Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
02-28-1972 - Regular Meeting - Minutes
f MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL CITY OF WEST COVINA, CALIFORNIA FEBRUARY 28, 1972. • The regular meeting of the City Council was called to order at 7:30 P.M., by Mayor Ken Chappell in the West Covina Council Chambers. The Pledge of Allegiance was given. The invocation was given by the Reverend Charles R. Simmons of the United Methodist Church. ROLL CALL Present: Mayor Chappell; Councilmen: Shearer, Nichols, Young, Lloyd Others Present: George Aiassa, City Manager H. R. Fast, Ass°t. City Manager George Wakefield, City Attorney Lela Preston, City Clerk George Zimmerman, City Engineer Richard Munsell, Planning Director John Lippitt, Ass't. City Engineer Leonard Eliot, Controller Alec Andrus, Administrative Analyst Keith Weber, Youth Advisory Commissicner Sheree Wilson, °' " " PRESENTATIONS OF RESOLUTIONS OF COMMENDATION Mayor Chappell presented Resolutions of Commendation to the West Covina Roadrunners Girls Softball Team for their outstanding accomplishment in winning the Municipal Athletic Girls Softball Championship; and a Resolution of Commendation to Randy Haas the American Legion Player of the Year, which is a nationwide event. Randy Haas in turn presented to the Mayor and the City a baseball bat bearing the signatures of the 1971 National Baseball champions. A final Resolution of Commendation was presented to coach Dennis McLaughlin t.o-.hond the:Bishdp.. Amat High School Football Team for winning the AAAA CiF . _ Championship. (Mayor Chappell read each Resolution in full prior to presentation.) CONSENT CALENDAR Mayor Chappell stated the procedure of the Consent Calendar items and asked if there were any comments on any of the following items: T-. "-- `WRITTEN COM.MUNICATIONS a) Civil Air Patrol Re permit for fireworks booth at Eastland Shopping Center. (Refer to City Attorney.) b) Senator Arlen Gregorio Re Senate Constitutional Amendment, SCA 2, establishing independent non- partisan reapportionment commission. (Refer to Staff) c) Al Chort Re Nazi Headquarters ) d) Sharon Y. Kuntz " 11 )Refer to City e) Earlene D. White °' " ) Attorney f) Demetriou & Del Guercio Re Tentative Tract No. 29126 (Brutoco Attorneys at Law Development Company, et al) (Refers to Hearing Item No. B-1) CITY COUNCIL 2/28/72 Page Two CONSENT CALENDAR - Cont°d. g) Kaufman & Broad, Inc. Re proposed change in MF-15. (Refers to Hearing Item No. B-1) 2. PLANNING COMMISSION a) Summary of Action February 16, 1972. (Receive and File) • 3. RECREATION & PARKS COMMISSION a) Summary of Action February 22, 1972. (Receive and File) 4. HUMAN RELATIONS COMMISSION Summary of Action February 24, 1972. (Receive and File) 5. YOUTH ADVISORY COMMISSION Summary of Action February 15, 1972. (Accept and File) 6. ACCEPTANCE OF IMPROVEMENTS AND RELEASE OF BONDS a) TRACT NO. 29581 Location: Valinda and Dore Avenues. BAUER DEVELOPMENT CO. Accept street,sewer and storm drain improvements and authorize release of General Insurance Company of America Bond No. 888063 in the amount of $186,500. (Staff recommends accept- ance and release of bond) b) TRACT NO. 29581 Location: Valinda and Dore Avenues. BAUER DEVELOPMENT CO. Authorize release of General Insurance Company of America Bond No. 888064 in the amount of $1,010. Monuments in place. (Staff recommends release of bond.) c) TRACT NO. 26161 LEADERSHIP HOUSING SYSTEMS, INC. 7. TRAFFIC COMMITTEE MINUTES Location! North of Amax Road, westerly of Grandview Avenue. Accept street and sewer improvements and authorize release of Highlands Insurance Company Bond No. 906771 in the amount of $55,500. (Staff recommends acceptance and release of bond) February 22, 1972. (Accept and file) 8. PROJECT NO. SP-72001 Location: Various locations through- out the City. Review Engineer's informational report re sidewalk priority program for 1972-73. (Accept and file) 9. PROJECT NO. 125-7016 Location: Levelglen and Sentous Avenues. Review Engineer's informational. report re Friendship Park Parking Lot. • (Accept and .file) Councilman Shearer: Mr. Mayor, I have two questions on the Traffic Committee.minutes. Item 2 regarding the removal of the Median Secondary Signals. The report lists 7 locations and it is only recommending that 4 be removed. Why not all. 7? Mr. Zimmerman: City Engineer They were all. to be treated but the other items were to be treated not as - 2 - CITY COUNCIL 2/28/72 CONSENT CALENDAR - Cont°d.' part of this program but a different program. removed but at different times. Councilman Shearer: I'believe the error. Item 8 • recommendation and I believe that should be "westbound right Mr. Zimmerman: Page Three All 7 will be other is a typographical states in the report "westbound left turn" turn." That is correct. Councilman Nichols: My comment is in reference to Written Communications, Item (a). I believe the policy alluded to in the letter is one established by the City Council and referral of this item to the City Attorney would do no more than delay an ultimate answer to this request. As the Council is aware, we periodically get requests from various groups to sell fireworks and unless Council is prepared to debate and discuss the changing of the policy I believe a referral to the City Attorney is not necessary. I believe that a forthright and honest response either upholding the existing policy or indicating a desire to amend the policy is in order. If I am in error in someway in terms of the recommendation here I would like to be corrected, otherwise I would urge the Council to pull this item off the Consent Calendar and bring it up at some appropriate point to discuss and provide an answer to these people this evening. I do not envision this as a management or City Attorney responsibility but as a Council policy responsibility. (No objections by Council, Item 1 (a) withdrawn from Consent Calendar.) Councilman Lloyd: Mr. Mayor, Councilman Nichols brought up what I intended to comment on. This is a long standing policy going several years back in regards to the American Legion. Councilman Nichols: Yes, the Council has had a policy 6 or 8 years now to reserve the fireworks sales activities to Veterans organizations. The only body capable of changing that is the Council and it is strictly a matter of policy. If we refer it to some other level, City Attorney or staff, it will only delay a determination by Council in terms of policy. I think these inordinate delays are not doing justice to those who make applications where such referrals are really not necessary. Motion by Councilman Lloyd, seconded by Councilman Shearer, to approve Consent Calendar items 1 through 9 with the exception of Item 1 (a). Motion carried on roll call vote as follows: AYES: Councilmen: Shearer, Nichols, Young, Lloyd, Chappell NOES: None ABSENT: None Mayor Chappell: At this time we will discuss Item 1 (a)© As stated by two of our Councilmen the Council itself has adopted the policy that Veterans organizations operate the fireworks stands within our City. That doesn't say that the other organizations that applied haven't real fine ideas and fine activities and that the money isn't needed, but since I have been on the Council there must have been ten of these requests and if we gave everyone that requested a fireworks stand - well we would have more fireworks stands than the City could handle. I think we should just reiterate our policy, if that is agreeable with the rest of the Council. Councilman Shearer: I would agree, otherwise you are going to place yourself in an impossible - 3 - CITY COUNCIL 2/28/72 Page Four CONSENT CALENDAR: Item 1 (a) situation in administration. Next thing would be the Scouts and Little League, all of which are worthwhile organizations. This way we have a set policy, relatively easy to administrate and it takes out all of the burden and accusations of saying well you gave them a better deal, etc. I would be in favor of answering the letter stating our present policy, and I so move. RESOLUTIONS FOR ADOPTION RESOLUTION NO. 4522 ADOPTED Seconded by Councilman Lloyd and carried. The City Attorney presented: "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF WEST COVINA ACCEPTING A GRANT DEED EXECUTED BY LIBERTY SAVINGS AND LOAN ASSOCIATION, A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, AN EASEMENT FOR STREET AND HIGHWAY PURPOSES, TO BE KNOWN AS ST. MALO STREET, AND DIRECTING THE RECORDATION THEREOF. (Parcel Map No. 2254)." RESOLUTION NO. 4523 °"A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF ADOPTED THE CITY OF WEST COVINA ACCEPTING A GRANT .DEED EXECUTED BY EASTLAND VILLAGE, A LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, AND DIRECTING THE RECORDATION THEREOF. (Precise Plan No. 614)." RESOLUTION NO. 4524 "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF ADOPTED THE CITY OF WEST COVINA ACCEPTING A CORPORATION GRANT DEED, EXECUTED BY MAYER CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, INC., AND DIRECTING THE RECORDATION THEREOF. (Precise Plan No. 584)." Motion by Councilman Shearer, seconded by Councilman Young and carried, to waive reading of the body of said Resolutions. Motion by Councilman Shearer, seconded by Councilman Young, to adopt said Resolutions. Motion carried on roll call vote as follows: AYES: Councilmen: Shearer, Nichols, Young, Lloyd, Chappell NOES: None ABSENT: None GENERAL AGENDA ITEMS AWARD OF BIDS 1) PROJECT NO. 152-69018-16 Bids received in the Office of the GALSTER PARK PERGOLA City Clerk up to 10:00 A.M. on Wednesday, February 23, 1972, as advertised, and thereafter publicly opened and read. Council to review Recreation and Parks Department report. • City Clerk advised two bids received, checked and found to be valid bid proposals: J. B. S. Construction Co., Soo San Gabriel $4,700.00 Noble Construction Co., Whittier $7,896.00 Councilman Nichols: Mr. Mayor, I am amazed that the spread between the two bids is so great and I am gratified at the bid of $4,700. Motion by Councilman Nichols, seconded by Councilman Shearer, to 4 CITY COUNCIL 2/28/72 Page .Five AWARD OF BIDS: Galster Park Pergola accept the bid of J.B.S. Construction Company of San Gabriel, as presented at the bid opening of February,23, 1972,.for City Project No. 152-69018-16, and authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to accept an agreement with the said J.B.S. Construction Company for the construction of a pergola at Galster Parka Councilman Lloyd: Mr. Aiassa, we have the $10,000 and it only costs $4,700 - what do we do with the other monies now? I remember we cannot use it for anything else, now what do we use it for? Mr. Aiassa: Councilman Lloyd: does that extend to? Mr. Aiassa: We can only use the money for park purposes. In other words we have $5300. left over and we can't use it for any other item except for parks. What You will get a report from staff listing the other items that it might be used for. Motion carried on roll call vote as follows: AYES: Councilmen: Shearer, Nichols, Young, Lloyd, Chappell NOES: None ABSENT: None 2) PROJECT NO. 152-69019 Bids received in the Office of the SECURITY LIGHTING City Clerk up to 10:00 A.M., on DEL NORTE PARK and Wednesday, February 23, 1972, as WALMERADO PARK advertised, and thereafter publicly opened and read. Council to review Recreation and Parks Department report. City Clerk stated a total of 9 bids received and reviewed; all bids checked for errors and determined to be valid bid proposals: Beling Electric Co., North Hollywood 518,758.00 Seco Electric Co., Azusa 19,552000 Robert W. Elliott, Artesia 19,980.00 Keith Electric Corp., Los Angeles 21,930.00 McCain Electric, Placentia 22,141.00 Superior Electric Services, Pomona 23,440.00 Sherwin Electric Service, Los Angeles 25,374.00 A.E.C. of Los Angeles 26,500,00 David & Klenck, Signal Hill 36,265.00 Councilman Shearer: Mr. Mayor - with the acceptance of the low bid we now have more money to go along with the $5300. from the last bid. Motion by Councilman Shearer, seconded by Councilman Lloyd, to accept the low bid from Beling Electric Company, Inc., of North Hollywood, • as presented at the bid opening of February 23, 1972, for the City Project No. 152-69019; and authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute an agreement with said Beling Electric Company for the installation of security lights at Walmerado and Del Norte Parks. Motion carried on roll call vote as follows: AYES: Councilmen: Shearer, Nichols, Young', Lloyd, Chappell NOES: None ABSENT: None ® 5 CITY COUNCIL.. 2/28/72 Page Six CITY ATTORNEY ORDINANCE The City Attorney presented: INTRODUCTION "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 Applica- tion No. 461 - Alvin W. Burnett, M.D., and Calvin Schneider, M.D.)" Motion by Councilman Lloyd, seconded by Councilman Shearer and carried, to waive full reading of the body of said Ordinance. Motion by Councilman Lloyd, seconded by Councilman Young and carried, to introduce said Ordinance. RESOLUTION NO. 4525 The City Attorney presented: ADOPTED "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF WEST COVINA ESTABLISHING"•'VOTING PREC.INC.T.S.,_ DESIGNATING 32OLLING:_PLA S_ AND APPOINTING. E.LE.CTIQN..