayor Chappell: Hearing no objections, waive further reading of the body of said Resolution. Motion by Councilman Nichols, 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 2 - REGa.CoC. .6-8-70 -PUBLIC.-,,WORKS ITEMS - Cont°do Page Three Fr. RESOLUTION NO. 4165 ADOPTED The City Clerk Presented: "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF WEST COVINA, GIVING APPROVAL TO PARCEL MAP 1245, PSI"Z`ZA. AND MANNQ Mayor Chappell: Hearing no objections, waive further reading of the body of said Resolution. Councilman Shearer: Mr. Mayor - a point of information. I am a little confused - is this the development under construction on Azusa? Just as procedure, why are we adopting a final Parcel Map after it is underway? For instance, say three of us got nasty and voted "no" - what would he do after the building is half built? Mr. Zimmerman: The Parcel Map was actually a requirement on the City Engineer Precise Plan which is now under development, so as such it would seem consistent to proceed on the basis of the Parcel Map, because it is a requirement of the approved Precise.Plan. Councilman Shearer: Then the Precise Plan and the Parcel Map are not taken together? Is this the normal procedure we are going through tonight? Mr. Zimmerman: No, but this merely clears the.recorde The City Engineer developer actually owns both parcels and as such he is fulfilling his obligation to make them one for a matter of record for tax purposes, etc. 0 Councilman Shearer: Mr. Zimmerman: City Engineer Mr. Aiassa: If we would turn it down he would not really be affected? Not directly. Perhaps Mr. --Wakefield can comment? Mr. Wakefield: No - Mr. Mayor and members of the Council, I don't City Attorney think I have anything to add. Normally the final Parcel Map would be approved before the Building Permit is issued, but in this case because there was a Precise Plan that was approved, the owner of the property proceeded on the basis of the Precise Plan rather than waiting for the approval of the Parcel Map. 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 PLANNING COMMISSION Informational Only pertaining to postponement of June 3, 1970, • .Planning Commission meeting to June. 10, 1970. PARCEL MAP NO. 1727 LOCATION: Northeast and northwest Donald L. Bren Company corners of Azusa Avenue and Amar Road. REQUEST: Approval of a Parcel Map to create two parcels. Recommended by Planning Commission Resolution No. 22550 Mr. Munsell: (Summarized reasons, slides shown) The developer is asking that the locations be split from the total 1200 acres; what we have is zoning - 3 - REG. C.C. 6-8-70 Page Four PLANNING COMMISSION (Item 2) Cont°de approved under the Master Plana which in essence becomes effective on the 26th of this month. These parcels are zoned Community -Commercial and are as per the approved Master Plan and based on this information the staff has recommended to the Planning Commission and they recommend to City Council, that these parcels be approved as per Planning Commission Resolution No.. 2255 (explained I in detail). One indication -'.the Planning Commission wished to place on the parcel- was that the construction would have to be compatible to the Rolling Green Plaza. This refers to architectural styling of all four corners. Councilman Nichols: Two questions. I would desire an explanation of the geographical physical shape of the 17 acre parcel. Secondly, I would ask for any comment you would care to make as to the authority of the Planning Commission and City Council to require architectural harmony in community -commercial zoning when it is other than an overlay type zoning. Mr. Munsell: The main reason for the irregular parcel shapes Planning Director is due to the topography of the area (explained and showed slides of area). With regard to the architectural compatibility, the Planning Commission may establish some conditions.and the concern was one primarily of establishing conditions so that at such time of development it would .be made perfectly clear to the individual coming in with a development plan as to the intent at the time the parcel was severed from the total development plan. I might also indicate because in this particular situation we have approval of the development under the Master Plan, that the intent within the development plan in the Planned Community Development zone is for architectural harmony. So whether the full leg-al-impact.of the require- ment is felt here or it serves as.an._added reminder to_.those who._ have parceled the land, I am not sure is really of prime concern, but we felt it was important.to have it stated in the Resolution at this time. Councilman Nichols: It seems to me if the City is going to make an effort in that area, either in the commercial zones or throughout the.area of this acreage, if that is going to be the thrust ,of the Planning Commission and Council, that these kinds of'standards should be applied loudly and generally over the acreage and not wait until someone comes in and tell him you must build like the one ahead of you. This seems like it might be of a discriminatory nature. Perhaps Mr. Wakefield would comment. Mr. Wakefield:; ..The problem of architectural conformity., so - City Attorney called aesthetics, as a part of zoning is a developing phase of the law. I think none of us really know how far the outer limits of the City°s authority extends in this respect. .My personal conviction is that what we are doing here is really extending to the developer the benefit of the City°s desire with reference to the matter and as Mr. Munsell has indicated, with the hope and expectation he will voluntarily comply without the necessity of going farther with reference to the matter. Motion by Councilman Shearer, seconded.by Councilman Young,'and carried, to .:.approve P.arceY.. Map =Nom '1.7.2Z-`suj.eot=,to Planing Coictm� ssion • Resolution No. 2255. RECREATION & PARK COMMISSION Review Action of May-26, 1970 Council reviewed action items. Councilman Shearer:, .Mr..Mayor.-.does acceptance of this report constitute approval of these changes recommended? Mayor Chappell: We can withdraw any item for further study. 4 _ REG. C.C. 6-8-70 RECREATION & PARK COM. -.:font°do Page Five • 0 • Councilman Shearer: These items will not come before Council as separate items. (Answer.- No.) I have no objection, but I wanted clarification. Councilman Nichols: I assume the Swimming Pool Rental Rate Revision is the result of the first year's experience andoin the aggregateethat it will be more profitable rather than less profitable. Mr. Aiassa: We are making another analysis during this year, which will give us a two year basis, and - we hope to make it more profitable. �. Councilman Young: I take it the object is not only profit but to also maximize the use of the facility.' Mayor Chappell: The Recreation & Park Commission has a./ .Resolution for Teri Pond with regard to her services to the community, and I think also the Council should direct a Resolution in appreciation of her long years.. of service to the community, Motion by Councilman Nichols, seconded by Councilman Lloyd, and carried, to accept and file the minutes of the Recreation & Park Commission dated May 26, 1970. HEARINGS STREET VACATION OF A CERTAIN LOCATION: California Avenue and PORTION OF CALIFORNIA AVE., San Bernardino Freeway. PROTEST HEARING Hearing of protests or objections (RESUBMISSION) set for August 11, 1969, by Resolution No o , 4014, adopted July 9, 1969. Hearing held over from time to time and finally held over from April 13, 1970, to this date. Council reviewed Engineer's report. Mayor Chappell: Madam City Clerk have you received any written protests? Lela Preston: None,,'Mr® Mayor. City Clerk THIS IS THE TIME AND PLACE FOR THE PUBLIC HEARING OF PROTESTS OR OBJECTIONS TO THIS STREET VACATION. NO PUBLIC TESTIMONY. Motion by Councilman Lloyd, seconded by Councilman Young, and carried, closing the Public Hearings COUNCIL DISCUSSION. (Mr. Zimmerman, City Engineer, summarized the necessity for the vaca- tion of the street, stating this is authorized under the terms of the approved Freeway Agreement and is to be constructed by'the State Division of Highways with the right-of-way furnished by the -City. ;explained in detail -with .the use of slides.) Councilman Nichols: Has the necessary right-of-way of land been dedicated? Mr. Zimmerman: No it has not all been dedicated at this time. Councilman Lloyd: What kind of timing are we talking about? Mr. Zimmerman: Negotiations have been occurring for some-' ---time and it now appears construction for the off -ramp will be concurrent with the construction of the freeway widening which is planned to start in a year and a half. - 5 - 1REG. C.C. 6-8-70 HEARINGS (Item 1) Cont°d. Page Six Councilman Lloyd: Are we talking about condemnation proceed- ings with regard to the private property not yet dedicated? Mr. Zimmerman: That is certainly one of ;the options but no proposal has been made with regard to that at this time. There have been negotiations with the two property owners involved. One is the Guaranteed Savings people and the other is the owner of the property of Coffee Dan°s. And at this point the owners of the Coffee Dan°s parcel have been in full agreement with the dedication, but there are certain problems regard- ing loss of access by the.Guaranteed Savings people. We are still in negotiations in hopes of resolving. Councilman Lloyd: Are we having continuing meetings with these people? Mr. Zimmerman: To my knowledge, we are. Councilman Lloyd: If we were able to achieve the dedication we are looking for, would the time table move up? Mr. Zimmerman: At one time the project was scheduled for early construction, however due to the delay in timing and acquisition of right-of-way, I believe it has been re- scheduled by the State Division of Highways to occur at the time of the freeway widening itself. Councilman Lloyd: Thank you very much, Mr. Zimmerman, for a 0 fine presentation. Motion by Councilman Lloyd, seconded by Councilman Shearer, and carried, that City Council .take this matter under submission until such time as the frontage road and freeway off -ramp improvements are com- pleted. ZONE CHANGE NO. 439 LOCATION: Two parcels on southwest.corner City Initiated of Grand Avenue and Cortez Street and on Whitebirch Drive between Charlinda Street APPROVED and Trona Avenue. REQUESTS approval of a Zone Change from R-1, 40,000 Los Angeles County Zoning to R-1, Area District III (minimum lot area 14,400 square feet) for property generally located at the southwest corner of Grand Avenue and Cortez Street (also known as Annexation No. 211), and approval of a Zone Change from R-1, Area District'IV,(minimum lot area 20,000 square feet) to R-1, Area District III (minimum lot area 14,400 square feet) for property generally located on Whitebirch Drive, Charlinda Street and Trona Avenue on the north side of Cameron Avenue, as legally described in Tract No.,29930. Planning Commission Resolution No. 2253 recommends: 1 - that portion within Annexation No. 211 be zoned R-1, Area District IV, and 2 - that portion within Tract No. 29930 be denied and remain R-1, Area'District IV. Mr. Munsell: (Summarized staff analysis, slides shown and • Planning Director explained.) The property owners approached (In Summary) staff with regard to clarification of zoning suitable for their property. The procedure' for annexing property to West Covina is such that if there is:no pre - zoning prior to annexation, the property is annexed with the existing County zoning, in this case R-1,.'