�OFF;ICERS_,'FQR GENERAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION TO,':BE::HELD ON TUESDAY., . ,APRIL ll`,' 1972. Motion by Councilman Lloyd, seconded by Councilman Young and carried, to waive further reading of the body of said Resolution. Councilman Shearer: A question of the City Attorney. I find my wife has been asked to serve on the Election Board. Should I abstain from voting on this? Mr. Wakefield: Yes, Councilman Shearer. If Mrs. Shearer has been selected as a polling place member then you should refrain from voting on the item. Motion by Councilman Lloyd, seconded by Councilman Young, to adopt said Resolution. Motion carried on roll call vote as follows. AYES: Councilmen: Nichols, Young, Lloyd, Chappell NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: Councilman Shearer COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY Motion by Councilman Lloyd, seconded by Councilman Young and carried, to recess City Council meeting at 7:58 P.M., and to conduct a Community Redevelopment Agency meeting. (CITY COUNCIL MEETING RECONVENED AT 8:05 P.M.) PUBLIC HEARINGS AMENDMENT NO. 115 Location: Various locations throughout • CITY INITIATED City. REQUEST: Amendment to the zoning ordinance, amending Section 9205, Low Density Multiple Family (MF-15) zone and amending Section 9206, Medium Density Multiple Family (MF-25) zone. This public hearing will also consider placing all property presently zoned Medium Density Multiple Family (MF-25) zone in the proposed Medium Density Multiple Family (MF-20) zone. Recommended by Planning Commission Resolution No. 2372. 6 - CITY COUNCIL 2/28/72 HEARINGS: AMENDMENT NO. 115 Page Seven Mr. Munsell: Planning Commission Resolution No. 2372 recommends adoption of Amendment No. 115 which does in fact modify the development standards in the Multiple - Family MF-15 zone and does in fact change MF-25 to MF-20 and consequently does initiate a zone change action on all parcels in • the City of West Covina currently zoned MF. 25 down to MF-20. Why the change? As Council is aware these current ordinances that we are now modifying are approximately 2 to 2% years old. Within the last two years the City has seen over 1,000 apartments completed, over 450 are under construction and over 700 apartments have been approved with precise plans currently outstanding. Meaning they have time to go and the developers still have an opportunity to come in for building permits. Subject to a number of opportunities within the last two years to review developments which had been quite slack for multiple -family up to that time, the Planning Commission based on City Council directives to tighten up certain provisions of the zones and based on reaction and community attitudes at public hearings, has directed staff to take a look at the ordinances and come back with some changes. (Illustrated changes with slides and explained each change.) Accompanying the revisions the City Attorney has ruled the Multiple -Family 20 zoned from MF-25 was significant enough to require a chance of zone of the propeXtieso As a conse- quence all of the areas indicated on the slide have been indicated for a zone change and approximately 2200 notices have been sent to each property owner and those people within a 3001 radius of the property affected. It was significant that at the Planning Commission hearing there were approximately 200 people in attendance tiho indreated-bothr-before and after the meeting that they were quite pleased with the attempt of staff and the .Planning Commission to tighten up requirements in the hope to salvage their property values when adjacent to these potential units. In.addition, because of the 2200 notices, a substantial number of inquiries were made by telephone and the activity was applauded by these citizens. I think it .is inte,testing to note that most of the new developments in the community have not been developed to maximum standards. Bren is approximately 20 dwellings per acre and has a 50/ land coverage as we calculate it. The.old zoning ordinance allowed up to 75/ of land coverage. The new zoning ordinance proposed has a maximum coverage of 55%. The Larwin Development that will take place on North Grand has 25 units to the acre and a 63% land coverage. So it is quite obvious to us after having some development experience over the last two years that our standards were not close to being practical. We are hoping to solve some of that. At this time there are approximately 56 acres in the City of West Covina zoned ,MF-25 which is not committed. We do not have an approved precise plan - the land is vacant. This means under the MF-25 zone there are approximately 1400 units that can be constructed on this acreage as opposed to the 20/ reduction which • would allow 1120 units, approximately a 280 unit reduction. The only precise plan on file as of this date which would not in fact cover any of the 56 acres is for a zone change on apiece of property. in the Redevelopment Project Area at California Avenue and the Walnut Creek Channel. This brings into focus a problem that is possible, and that is during the transition period (if adopted) and the time it becomes effective, which is approximately 60 days from this date, it is possible for staff to receive applications for the MF-25 or the MV-15 zone. Our normal procedure is one in which the precise plan would allow the Planning Commission to review all applications and would allow the Planning Commission to assume the new increased standards f6r,-9uch-applicatio nm Being that the precise plan section of the ordinance does allow that all zoning is minimum and the precise - 7 - CITY COUNCIL, 2/28/72 Page Eight HEARINGS: Amendment No. 115 plan can override it if it is deemed appropriate. An alternative to that, if there should be a problem, might be that through direction that anything that came to the Planning Commission or City Council prior to the effective date of the ordinance perhaps could be determined under the old ordinance, if deemed desirable. • However, staff would point out at this time that immediately following the Larwin Development and while the Mayer Development is still under construction, these two items were significantly major in the Planning Commissions determination and that the zoning ordinances had to be changed immediately. I might also add that there have been a number of other proposed multiple -family develop- ments that are in the talking stages and the Planning Commission felt it was important rather than declare a moratorium on all development until better standards could be developed, to protect the single family properties, that the staff should proceed as quickly as possible to bring this zone change request and the modification Amendment No. 115 to the City Council. I might also emphasize the MF-15 zone really has only one significant change that would affect the developer and that is the unit size has been made considerably larger than before. Land coverage, while significantly less than was originally allowed, as seen in the Bren Development that land coverage is only 50%, and obviously a MF-15 could acquire significantly greater savings in the terms of buildable area and the percentage of coverage should be no factor involved. The only major change in the MF-25 zone has been a reduction of 20% of the density units and the Planning Commission has put back into the ordinance an opportunity through two different alternatives: a density bonus provision which would allow the developer under appropriate circumstances under a formula to still achieve 25 dwellings per acre. So any property currently zoned MF-25 if developed with sufficient open space or sufficient size units may still achieve 25 dwellings per acre. The other major changes in the MF-25 have to do with the yard setbacks. (Explained yard setback standards. Also reviewed some of the highlights of the MF-115 zone and MF-20 zone changes as stated in Resolution No. 2372, pointing out the areas of change.) THIS IS THE TIME AND PLACE FOR THE PUBLIC HEARING ON AMENDMENT NO. 115, CITY INITIATED. Caroline Ingram I am the wife of Dale Ingram, who was P. 0. Box 229 unable to be here tonight. I am. El Monte representing the Mayer Construction Company of Downey. I have a prepared statement ® if you wish I will read it, or just submit it to you.- (Mayor Chappell asked that it be read.) I would like to speak,on both issues: 1. Changes in the MF-25 zone; 2. Roll -back of existing MFm25 zoned property to MF-20, including both developed and undeveloped properties. First, I would like to point out that the City has a new MF-25 Zoning Ordinance now, less than 3 years old, that is an . excellent one, workable, flexible, with a Precise Plan requirement for greater control, and that good quality apartment developments can be built under the present ordinance as is. The draft of the proposed ordinance contains many changes which we believe will make it unworkable, too rigid, economically unfeasible for properties in the high value, already established areas and will result in a halt of multiple development except for projects involving government subsidies or those out in the hills where land is lower priced. M:�!'-' CITY COUNCIL 2/28/72 HEARINGS: Amendment No. 115 Page Nine For purpose of identifying each section of the ordinance and our comments relative to that section, we will proceed through the draft and identify by page and section. Page one, Section C: We believe this section to be • ambiguous, vague and undeterminate as to the criteria, methods of determination, an invasion of the rights of private enterprise on the part of the City trying to control supply and demand of apart- ments. The developer and the lender traditionally are the ones to conduct economic studies and make the decision on feasibility. Page two, Section 9206.2: The Ordinance does not establish the type of study, the depth, who will perform the study, what statements or affidavits are necessary, what expert testimony is necessary, are petitions necessary? In short the Ordinance does not set forth any of the criteria for establishing the facts. Page three, last paragraph: It appears mandatory that both the Committee and Commission have to approve, with no provision for appeal. Page four, Section 4: We believe and recommend that the City should use a method now used by many cities for determining the required number of parking spaces, which is to establish a sliding scale depending on number of bedrooms and a further sliding scale involving size of the development. We suggest that requiring 2 spaces per unit across the board, regardless of bedrooms or number of units will result in an oversupply of spaces serving no one, creating an asphalt jungle serving no purpose, rather than using some of the parking area for landscaping or additional recreation area. Page five, Section 2: We believe the 10 foot width is excessive and further question whether it means 10 foot clear, or including the posts? Page five, Section 4: We believe 11 feet is wide, especially when Section K-3, Page 13 requires a 3 foot planter along the wall. Why the need for 11 foot spaces? No consideration is being given to straight -in end spaces. Page 7, Section'(3) 1: This represents a 33 1/3% increase in front setback which is extreme and takes away useable recreation open space from the apartment dwellers. Section 2 doubles the required side yard setback, again taking away useable open space from the development. Page 8, Section 4(A): We recommend that balconies be permitted to project into side yards to some degree to architecturally break up straight flat surfaces of walls. Page 8, Section (B): We suggest this requirement will violate the Uniform Building Code in the case of Bedrooms requiring 241°x2411 clear window. Page 10, Section 3: Does this also apply to parking IN the first floor? Page 10 A, Section (g). We believe this requirement will work a great hardship on owners and developers of higher value multiple property in the built up areas by reducing the permitted coverage by 21% while requiring 2 parking spaces per unit for MF-20. In order to build to the 25 unit density permitted today we have to reduce coverage to a maximum of 45% from 70% or 35.7%. Page 11, Section (i): We believe the increases in minimum sizes of units are excessive in that they represent a 20% increase for singles, 11% for 1 bedroom 12 1/2% for 2 bedroom, and - 9 - CITY COUNCIL 2/28/72 Page Ten HEARINGS: Amendment No. 115 10/ for 3 bedroom units for 20 units per acre and to build to the present 25 unit density we have to increase sizes of units as much as 30 / . Page 12, Section (j): What will ha�pen to the owner of the narrow lot? It seems this section makes the ordinance too rigid, not enough flexibility of design. Also apparently excludes private patios and balconies. Page 13, Section 3: Will this section permit us to use a 3 foot planter area in the first 3 feet of a parking space? Page 16, Section 2: Line one says "solid concrete" and we want to know if this will permit cement block walls, and if so, do all cells have to be filled with concrete? Page 18, Section (q): We want to know why they must be screened on interior courtyard walls when they are not visible from the street. Air conditioners need a free flow of air to operate. I would next like to address myself to the proposal to roll back the zoning on all presently MF 25 zoned land to MF 20. One of our biggest concerns with this is the fact that the staff stated this applied on existing developments with the effect that they become legal nonconforming uses, subject to further requirements for variances, etc., to rebuild after damage, or to remodel. Making them nonconforming will affect their ability to be sold or financed. Another point I would like to bring out is one of actual financial damage suffered by owners of undeveloped MF-25 zoned land. If you roll back the zoning to MF-20 you are reducing the