.40,000. Our Ordinances indicate if no action is taken, rezoning to an appropriate city zoning, then the property remains County zoning. This becomes a rather intricate situation when City Staff,is required to maintain zoning to County standards. So in our efforts to clarify the zoning for the property owner we did an analysis of the area. We determined at staff level that Area District III would be most appro- 6 REG. C.C. 6-8-70 HEARINGS (Item 2) Cont',. Page Seven priateo and further that.Parcel I)while zoned Area.District IV/ originally had been given a waiver at the time of subdivision to Area District III standards to'al ow dimension changes in lot sizes which were not consistent with Area District IV standards© and ;'. should remain Area District III. I might also add that the area immediately to the top of Parcel I (referring to displayed map) which was recommended for Area.District IV by the Planning Commission was changed by the City Council to Area.District III. The property between Parcel I and II is in the County and for the most part zoned R-Io 40,000'. In looking at the map staff felt that Area District III for the area was most appropriate, the Planning Commission Resolution 2253 indicates the Planning Commission felt Area District IV was most appropriate for this Parcel II and that Parcel I remain as it is. ..:(Slides shown and explained as to area, size of lots, and uses.) Everything within the City is developed substantially less than the Area District IV standards and everything not within the City is developed substantially to rural development. The Planning Commission at the time it made its decision stated the subdivision standards of West Covina are such that the land cannot be developed for 40,0001 as it could be in the County because our standards require curbs, streets, etc., which are extensive development standards for equestrian-;.or:::.Yery .largeclot:.s zee_ :_-._ developments, because it becomes extremely difficult economically to demand extremely large lot sizes and still demand the standards that we do. The -County considers 40,0001 as a net acre, whereas 43,5601 is a true acre. The City has.an Area District V, which is a minimumlot size of 40,0001 but if this property were developed to Area.District V it could not have horses on the land because we.require a full acre to have a horse. THIS IS THE TIME AND PLACE FOR THE PUBLIC HEARING ON ZONE CHANGE NO. 439, CITY INITIATED, In Favor Dean Roberts (Sworn in by City Clerk) 409 South Meadow Road. If permissible, I would like to speak in favor of Area District III. (Advised it was permissablem) I wish to speak on behalf of our family, owners of the parcel located on the southwest corner of Grand Avenue and Cortez Avenue. We are opposed to the proposed designation of Area District IV and favor Area District III. Fifteen years ago the area was a rural area -and since then this area has changed in growth,,as the entire San Gabriel Valley has,and is continuing today. The greatest change occurred with the extension of Grand Avenue to Mount Saco Grand Avenue has become a major artery and the full effect will not be felt until the off ramp of. the San Bernardino Freeway is completed and Grand Avenue is extended to the Pomona Freeway. With this change, the land adjacent to it can .no longer be considered tranquil and serene-. increased density has been inevitable and not undesirable. Area Dis.trict III is the most appropriate use for the parcel under discussion. All land within the City to the north is in Area District III. The land to the west in the City is also largely Area.District III. The.zoning of this parcel as Area District III would be a logical extension of land use as shown by the General Plan of West Covina and provide densities'consistent with this Master. Plano Area District III would encourage the develop- ment of .the land for its most beneficial use to the City, both. aesthetically and economically and not lower adjacent property values. Within this area there are presently three major zones - Area District III, and IV, within the City, and one acre zoning within the County. These series of slides indicate the nature of the area as found today. (Slides shown and explained.) These slides show while many of'the sites have adequate landscaping adjacent to the house, few are landscaped and maintained.to the standards found within the adjacent City limits. This is not shown to disparage the efforts of the.homeowners but to indicate that large parcels of land ® 7 REG. C.C. 6-8.970 HEARINGS (Item 2) Cont°do Wage Eight are costly to maintain aiia time consuming. The next series of slides shows homes developed within the requirements of Area District IV. These homes are located south of Cameron; and these slides show the tract of lots at Whitebirch Highlands on Whitebirch Drive. .This is a tract of 20 lots, only 4 homes have been built since developed in April of 1967, The primary reason for.the lack of further construction is the high cost of each lot, an average of $19,000 per lot. This price has been largely determined by the high cost of grading, street , improvements, utility services required, etc. The development costs for these.lots was approximately $5,000 per lot. According to the Marshall Stevens Valuation Service these same improvements would cost 18/ more today. This, the result of inflation; These lots in their present condition are not an aesthetic asset to the City, nor are they contributing their full potential to the economic base of the City. 1. This slide indicates transition from Area Dis- trict IV to III. A fully developed, beautifully'landscaped area. All of the following slides show homes developed to the standards of Area District III and they are contributing to the City, both economically and aesthetically. These homes are on Forestdale Avenue, Whitebirch .Drive, Charvers Avenue, Sunset Hill Drive and Acreage Drive m all, are a tremendous asset to the community and contribute substantially to the City. In many cases the landscaping is so lush as -to obscure the houses from the street. It is interesting to note that these homes do not appear to be materially different than those homes developed in Area District IV tract, namely, the one we saw earlier south of Cameron. It has been argued that Area District III is not compatible with the existing County zoning of one acre. The following slides show that this is not true. Grand Avenue is a logical division between.Area District III and the one acre zoning of the County. Even County zoning of one acre does not insure that 'the development of land will, be rural in nature. These slides show a.group of homes just south of our parcel off Cameron Avenue, developed to County standards that are as close together as those found within the City and also have minimal setbacks. A comparison of land values in the area is also reVealingd Figures taken from the office of the County Assessor, show that the adjacent developed land has an average assessed valuation of $6,590 per acre. A typical tract in Area District III, such as.those found in the area of Charvers Avenue, Forestdale Avenue, and Whitebirch Drive have an assessed valuation that result in a per acre valuation of $26,800. This is more than four times the value of the developed County land. The total Value of the undeveloped Whitebirch,Highlands tract in Area District III represents a per.acre assessed valuation of $7,000. Thus developed land in Area District III is valued 3.8 times that of the undeveloped District IV tract. One developed tract in Area District IV south of Cameron has an assessed valuation of 818,800 in Area District III.within .the City. It is, 'therefore, apparent that the zoning of this parcel as Area District IV rather -than .Area District III would neither provide a more beautiful development or be of,more value to the City. Since I am a architect I have prepared one possible plan of development for our parcel. We considered three major factors,. 1 -'to limit access to Grand Avenue because of the volume of traffic and speed on this thoroughfare9 so there are no lots faced onto Grand. Also those lots shown adjacent to Grand ave considerably larger than those shown in the interior, an average of 18,8501. This would allow a house to have a greater setback from Grand Avenue and allow development of a landscaped buffer to separate from Grand Avenue. This would be of benefit to the homes and would also provide a pleasing appearance from Grand Avenue. 2 m the site'is not level. This can be an advantage if the terrain is disturbed as little as possible.. There- fore, several sites are quite large to accommodate existing topography., REG..C.C. 6-8-70 HEARINGS (Item 2) Cont°do Page Nine Also there is an existing residence on our site which should not be destroyed. It was designed by the architect m Richard Nitra - and is one of the finest examples of contemporary architecture i;n°West Covina. These factors have lead to the development of only 33 :lots on the 16m2 acre site. The smallest size lot is- 14,5000 and the average size is 18,0001. This represents a density of only two units per acre which is even less than normally found in Area District IV. Two units per acre also represents a density less than half of those allowed by the Master Plan, which proposed a very low density of residential use for this area with up to 4.3 units per acre. To'zone this parcel to Area.District IV would require that many of these lots be larger and considerably reduce the number of possible sites, thereby increasing development cost and drastically reduce the number of interested developers who find it essential to build on a volume basis to remain competitive., Recently a petition of non-support of the recommendations of, the Planning staff was circulated,in objection to Area District III. We feel the wording of this petition has misled many of those who signedo In this petition it is said that 17 new homes could be constructed under existing zoning' while 51 or 34 homes could be under Area.District III and IV respectively. This does not take into consideration streets, curbs, sidewalks, etc., nor does it take into consideration other factors,of topography which limit / the possible number of.si.teso This plan shows a,total of 33 sites, / considerably less�than'the'51 mentioned in the petition. Furthermore, we find it difficult to understand how homes constructed in Area District III could be referred to as "a burden to the City.;" Existing streets, schools and utilities in the area are more than adequate to service this development. Homes in this -area -are constructed to the standards of Area.District III and are along the finest in the City, and are an asset to the community. A majority of contiguous. property_ owners to the west of our parcel, representing 75% of this ,- westerly boundary, have indicated they are not opposed to Area District III. I refer to the -minutes of May ..6th of the Planning Commission wherein Mr. Richman said "I would have no objection to Area.District III provided the City standards for that area are not compromised.06 In conversation with Mr. Berkley Smith, he has also indicated he has no objection to Area.District III. Their parcel represents 7.31 acres, which may also be annexed to the City at a later date. Several objections to. Area District'Ill con- cerned the desire to maintain equestrian".--. facilities. At present West Covina requires the minimum lot size of one acre and this is not possible in Area District III or IV, or even area District'V, % where the lot size is 40,000 sqo ft. There is no area in the City that is currently designated Area District V. Another consideration which would limit the use of horses is the traffic on Grand Avenue. The volume and speed of traffic on Grand Avenue makes it extremely difficult and very dangerous to riding there. In conclusion, Area District 113 would provide the most appropriate use of this land and would encourage the growth of the City, both economically and aesthetically and be . entirely consistent with the intent of the Master Plan of the City. The majority of our family has lived in the area for the past 15 years and will continue to live in this area. We�are concerned as .to the future of the area and hope that development of this area can continue in a manner beneficial to all. Thank you, gentlemen. Mayor Chappell- Mr. Wakefield ® it appears -we have no one in favor of the proposal as.presented? Mro. Wakefield: I think there is no one really in favor of the City Attorney recommendation of the Planning Commission but what the proponent is urging is that the City go back really to the recommendation of the staff. =:L�- REG. C.C. 6-8-70 HEARINGS (Item 2) Cont°do Page Ten (THE CHAIR ASKED IF THERE WAS FURTHER PUBLIC TESTIMONY IN FAVOR) Mrs. Albert J. Tucker (Sworn in by City Clerk) 2915 Mesa Drive Since MrRoberts so eloquently West Covina presented his case I won't mention anything that he has mentioned. I analyzed this petition and I am certain that you gentlemen are knowledgeable about petitions/I am just not certain you had time to look up where each person lived. It was rather interesting to dis® cover that 20 petition signers lived in the City of Covina, not in the County area. As close as I could tell. - I wasn't sure if they were in Area District I or II, but I believe 24 of the petitioners lived in Area District I or 11; 6 lived in Area District IV, then there were the people that lived in the County. Everyone else that signed lived in Area District III and were asking that these property owners be required to develop property to a higher .level than the area in which they were living. You might be interested in the boundaries. The petition signers lived on Merced Avenue to the south, San Bernardino Road to the north, Orange to the west - and well this is the areas where they- get petitions, I know - I have carried petitions too, it is very easy. I wanted to save your time and effort in analyzing this petition. Thank you. Mayor Chappell- Mr. Wakefield, we haven't seen a petition? Mr. Wakefield: The petition was filed in the records of the City Attorney Planning Commission meeting. Councilman Lloyd- Is that admissible? • Mr.Wakefield- It comes up to the City Council along with the City Attorney other documents on file of the proceedings of the Planning Commission meeting. IN OPPOSITION Richard Nelson (Sworn in by City Clerk) 2505 North Cameron (Slides shown and explained) At the risk of being repetitious I would like to reemphasize some points that I brought before the Planning Commission meeting on May 20tho First, I would like to show a slide of the property under consideration - annexation 211, and the.properties surrounding. (Explained definition of shaded areas of slide) It is apparent that every parcel is one acre or better,- including West Covina property. It is on this premise that I feel Annexation 211 should also be zoned R-V, 40,000 sq. ft. I am not an experienced politician, I don't understand the ways of petitions, I merely looked up from one of your past meetings as to what a District Area could hold - 17 homes, 34 or 51, and .that is why you see the figures on the petition. I was not trying toihad anyone down the drain. This petition was submitted to the Planning Commission asking for R-V, 40,000 sqo ft., and was signed by 384 people. 