value of the land by 20/ at least. The zoning of land is directly related to value as the staff or Assessor will tell you. A person pays more for land zoned MF than for R-1 land. More'for MF-25 than for MF-20; to roll back their zoning is to cause the owners of undeveloped pro- perties to suffer a financial loss and perhaps reduce the yield in units to the point where development of the land is not economically feasible. I would like to speak now directly to the point of the overall effect of this proposed ordinance on future development of multiple family property in the City. We can understand the City°s desire for better ecology, high quality development and perhaps even less apartments. We believe that the City wants to keep attracting - good developers and development of all kinds. To do,so a City must be realistic in demands and requirements if it wants developers and investors to make major investments of capital in the city. Apartments are big business as much as is a retail store or a factory, profit oriented and there must be a profit for them to exist. In analyzing a potential development you must balance the ledger as follows: A. Land Cost, Money Cost, Building Cost, Operation and Maintenance Cost, Taxes, Contingency and Profit. On the other side of the ledger: Yield of Rental Income over life expectancy of development. B. Income is governed by: Availability, Competition, Ability to Pay, Environment, Economic Conditions, Transportation, Job Availability, and Convenience of Commercial. If the developer and financier cannot be reasonably assured of a profit for 20 to 30 years in the future there can be NO DEVELOPMENT. Apartments are an important part of a city! There is a growing trend of the young marrieds and middle-aged to move into apartments. These groups do not create a burden on schools, city parks or recreation facilities. More people than ever are 2-home families with an apartment in the City and a home in the mountains, desert or at the beach. The high cost development - 10 - CITY COUNCIL 2/28/72 HEARINGS: Amendment No. 115 Page Eleven provides needed tax yield to city, county and schools. Even more important is that the residents of apartments provide financial support for the city°s stores, service businesses, professional services and entertainment. We are saying that we believe that the proposed ordinance will endanger the afderly future development of apart- ments in West Covina and that we believe this should not be done. If your city effectively shuts off new apartment development by creating laws to do so literally or by making them economically infeasible or marginal on yield then the city will suffer. You will not stop the trend of moving into apartments! The apartments will be built in another city with results as follows: Loss of housing affecting revenues previously stated; loss of housing affecting labor supply; no demand or productive use of existing vacant MF land, ever-increasing tax load on homeowners as demand for and cost of services increases. In conclusion I would say that - 1. We believe the present ordinance is effective and deserves a longer trial period. 2. The City has an excellent staff, Planning Commission and Council capable of using good judgment in dealing with flexibility in design and regulating this part of the city°s development in the past and future. More time is needed for everyone to study the proposed changes and their effect. There should not be a roll -back of zoning because of loss of value to the owner. M If existing MF-25 remains, and only new applications would be changed to MF-20 it may encourage use of presently zoned property which may not be presently considered by developers to be feasible because of location, size, yield, etc. Thank you for listening to me, Louis Brutocao I intended only to speak to you on one 1060 W. San Bernardino Rd. item which affected my property directly Covina but as I got into it I realized what is now being proposed here instead of doing the job it is intended to do the exact reverse is going to happen. So I requested the participation here this evening of a planner that I am sure will give you a lot of insight from the other side of it. As far as our property is concerned there are only 56 acres under question here it is not an awful lot of land to write a new ordinance for. We have been delayed as Council is well aware, because of the storm drain problem of the property owner to the west of us. That caused a delay to us for at least 7 months. In fact I noticed on your agenda tonight that the attorney on their side of it again is causing us a delay. I had expected this week to get our storm drain approved by the County - the City the County have been very cooperative - but it still takes time. Our engineer, Ted Walsh, has had to make numerous trips to resolve these matters. And my request to Council is because of these unfortunate delays that we be execused of this new zoning on the MF-25 specifically. I think the MF-15 there have been enougk.plans with the Planning Staff to assure its development. On the MF-25 we are just now getting into the developing of the property and the effect that is happening is the good planning that has been going into it on Lot 7 which is 6.7 acres and now on lot 6 which is 10.,6 acres - Mr. Davies has done some studies on'this and it will not only cause an undue hardship for ourselves but basically it is going to deny a good development to the City in a fine area. Now to speak to the other point, I specifically request that the City Attorney, staff and City Council look into the matter of a long enough moratorium to develop our plans and'that this property be excluded. Basically most of the multiple zoning MOM CITY COUNCIL 2/28/72 HEARINGS: Amendment No. 115 Page Twelve in the City is in the Woodside development which is not covered by this new ordinance, which is fine. It is.,a Planned Unit Development but at the same time any additional land is under the same stiff requirements which is a PCD basically and for the difference of the amount of zoned'.land left, which is 56 acres and I think 23 are . affected by ourselves which leaves such a little amount which is almost all freeway located property, that I think the MF-25 to MF-20 is unnecessary at this time. I would like to speak to the second thing. I brought this to the staffs attention and in our anxiety to find good developers to build I ran into this several months ago. It was under construction at the time and it really impressed me. I wanted to bring it to the attention of staff so they could present this information to the Council and Planning Commission. If Council will listen to him, I have asked Bob Davies, a Vice -President of J. B. Davies, Inc., currently he is completing his Doctorate in urban land developments and is certainly well qualified to s`,peak on this subject. He is an upstanding young man and has impressed a lot of people. The Irvine Company has retained this young man as their real estate counsel on their prime residential properties, specifically multiple family. So you can see his qualifications are good. If you have the time to listen to him I feel it would be of some value to you. I realize the Council has a large agenda but he will be brief. (Mayor Chappell asked Mr. Davies the length of time needed. He said he would like at least 10 to 15 minutes. Council was asked if they had any objections....) Councilman Nichols: Yes, Mr. Mayor, I object to it. We wouldn't allow a typical citizen to come in on ,,a hearing of this type ._.and __ make a 15 minute generalized presentation on the art of zoning. We allow 3 minutes,with some exceptional brilliance we extend to 5 or 7 minutes. If we are prepared to go into a study session in terms of zoning then we should set up a meeting for that purpose and educate ourselves in terms of zoning. I.don°t think we are here to be educated, with all deference to those in the field.. We are here to hear evidence on this particular matter. We have a long standing policy of three minutes and we do extend it when necessary but not to fifteen minutes. Mayor Chappell: Mr. Davies, will you please make your presentation as brief as possible. Bob Davies To be as brief as possible, a project 1806 Feather Ave., has been referred to here a number of Placentia times as being the norm for development (Sworn in) and that is the Bren project. Certainly when considering matters like this it is good to go to the real world and see what has been actually done under a particular set of standards. I not only stand before you as someone that has made a considerable study academically of urban land economics and land use patterns, but as a developer of real estate. We just recently completed a 124 unit development in the City of Fullerton and we are now building a 136 unit development in the same city. (Presented a site plan of the project currently being developed in the City of Fullerton. Explained.) This particular project with the vast open spaces is of two story construction, 27 units to the acre. The way this density was achieved was through some unique planning methods of creating and intensifying development of the exterior of the project, leaving the interior for lakes and landscaping. The landscaping budget in the two projects that we developed have been - 12 - CITY COUNCIL 2/28/72 HEARINGS: Amendment No. 115 Page Thirteen approximately three to four times the normal expenditure of other developers. The project that we have completed, The Arbor, was at a density of 24.5 units to the acre. That project achieved rents of 30/ above the average rentals in the area and we have been open approximately 3 months and the project is filled. So there are . cases from the real world where -projects of higher density then those recommended by this ordinance have been developed and that the marketplace - and the City of Fullerton, the planning staff, City Council, Planning Commission - have all been 'extremely enthusiastic about these projects. I sympathize with the problem that we want better real estate developments, there is no question about that, but I question that reducing density is the sole solution to the problem. I don't believe it is. (Distributed brochures to the City Council. Also displayed a rendering of the Lake Project.) In the case of the Arbor, this project was with a density of 24.5 units per acre and the coverage was 65/. The,.theory being with that project was that there is a premium on one story living. People respond, people like one story, all on one level dwelling units, particularly the older segment of the market, the more stable part of the market. We provided the one Plan Z,',a one story apartment unit that would be impossible to build under the ordinance provided by you, because it is extremely consumptive of land. It was our theory and borne out by the marketplace, -,that oftentimes a better result is yielded if you -have less open space and intensively landscape that space. Really it is not open space in of itself, it is how the aesthetic placement is made on that space. Just to say we are going to have 50/ open space, or 60/ open space, or 45/, doesn't really solve the problem. The background of the Lake project - we have 60/ land coverage, which again would not conform to your ordinance. The point being that in this day of rising building costs, and they are rising, we have experienced increased framing costs of 20/ in one year alone - so this means the only way we can hope to provide housing at a market price is to put on our thinking caps and become a little ingenuous and come up with some unit plans which may be small in total square footage because they are extremely efficient yet cut out some of the wasted space such as long hallways, etc., and reduce the unit size and to spend that money instead of on sticks and stones, that can be spent on planting materials, fountains, streams and lakes. The marketplace is only capable of so much money for a project, It is our decision as entrepreneurs to try and determine the wants of the marketplace and allocate those funds. What I really believe, and I believe this sincerely, and I don't have a direct stake in this issue at this point, is that this ordinance will encourage three story buildings because of the fact you are reducing the ground coverage to such an extent that a developer will be forced to three story buildings, which means central halls which is not a desirable way to live as opposed to garden apartments with ground floor entries, you are going to force with three story buildings - elevators, you are going to force one hour construction throughout. It is going to increase the overall building cost of that unit and in increasing the building costs it is actually going to reduce the amount of money the developer has to spend on the environmental amenities and .I agree we want them. The reason I want.them is very frankly because we have proven in building these last two projects that a good project pays. We are making good money building good projects and I think more and more developers are coming to this realization but I stand here and say unequivocably that we would not be able to operate in the City of West Covina under the framework of this ordinance. - 13 CITY COUNCIL 2/28/72 Page .Fourteen HEARINGS: Amendment No. 115 I would very much like the opportunity to prepare a presentation in detail and illustrate it with slides and to demonstrate that this is not the solution. I just don't believe we can come up with complicated formulas that are going to guide people into making aesthetically desirable decisions. Funddmentally the impetus must come from the marketplace and we as entrepreneurs need to have the ability to interpret the marketplace. That is why we have private enterprise economy because we feel the marketplace is the place where decisions should be made. It doesn't always make the right decisions but we feel it makes the right ones more times than it doesn't and that is why we have a prilvate enterprise economy as opposed to a central planned economy. So I would just urge you, if possible, to continue this matter and give it further study. I feel very strongly that the result of this ordinance is not going to be the result that is in the minds of the planners and the minds of the Council, it will result-in'really hamstringing the creative entrepreneur from bringing better housing, better family housing, to the City of West Covina. Thank you - very much. THERE BEING NO FURTHER PUBLIC TESTIMONY, PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED. THE:.CHAIR..CALLED A RECESS AT 9 P.M� COUNCIL RECONVENED AT 9:15 P.M. COUNCIL DISCUSSION ON AMENDMENT NO. 115. Councilman Shearer: I have several questions on the ordinance. .