240 were West Covina residents to the best of my knowledge. It was brought out by the Commission that 40,000 sqo ft. would not be practical for quote "horse property" on this parcel under consideration, but to come out with the belief that people do not live on one -acre lots any more is ridiculous, and this is the impression one might get if you look at some of the comments of the Planning Commission meeting. I happen to know one real estate agency - the O'Donnell Real .Estate Agency that sells a lot of property in the one acre or greater range and it is t.he.very kind of property that is their biggest -demand. Also relative to Mr. Yeager°s comment`.at the meeting of the 2.Oth about the property at the corner of Golden�Bow and Grand - that property has .recently been divided.into one -acre lots by the County. Relative to Mr. Roberts' comment about my -pictures and .I quote - "Mr. Nelson.showed.quite a•few pictures and severa1 were recognized and it seemed that most of them were taken in the immediate vicinity of.the houses, If he would have taken the pictures from the street it would have been quite a different 10 - REG..C.C. 6-8-70 HEARINGS (Item 2) Cont°do Page Eleven picture." Mr. Councilmen, I would like to show you the very pictures and prove that most were taken from the street. (Pictures shown) Relative to property values. As a matter of ---- fact I was very interested to hear the comment•about $6,000 to $7,000 was the value of the property. We were offered $10,600 for a half acre about 6 months ago. It would seem to me that the City of West Covina would be cutting itself off and shortchanging itself in -the .long run by not offering a broad spectrum of housing opportunities. It is not unrealistic that the county property owners might look fondly towards the City if acre zoning exists. I know I feel that way and so dos.. several other people. Many people have said to me "Dick.;why waste your time and energy, the City of West Covina is not going to listen to you, you are county, they_._are not going to activate the R• V acre zoning on their books." Well,Mr. Councilmen,I guess we are at that point in the history of West Covina,, is there going to be an R-V acre lot existing or not in West Covina? I personally feel.the decisions made tonight will have a tremendous effect on the City of West Covina in year 2001. Thank you. Norman Richman (Sworn in by City Clerk) 19544 Cortez Street (Asked to have certain slides reshown, permission granted.) I wish to state that my property is immediately to the west, contiguous to the property which was spoken about in the last few moments. It is zoned R-I, 40,000 sq. ft. When we purchased this land we were very careful to inspect the area And anticipated what the zoning and streets would be in the future. We anticipated Grand Avenue would be a major thoroughfare ® but we planned on it. We want the space between ourselves and our neighbors. Regarding zoning to Area District III. West Covina Municipal Code has--a.section 9220-21 regarding hillside developments. This allows a reduction in any and all development standards on property located in the hillside area.. If youwill note on -the map, up to the north there are properties in red, this area is zoned in Area District III and many of the lots are appreciably under 14,400 sq. fto Some as low as 13,000. If we pl,an,on subdividing property and the..pl.an.i.s to subdivide for sale as custom home develop- ment, it is not going to get any further than the other district which is presently zoned Area District IV, unless the developer puts up a complete development. The lots, even as Area District III, would not develop any faster than Area District IV. This is proven by the houses immediately north of the area shown in brown and red on the map started in 1965. The houses before they were finally occupied"were,- practically given away to the owners at a very low interest .rate. These were fully developed houses having been repainted and stayed empty for approximately one to two years. People moving into this area want to live on large properties. My other comment refers to the Whitebirch pro- perty. It is presently zoned Area District IV, all the lots are 20,000 sqo f t. and I can see no --purpose to rezone to Area III. As Area IV,, I would like to feel it makes ,a perfect buffer zone between Area III and the one7acre sites on the other side of'Grand Avenue. I would recommend Area District IV. Mayor Chappell: There being no further opposition m Mr. Roberts will have rebuttal time, using only the items brought out in opposition testimony. Councilman Nichols: Mr. Mayor - a point of order. I don't believe anyone that has given testimony this evening has given testimony in `support. Each person has spoken, in fact,.in opposition to the Planning Commission's recommendation, and each person has proposed their own solution. It doesn't seem to me, as.a Councilman, that one opponent.any.imore than another, should have rebuttal time. I would stand corrected, but I would appreciate an opinion from the City Attorney. - 11 REG..C.C. 6-8-70 HEARINGS (Item 2) Cont°do Page Twelve Mr. Wakefield: I agree w-ith Councilman Nichols, I think that City Attorney the situation is that no one has really supported or come forward in support -of the City°s Planning Commission in -its recommendation, and under the cir- cumstances I really think there is no occasion for rebuttal. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED. RECESS DECLARED AT 8.55 P.M. COUNCIL RECON- VENED AT 9:07 P.M. COUNCIL DISCUSSION. Councilman Young: I am not adverse to starting but,,,considering myself still a relatively new councilman, it is always a pleasure to hear someone like yourself ® Mr. Mayor, or Councilman Nichols, or Councilman Lloyd speak. With respect.to the zone change I have one specific question of Mr. Roberts. The map that he put on the board showed a certain proposed division of the lots if zoned Area III. What assurance is there that this type of development would occur, or that this type of subdivision would occur? And a second question why not approach it from this point of view - in other words record a., map on it and fix the boundaries. And. question No. 3 - what would. , Area III zoning do to the natural topography of the land that presently exists? I know on the south sid✓of the property there is a very steep drop-off from the houses to the ravine m will this become a major cut and fill with big pipes carrying the drainage of water.._ ., There are so many questions that come to my mind with regard to a plan like that. Mayor Chappell: We are only looking-a-C'the, zone change itself this evening- and actually the Subdivision Map • or -Tentative Map, we don't pay any attention to because it would be strictly somebody's- idea at the moment and later on could be changed considerably. Basically all we are concerned with is in either upholding the Planning Commissions recommendation changing the zone to Area District Ili, or the staff°s recommendation to Area III, or what we think it should be changed to. • Councilman Young: Some of the comments in opposition I find a little difficulty with, one being for example, having a zoned Area IV as a buffer zone between III and what is essentially a V. I think that all of the slides we have seen from everybody,'and they all have their particular honesty and their particular dishonesty in the sense that any proponent of anything naturally presents his.point of view as favorably to that point of view as he can, and this is to be understood. The buffer zone aspect I do not understand. I don't think From direct testimony tonight, and perhaps I am interjecting something I shouldn't, because I have read the'Planning Commission meeting minutes and I was present at the meeting, I think we are still talking about homes whether it is Area III, IV, or V. that are out of reach of the average homebuyer; homes that appeal to people that must necessarily be in the higher. income brackets of $40,000 - $45,000 and up. So the buffer zone I don't quite understand because we think of the buffer between a very high density apartment type area into various lesser densities but once we get in this category.I don't understand it. I think now we are into an area of the best use of land - considering topography and considering location and whether it is III, IV, or V tends to be a little less of a problem in my mind. I will submit that and yield the floor at this time. Councilman Shearer: Mention Was made of hillsides and slopes. Does this parcel come under the section covered by the Hillside Overlay with the' reduction in lot sizes, etc.,? 12 REG..C.C. 6-8-70 HEARINGS (Item 2) Cont°do Page Thirteen Mr. Munsello This does not come under the Hillside Overlay Planning Director as the Council has established the Hillside Overlay zone. We have not done a precise slope analysis; however, I don't think the property would qualify -` because the balancing of the property is a gently sloping knoll and has really only one side that drops off into a ravine., Councilman Shearer: It seems to me that everyone that has spoken this evening is against rather than for, so the simplest thing would be to deny the Planning Commissions recommendation and we could all go home early, but I don't think this would satisfy the applicant, the staff, or anybody - because they would be back where they are today which isn't where they want to be. We saw a lot of pictures this evening and I think they all in their way offered a great deal in the way of aesthetics and beauty. A small lot can be developed in a very beautiful manner just as well as a large lot. So I think we have to come down to a question of practicability. In our economy is it practical to say to an individual you must develop a minimum of one -acre lots and then require him to find people capable of buying one -acre lots? I agree with the lack of concept of the buffer requirement. I would be happy to live next to any one(a these homes without a buffer between them and myself. Perhaps the word "transitions" is what the person testifying actually meant rather than be too critical of the word°°buffer�'. What courses do we have here? Do we simply vote "yes" or "no" on Area District IV, or can we propose Area District III or V, or what.is our prerogative? Mr. Wakefield: The City Council has the prerogative of adopting City Attorney any less restrictive recommendations than those made by the Planning Commission. If it adopts • a more restrictive regulation then the matter must be referred back to the Planning Commission for a report and recommendation, b6t* not for an additional public hear-ing.o- : We are talking here about lot size I suppose we might debate whether or not increasing lot size is more restrictive or less restrictive in the sense our ordinance provides for it. My reaction to the problem is if the Council desires to go back to the original staff recommendation that it may do so without additional reference to the Planning Commisssiono On the other hand if Council desires to increase the requirement for lot size over and beyond 'that recommended by the Planning Commission then it would be necessary for the Council to adopt a recommendation and it would then be referred back to the Planning Commission for their report. Councilman Lloyd: I think it would be well to point out that I happen to live on Whitebirch and while I am sure I am not too difficult to live next door to/ I am sure there are times when my neighbors would like to be buffered against me. However, in reviewing this I had some.precon- ceived ideas - naturally, before I cameo I live in the area, I have been all over the Roberts' property and more than adequately acquainted with Dr. Nelson°s property, having known the previous resident very personally. So I think I have a general overall view of the area. My immediate reaction is kind of a startled revelation here. I was under the impression I.resided in IV instead of III, but in view of the things outlined here I find I have been demoted one grade. I think I can survive under that. I think the thing we are really talking about in this whole thing is what is best for_ -the City of West Covinao it has been presented to me by some of the opponents that the future annexations will be determined by what is done with this property, and perhaps so. I don't really know. I know what we do here certainly affects history,and while I...am keenly aware of the processes and try very hard to project these processes,.I am also keenly aware of the problems we'all face in taxation and city revenue and in providing liveability for people wishing to reside in these areas. 13 REG..C.C. 6-8-70 Page .Fourteen HEARINGS (Item 2) Cont°do No. 1 - I am very much for the preservation of the dignity of the development as it somewhat exists at the present moment as far as some of these very lovely and beautiful homes are concerned. I happen to know some of the values run very high and that people go to great lengths to have really gorgeous homes. I am. equally aware of the problems of sales as they exist on Whitebirch, in view of'the fact that I travel up and,down the street in .riding my bike, walking with my son and wife, or in plain old driving. I am not personally offended by the fact that there is some stand of grass or that it hasn't immediately developed. I can understand the consternation of those owning the property to get it developed as quickly as possible because there is an economic interest which I, as a resident, don't happen to have. I am on the other hand well aware of the impetus, desire and drive of the homeowners in the area, particularly on my own street, and in the amount of money these people spend after they become owners of these homes. I know they are considerable. My neighbors and I, we have had discussions on how much additional value can be placed in these properties beyond which it becomes not returnable value. So all of these things come into play. At the present moment my immediate reaction is I would like to preserve the dignity and also I would like to see the area developed. I think we had a question of Mr. Roberts and I personally would like that answered if he can answer it, and that is with regard to the projection put up on the board of 33 lots. I would like to ask him the question, is this a precise plan of development-, and also ask of Mr. Munsell if we can even ask for that kind of a commitment? (Mr. Roberts and Mr. Munsell were inserting the correct slide.) The house you were talking about is in the southwest portion - is it the inverted °°L"° shaped figure? 0'Mr. Roberts., Yes,that is the existing structure. Councilman Lloyd: Are you prepared to say that this would be your precise plan, meaning,it would fall in these areas? Mr. Roberts: We are not in a financial position to develop this site at the present time. We. are not giving a commitment but merely indicating a possible development. Councilman Lloyd: Thank you, Mr. Roberts. Mr. Munsell are we in a position to ask for any kind of a commitment? Mr. Munsell: No, the City has a precise plan requirement Planning Director on every development within the City except for single family residential structures. Even if the owner of the property at this time should desire to apply and proceed with a 'tentative Tract. Map should zoning be granted, whatever zoning it would be, at a future date he would have the option to modify that with another application. Councilman Lloyd: What is the maximum allowed in this acreage? Mr. Munsell: It is difficult to tell until there is a Planning Director subdivision map submitted primarily because, .for example, the Eren -mark development you saw earlier had about 22/ of the land area dedicated to streets and the procedure we use to determine the number of units placed on a piece of property is based on net land available after streets and public right-of-way are -taken. So if there are .17 acres here, even if it were developed. Area. District V you could not develop 17 units or, one per acre. . Looking. at this subdivision it may -be possible' for someone to develop a different street pattern and get more lots of more equal size, but this might also require extensive grading. 14 .REG. C.C. 6-8-70 HEARINGS (Item 2) Cont°do Page fifteen Councilman Lloyd.- In other words there could be more houses or lots in this area that currently depicted. Is that correct? (Answer.- Yes) And we have no way of asking for a precise plan on this area? (Answer., That is correct) In.o:ther words we cant see a subdivision map or anything of that nature? (Answer.- That is correct.) Mr. Munsell.- Planning Director Councilman Lloyd: Mr. Munsell.- Planning Director The Council would review a subdivision map at the time of submittalp however, the controls are based on whatever zone you have placed on it. What I am really asking is what kind of restrictions can we put on it? Those that already exist in that Area.District are the only ones you can place on a zone change. Councilman Lloyd: This recommended. development map would not fit Area IV? (Answer,. That is correct.) We.don't know how many units Area District IV would allow or can you tell? Mro Munsell.- I believe that only a half dozen of these .lots Planning Director would fall into Area .District IV standards. If your question is - based on a similar type street pattern how many lots could we get under Area District IV, the answer is - I dbhl�t know. Councilman Lloyd.- Well it -would -appear to me this is the kind of information we would need. At the present moment I would have to :say that the development as submitted by the Planning Commission Resolution 22.53 is not acceptable to any of the people here and as such, what we are really talking about is the resubmission of what is really desired by Mr. Roberts and saying talk it out and come back with what you really want. Mayor Chappell.- I would like to ask Mr. Roberts if we gave you Area District IV = would you accept it? Mr. Roberts: We would accept Area District,IV, but for the reasons I pointed out in my talk we would prefer Area District III, and if I can, refer to the map - the plan that I developed here, I might point out that the lot with the existing house and maybe 3 lots immediately adjacent to it to the south are all considerably in excess of the .requirements of Area District III, and I believe even in excess of -the requirements of Area District IV, and this is because of the topography within this location which indicated a need for a larger lot size in this area. The lots on Grand are also larger in order to allow for the creation of a landscaped buffer that could be placed adjacent to Grand Avenue. There is no guarantee that we would provide these except our personal good faith. Now_if we sold the property your only guarantee would be the skill and recommendations of your planning staff, and. your • Planning Commission, and your own opinions that you can voice to the developer, and these can all insure that a development will take place that is beneficial to'the City. Councilman Nichols. In my copy of the U.S. :News & World Report this evening I none some statistics that indicate something like, half of all the families in the U.S, today could not presently qualify by income to buy a $20,000 home, I note from fact that in the City of West Covina today no one could build a $20B000 home. So I suspect If you could extrapolate that you would find probably one family in five could afford to buy any kind of a new home in West Covina today. So I think whether we are talking about Area.District III, IV, or V we have a very highly 15 REG. C.C. 6-8-70 Page Sixteen HEARINGS (Item 2) Cont°do selective community. Normally the transition in lot sizes, the commentaries regarding buffering, has to do with the types of usage, although used occasionally with regard to density. I have never felt that even Area .District III is of significant concern in terms of density. The thought I have, however, on this matter is that this parcel of land is somewhat of a problem. I rather suspect even if established in Area District. III the developer, whomever it would be, would find that .there are some lots that would have to be larger than others and some would have to be smaller than the standard. So you would find some developing below Area District III standards. I have listened to the presentations of all ' the,people involved. I have had telephone calls. I have studied the parcel and observed .and;approacbedl• it as honestly and objectively ` as.I can in terms of what can be done in a community° not in terms of ` 1950 or 1960s but in 1970. I think it is unrealistic to try to impos(` upon a property owner that he hold his property in parcel sizes in excess of 40,000 sq. ft. but.on the other hand,I think the city .government does owe something to the concept of graduating lot sizes in the City. We have been operating on that thesis for many years and rather than come down at this time to Area III: sizes,.which may be breached when it comes time to develop, I would rather take the position of concurring in the recommendations of the .Planning Commission, with the concept in mind that in all probability I will. be called upon and be ready to grant some lot sizes in that area below the District.IV standards, in. the form.of a variance And there is much precedence for that in the City where problems have I come,along and we have granted lesser frontage or lesser footage to meet particular needs. So I would say in all equity and reasonable fair- ness to those that own larger lots in the area and in fairness to the owner of this property, I believe Area District IV design&lion with a possible proviso per the variance route, would be the most equitable solution to this thing tonight, I think that was the thinking of the Planning Commission and I would be prepared to go that routeoif the majority of my fellow councilmen would not chose to go that route I would be prepared to deny and let all parties involved start over. Councilman Young-. A question. Whatever zoning area applies to this land tonight, the City still has control over the parcel map, is that true? Mr. Wakefield,. The City would have control at the time the City Attorney Subdivision Map came back to the City Council for approval. It would first come in the, form of a Tentative Map! once the property is zoned, for example, R-I ,20,000 Area District IV then in general the subdivider would have to develop to the lot size requirement at the time he proposed his Tentative Map and the final map would have to come along in due course in conformance.with the approved Tentative Map. As Councilman Nichols indicated there is provision within our coning ordinance for deviation in lot sizes under those circumstances where topography or other special conditions would warrant itv but in the main the subdivider would be required to conform to the .lot size fixed. Councilman Young: Mr. Wakefield-. Councilman Young: Mr. Munsello Planning Director dwellings. So it is Thank .you. We are talking about two parcels tonight, but our concentration is on parcel 2? That is correct. Parcel 1 is virtually all developed at this time? The property is subdivided and has an approved final Subdivision Map and of the approximately twenty lots there are about five or six subdivided already but not fully developed. 16 REG. C.C. 6m8-70 HEARINGS -(Item 2) Cont'd. Page -Seventeen M.re..Munsell: The normal procedure is a 'Tentative Subdivi® (Cunt°go) lion Map and.then the land is graded and the Final Subdivision Map is'approved and placed on the land and recorded. So there are two steps with a subdivision and this one has completed all the steps and the parcels are for'sale as finished parcels with the grading, curbs, gutters, utilities, etc- ... Councilman Young: This is essentially Area District III? Mr. Munsellm Essentially Area District IV standards, however. Planning Director it has waivers allowing some of the lot standards and streets, etc., to develop to the standards of Area District III. Councilman Young,. I noticed this is city initiated for zoning change m what are the immediate prospects from the standpoint of the owners for development? Mr..Roberts: We don't have any plans to develop it immediately. We would like to, as soon as the financial climate becomes more conducive to develop, right now things are pretty slow. We have a sincere interest in the property and would like to develop it outselveso Councilman Young: I was ,just wondering -, in the kind of transitional period we are in from the stand- point of population transition, economic transition, if this would be the time to go forward with a commit- ment one way or the other... Councilman Shearer: I am prepared to support Councilman Nichols' recommendation. I ,just made some quick calculations and from the possibility of the proposal on the board, perhaps by shuffling the boundaries a little and moving no more than a half dozen lots, it would conform to Area District IV, However, if we would grant Area District III the owner could put in considerably more lots. At this time I would be in favor of granting Area District IV with the.possi.bility of granting a few waivers in lot sizes if it became necessary in the future. Mayor Chappell: A question of Mr. Roberts - is this the only house on the property? (Answer: Yes) Mr. Munsell, do we have any restrictions regarding per number of feet frontage, because I noticed in travel- ling this area there were some pieces of property far larger than an acre but with very small fronts. The houses were practically as those in Area III - so the size of the lots does not really tell us how close or how far apart they are. Do we have any restrictions as to front footages? Mr, Munsell: Yes there are minimum widths but I don°t have Planning Director it with me.. Mr, Wakefield: �Mr. Mayor m if I may. In Area District IV City Attorney it requires a lot width of not less