--MF=20., --S.ect On. 920.E d-5 ( c ) referring to lot size. I believe this was referred to as a "grandfather clause." (Read section.) If I am not mistaken that should be MF-25 because we do not have a MF-20 as of this time. Is that the intent, those that are presently MF-25 would be grandfathered in as far as substandard size? Mr. Munsell: I think that is the intent, Mr. Shearer. Councilman Lloyd: Are you saying this stuff is°"grandfathered in""? Mr. Munsell: Yes, only for site size. Councilman Shearer: The wording should be "MF-25" instead of "MF-20. " The next question. I am sure the intent was different as explained tonight, but I question whether or not the wording as such is adequate, having to do with the minimum floor area, both in MF-15 and MF-20 proposals, in giving the square foot :sizes on 4 or more bedrooms it states 11150 square feet per bedroom." I realize that is intended to mean 150 square feet additional to the 1,100 but if I wanted to be a real technical letter of the law type person, the bedroom could be 600 square feet, and I think that was not the intent. I would .suggest that be clarified to avoid confusion. The last question has to do again with a change in wording on landscaping, Section (k) 6. As written it. says "no planting area shall be less than 241 or less than 31 in width." I believe the intent again was'B"not less than 24 square feet." Mr. Munsell: That is correct. Councilman Shearer: That should also be changed and with those three changes I would pass on my questions and go on with my comments, I think that the intent of the two ordinances is fine. I think the people of West Covina and the citizens through various acti-ans in the past have demonstrated their concern for multiple - family development in the City, even to the point in the last few meetings of a very vigorous campaign to down zone a very large portion of the land in the community. I think the statement CITY COUNCIL 2/28/72 HEARINGS: Amendment No. 115 Page Fifteen that this ordinance may well mean the end of apartment development in West Covina, well I don't agree with it. I think if we put it to a vote of the citizens they would say "great". So I don't think we should hang our hat on anyone in opposition or on the fact that this ordinance would mean the end of apartment develop- ment. If that were the case I think we would get a very over- whelming vote from the citizens. I don't think it will be the end of apartment development, or that delaying and waiting for something to happen in the future, giving more time to study, will prove to be of much value other than, to allow submittal of precise plans under the present ordinance so they wouldn't be required to develop under the more restrictive ordinances. The request to exempt a particular piece of property, while I can understand the desire of the applicant I don't feel we would be in a position to enact the ordinance and then single out a particular piece of property and say this one is exempted. With regard to the presentation of Mr. Davies, and I am sure he is in his field very talented, but we have seen pretty pictures before and I am sure my fellow councilmen who have been here longer than I have, have experienced some disappointment between what was brought in an illustrated rendering and what was constructed in concrete, timber and stucco. The picture shown of the "Lake" appeared to be very beautiful and very wellmight be when constructed; however, the impression I got when looking at it was that the only people that would enjoy the beauty would be the tenants. I think one of the purposes of the proposed ordinance is to allow those of us who are not tenants to also enjoy the "beauty" of the apartment development. I think the ordinance allows for exemptions and waivers. If someone can come in with a beautiful development such as the case with the Lake and you show that by waiving certain requirements that this can be developed within the City, I am sure they will at least listen to .it. The statement was made "examples from the real world." We can show good and bad examples in both directions. As shown to us by the presentation of staff, I think that the present ordinance did allow some rather bad examples again from the "real world." The statement was made by reducing density is not the sole solution and I agree with that. The proposed ordinance allows for increased density over and above MF-20 based on certain factors. I am prepared to vote positively on the two zone changes with the understanding that as in all cases the flexibility is here and if a good case can be given for something other than what is in the ordinance then let the case be made. But let's don't make the exception the other way. We are looking for a guaranteed good development and we will consider the exceptions as far as I am concerned, when someone is ready to come in with the exception. So I am ready to vote positively on both the MF-15 and M.F-20. Councilman Young: I am troubled by the action we are asked to take here this evening. I . think perhaps the main .reason I am troubled is that I don't personally know enough about it to cast a truly intelligent -vote one way or the other, We are dealing in a couple of ordinances here that certainly have been worked out by experts and we are'laym(�rl'.in the field. I agree to a considerable extent to what Councilman Shearer has said but I don't know, maybe it does, but I don't know if the proposed ordinances are an effective compromise of the competing interests involved; namely, the public, the developer, the land owner and the person that will ultimately occup-y,.,the apartment and pay the rent. They all have interests and these .interests are not all coordinate or parallel interests and bringing them in as close accord as - 15 - CITY COUNCIL 2/28/72 Page Sixteen HEARINGS: Amendment No. 115 possible is what we desire. On one hand we do not want to encourage further development of the long straight buildings and the solid blocks of concrete, the asphalt jungle type thing. On the other hand I don't think we want to price,through our zoning requirements, the public out of a decent place to live, a • place they find suitable to their taste and which is a nice place to live. Mrs. Ingram,(and I see Dale is here now) apparently Dale has made a tremendous study on this thing and he points out numerous questions. Mr. Davies has added further thoughts to it. I don't know if our Planning Commission or Staff has had the benefit of any of this particular input, and we are further beset by two requests on the agenda, one from Mr. Brutocaoas interests and another from James A. Hintz, each of whom request exemptions. I don't know what the legality would be of granting an exemption on one hand and not on the other. It could be that everyone has to be exempted if you exempt any. And on the other hand we may well be walking into something that if we don't pass exemptions or pass these ordinances without exemptions that we do create enormous hardships for people that are operating .in good faith in the City. For these reasons I am going to continue listening... As of the moment I think I would be compelled not to cast a negative,uote but to perhaps table the matter or send it back to the Planning Commission for further consideration in light of the input that we have had here this evening and we may have more of it. Councilman Lloyd: I concur with Councilman Young, I don't really know enough about this. How long did our last ordinance last? Mr. Munsell: About two and a half years. Councilman Lloyd: I remember when we passed that ordinance and I kind of thought it was a pretty good ordinance and now I am told it is not very satisfactory. Yet I was under the impression, maybe erroneously so m Mr. Aiassa, am I correct don't we still require a precise plan? Mr. Aiassa: Yes. Councilman Lloyd: Well I thought that was one of the protective devices we came up with and I was very pleased with that instrument of protection, that no matter what was broughtbefore this Council or the Planning Commission that we always had the protective device of the precise plan, and now I am told that we have buildings recently,,constructed which have major deficiencies in the areas of development and I would concur. And I am going to be a little bit hard to get along with - I am going to mention what Councilman Shearer would not, but I am not happy with the Bren Development and I voted for it. I think I made a mistake and I don't want to make a mistake again on these types of things. I would like to have more time on this. I think the ordinance .in its thrust has a good point, that what we are trying to say is that . we want to back the City of West Covina against developments which in the light of history will not fare well as some of the developments we have had in the City prove. I think it is becoming more.evident that we have an obligation to review these things very, very carefully. I think the Ordinance we have now is still sufficient protection and while I am not going to stand here `end say we shouldn't listen to one side or the other, I don't feel compelled to make -the decision this evening . And just in the areas of equity I would have to say I really don't understand why it is applicable to those people who have already had their .land 16 CITY COUNCIL 2/28/72 Page Seventeen HEARINGS: Amendment No. 115 Ahd indicated they wanted to develop in this specific area of multiple dwellings. I really think it is a hardship. I think people who come in and say I am going to buy that piece of property and it is my stated intention to develop that piece of property in a specific area for multiple housing and that because of lack of funds, or the inclination at that point, or lack the opportunity for any valid reason., I think that intention is an honorable one and it has to be considered and I think what we are doing at the present moment in our attempt to solve all the problems - and I don't like cliches particularly but I will use one - we are kind of "throwing the baby out with the bath water." I think we are discouraging through protective devices good solid developers who will bring money into the City of West Covina to develop good projects, and if we continue in this vien of what I consider harshness, that we will discourage these people. I also recognize that there is no law, at least that I know of, that says we must develop every available piece of land - instantaneously - or that we as a Council or City owe any person who has purchased a piece of property with the idea that he is going to develop that property that we owe him anything more than the opportunity. We owe the people in the areas of aesthetics good sound reasoning and judgment. That is really what I feel I am getting into here, that I am being rushed into a situation that I really don't want to rush into. I don't .want to make that decision this evening. I concur with Councilman Young. - I think I am inclined to return this to the Planning Commission saying "have you reviewed all of these facts" and my inclination goes further which says to people that have already indicated in good faith they were going to develop that land that they be allowed to develop under the ordinance as it was. It was not that old, it isn't that archaic and it is not that non -protective. I think we work a hardship on these people. If we say we want a cut off point starting in 90 days or even if you want to start it tonight, but those people that have purchased land in good faith and participated actively in its development with the administrative departments of this City for its development, I think we have an obligation to those people to go forward with their land. I know if I had laid my money on the line, bought a piece of property with the idea I was going to develop, had gone to the agency and in good faith sta-ttdd negotiations and in mid -stream had them say - wait a minute we are going to change the ground rules for you, not f6r us. I don't think there would be very many people in here that wouldn't be a bit incensed, and I don't think the things we have done already are really that bad. I am prepared to accept this thing for the future but I really think those that have indicated their desire .for development have some obligation on the part of us as the legislative body to review their request in a special setting aside. I may be all wrong, Mr. City Attorney, what about that? Can we draw a line on that and say okay everybody from here on out? I think the plan presented by the Planning Department is an excellent one but I think the people being affected may be affected adversely - what about that? Can we help them out and kind of accomplish this both ways? Mr. Wakefield: Mr. C and Mayor y a sty Council - I. think it is obvious that the Council does have the authority to establish the framework of a new zone or the City°s ordinances without actually putting any property into that zone and thereafter zoning property on an individual basis into the zone or changing it. This parti- cizli comes to you with a recommendation that those properties presently zoned MF-25 be changed to MFm20. In other words zones presently existing be changed and the properties be rezoned.to MF-20 which is consistent with the new proposal. 