than'11010 Area District III may have a lot width of not less than 901 provided however that if the lot is deeper than a 1251 then the lot width at.the front may be reduced proportionately. Mayor Chappell: That may also apply to an acre? Mr. Wakefield. In our Area V there is a minimum lot width of City Attorney 1301. So the width in Area IV and V is a fixed ...width. The width in Area III may be reduced from that established by ordinance if the total area warrants it and the depth warrants it. 17 REG. C.C. 6-8-70 Page Eighteen HEARINGS (Item 2) Cont°do Councilman Lloyd-. Mr. Munsell can you tell me why you brought the two parcels in together? Are they owned by the same people-? Mr. Munsell-. No. They have nothing to do with each other. Planning Director We had a request from Mr. Roberts asking for clarification of the zoning most appropriate for his land, and then in our analysis noting that the parcel in which you reside Mr. Lloyd had been recommended for Area IV by the Planning Commission and zone changed to Area III by City Council, I believe in 1966o and in noting that there had been a Planning Commission approval for deviation from the Area IV standards it was the staff°s position that we would like to make an establishment of Area District III boundary lines rather than have an interlacing of Area Districts that had no sense other than tract lines. It was felt that the Grand Avenue boundary on the east would be appropriate. In any event it was determined that the majority of the uses were either Area III or IV. (Slides shown) Area III was applied on the north of Cortez because Area III was basically along the southern boundary of Cortez, we felt perhaps Cameron would be the logical place to define it',- for _theca Area I1I . limdt-- -�tnd', dive us',some rational boundaries in terms of streets°. As a consequence staff made the recommendation that Area .District III be applied on the Roberts:parcel and also on the parcel already subdivided. Mr. Wakefield-. Councilman Lloyd, the parcel designated as City Attorney Parcel I is already zoned R-I, .Area District IV, so there is no necessity really for any change if the Council agrees with the recommendation of the Planning Commission. It is only Parcel II that carries no zoning of the City at the present time because of its recent annexation. The only zoning • it has is the County zoning of R-I, 40,OOOo Councilman Lloyd: In the final analysis should it be granted Area Vithere is no law that says the property owners cannot come in at a .later date for an Area III or IV? Mro,Wakefield: That is right, if they so desire. Motion by Councilman Shearer, seconded by Councilman Nichols, approving the recommendation of the Planning Commission. Motion carried on roll call vote as follows.- AYES.- Councilmen Shearer, Nichols, Young, Lloyd, Mayor Chappell NOES.- None ABSENT.- None HUMAN RELATIONS COMMISSION Minutes of April 23, 1970 Councilman Shearer.- A question. In going'over these minutes I was considerably interested in the discussion regarding police in general and West Covina police specifically. Do copies go 'to the Police Department? I am not saying I agree or disagree because I don't have all the facts. Mr. Aiassa.- City Manager Yes they receive copies of the minutes. Councilman Young: For what it is worth. Mr. Mayor, I attended a meeting at your request, involving a similar type discussion and recalling what happened there and referring to these minutes here/ I think the .Human Relations Commission, if this is typical, are doing a good job in dealing with some very difficult questions. (Mayor Chappell brought the new councilmen up to date on how the Human Relations Commission operates.) REG. C.C. 6-8-70 Page Nineteen HUMAN''REL'ATIONS COM. ® Cont°do Councilman Nichols.* Mr. Mayor, one of the inclusions in the original resolution directing the establishment of the Human Relations Commission was a section,which stated that the Commission should engage in activities in the community of a nature calculated to improve human relations and it was my feeling for several years that not too much of this was done and I think this is right at the heart of that and I am personally much pleased to see the Commission moving in areas that are con- structive and profitable. Motion by Councilman Lloyd, seconded by Councilman Young, and carried, to accept and file the minutes of the Human Relations Commission dated April 23, 1970. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Councilman Young: Mr. Mayor m I just did something I shouldn't have a little bit ago. I walked around and shook hands with.a young man - I don't know if he wants to make a speech or not, but mynephew is here. He is a _Senior at Yale University and is just back from a year in Japan. It is really great to see him here. (Mayor Chappell acknowledged his.presence and asked if he would like to speak m he declined.) WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS Junior Woman°s Club of West.Covina Request to Maintain Refreshment Booth at Cameron Park Mr. Aiassa. I would like to mention to Council that we City Manager have never granted a permit of this type, and if it is granted that it not set a precedent. Also that Council request the Recreation & Park Department to prepare a form for the next year so if more groups would like to participate in this type activity they will know the procedure and .also we might maintain some type of continuity in granting. Motion by Councilman Lloyd, seconded by Councilman Shearer, and carried, that the request of the Junior'Woman°s Club of West Covina, be granted and they be permitted to maintain a refreshment booth at Cameron Park on the Fourth of July, and that their request be channeled through the Recreation & Park Department, which will formulate an order for the control of this as approved by the Council at a future date. Letters regarding raising of speed limit on Virginia Avenue. 1) Warren R. Anderson, Jr. 2) Mrs. James Collins 3) Ridge Riders Motion by Councilman Young, seconded by Councilman Lloyd, and carried, referring letters to Traffic Committee. Carl Zangger m Re. field lights on Maverick Field Motion by Councilman:Lloyd, seconded by Councilman Young, and carried, referring to City Manager. Mayor Chappell. I might comment that we had quite a discussion on this last year. The EdgeWood Baseball League i.s at the present time raising money to purchase the lights. The City Council has declared..itse.lf in the past to finding a location where the lights would be acceptable and city staff has been working on=i--and.will come up shortly with several items for our con-siderat.ixia o If it is our desire, as the REG. .C.C. 6-8-70 Page 'twenty Written Communications (Item c) Cont°da Council, to see that they have lights so that -more than three, hundred boys can play night baseball, -;and ,it -.--is .-not -our- intent to put the lights at Maverick ;Field at this time, I think we should re state this due to the fact that this letter has been written to US. Councilman Lloyd! As a point of order, are you speaking as their representative? Mayor Chappell! Not at all. I am speaking as the Mayor and representative of the Council, Councilman Nichols-. Are you suggesting that Council should direct a letter to these concerned individuals in response to their communication indicating that the Council has no intention of changing its position? Mayor Chappell! No, I didn't think that was necessary. The motion we have is to refer the .letter to the City Manager. Councilman Shearer: I think the letter was prompted by the attached articles, the one in particular that appeared in the Pasadena Star News which definitely states that the lights will be installed on the present Maverick Field. I think it was_a lack of communication between the Edgewood League and the newspaper, and perhaps caused some concern and therefore their letter was written, I think it would be well for th& City Manager to respond to this letter referring to previous Council action and that we did not authorize the article in the Pasadena Star News, and restate the position of.the Council on this matter. (Council agreed.) City of•Duarte m Development of Santa Fe Dam Park for Mini -bike, dune buggy trails Councilman Lloyd: I note this came from a City Councilman and it does not have the endorsement of the Mayor.I question the f act that a.C.ity Councilman sends it out not over the signature of the Mayor _; is that standard practice - Mr. Aiassa? Mr.*Aiassa! I can't speak for the practices of other City Manager cities, but speaking for West Covina it is. usually sent with the signature of, the Mayor. Councilman Lloyd: In view of the fact it did not come from the Mayor I would make the motion that we receive and file. - Motion died for lack of a second, ,:('Discussion_'.by....Council a Councilman Nichols indicating he favored the request.) Councilman Young: I don't personally question the good faith of Councilman.Hahn indicating he is speaking for the City of Duarte City Council. If some clarification is desired as to that point I suggest that the City Manager obtain that clarification and upon obtaining it that the City of West Covina join in this particular request. As Councilman Nichols indicates; space fo.r.use .of -mini. -bikes is at a real premium and there are very few places they can use. I think we should go along with this and encourage it. Motion by Councilman Young, seconded by Councilman Shearer, that subject to clarification by the City Manager that Councilman Hahn speaks for the City Council of the City of Duarte, that the City of 20 REG. C.C. 6-8-70 Page Twenty-one Written Communications (Item dY Cont°do West Covina join in the effort to develop further park facilities in the Santa Fe Dam Park for the use of mini -bikes and dune buggy trails. Councilman Nichols-. This is moral support you are talking about? (Answer: Yes) Motion carried,, Councilman Lloyd voting "nay". CITY ATTORNEY ORDINANCE The City Attorney presented-. INTRODUCTION "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF WEST. COVINA, AMENDING SECTIONS 9201, 9203, 9204, AND 9216a2c OF THE WEST COVINA MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO FOSTER.FAMILIES AND FOSTER HOMES." Amendment Nmo 1090 Mayor Chappell: Hearing no objections, waive further reading of the body of said Ordinance. Motion by Councilman Nichols, seconded by Councilman Shearer, and carried, introducing said Ordinance. ORDINANCE The City Attorney presented: INTRODUCTION "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY' OF WEST COVINA, REPEALING CHAPTER I OF,ARTICLE IX (COMPRISING SECTIONS 91.00 to 9148, INCLUSIVE,) OF, AND ADDING A NEW CHAPTER I'TO'ARTICLE IX (COMPRISING SECTIONS 9100 to 9134,.INCLUSIVE,) OF THE WEST COVINA MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO SUBDIVISIONS AND THE DIVISION OF LAND." Mayor Chappell: Hearing no objections, waive further reading of the body of said Resolution. Motion by Councilman Young-,.,: seconded by Councilman Lloyd, and carried, introducing said Ordinance. ORDINANCE NO. 1133 The City Attorney presented-. ADOPTED "AN ORDINANCE.OF THE CITY -COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF WEST.COVINA, AMENDING THE WEST COVINA MUNICIPAL CODE SO AS TO REZONE CERTAIN PREMISES. (ZONE CHANGE NO. 437-STANDARD OIL COMPANY.)" Mayor Chappell: Hearing no objections, waive further .reading of the body of said Ordinance. Motion by Councilman Shearer, seconded by Councilman Nichols, 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. 1134 The City Attorney presented: ADOPTED "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF WEST COVINA, AMENDING THE WEST COVINA MUNICIPAL CODE SO AS TO REZONE CERTAIN •. PREMISES. (ZONE CHANGE NO. 438 .m .WILLIAMS and .ANGELA HAALCK.) "" Mayor Chappell-. Hearing no objections, waive further reading of the body of said Ordinance. Motion by Councilman Nichols, seconded by Councilman Shearer, adopting said Ordinance. Motion carried on roll call vote 'as follows: AYES: Councilmen Shearer, Nichols, Young, Lloyd, Mayor Chappell NOES: None ABSENT: None ® 21 REG. C.-C. 6-8-70 Page Twenty-two CITY ATTORNEY ® Cont°dm RESOLUTION NO, 4166 The City Attorney presented., ADOPTED °"A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF WEST COVINA, APPROVING PLANNED COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PLAN NO. 1. (Donald L. Bren Company)." Mayor Chappell- Hearing no objections, waive further reading of the body of said Resolution. Motion by Councilman Shearer, seconded by Councilman Nichols.,. adopt- ing said resolution.- Motion carried on .roll call vote as follows° AYES: Councilmen Shearer, Nichols, Young, Lloyd, Mayor Chappell NOES: None ABSENT- None MERGED AVENUE HORSE RANCH (Progress Report) Mr. Wakefield- Many of the neighbors in the area have inquired of me as to when the case will be set for trial. We have just received a trial date from the Superior Court of August 17th at 9 AoM., Pomona Department. Between that time and now we will of course be in touch with the people in the adjoining area. .BURKE, WILLIAMS & SORENSEN m Statement Mr. Wakefield: The first item of West Covina vs Nichols in the amount of $1, 103. 