17 CITY COUNCIL 2/28/72 HEARINGS: Amendment No. 115 Page Eighteen To answer your question specifically, yes you may leave the existing properties in the MF-25 zone. You may establish the MF-.20 zone and in the future as the occasion arises zone property or change the zone on property into the MF-20 zone. SCouncilman Lloyd: Councilman Nichols: this proposal exclusive of roughly how many different in this 56 acres? Mr. Munsell: Councilman Nichols: Mr. Munsell: plan which would have to be Councilman Nichols: Mr. Munsell: I would like to hear from the rest of my fellow Councilmen, A question of staff. It has been mentioned that some 56 acres of un- developed land would be .involved .in area of Planned Community Developments parcels in the city limits are represented 13 parcels. Of those 13 parcels how many, if any, have on file at the present time a precise plan? None of those do, but there are three others that have a precise plan on file. 16 vacant and 3 that have a precise honored until -the precise plan ran out. What total .is that in acreage that have precise plans? Roughly about 17.4. acres. Councilman Nichols: About 49 acres are involved with a aggregate of about 200 units if restricted to the MF-20. From where came the recommendation .for this zone change? Did this come spontaneously or was the initial impetus from staff to the Planning Commission? Mr. Munsell: It was a request of the Planning Commission that went to staff and back to the Planning Commission. Councilman Nichols: I have always operated to the extent that I have been able to do so on the thesis that the citizen who invests in property in West Covina is entitled to sort of a first comer right in terms of his property. Generally that philosophy has come to the fore when I have soiznd°ed off long and hard on the single family resident with a multiple landowner who wishes to develop and build a land -use pattern in an area, but if I am to be consistent in this philosophy that says the person who buys first with a certain understanding is entitled to a degree of protection, If I am to be consistent to that I would have to apply it also to the person who buys multiple zoned land as well. Also I share with some of my fellow councilmen the trepidation that attaches to excessive changing of zoning in a city in very concentrated periods of time. Two anda half years ago we completed a very detailed and indepth study of all of our zones and we had comprehensive hearings with the best brains of our city staff - Planning Department, Planning Commission - recommending to the Council that we adopt certain densities and zone requirements and precise plan .requirements, which we did, and in the intervening time a number of developers have responded by beginning to hire architects to plan their projects within that frame of reference and ind4ed in other cases, individuals have 18 CITY COUNCIL 2/28/72 Page Nineteen HEARINGS: Amendment No. 115 purchased land in the City based upon those standards adopted supposedly in .great wisdom and now two and a half years later we are being faced with recommendations that would say to change the ballgame. If any Councilman has an anti -apartment history I suppose I would lay claim to that in our community and I would be much in favor of applying these recommendations to any new applications or subsequent applications for a change of zone in our City, but where we have literally hundreds and hundreds of apartments now being built by major speculators, or developers, or investors, or however you want to apply the term, under the MF-25 ordinance it does seem to me somewhat discriminatory to come in almost at the tail end of this thing and say now you last fellows with your 50 some acres we are really going to stick you, we are going to let Bren Company build by their PCD plan but we are going to catch you under something else and you fellows at the very end we are going to make it more restrictive for you than anybody else. Which does seem to me there is an element of inequity here. I can't help but feel this. If we didn't change anything by our own staff reckoning and we are talking about 200 apartment units throughout the city when we have say over four or five thousand units now. So not to belabor the point further I first would join with the sentiment that says - I would like to hear from from our Planning Commission in reference to the points raised here tonight and I would like further to express my sentiment as of now and I would like the record to reflect it - I lean towards concurring in the recommendations for future zoning practices making them more restrictive. Maybe that will turn such future developments away from the City and I don't feel badly about that, if a major developer doesn't want to come in and buy acreage for major developments in our community. But I don't think unless I am given a very convincing argument to the contrary that I would be willing or prepared to apply these standards almost retroactively in the sense that they would be applied to people that have held their land and made their adjust- ment to zoning practices. and regulations that this very body adopted two and a half years ago. I don't want to be so hurried in my approach that I would blanket those last 50 or 60 acres into still another change two and a half years later. So what I have said I think is that I am for sending it back to the Planning Commission to get some more feedback with regard to the points raised here, and letting my own sentiments rest that I tend to feel that these tightening up operations should not apply retroactively but should apply from a given time to new zoning operations. I believe that I. could act on that basis and feel that I was treating all parties equitably and in the long term servicing the better interests of the community. Mayor Chappell: Mr. Munsell, since our updating two and a half years ago, how many developers have actually come in and complied with all the requirements of that particular Ordinance and built? I know some came in before and built which didn't actually comply but the buildings 'were built after we enacted the M.F-25 restrictions. How many have actually built according to our MF-25 regulations? I can't think of any but I am sure we must have had at .least one. Councilman Nichols: You mean under the MF-25? Mayor Chappell: Yes. Councilman Nichols: We have had a large number of develop- ments that have come in under that ordinance in the last two years. Mayor Chappell: I am thinking they were actually on the plans submitted before we enacted that Ordinance and didn't actually comply with - 19 - 0 CITY COUNCIL 2/28/72 HEARINGS: Amendment No. 115 the MF-25 regulations. Page Twenty Mr. Munsell: That is correct. I believe as I reviewed it the only plan that was developed under the M.F-25 zone is the apartments in the Bren Development. The rest that were approved are starting under construction now or have lain still. Councilman Nichols: How about the large complex at Barranca? Mr. Munsell: No, that came in under the M.F-25 zone. It was one of the first ones and has a major deviation because of the parkway and that was developed at 30 units per acre. Councilman Lloyd: They dedicated the land for street right of way - is that correct? (Answer: Yes.) Mayor Chappell: What I am trying to say is we really haven't had any plan to really look at with all the MF-25 standards as we wrote the ordinance two and a half years ago and that is what con- cerns me. I like a lot of things in this one, I like the condition of not having the bare type construction, the additional landscaping, and I -find no quarrel with two cars per carport because I insure many young married families - husband and wife both have cars with a one bedroom apartment. So there is a lot of this that is real good. Perhaps we'want a good study session with the Planning Commission and go over this piece by piece and compare with our old plan? Just sending it back to the Planning Commission doesn't show me anything. They have done their work and they have given it to us as they look at it and feel is right, and if we don't agree with it and have some questions then I think we should all sit down and study it in a joint meeting. Councilman Nichols: I think that is a better answer than sending it back, which is a rather abrupt response. I think holding it over and seeking a joint study session with the Commission is better, where we can really get their thinking on the thing. Councilman Lloyd: I will support that. Motion by Councilman Nichols that this matter be held over until the second regular meeting in March with the hearing closed and that in the interim staff be directed to attempt to arrange a joint study session between the City Council and the Planning Commission in order that Council can further hear the benefit of the thinking of the Planning Commission. Seconded by Councilman Lloyd, Councilman Young: Mr. Mayor, one point. I would trust that Mr. Ingram would make his statement available - that was read here this evening. Mayor Chappell: It will appear in the minutes. Councilman Young: I would also like to se_e further input from Mr. Davies m if at all possible. And that is not a part of the motion, but just my feelings. Councilman Shearer: I seem to be the only one ready to 20 CITY COUNCIL, 2/28/72 HEARINGS: Amendment No. 115 Page Twenty-one proceed this evening. Perhaps that is due in part to -the fact that I did attend the Planning Commission's meetings and had the benefit of their thinking. I will go along with this, however, I would like to point out this concept of additional requirements and restrictions that are placed and just through the fall of the cards - .if you will - the last man in line is the one who gets stuck with them, or in my opinion gets the advantage. Because I think this ordinance will be an advantage to the developer. I just made a list here of things and at one time developers in this City were -,-only required to dedicate street right of way width for a 401 street and today, because of a change in the Master Plan, they might have to dedicate and develop a 1001 street. This does not mean we go back and make the previous man also dedicate. We now require street lights which a number ®f years ago were not required and we now require them underground. Within the last two years we enacted an ordinance which required the subdividers to dedicate either land or money, based on the number of units, which was not required a few years ago, for park purposes. And off street parking is increased. So this concept is not new. The longer a person waits to do anything the more restrictions that may be placed because of what might be called "progress So I would just urge my fellow Councilmen to consider this in their arbitration. This isn't a new thing. We have been faced with it in the past and will continue to be faced with it in the future. Councilman Nichols: I think Councilman Shearer makes a valid point. The only comment I would leave with my fellow Councilmen is that in terms of community development, let alone subdivision development and tract development, the fact that two and a half years is a very short period and in fact many projects of an involved nature if initiated immediately upon granting a particular land use will take two to three years to come to full fruition. I think the time element does have some bearing in these matters of consideration. And I think the municipality that gains the reputation for excessively rapid reversals in terms of basic land use is a community that is not serving its own best interests in terms of stability of development in the community, So the only question I raised, in fact the fundamental question I raised, is because of the rapidity of the shift in position relative to the zone values that we discussed here this evening. Obviously over the years these things do change and I have been a party to the application of more stringent requirements that would evolve upon people who owned property in that time in the City and that can't always come in and say - well .include me out because I already bought my land and made my commitment - and so it is not a matter of absolutes but a matter of degree and my concern is that we went through a very major and thorough review of.cur zoning ordinances and had a great deal of input and many segments of our community participated and we adopted it and it now seems historically that we are in rather a :sudden -change. in that -area and because of that I' -think we have a responsibility to be as deliberative as possible in implementing that. Motion carried. EXTENSION