52 refers to the horse ranch, and the second of West Covina vs Garnier & White in the amount of $1,421.38 is in reference to a condemnation action. Both are now ready for trial. The reason the statements are submitted at this time is because we are well within our limits set under the 1969-70 budget and rather than hold over to next year when it might be necessary for Council to increase the limit seta Motion by Councilman Lloyd, seconded by Councilman.Young, approving the expenditure of funds to Burke, Williams & Sorensen in the amounts of $1,103.52 and $1,421.38. Councilman Shearer., Mr. Wakefield stated this was for services in this fiscal year, I noticed three items of June 1968, September 1968, and May 1969, that would be in the prior fiscal year m a relativ6ly small amount, bu't have these been paid? Mr, Aiassa: What has been happening and I think it is our City Manager fault in part, we used .to allow them to go to the end of the legal process,which was carried on in some cases for three maybe four years, and we would have to extend the money allotted into the next budget and reallocated it:or encumbered it. I think it would be better to pay as we go and when final trial does take place we don't have a $12,000'or $13,000 bill facing use Also it is easier for budgeting. Councilman Young: Would it be appropriate in.light of that, • that further billing show a .recap of what has been paid previously? i Mr. Aiassa- We will provide that for Council. Motion carried on roll call vote as follows- AYES: Councilmen Shearer, Nichols, Young, Lloyd, Mayor Chappell NOES: None ABSENT: None ¢; AB 1827 - Legislation re 1911 and 1913 ACTS Mr. Wakefield- This has to do with an assembly bill that.has 22 REG. C.C. 6-8-70 Page Twenty-three City Attorney (Item 8) Cont°do been introduced. The matter is of importance to the City because of the impending development of our shopping area in the Central Business District. We have talked about this before in connection with some legislation.'', which the Council endorsed,,relating to bond interest rates under the Park-i!ng -District 'laiV.,of 19.51. .7his-� particular legislation relates to an assessment type district proceeding, but the advantage is it would permit the City Council from time to time to make contributions towards the payment of assessments levied against the property in the district. This again would make simply another vehicle available to the City Council from which to choose and permit selection from the best of several alternatives rather than be tied to a single one. In discussing with staff it would seem to me it would be appropriate for the City Council to endorse thisparti- cular legislation and submit that endorsement to the author. Councilman Young: Before giving my personal endorsement to becoming part of it, I would like to know more about it than this particular presentation. I wonder if there is a copy of the Act available? Mr. Wakefield: Yes, I didn't realize the Council did not have it. Councilman Young,. Can we put this over to our next agenda and have a copy in our packet so we might review it? (City Manager said copies would be made available.) Motion by Councilman Young,. seconded'by Councilman .Lloyd, and carried, to hold this item over until Council has'lime-to study. 698 Mr. Wakefield: Assembly.Bill 698 introduced by Assemblyman Schabarum proposes to amend the Subdivision Law and would'limit the types of improvement which the City might require in connection with subdivision=maps of .four or less parcels. The bill is inconsistent with the revisions which we have just completed to our own City Subdivision Ordinance, and because Assemblyman Schabarum does represent the City area in the Legislature, I think it would be appropriate to write to him telling him that what the bill proposes is inconsistent with what the City has recently done and ask for his comments. I think he should be aware of the fact we recently took action in this area, but I think he would appreciate it if we did not come out at this time opposing it, because he may have some future plans for it. Councilman Young: At this point it would be simply informational to the assembly? (Answer,. Yes) Motion by Councilman Nichols that 'the City Council direct staff to prepare a letter for the Mayor's signature pointing out the aspects in conflict as mentioned by the City Attorney. Seconded. by Councilman Lloyd. Councilman Lloyd: I really don't understand the tippym.toe approach, but I am willing to coo along with it. However, in the final analysis we recognize that in the legislative process there are,many winds that blow and we may not see all of them that affect our City but I think we should get a direct response from the good A-s-semblyman and if that is not in keeping with the des-i�j�es of*the,City as outlined by the City Attorney to the Council then that would require an immediate response to the total 1s'sembly and Senate with sitrongobarvat`ions,ta__) those other people that represent this area. Motion carried. ® 23 REG. C.C. 6-8-70 CITY ATTORNEY (Item 9) Cont°d Page Twenty-four Councilman Young,. In concurrence make -the motion be requested. with Councilman Lloyd I would that an .immediate response Seconded by Councilman .Lloyd, and carried. (MAYOR CHAPPELL CALLED AN EXECUTIVE SESSION AT 10,.17 P..M..FOR THE DISCUSSION OF PERSONNEL MATTERS. COUNCIL RECONVENED AT .10,.4.5 P.M.) CITY MANAGER _San Gabriel Valley Symphony Association Motion by Councilman Shearer, seconded by Councilman Young, and carried, that City Council inform the San Gabriel Valley Symphony Association of the establishment of -the West Covina Symphony Orchestra and the City°s financial support of this activity, and that, due to limited funds, we are not able to contribute to the San Gabriel Valley Association. Public Utilities Commission Ordinance Motor Vehicles Stopping at Railway Crossings Motion by Councilman Nichols, seconded by Councilman Shearer, and carried, that Council receive and file staff report. Albert Handler - Letter re Weed Abatement Motion by Councilman Nichols, seconded by Councilman Young, and carried, receiving and filing Engineer's report; and directing .staff to prepare a letter .for the Mayor's signature stating that Section No. 7410 of the West Covina Municipal Code requires parkway maintenance by the adjacent property owners. Helicopter Landing Site Alternatives Mr. Aiassa,. You do have a staff report but as a follow-up we had a meeting with Roger Cable last Friday and there is another possible site -that staff would like to evaluated I would like to ask Council to carry this item over to the second meeting in June The area now under consideration is in back of the Broadway which is now vacant and maybe during the intermediate period before developing a large complex something could be utilized on a temporary basis. A further suggestion was that the heliport might.be put on the roof of a large complex° We h t�]akecL o C'o3?�ae l a & wank-er ° s represent ati:ve and he• is, presenting- thiz, �to.;.Jo Cm,; Pe.nnys,r,and„the other. parties, involved nand- they show; some positive interest because ,`they u:se this for their .executive t:ransportam tion, So I would like to carry this item to the second meeting in June. So moved by Councilman Nichols, seconded by Councilman Shearer. Mayor Chappell,. :Before we have a vote'on it, the Chamber of Commerce is in contact also with the head of the Home Savings & Loan., who has indicated an interest in his property for this temporary site. So you might ' also follow up on that. Motion carried. TOPICS Consultant's Proposal Mr. Aiassa Staff has submitted a new proposed contract to be incorporated. with Victor Gruen, copy of which you have. Councilman_Shearer,. The report to be expected from Gruen and Associates for approximately $30,000 m would 24 m REG. .C.C. .6-8=-70 Page Twenty-five City Manager (Item 5) Cont'do it encompass_ more than the City's current allocation of approximately $125,000? Mr. Aiassa: Yes, this is approximately for four or five years. Mr. Zimmerman, It may be as much as five years'allocations City Engineer of funds under the TOPICS program. Councilman'Shearero What will we get for this? Actual plans and specifications or just a general report, and proposal? Mr. Zimmerman, The area report is a requirement of the Federal City Engineer Government prior to their allocating federal funds which are these 'TOPICS funds. it.would be a general areawide study to determine what projects would be recommended to Council for construction and would be followed by additional plans and specifications for the exact construction projects, one by one. Councilman Shearer, The plans and specifications would not be pro- vided for the $30,000 we are talking about? Mr. Zimmerman, No, they have nothing to do with that directly. Councilman Nichols: I think their main job will, be to spend the next 'ten' years looking -at traffic studies that have already been done. Councilman Young, A question - the aspect of the TOPICS program I still don't quite understand. - this is a matching program where the City puts up so much money and the Federal Government puts up.'so much money, is that correct? (Answer., Yes) And the contribution of the City does this', consist of some out--of-pocket cash money and staff time on an hourly basis? (Answer, Yes) So much of the City contribution can.be a matching program with staff time? Mro Aiassa: Yes. We are doing as much as we can with inhouse labor. And whatever money is going to be necessary to get matching funds will come from gas tax funds. 'Councilman Young: Mow much does staff have in directional influence on the areas of study? Does staff pinpoint 'the area we would like studied or does the consultant just come in and look at old traffic studies as Councilman Nichols suggests? Mro.Zimmerman, The requirements and criteria are established. City Engineer by the Federal Government and there is a. Committee composed of local government o�fi_ cials and State Government officials who review the various criteria also and the end result expected would be this report indicating what our problems would be, and the report would-be from time to time checked out with city staff as to our feelings of the problems, so I am sure it would be a combination of various sources. Councilman Shearer,. If we don't spend money for this type of a report then we have no chance of getting TOPICS money? Mr, Aiassa: That is right. It will be redistributed to another area that has made application. `y Councilman Nichols, Is 'Vic -tor Gruen being pu'd0 by' `other` citieis1 ` o, ..i;.•. ��`J.0 Ran: this.. Arem? 25 11 • REG. C.C. 6-8-70 Page Twenty-six CITY MANAGER (Item 5) Cont"do Mr. Aiassa.' Yesv there are five cities that we have checked using ;him,_ now.. Councilman Nichols: will it be an integrated study by Gruen of the needs of the area cities? Mr. Aiassa: 'We would.like to use him because he is already processing some of 'these and knows the techniques and -the shortcuts in which to get these projects finalized. Councilman Nichols: And he knows how to get the money? Mr. Aiassa: That's right. Motion by Councilman Lloyd, that City Council approve the firm of Gruen Associates, Inc., of Los Angeles, California, as consultants for the preparation of the TOPICS area -wide plan and study report; and authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute the consultant agreement upon approval of the California Division of Highways and the Bureau of Public Works,, and further authorize the City Clerk to furnish the State of California,. Department of Public Works, with a certified copy of a resolution indicating the City°s intention to expend its 1969-70 fiscal year TOPICS apportionment.for an area - wide report Seconded .b'y <Counc lman.. Shearer,—, and carried.. 17 RESOLUTION NO. 4167 The City Manager -presented: ADOPTED "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF WEST COVINA, NOTIFYING THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS, OF THE CITY'S :INTENDED.' ACCUMULATION"OF 1969-70 TOPICS APPORTIONMENT." Mayor Chappell. Hearing no objections, waive further reading of the body of said Resolution. ..Motion by Councilman Shearer, seconded by Councilman Lloyd, adopting said Resolution. Motion carried on roll call vote as follows. - AYES: Councilmen Shearer, Nichols, Young, Lloyd, M.ayor'Chappell NOES: None ABSENT: None Board of Supervisors - Street Improvements Vine Avenue between Hollenbeck and Citrus Avenues Mr. Aiassa: This is of great concern to us because we did have a pending annexation in the Montezuma area in the Villas and the street was used as: an example of the opposing people as the way the City of West Covina keeps its streets,and it happened to be a County street. Our own budget is set up to improve this project and we now have a firm commitment from the County to proceed. It is anticipated this project will be constructed prior to S'eptembero' 1970. This is to inform Council. Motion by Councilman Lloyd., seconded by Councilman Young, that City Council receive and file the Engineer's report. Councilman Young: Is there a total estimate for this project? (Mro Zimmerman, City Engineer, advised there is but he did not have the exact figure with him, but generally it would be in the area of $50,000 to $60,000.) Motion carried. treet Maintenance Report Councilman Nichols: A question of Mr. Aiassa.- If this entire matter would be _held- over_ -and- considexed _.con- m 2 6 r, REG. C..C. 6-8-70 Page Twenty®sev_.en CITY MANAGER -( Item 7 ) Cont ° d o currently with Item 2 - this wouldn't put.a fly in the ointment? (Answer.- No). Councilman Nichols: I think it would be better in my judgment to review once again the various recommendationso Mr. Aiassa: Also during the budget sessions Council may want to find someway of providing larger appropriations in order to do a. larger percentage ma�b.e i,, bond issue. Motion by Councilman Nichols, seconded by Councilman Young, and carried, that Item I®7 be held over to the budget sessions. .Parent Alert Motion by Councilman Young, seconded by Councilman!Lloyd, and carried, that the City align itself with the East San Gabriel'Val.ley Drug Abuse. Committee and direct' -: staff to proceed as necessary. Southern California Edison Company re Easement, West Covina National Little League Motion by Councilman Nichols, seconded by Councilman Young, and carried, to hold this item over,as per staff recommendation, for three months until the plans are submitted for the Del Norte Park development. ,_Freeway Widening Report Motion by Councilman Nichols, seconded by Councilman Young, and carried, to receive and file the Freeway Widening report. Resolution of Intention to Construct, Maintain and Operate a Refuse -Transfer and Disposal System County 'Sanitation District No. 15 (Staff report) Motion by Councilman Young, seconded by Councilman Nichols, and carried, that the staff report be received and filed. Barranca Street Resurfacing (Garvey to Workman Avenue) Motion by Councilman Lloyd, seconded by Councilman Young, and carried, authorizing the expenditure of $2,427.00 to resurface the portion of Barranca Avenue that is within the City Limits, north of the San Bernardino Freeway. Funds available in 812-61 Account. ' Underground.Utilities Advisory Committee Motion by Councilman Nichols, seconded by Councilman Young, approving and filing_ the Engineer's report, approving proposed boundaries.of the underground utility district as set forth herein, and setting the date of July 13, 1970, for a, -public hearing of the proposed underground utility district. Councilman Shearer: Mr. Mayor - I would like to see the city staff contact these four property owners to see if perhaps we can work something out prior to setting up a district, if it is legal for them to pay without forming a district. Mr. Wakefield: There are two matters involved here; the adoption City Attorney of the resolution setting the date for the public hearing on the formation of the district, but in the meantime there is noo reason why staff cannot contact the individual property owners and see if they are willing to participate without the formation of a district. 27 REG. C.C. 6-8-70 Page Twenty-:e'ight CITY MANAGER (Item 13) Contd. Councilman Shearer: I understand that the law provides that regardless of protests if the City Council so desires that all four of these people can protest, so what we are really talking about, putting it bluntly, :. _ they will have to pay anyway so why not make it easier on everyone concerned. I would propose an amendment to the motion'that City staff contact the four property owners involved to see if they will participate voluntarily without formalizing a district. We are not talking about very much money in total here. Seconded by Councilman Nichols. Councilman Lloyd: Mr. Aiassa you do this automatically now, don't you? Mr. Aiassa:. We usually do but this is the first underground type of thing. Councilman Lloyd: But when you widened Barranca you did contact all those people? Mr. Aiassa: Yes but we have not undertaken an underground utility installation before. Councilman Lloyd: I realize that, but I think what we are talking about here is a matter of policy and as a matter of policy to the best of my knowledge on the occasions I can remember, you have always contacted the people in question. In fact in about three different -ways,.- The point I am making'is that the administrative processes of the City have been such -that We ,<ha:ven°,t.;,.:. really involved ourselves in this type of activity and it has always been done previously. I think this is an important point. Mayor Chappell: Those in favor of the amendment? All were in favor. Amendment to the motion carried. All were in favor of ;the motion. Motion carried. Access to Galster Park Mr. Aiassa: You do have a staff report. The preliminary estimate was $5500.00 but we.believe it will be around $5,000. Motion by Councilman Nichols, seconded by Councilman Lloyd, and carried, relative to Item I - 14, Council accepts staff recommendations Items 1, 2, and 3, in the report dated June 5, 1970, with the stipula- tion that the expenditure not exceed $5,000.00. Trash Contract Covina -Valley Unified.School District • Mr. Aiassa: The reason,'this item_is before Council is that we have an ordinance providing exclusive trash collector work in the City of West Covina to one company. The Covina Valley School District has ten schools in the City limits of West Covina and in lieu of them having to go to public bid, through our City Attorney we have helped them arrange a contract with the West Covina Disposal Service. We are acting as the interme- diate between the School District and the Disposal Service to see that all comply with ct•he rbquic embnts.'of' "the State Taw for. �tne�:Schoo11�Dis- tr•ibt s•anda1-so�-.t :'o comply with our City ordinance that prohibits any other trash collector to collect trash in West Covina. Councilman Young: The.:dollar amoiz.nts in this. agreement, I. take it have been arrived"`at`.in such a manner that this is at best -a profitable operation for the City: - 28 = REG. C.C. 6-8-70 Page l-Twient.Y-nine CITY MANAGER - (Item 15) Cont°d. and-, -at woratF_-'a r dbi coast-: item tq. -the City.? Mr. Aiassa:: We are not involved dollarwiseo it has no expense to the City. We have met with the School District officials and the Disposal Company officials and the price submitted is agreeable. Councilman Young: I see the Disposal Company is not a party to the contract and I therefore assume that they are not bound .by this. Have they -,been consulted? Mr. Aiassa: YesB,and they are bound by a contract with the City. Councilman Lloyd: The contract between the Disposal Company and .the City is a negotiable contract - it is open bid? (Answer: Yes) How long does that last? Mr, Aiassa: I believe they have three more, years. The total contract was for seven years. I would have to research the records for the exact date. (Discussion followed by Council with regard to when they last negotiated rates and when next.it would come up. Mr. Aiassa said staff would check it out.) Motion by Councilman Nichols, seconded by Councilman Young, approving the contract for trash disposal services between the City of West Covina and Covina Valley Unified School District for the period of September 1, 1970 through June 30, 1975p and that the Mayor and City (Clerks be authorized to sign, the agreement. Councilman Shearer: Does the School District pay the City and we, in turq, pay the Disposal Company? Mr, Eliot: The School District pays the City. Controller Councilman Shearer: Then there is the small expense to the City of handling? (Mr. Aiassa answered "yes".) Motion carried.. Alternate Locations for Maverick Field (Oral Report) 'Mr. Aiassa: We will be meeting with the landscape architect who is now making the analysis and review of Cortez Park. Our original hope was that we might be able to establish a permanent ball field of the Maverick .type in Cortez Park, but if not feasible then we will have to find another location. -We thought the second location might be created in tYe.:lard fi1bd area where it is intended a.large recreationalarea will be developed. Presently they are raising the money for the lights that may not be installed at the present location, but staff is working on a location. Authorization for City Manager to call a Meeting with BKK To Discuss Future Use of the Dump Grounds Mr. Aiassa: I would like authorization from Council to meet with Mr. Kazar.iAn to discuss the future use of the present dump and what their future plans are for operation. So moved by Councilman Nichols, seconded by Councilman Young, and carried. Natural Gas Conversion Kits Mr. Aiassa: This is an agreement with the Pacific Lighting Service Company regarding the -natural gas con- version kits. - 2-9 - REG. C.C. 6-8-70 CITY MANAGER (Item 18) Cont°do Page Thirty - Motion by Councilman Lloyd that the agreement with the Pacific Lighting Service Company regarding the buying of the six .natural gas conversion kits for the City trucks be approved in the .amount of $240.00 each if the .City decides to keep them. Seconded by Councilman Young and carried.. Request Approval of Payment to Coyle for Landscaping Performed at Civic Center Mr. Aiassa: This is an expenditure incurred and we are now -being asked to reimburse the contractor. The report is self-explanatory and we do have the money in Account PB 6400. This was to refurbish the last mound of the Civic Center in the amount of $2023.98. Councilman Nichols: I don't think the council has any reasonable alternative except to follow the recommendation. Motion by Councilman Nichols, seconded by Councilman Lloyd, authorizing the staff to pay the general contractor for the site development in the Civic Center.in the slum of $2023.98 for the purpose of reimbursement due to work delays and repairs on the most westerly mound of the Civic Center. Councilman Lloyd: A.comment, Mr. Mayor. I am personally a little offended by the comments in these letters, where it says it has cost some people some money and more important, consumed much of some people's time. I realize that these contractors and vendors are very important but I also realize some of the dynamics of trying to run the City/ and I really don't think comments of this type are in order. I think this type of thing should be verbally conveyed to the vendors that we do the very best we can. Councilman Nichols: I would certainly concur with -Councilman Lloyd's statemennto I don't feel that the contractors opinions need at all be stated in a request for reimbursement of.this nature. Councilman Young: Has this entire transaction been reviewed by the -City Attorney with respect to the liability of the City? Mr. Wakefield: Yes I reviewed the problem with staff, and I City Attorney concurred in the recommendation that there is no alternative but to pay the specified amount. Councilman Lloyd: Mr. Mayor I am still pursuing the same thing. I would like the concurrence of Council to convey to these contractors that while we appreciate their work we do not always appreciate their comments when derogatory. I will put that in the form of a motion. Seconded by Councilman Nichols. Councilman Shearer: Reading the letters I didn't take offense. Can you be more specific Councilman .Lloyd as to what statements? Councilman Lloyd: In the letter from Mr. Oo CK Coyle, general engineering contractor, paragraphs 1-2-3-4 and 5 he says "as previously stated the proposed heliport has not only cost memoney but more important has consumed much of my time.....°° I interpr6t that as a derogatory remark as to the manipulations of this Council and as one of the people that strongly advocated.and worked hard for this heliport the decision of what we do with the time,• effort and energies that we contract for is really up to this Council and not up to the commentaries of the indi-, viduals that contract. If they don't like what they are doing they don't have to contract. All the way through there seems to be - 30 REG. C.C. 6-8-70 Page Thirty --one CITY MANAGER (Item 19) Cont°do expressions of irritation, of being delayed, etc. I realize that there are problems which are presented to all of these contractors doing business with any'large organization whether it is the City of West Covina, the; Federal Government, State, or private industry. I feel as contractors they have an obligation to get on with the work on hand and not make any comments° It is really not part of their affairs and I am offended by it. Councilman Young: I think that we are a little thin skinned on this point as one vwha deals largely in the field of controversy and the irritations people have - one with another. This letter is quite moderate and the man is simply stating his case in the best manner he knows how. This is subject to so much interpretation I would hate to see an official act of the City Council being that thin skinned on it in the light of the City Attorney°s opinion. I, therefore, hope we do not show this type of petulance and go ahead and pay the bill' we owe it. Councilman Nichols: I react a little differently. I think when the City of West Covina contracts with someone that we are placing upon them a considerable degree of discretion and responsibility and I don't think this is really a big deal but if I understand Councilman Lloyd's comments that at some.appropriate point we informally convey to the contractor that he was a little injudicious; -in" the" choice.' -of '.his words and that Council didn't appreciate them. I think that is not an inappropriate response,,we are sending him $2,000 and I think a very minor degree of petulance might be tolerated so.I would be in favor of the, ..mo.tiono. Councilman Young: We are not making a gift to the man, we owe it.to him. Mayor Chappell: City Clerk please call roll call on the motion made.by Councilman Lloyd, seconded by Councilman Nichols. Motion carried on roll call vote as follows: AYES: Councilmen Nichols, Lloyd, Mayor Chappell NOES: Councilmen Shearer; Young ABSENT: None Councilman Young: :.. g wlal in"ove that we Aut.horze payment but I will not move that we express our apol6gy for`they.delayo: Seconded by Councilman Shearer. Motion carried on roll call vote as follows: AYES: Councilmen Shearer, Nichols, Young, Lloyd,. Mayor Chappell NOES: None ABSENT: None Approval to Engage Consultant Services'of Frank Sata Mr. Aiassa: This is a request for the services of the consultant Frank Sata for the Civic Auditorium - 20 hrs.; Parking - 40 hrs.; and Civic Center = 20 hrs. a total of 80 hours not to exceed $2,000 at a rate of $25.00 per hour. I would like to'have authorization to put this into the form of a contract to be specifi- cally approved by the City Manager as to what he is utilizing his time for. So moved by Councilman Lloyd, seconded by Councilman Nichols. 