OF TIME TO Mr. Wakefield: Mr. Mayor and members URGENCY ORDINANCE ##1178 of the City Council, you will recall that in November of 1971 the City Council adopted an Urgency Ordinance which prohibited further single family residential uses along the San Bernardino Freeway and its frontage roads pending a study of the effects of the widening of the freeway upon thoseproperties and contiguous properties. During the three months in which that urgency ordinance has been effective there has not been adequate - 21 - CITY COUNCIL 2/28/72 Page Twenty-two HEARINGS: Urgency Ordinance No, 1178 opportunity to complete the study. The Planning and Zoning laws provide an urgency ordinance may be adopted for a period of one year if there is a public notice and an opportunity afforded to those interested to appear and be heard with reference to it. The notice required by the statute has been given and if there is no one present to speak either in favor or opposition to the urgency ordinance the City Council is free to consider it upon its merit and either adopt the extension of the urgency ordinance or reject it,as it deems appropriate. The ordinance is .identical with the previous ordinance adopted with the exception that there is some clarification to make sure the ordinance is perspective in its operation and does not affect single family uses which already exist. The Ordinance is titled: ORDINANCE 91AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF WEST COVINA PROHIBITING THE SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL USE OF PARCELS OF LAND WHICH ARE CONTIGUOUS TO THE SAN BERNARDINO FREEWAY OR ITS SERVICE ROADS WITHIN THE CITY OF WEST COVINA PENDING THE COMPLETION OF A ZONING STUDY OF THE AREA AND DECLARING THE URGENCY THEREOF TO TAKE EFFECT IMMEDIATELY." THIS IS THE TIME AND PLACE FOR THE PUBLIC HEARING ON THE EXTENSION OF URGENCY ORDINANCE NO. 1178. THERE BEING NO PUBLIC TESTIMONY FOR OR AGAINST, PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED. Mayor Chappell: Madam City Clerk do you have any written objections? City Clerk: No I do not. Motion by Councilman Lloyd, seconded by Councilman Young and carried, to waive full reading of the body of said urgency ordinance. Motion by Councilman Lloyd, seconded by Councilman Young and carried to introduce said urgency ordinance. Motion by Councilman Lloyd, seconded by Councilman Young, to adopt said Urgency Ordinance. Motion carried on roll call vote as follows: AYES: Councilmen: Shearer, Nichols, Young, Lloyd, Chappell NOES: None ABSENT: None ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Roy D. Witt Mr. Mayor, I had the pleasure of talking to you on the telephone and thank you for listening to me. I moved to West Covina November 15 and lived at 3712 East Holt and at that time I had 9 horses and 1 goat. The Special Services Officer - Mr. Stanford, came out to my place and told me I had too many animals. In turn I asked for a copy of the ordinance so I could read it. He didn't have one and said he would be back the next morning. The next morning .Fie didn't show up but he came back a week later with another gentleman and he told me I was living on an acre and a quarter and I had 10 days to get rid of my animals that I was allowed 4 animals on that property. In turn I got an Order of Compliance stating within ten days I had to get rid of the animals. I took 2 horses .to auction and lost quite a bit of money and 3 I boarded directly across the street at 336-0 East Holt. The people there had signs up which .were put up in Dc�aber-1971 saying "Horses Boarded." I board- ed these 3 horses there for $30.00 per month each horse. The goat I took to L.A. and boarded there for $20. per month. The District Attorney°s Office on January 12 sent me a notice saying that I did not comply with the ordinance and also the Special Services Officer told me. In turn I called the Building and Safety Department and talked to Mr. Bonaparte, and in turn he said that his 22 CITY COUNCIL 2/28/72 Page Twenty-three ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - Cont'd. boss and Mr. Stanford's boss was Mr. Fowler who wasn't available at the time. I then called the City Manager and he was away from his desk at the time. I was kind of pushing the panic button at this time and I probably shouldn't have called you because you are the highest up but I did call you and you listened to me and I did • exactly what you said. I called the City Manager and he was busy with the Merced situation at the time and he told his secretary to tell me he would call back. That was in December and I haven't got that call yet, so in the meantime I moved across the street where I had my horses boarded. The people living there moved out and I moved in and I made arrangements to keep my horses there and live there. In today's mail I got a letter stating I was displaying a sign for Boarding .Horses and to remove the sign and quit boarding horses. I got in my car and went into the City Clerk's office, they sent me to Planning and I talked to a* gentleman in there and Planning looked the chart up and said I had approximately 2.3 and that I could keep 6.9ths of a horse, which amounted to 7 horses. And they sent me back up to the City Clerk to see if I needed any kind of a license and Mrs. Pkeston said that she didn't know of any ordinance requiring it. She is going to do some research on it and I said I would call her back. Then a Mrs. Webb. from the..Ci..ty. Manager's office came over and said Mr. Andrus would like to talk to me. I went over to the City Manager's office and talked with Mr. Andrus and I told him what had happened and he said he would check into it. I went back home and then I got a call from Mrs. Whelan of Planning and she told me the reason I received this letter today was because Mr. Stanford was sent out to check on my goat being too close to the adjoining property line and there is nothing in the letter saying that. I do have room and intend to put a training arena on the back of my property for I am also a capable roper and I want to put in lights, but first I was going around to my neighbors and ask them what they thought about it and find out if they thought the lights would bother them, etc., and then come down to City Hall and see what I had to do to get permission to put this up. Mrs. Whelan said she checked this and I have to fill out an application and -Planfi n�"'_w111- look it- over and see if _ I have enough parking area, which I do have. Of course I told her they are welcome to come out anytime and look. The State Highway Department is putting in a freeway and changing Garvey around and taking out a part of Monte Verda and it is going to be a hassle. The other day I was shaving and a gentleman came to the door and said he was going to tear my guest house down and tear a patio out and one of my corrals down and I told him I didn't think it was advisable for him to do that and he hasn't been back since. I am sorry to take up so much of your time but I would like to know what I can do and what I can't do out in the area I live in. • Mayor Chappell: We can't make a decision on this at this time, but we will instruct our City .Manager to make a report back to us and then we will get back to you as soon as possible. Mr. Witt: Thank you. Councilman Lloyd: I realize Mr. Witt has already talked to staff but apparently staff at this point is acutely aware of some of the problems he has after listening to his recitation here and I suggest we return it to staff for a solution. - 23 CITY COUNCIL 2/28/72 Page Twenty -.four ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - Cont'd. Councilman Nichols: I would suspect the most recent visit by Mr. Stanford in relation to the goat has stemmed from the fact that some neighbor was offended in someway and called the city hall and made some complaint about the goat. Oftentimes neighbors do that sort of thing and then Mi. Stanford comes out and starts looking to see where the goats • are. Mr. Witt: Friday the Health Department came out, somebody had turned me in saying that I was spreading fertilizer out in the place that I was going to make as a rope and training arena and said that I was spreading it out and dragging it. I took the Health Department gentleman back there and showed him there was no manure whatever back there. Councilman Nichols: You see what you have done is call yourself to the attention of the bureaucracy and you probably will suffer endlessly. Mr. Witt: Believe me, I agree. I would also like to say I didn't put the signs up - they are down. Mayor Chappell: Thank you. We hope everything works out for you. CITY MANAGER EXECUTION OF FUNDING Mr. Aiassa: This is the agreement between AGREEMENT the Redevelopment Agency and the City of West Covina. As the Redevelopment Agency you directed the execution of the agreement and now it is at City Council. level for execution. Motion by Councilman Shearer, seconded by Councilman Lloyd and carried, to approve and authorize execution of the funding agreement between the City of West Covina and the West Covina Community Redevelopment Agency, by the Mayor for the City of West Covina and by the Chairman of the Board for the West Covina Community Redevelopment Agency. MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT a) WEST COVINA CITY EMPLOYEES' ASSOC. b) FIREMEN'S ASSOC. Policemen's Association. Mr. Aiassa: We have two agreements, Council has received copies of each. As . you know, we have three recognized groups: 1 m West Covina Employees' Association; 2 West Covina Fiemen's Association; and 3 - The first item before you is the agreement between the West Covina City Employees' Association and the City Manager, covering the miscellaneous employees of the City. Also, attached you have a copy of the Municipal Code covering employee organizations. I would like to advise Council that considerable meetings have been held and these meetings have resulted in the Memorandum of Understanding which has been executed by the officers of the Employees' Association and myself as City .Manager, and approved as to form by the City Attorney. There is only one question that caused some concern. I believe the City Council has the right to require the City M anager to keep the City Hall open on Good Friday from 3 to 5 P.M. The Memorandum of Understanding asks that City .Hall be closed from noon on, on Good Frj7ay. Also attached is a section of the State Code re4 arding legal Holidays. This agreement can be funded and administered during the fiscal year of 1971-72. 24 - CITY COUNCIL 2/28/72 MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENTS - Cont°d. Page Twenty-five There are three parts to the agreement: 1) A sick leave program whereby upon honorable termination of employment, an employee will be entitled to payment for 50/ of unused sick leave accumulated in excess of 40 days up to a maximum of 1.00 days. 2) The afternoon of Good Friday shall become a permanent four-hour • holiday. 3) The day after Thanksgiving shall become a permanent holiday. The word "permanent" I believe brought some concern and Councilman Young shed some light on this. Councilman Nichols: I would like to hear Councilman Young's comments on the term "permanent". Councilman Young: I had discussed this agreement with Mr. Aiassa and as far as the term ""permanent" is concerned I don't think it adds anything or takes anything away. It is a word which doesn't have a great deal of meaning -in the sense that with or without it it doesn't disturb me one way or the other. I think the point is that after the experience of a year's time a future City Council might decide that the Good Friday situation and the Thanksgiving situation is just no deal and it would certainly be in its power to take it away whether it had this word "permanent" attached to it or not in my opinion. I think the City Attorney would have a more authoritative comment on that than I have, but I don't find it disturbing.as it stands. Practically speaking I am not offended by the idea either. Councilman Nichols: I assume the reason that the City Manager indicated Councilman Young might have some comment to make on the word e"permanent°" is because I have in conversations with the City Manager raised an issue about the use of the term. I find after a bit of time passes words sometimes do take on a significance beyond what the original intent was. Sometimes we read into a word more than what we intended and I am much to say an advocate of saying exactly what I intend to say although I probably fail at this much of the time, but when I can I try to be very specific. I am. in favor of all the recommendations. A staff that has gone a year and a half without a salary adjustment in one of the most inflatip.nary periods in the history of the nation is entitled to whatever modest benefits the City Government can provide for them. I do take issue with the use of the word °'permanent" for the very simple reason you can read each of these statements without that "the afternoon of Good Friday shall become a 4 hour holiday." And I think until the Council changes that, that is exactly what it says. But when a Council takes the action that says it shall become a "permanent" 4 hour holiday, it tends to indicate anyway an attempt to bind future Councils in terms of policy. It intends to make an ongoing commitment which future Councils including this one possibly may not be able to follow through on. For my part I think it is well enough that this Council grants these holidays and establishes them as holidays and sees them