31 - REG. C.C. 6-8-70 Page Thirty- t.Wo'... CITY MANAGER - (Item 20) Cont°do Councilman Nichols: Mr. Aiassa - I understand .by my second that we will have a chance to review the contract? (Answer: Yes) Councilman Shearer: Are we authorizing the payment of $2,000 now or are we asking for his services? • Mr. Aiassa: I have to engage him now and I am asking for the authorization of $2,000 because we have these three things coming, up presently. Councilman Shearer: But we are not spending the whole $2,000 until he comes in with a report? Mr. Aiassa: That's right. We will do it in phases and you will approve the contract. Motion carried on roll call vote as follows: AYES: Councilmen Shearer, Nichols, Young, Lloyd, Mayor Chappell NOES: None ABSENT., None Councilman Nichols: A point of concern. I still am much confused over the legal ramifications of when the Council must give a roll call and when it must not. Earlier this evening a matter came before the Council involving the voting to spend.a sum of money and at that time the question was asked if a roll call was needed and the City Attorney nodded "no", saying the actual -expenditure was not occurring. We.will probably never see it again -until it comes back on the warrants at the end of the meeting and never give it a great deal of individual thought. Now we have another item involving the authorization of an expenditure of money and we have a roll call. I am still literally confused when we should be roll called-- and when not. Mr. Wakefield: The government code provides that in authoriz- City Attorney ing the expenditure of money Council shall act on the basis of a roll call vote. Sometimes, as in this instance, where in effect what -the Council is proposing to do is to authorize the City Manager to proceed to employ a consultant, details of the contract to be worked out, actually the incurring of the obligation happens when the Council actually -approves the contract. This is one of those mixed blessings where some of the work will be done really actually before you get around to approving the contract. So what we have done is simply in the abundance of caution called the roll so there will beano question about it. Councilman Nichols: What about the earlier vote this evening where the -Council authorized the staff to draw up certain plans for services not to exceed $5,000 and it was by open vote and not roll call? Wasn't that an enabling act that would not require further approval by the Council? Mr. Wakefield: I am sorrys Councilman Nichols,obut I don't City Attorney have the iteur-you refer to in mind.. I will need to go back and recheck it. If you can tell me which item it was? Councilman Nichols: I threw my page away,.and I don't really wish to belabor the matter, but there has been some confusion on the part of Council as to when we should or should not call for a roll call vote. Historically in the past this Council has always used the roll call when the Council is voting to authorize expenditures rather than through the use of warrants or some less clear device. I do not challenge here, what is legal and what is not, but I would like to be consistent in my actions. Mr. Wakefield: I.will review this so we can get a.clear policy City Attorney established so there will be no doubt about it. 32 .- 4) if REG..C.C. 6-8-70 Page Thirty -,three CITY MANAGER - Cont°do Accept Water Study Report - Mullins f Mr. Aiassa: I have the consulting engineer's report on the water problem with regard to the meters now ser- viced by the City of Covina. There is the possibility that Ruburbari Water Company might be in a mind to make a more realistic offer. We had a meeting with Suburban Water Company this morning; the Mayor was present. We would like to pass this report on to the parties involved, but before doing so I would like to have Council accept so it.becomes an official record. So moved by Councilman Nichols, seconded by Councilman Shearer, and carried. Resolution for Teri Pond ! Mr. Aiassa: I would like Council authorization directing staff to prepare a Resolution for Teri Pond commending her for her service to the'City. Mayor Chappell: In the motion may we have authorization for perma plaquingo So moved by Councilman Nichols, seconded by Councilman Lloyd, (Discussion followed regarding the fact that just about all resolutions are being perma plaqued;.Mr. Aiassa reminded Council he had suggested an overall amount.to take care of ;this and it had not been accepted; Councilman .Nichols suggested it be brought up again; it was finally decided to discuss during the budget sessions.) Motion carried on roll call vote as follows: AYES: Councilmen Shearer, Nichols, Young, Lloyd, Mayor Chappell NOES: None ABSENT*. None (City Clerk advised the Resolution Number is 4168) Councilman Nichols: Mr. Mayor ® here is an example - we have'had a roll call to authorize a resolution be perma plaqued, no dollar figure has been established, I suppose we have now authorized staff to make some un- deter-mined expenditure of public funds. These are the kinds of procedures that I really do feel we need more,of a report on; we may end up at San Quentin. Mayor Chappell: Mr. Wakefield, you will give .us a report on this? Mr. Wakefield: Yes. Actually the amount of the cost of, the perma plaque is a fixed rate. So in effect what the Council has authorized is the perma plaque at the established rate. CITY CLERK `. ABC Application: Carl .E, and Nina M. Fisher dba Alta -Dena Dairy #5 1643 W. San Bernardino Road Motion by Councilman Nichols,.seconded by Councilman Shearer, and carried, that there.be:no..protest on the ABC application. Request of Canadi.,ani Legion for Fireworks Stands Motion by Councilman Lloyd, seconded by Councilman Young, and carried, granting request. 33 REG. C.C. 6-8-70 Page Thirty -,-,four i • Councilman Shearer: How many total firework stands have we authorized? (City Clerk advised about 15, five associations requested, Mr. Aiassa stated.Council will be given a list of the total stands authorized.) MAYOR'S REPORTS --.Appointments to Boards and Commissions Mayor Chappell:,,. I received no objections so the appointments will stand as listed. Proclamation-. "FLAG DAY" Mayor Chappell: If there are no objections, I will proclaim the week of June 14 th thru 20th as National Flag Week, No objections, so proclaimedo Mayor Chappell: I would also like to call Councils attention that the Scouts put on a very fine Flag ceremony at Valmerado.) Park on Memorial Day. It was very well attended. The suggestion was made in conversation. that we do something like this and enlarge it to include all the Scouts of West Covina and hold it here at the Civic Center. This will be brought up again at a later date but it is something that I would like you to consider, and if you have any objections please call them to my attention. COUNCIL COMMITTEE REPORTS Councilman Shearer: I would like a status report,'if it is in order, on the effect of the fire yesterday in Galster.Park. :(Mr. Aiassa advised a report will be:made)..I-would also like to refer,:;to.:the:Recreation. & Parks Commission that they look into the safety precautions.'.. connected with the rocket launching. I understand the fire was started by a misspent rocket. I am not criticizing the rocketeers, by any means, but we had a considerable amount of damage and potentially much more, and if there are any safety precautions that have not been taken I think it should be investigated so we do not have a reoccurrence of the unfortunate incident. Mayor Chappell: I talked to Mr.. Gingrich on this today and they have taken all the safety precautions but this one got away from theme -In the past they have refrained from firing the rockets in the dry season and probably didn't call it off soon enough; They have even gone into the desert during the summer to fire the rockets. So I at sure precautions have been taken. • Councilman Nichols: I received a subpoena, in connection with the litigation in•process, Mro.City Attorney will you apprise the Council of the prospects of their being summoned posthaste to Los Angeles one of these mornings? Mr. Wakefield: The Court has continued assignment4,of . a. -.trial depart- ment from.day to day simply because of the congestion of the court ° s calendar. As of this evening we were number three on the jury list and we expect tomorrow morning the case will be'assigned for trial and I imagine the earliest anyone will be called is Vednesday. Councilman Lloyd: I wasn't aware that Mr. Nichols was subpoen4e4o 3`4 REG. C.C. 6-8-70 Page Thirty- 1-:f'i.ve Council Committee Reports - Cont°d. I was aware that I had. I would like to know who else is involved. (It was indicated that Messrs. Lloyd, Nichols, Aiassa, Zimmerman, Bedaux and Cox received subpoenas. Inquiry was made if it could be -arranged that they all go to Court in one vehicle. Mr. Wakefield • advised this would not be practical because they would be waiting around for each to finish testifying. Mr. Nichols asked if a city vehicle would be made available for the trip to Court and Mr. Aiassa said "yes". Also Mr. Nichols asked that they be notified sufficiently in advance of their needed appearance in order to make the trip to Los Angeles and Mr. Wakefield said they would.) Councilman Lloyd: I have two things. I attended the.Independent Cities dinner and received some favorable comments with regard to the presentation in rebuttal of the Independent Cities versus the contract cities with.the County for the providing of safety services, and also as a result of my association with the TV people the Independent Cities asked me ` if I would go to their next Board of Governors and Directors meeting so they might participate more fully in this type of activity. Mr. Aias'sa - I believe you were going to have a report for us on the helicopters at this time? Mr. Aiassa: Yes - and it is not ready at.this time. Councilman Lloyd: We will have it for the budget..sessions? (Answer: Yes, before.) Councilman Young: At the request of Mr. Strachan Manager of the' g q s Chamber of Commerce, and the Mayor,' I attended a meeting last Thursday of a program designed to further implement the Mayors Narcotics Advisory Committee report. This had to do with a free clinic and -hero arerfurther meetings estab- l: shod-,i,n wihiCb. I..;am., fivolved, L:t,--- LTaughlin;of�.athe`.,,'Pol.ice,,Department is involved� and Judge Martian_. of the..Kunic pal: _Cour:t, �.,_-T think more informa- tion will be forthcoming shortly. J Mayor Chappell: You all received copy of the letter sent out to the leaders of the Community to come to a meeting chaired by Judge Martin on Liberty and the Law.. We had forty citizens attend the first meeting and it was unanimously voted to carry out this challenge of the Judges. We will have another meeting on July 2.here in the Council Chambers. I would like, if you can, to have you drop in and hear what is going on because this pertains to the individual family getting the proper training in Liberty and.Law-& The people received it in a very fine manner. DEMANDS Motion by Councilman Young, seconded by Councilman Shearer, that Council approve demands totalling $1,033,998.20 as listed on Demand . Sheets C 707 through C 712. This total includes pay roll, time deposit and cash transfers. Motion carried on roll call vote as follows.: AYES; Councilmen Shearer, Nichols, Young, Lloyd, Mayor Chappell NOES: None ABSENT: None (Mr. Aiassa advised that there was one further item. Copy of the budget was available for Council and the first budget meeting would be held on June loth at 7:30 P.M. at City Hall.) 35 - REG. C.C. 6--8-70 Page Thirty-six;. Motion by Councilman Shearer, seconded by Councilman Young, and carried, that this meeting adjourn at 11:45 P.M., to 7:30 P.M. on June 10, 1970. ATTEST: CITY CLERK • APPROVED: MAYOR - 36 -