incorporated in recommendations for subsequent years and attempts in good faith to implement them. I think it is an unnecessary accouterment to add the word ""permanent" which infers a commitment to the future that I don't think it is particularly wise to put in writing. I raise that which I thought was a legitimate point not to be nitpicking but simply to state the fact that we are creating Good Friday as a 4 hour holiday without the inference of a long term indefinite commitment. So for my part I would like to see the words "permanent" removed from. points 2 and 3 and the recommendation adopted as submitted. - 25 CITY COUNCIL 2/28/72 Page Twenty-six MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENTS ® Cont°do Councilman Young: I might say in responding I think Mr. Nichols makes some very good points. I was subjected to a little bit of inadvertent lobbying on this point. The person who did the lobbying didn't intend to, it was just accidental. In any event • he did indicate, I believe this was one of the attorneys involved working on behalf of the employee group, indicated that the particular terminology is a matter of some considerable importance in the minds of the employees and it has certain morale -implications to it and I don't know exactly why it should because to say that Good Friday shall become a 4 hour holiday indicates to me that this is a policy for the future until such time as some Council should change it, and to say that it shall become a "permanent" 4 hour holiday means the same thing to me. As you say the word may become less sophisticated than it is now, or viewed in a less sophisticated fashion than perhaps I view it in. I will vote for the agreement as it stands with the word "permanent" in it, in view of the conversation I did have. Councilman Nichols: It is as sensitive to me as it is to the City employees and I can't vote for it if I must commit the City to a permanent holiday and it is as petty of me probably to hold on it as it is of anybody else to claiming anterior sensitivity but if it is in there I won't vote to approve it and if it is out of there I will. I am sure there are enough votes to approve it anyway so everybody will be happy except"Russ°" Mayor Chappell: Mr. Aiassa, in your discussion with the City employees did you find that word to be that important? Mr. Aiassa: Well if you look at the hours we did meet with them and the points Councilman Young made, I believe they feel the word "'permanent" gives them some assurance that it will stay there for 'as Tong as they-remain,empioyees of the City. Mayor Chappell: Mr. City Attorney do you think the word ""permanent" in there would prevent another City Council from changing it? Mr. Wakefield: Mr. Mayor and members of Council, I have only been involved with this particular proYlem somewhat on the fringes but my impression of my discussion with the representative of the employee group was that the word"permanent" was simply to indicate that as far as the employees were concerned they did not intend it to be applicable only for one year. I am sure,as Council is well aware of,.these recommendations will be implemented by appropriate amendment to the rules adopted by the City Council and those rules like:any other rule if I. were to draft them would not include the word "permanent" but simply provide that Good .Friday afternoon would be a holiday and like any other rule would be subject to change or modification by the City Council at some future time. Actually I. guess in drafting agreements we use a different kind of terminology than in drafting statutes and ordinances. This Council can't bind the legislative action of a future Council and regardless of what kind of words we include in the resolution or the rule, or the ordinance, they are subject to change if circumstances so require. Councilman Nichols does have a point, that oftentimes matters that seem perfectly clear to those of us 26 • CITY COUNCIL 2/28/72 MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENTS - Cont°d. Page Twenty-seven looking at it as time passes1words take on a greater significance than they seem to have at the time. As I view this what would happen with respect to items 2 and 3 of the Memorandum of Understand- ing is that they would come back to the City Council for adoption of a resolution amending the Salary Resolution No. 1277 of the City to specifically provide for the afternoon of Good Friday and the day after Thanksgiving as holidays so far as the miscellaneous employees are concerned. Councilman Shearer: The word "permanent" doesn't bother me. What I am going to talk about is establishing a certain day as a holiday and I am assuming Mr. Wakefield you are doing it in terms of Section 6705 called here "special limited holiday applicable to a special class" rather than a holiday in the sense of Christmas or a State decreed holiday. I am concerned with the fact in the recommendation - not keeping the City Hall open on a holiday. Maybe I am hung up on the word "holiday" as to exactly what that means. Mr. Wakefield: There.are two parts to your question. The first is that what the lggislature has decreed by law to be a holiday the City Council may nc.t Change. The Council does have the authority to provide by ordinance or•resolution the days upon which the offices of the City shall be open. It also has the authority as you have indicated in the section of the Government Code to provide for limited holidays and that is what would be done here. Good Friday would simply be a holiday for the miscellaneous employees of the City. If the City decides to keep the offices open then it would be like any other activity which the City carries on on a holiday with Police and Fire, or those miscellaneous employees that might be directed to work on that particular day, they would be entitled to compensation for that overtime, or compensating time off. But you are correct Councilman Shearer, the authority to provide for a holiday comes from the Limited Holiday provisions, It does not make it a holiday obviously for non -city employees. Mayor Chappell: Any other questions? We have a recommendation from the City Manager. Motion by Councilman Young, seconded by Councilman Lloyd, that the Memorandum of Understanding between the City of West Covina and the West Covina City Employees' Association be approved. Councilman Shearer: A further question, Mr. Mayor. I just saw something here. The last line of the recommendation of the City Manager refers to the fiscal year 1971-172, which includes Thanksgiving of 1971. Is this meant to be retroactive? Mr. Aiassa: No. Mayor Chappell: It is effective January 1, 1972. Councilman Shearer: As long as there is no confusion on it, it says the current fiscal year. Motion carried on roll call vote as follows. AYES: Councilmen: Shearer, Young, Lloyd, Chappell NOES: Councilman Nichols ABSENT: None Mr. Aiassa: The next is the Memorandum of Understand- ing between the Fire Association and the City .Manager. Considerable time has been utilized in meetings with the Association. Attached is a copy - 27 - CITY COUNCIL 2/28/72 Page Twenty-eight MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING AGREEMENTS - Cont°do of their Memorandum of Understanding which has also been executed and approved as to form. We have gradually reduced their work week during the last five years, at approximately 1 hr. per year, ti.l it is no,'z at 56 hours per week. The Department Head agrees it is an acceptable forma And you will note that the 56 hour week will be arranged through the department and probably added to their vacation time to permit proper funding through this fiscal year. As you will note in the Agreement there are a number of "WHEREASBs". The basic concern was the residency requirement heretofore imposed by the Fire Department and now being abolished. An additional item was agreed to by the employees that there will be reasonable control imposed by their own staff. (Read Items 2 and 3 of the Agreement.) Item 3 we wanted stated very clearly so if a man dropped back to his lower position he wouldn't be carrying the same salary as he received in the higher position. Councilman Young: I take it - Mr. Aiassa, that with both these agreements there will be further negotiation with respect to salary itself? Mr. Aiassa: Yes, this will probably be in our 1972-73 budget, probably you will receive this information in April. The miscellaneous employees and the fire employees - any salary change will not go into effect until we go into 1972-73. Motion by Councilman Young, seconded by Councilman Lloyd and carried, to move acceptance. FRANK SATA, ARCHITECT Motion by Councilman Young, seconded by PARKING STRUCTURE Councilman Lloyd, that the City Council acknowledge payment due on Progress Payment No. 3 to Frank Sata, Architect, for the Civic Center Parking Structure in the amount of $16,256.25. Councilman Shearer: I have a question. I raised this question earlier and I haven't received an answer yet. My question m who is doing the soil engineering? Mr. Aiassa: Yes, Mr. Shearer. On the 24th of January the Council wanted to know if we should have seeked competitive bids other than the bid from Converse, Davis & Associates. Unbeknown to us, when I drove into the parking lot about the same time some of my staff did on Tuesday morning, we noted the man was proceeding on making a soil test. I had Mr. Fast contact the man and tell him that he had not received authorization to proceed with the work and that he had not been given a purchase order to do the work and that the Council had ordered us to seek other competitive bids. But I gather from his !, conversation with the man thaat did the work he said they had the extra time and the opportunity to do it and thought it was a good time to do it and so they proceeded. I also told that to the foreman. I have not signed the purchase order, it is still here - No. 19178 unsigned. My staff has solicited other competitive bids and we have a report which pretty well sub- stantiates Mr. Shearer°s previous comments m that in the first place none of these other outfits like Leroy Crandell &. Associates _ are interested in going into a competitive bid thing. They would rather CITY COUNCIL 2/28/72 Page Twenty-nine CITY MGR.: FRANK SATA - Progress Payment have us solicit them for their ability to perform the work. They are professionals and they feel. ,if you are going to hire a professional you should not try it on a competitive basis. Also there is some background work that was done prior by the firm that was considered to do the job, they did the original Civic Center soil tests, so they had already gathered the basic fundamental knowledge of the site and the area they were surveying. I did not want to issue the purchase order without approval of Council so I now have the memorandum to council that the work has been done and done in good form, but we have not paid for it or obligated ourselves for it. It is now up to Council whether they feel under the circumstances that we did not give them any inference that Council would approve it, we gave them no green light, they were told it was subject to Council approval and was on the agenda. It is one of those things where they presumed certain things. And I feel like any other organization would feel, we are dealing with a professional and legitimate firm and the bid appears in our previous analysis of competitive bidders to be within 25% of any of the others in 1966 and we know good and well the cost of salaries have mounted up quite a bit since that time and in just doing some inhouse mathematics we believe we are at the same level or just a little percentage higher than when the first soil test was made for City Hall. Councilman Shearer: A point of order, Mr. Mayor. Mr. Aiassa, has answered my question and I am ready to vote on the payment of the statement to Frank Sata, and further saying that I feel as far as I am con- cerned we got a free soil test. 1. Motion carried on roll call vote as follows: AYES: Councilmen: Shearer, Nichols, Young, Lloyd, Chappell NOES: None ABSENT: None YOUTH ADVISORY COMM. Mr. Aiassa: This is a request for AUTHORIZATION FOR authorization of the EXPENDITURES (a) transfer of funds from Account No. 121-744-5-53 in the amount of $100. to the 121-744-5-49 account, for funding by the Youth Advisory Commission. The previous amount funded was somewhat short because this was our first year. Motion by Councilman Young, seconded by Councilman Lloyd, that the transfer funds from the 121-744-5-53 account ($100m) to the 121-744-5-59 account be approved and authorized. Motion carried on roll call vote as follows: AYES: Councilmen: Shearer, Nichols, Young, Lloyd, Chappell NOES: None ABSENT: None Mr. Aiassa: I did spend a little time with the Youth Advisory Commissioners to familiarize them with the proceedings of Council with regard to allocation of funds for various expenditures. I explained to them that there is a fixed procedure and when any expenditure is to be made they must have prior approval from Council. .The Youth Advisory Commission received an invitation for three Commissioners to attend the San Gabriel Valley Greater Annual Youth Dinner in Arcadia, expenditure involved $15.00 and I recommend to Council that they be allowed to attend. Motion by Councilman Young, seconded by Councilman Lloyd, that the expenditure of $15.00 for the attendance of three Youth Advisory Commissioners to the San Gabriel Valley Greater Annual Youth Dinner be approved. 29 CITY COUNCIL 2/28/72 Page Thirty CITY MGR.: YOUTH ADVISORY COMMISSION - Cont°do Councilman Shearer: I would like to make a. comment. I would reserve it until the Councilmen Committee Reports but I am afraid the two Commissioners present will leave prior to that time. I want to correct what might be a misunder- standing. Several meetings ago I raised the question with regard • to an expenditure"of funds requested and I raised the question as to when the event was to be held in order to get approval then so as not to wait until it was too late and then I found out the event had already taken place and it sort of snowballed from there. It wasn't my intent when I raised the question to challenge the validity of the expenditure but it was my intention to make sure it was approved so the Youth Advisory Commission could do whatever it was they wanted to do. I hope ;if -there was a misunderstanding on their part as to why I said what I dial= that it is now corrected. Motion carried on roll call vote as follows: AYES: Councilmen: Shearer, Nichols, Young, Lloyd, Chappell NOES: None ABSENT: None YOUTH SURVEY (b) Mr. Aiassa: The 'Youth Advisory Commission wishes to distribute a questionnaire to the youth of the community at the various schools,,which I believe will be of value to the Council also. I would recommend to City Council that they authorize the Commission to continue with the printing of the questionnaire at a cost not to exceed $30.00 and that Council be given. a copy of the questionnaire. Motion by Councilman Young, seconded by Councilman Shearer, that the $30.00 recommendation be allowed for the, printing of the Youth Advisory Commission's youth questionnaire. Councilman Young: I have sat on several of the Youth Commission meetings and they have certainly worked hard on this project and it should go ahead with our blessings. Motion carried on roll call vote as follows: AYES: Councilmen: Shearer, Nichols, Young, Lloyd, Chappell NOES: None ABSENT: None APPROVAL OF BIKE Mr. Aiassa: This is a request for the ROUTE MODIFICATIONS approval of the bikeway route modifications. This is a carry over from the Traffic Committee minutes Item 1 and the Recreation and .Parks Commission minutes Item 2. We have Mr. Zimmerman, City Engineer, present and Mr. Stevens, Director of Recreation and Parks Department - if you have any questions. There is a cost in connection with this of $528.00. Expenses involved are to be borne by private resources. M,ot.ion by Councilman Shearer that the recommendation of staff be approved regarding the modification of the West Covina Bikeway; that implementation of this bikeway will be of no cost to the • City except where City forces may be utilized for the installation of required signs and posts, and that all costs for supplies and equipment will be obtained from private resources. Seconded by Councilman Lloyd. Councilman Lloyd: A question of Mr. Aiassa. What is the $528. for if you have no expenditure of funds? Mr. Aiassa: This will be used for the purchasing of posts and signs. - 30 - CITY COUNCIL 2/28/72 Page Thirty-one CITY MGR.: BIKEWAY ROUTE MODIFICATIONS Councilman Lloyd: Where are you getting the monies from if we are not funding any funds? Mr. Stevens: There are various service organizations in the community that are going to make • donations. At this time we have a portion of it from the Junior Women°s Club. Councilman Lloyd: I ask the question because I am very enthused over this and I don't want it to fall aborting because all of a sudden private sources decide not to ptt any money up, then where are we? Mr. Aiassa: We will then come back to Council. Motion carried. REQUEST FOR LEAVE OF Mr. Aiassa: I would like to carry this ABSENCE WITH PAY item over to the meeting of GEORGE F. PIKE, JR. March 13th. So moved by Councilman Young, seconded by Mayor Chappell and carried. RECREATION PROGRAM Mr. Aiassa: Council has received a BROCHURES written report with regard to the annual brochures put out by the Recreation and Park Department. Previously Council authorized the printing expenditure for the brochures to be funded from the account 149 specifically set up for the mailing of brochures, funds having accumulated from the additional fee of 50(,4 charged to all participants of the fee and charge classes. The Recreation and Park Commission at their February 22, 1972, meeting voted to grant approval for expenditures of revenues from the 149-318 account for the financing of the preparation of the Departmental program brochures. And at this time I want to thank Councilman Lloyd for helping staff with last year's brochure m I think it turned out very well. Motion by Councilman Shearer, seconded by Councilman Young, to grant approval for expenditures of revenues from the 149-318 account for the financing of the preparation of Departmental program brochure in addition to financing of mailing costs. Such revenues source to continue to be supplied from a 50(,' surcharge on fee and charge activities. Motion carried on roll call vote as follows: AYES: Councilmen: Shearer, Nichols, Young, Lloyd, Chappell NOES: None ABSENT: None P.T.A. REQUEST FOR Mr. Aiassa: This is an informational RECREATIONAL PROGRAMS staff report. FOR HANDICAPPED CHILDREN Motion by Councilman Shearer, seconded by Councilman Young and carried, to receive and file. LAFCO NOTICE OF Mr. Aiassa: This also is a staff APPLICATION report that is'informational with regard to annexations by the City of Industry and the City of Covina. The annexation in Covina I would like some input from Council on, this is the area bordering the freeway area that we were concerned about. Councilman Young: You don't want to protest it? 31 CITY COUNCIL 2/28/72 CITY MGR.: LAFCO NOTICE OF APPLICATIONS Mr Aiassa: No, I cant. Page Thirty-two Motion by Councilman Shearer, seconded by Councilman Young, that no protest be made on either No. 71-91 City of Industry or No. 52 City of Covina Southerly Annexation. • Councilman Lloyd: What is the intent of the motion - why do we have to have that motion? Mr. Aiassa: I brought it to Council°s attention because these items were addressed to the City and we normally take action for or against. Councilman Lloyd: Okays but do we have to make that kind of a motion? Mr. Aiassa: I prefer that kind of a motion because then that way I won't have to formulate anything in front of LAFCO just advise them of no protest. Motion carried. LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA Mr. Aiassa: I would request of BULLETIN Council the adding of an item to the agenda - the League bulletin received too late to get on the agenda. I believe you all received copies. There are two items that need attention - Assembly Bill 282 and we have taken strong action against this - this is the home rule item. This is the third or fourth time it has been introduced. Councilman Lloyd: But this is new legislation and we have not taken action on this? Mr. Aiassa: That is right. It is the same legislation but a new bill number. I can poll Council by phone if you do not want to decide on it tonight. On March 1 some of these will be coming up for hearing. I talked to Mr. Carpenter today from Sacramento and he feels that some strong measures will be taken because these are items for organizing strong groups and also affecting home rule. Councilman Lloyd: Mr. Mayor, is it possible that we can read these over and have- a poll by phone? I think it would be unfair to go forward on this tonight, Mayor Chappell: Any suggestions to being polled by the City Manager during the week? (No objections) Councilman Shearer: Is there any other specific one besides 0 Assembly Bill 323? Mr. Aiassa: Assembly Bill 206 on Page 4, and you might be interested in AB 295, also AB 188 on Page 3. Mayor Chappell: We will be polled during the week - M.r. Aiassa? (Answer: Yes.) CONVERSE DAVIS & ASSOC. Mr. Aiassa: I would like an answer now since Mr. Shearer has brought up the - 32 - CITY COUNCIL 2/28/72 Page Thirty-three CITY MGR.: Converse, Davis & Assoc. Statement question - I don't know whether I should sign the P.O. or do we have a free land soil test? Councilman Shearer: There is a question raised hereby the Engineering staff regarding what the actual motion was. I was under the • impression that the motion was to go back and seek other alternatives but staff indicates the motion was to seek other alternates if they were better than - and if that was in fact the motion then I would say we pay. If it wasn't then as far as I am concerned we got a free ride. Mr. Aiassa: I have a rough draft of the minutes, I will look it up, Councilman Young: Why don't we get minutes anymore? Mr. Aiassa: They are coming. Councilman Nichols: Apparently in any event it was an honest mix up, I don't believe anyone on staff went out and maliciously directed someone to'do::work that Council didn't order. If we had great evidence that there were other firms eagerly standing by to do it for a great deal less then I think we perhaps might cause this firm to be a little more uncomfortable about its work, but if the work has been done to the satisfaction of staff I would rather go ahead and pay. Councilman Young: I had a recollection that we were informed of this a couple of weeks ago - I remember seeing a letter from a so-called competi- tive organization saying that they didn't want to participate, they felt we had a real good deal. (Mr.. Aiassa read minutes of previous meeting pertaining to this subject.) Councilman Young: One question, Mr. Mayor. I suppose that could be interpreted as authorization for the staff to go ahead and engage these services and I certainly agree with Councilman Nichols then that the bill should be paid. But we have a Youth Commission that goes to dinner for $8.50 and then the Council can't give them their money back and here we have a situation of an organization coming in and working on the theory that they are getting the job and the City Manager says hold off and they don't, they do it anyhow. Are we running into any kind of a situation where we are making an un- authorized gift of public funds? Mr. Wakefield: Mr. Mayor and members of City Council, in connection with this item which is the employment of a professional expert to perform a particular service the City Council can authorize the payment of the invoice and ratify whatever action hw been taken at staff level to engage Converse, Davis & Associates. • Councilman Young: Straight from the shoulder - is there any chance we would be doing anything illegal if we vote to pay them their money? Mr. Wakefield: No sir, because the City has received the consideration from the performance of the work. - 33 E • CITY COUNCIL 2/28/72 Page Thirty-four CITY MGR.: Converse, Davis & Assoc. Statement Motion by Councilman Young, seconded by Councilman Lloyd, that the statement of Converse, Davis & Associates in the amount of $1600.00 for soil analysis be paid. Motion carried on roll call vote as follows: AYES: Councilmen: Shearer, Nichols, Young, Lloyd, Chappell NOES: None ABSENT: None CITY CLERK ABC APPLICATION Chief of Police recommends NO PROTEST. Alfonso E. Gelso & ) dba Antonio's Italian Market Jeanette R. Gelso ) 322 So. Glendora Avenue 2125 Casa Grande West Covina So moved by Councilman Shearer, seconded by Councilman Lloyd and carried. CITY TREASURER'S REPORT Month of January, 1972 MAYORS REPORTS Motion by Councilman Young, seconded by Councilman Shearer and carried, to receive and file. WALSH-FORKERT CIVIL Mayor Chappell: We have a letter from ENGINEERS Walsh-Forkert Civil Engineers regarding services in connection with the CBD Redevelopment project. I would this item referred to staff. So moved by Councilman Young, seconded by Mayor Chappell and carried. SHAKESPEARE SOCIETY Mayor Chappell:. We have a communica- OF AMERICA tion from the Shakespeare Society of America requesting City assistance. I would like this referred to Recreation and Parks Commission. So moved by Councilman Lloyd, seconded by Councilman Young and carried. HINSVARK & PETERSON Mayor Chappell: Brutoco property indemnity agreement and I referred to staff and the City Attorney., We also have a letter from Hinsvark & Peterson regarding would like this to be So moved by Councilman Lloyd, seconded by Councilman Young and carried. COUNCILMEN'S REPORT`S Councilman Young: I have three points to make. I think the Human Relations Commission might find it worthwhile to include in their deliberations the Nazi Headquarters that has had an impact on our community. Also I was wondering what happened to the request for city participation on Federal Funding for the Hot Line? My-, = 0 0. CITY COUNCIL 2/28/72 Page Thirty-five COUNCILMEN'S REPORTS - Cont'd. Mr. Aiassa: That report is�coming up. Councilman Young: And number 3 - I have been advised that the water fountain in the City Hall now shoots halfway across the parking lot. Mr. Aiassa - can that be taken care of. DEMANDS Motion by Councilman Young, seconded by Councilman,"Shearer that City Council approve Demands totalling $379,694.97 as listed on Demand Sheets B22a, B23a, C792a and C798a to 800. This total includes payroll. Motion carried on roll call vote as follows: AYES: Councilmen: Shearer, Nichols, Young, Lloyd, Chappell NOES: None ABSENT: None ADJOURNMENT Mayor Chappell: Councilman Lloyd's father-in-law - Mr. Vaughan, last week. I would like to have a motion to adjourn in memory of who passed away this Motion by Councilman Young, seconded by Councilman Nichols, to adjourn this meeting at 11:07 P.M. in memory of Councilman Lloyd's father-in-law - Mr..Vaughan. Motion carried. ATTEST: CITY CLERK APPROVED: MAYOR - 35 -