04-02-1973 - Regular Meeting - MinutesMINUTES OF THE ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL
AND JOINT SESSION WITH THE PLANNING COMMISSION
CITY OF WEST COVINA, CALIFORNIA
APRIL 2, 1973.
• The joint meeting of the City Council and the Planning Commission
40 called to order at 7:35 P.M., in the West Covina Council Chambers by
Mayor Pro Tem,James'Lloyd. The Pledge of Allegiance was led by
Councilman Ken Chappell; and theinvocation was given by
Councilman Russ Nichols.
ROLL CALL
Present: Mayor Pro tem Lloyd; Councilmen: Shearer,
Nichols, Chappell
Mayor Young (Seated at 7:47 P.M.)
PLANNING COMMISSION: Chairman Browne; Commissioners:. Adams, Cox,
Mayfield, Jackson
Others Present:
George Aiassa, City Manager
Lela Preston, City Clerk
Richard Munsell, Planning Director
George Zimmerman, Public Services Director
Leonard Eliot, Controller
Bert Yamasaki, Community Redevel. Coordinator
Mike Kennedy, Planning Assistant
John Lippitt, Acting City Engineer
Ken Winter, Planning Associate
Mike :McDonnelX,Staff Reporter - S.G.V.D. Tribune
•
Mayoi Pro tem Lloyd: Let the record show that the Council is all here
with the exception of Mayor Young, who is having
a bee sting taken care of in the outer room and
everyone else is present. This is a joint
City Council and
Planning Commission meeting to discuss several items
of interest. At
this time we will adjourn to the City Manager's
Conference Room,
in order to participate in a round table type discussion.
(Council discussed whether or not to adjourn to the City Manager's
conference room because of the number of people in the audience present
and because of the small quarters available in the conference room:
Mr Aiassa assured Council adequate seating would be available.)
Motion by Councilman Chappell, seconded by Councilman Shearer and carried
to adjourn to upstairs Conference Room.
JOINT CITY COUNCIL - PLANNING COMMISSION SESSION
Called to order at 7:45 P.M., in the City Manager's Conference Room at
City Hall by Mayor Young.
HUNTINGTON BEACH Mayor Young stated the joint meeting was called
FREEWAY to discuss the Huntington Beach Freeway, West
Covina Parkway Alignment, Core Area Concept and
• General Plan Map update.
Mayor Young: This meeting has been suggested by the Planning
Commission and the first item on the agenda is
the Huntington Beach Freeway. We have a
written report from Mr. Zimmerman and we have other materials presented
to us. Mr. Zimmerman, would you like to take the floor and supplement
your"report with oral comments?
Chairman Browne: Mr. Mayoi, may I preface some of the reasons
for the meeting prior to hearing from
Mr. Zimmerman? (Permission granted).
- 1 -
CITY COUNCIL Page Two
JOINT MEETING: Huntington Beach Freeway 4/2/73
Chairman Browne: We are confronted with quite a few situations
relative to our General Plan. The Plan was
formulated in 1968, it was proposed to be a
feasible plan to 1990. During the last two years especially we have
had several zoning cases come in which speak directly to the General
• Plan. Item No. 1, the Huntington Beach Freeway, first item on the
agenda, we have had two areas of concern. We feel that the freeway
feasibility is not in the present. We have done some investigation
and we have the report Mr. Zimmerman will give relative to the Highway
Division's feelings on when it might be contemplated and whether it will
ever -be developed. We feel.it has placed.a cloud on -properties adjacent
to Azusa Avenue. The zoning might not be cohesive.with the existing
zoning in certain areas, I relate to residential areas where the 1990
plan shows we have a multiple family coloration.:. designated such and the
Planning Commission usually takes this into consideration when sitting
.in judgment on zoning cases. This has been a very misleading factor,
based on the outline in Mr. Zimmerman's letter in his contact with the
gentlemen of the Highway Division indicating it will possibly be twenty-
five to thirty years, if ever,,before the Huntington Beach Freeway
became a factor in our City.
Another thing that Prompts us to ask for this
meeting is we have State mandated planning and zoning conformances
which we have to come in under AB1301 and we should be in compliance
by July 1, 1973. We also have the idea within the community that a
General Plan should probably be reviewed every five years and updated
because of the economic situations that might tend to create this
situation. If we are going to review and revise our Plan and bring it
into conformance and the City Attorney has given a ruling that our
General Plan is in coincidence with the zoning and our zoning is in
• coincidence with the General Plan, however there are certain gray
areas that should be defined and made more explicit.
Now to save money, time and effort on the part
of the Staff we felt a combination of things could be accomplished at
the same time we updated our General Plan as mandated. Number 1, the
Huntington Beach Freeway we thought might be eliminated if you gentlemen
so direct us to go into research on it and see what the general public
might think about it because this will have to be.done in a public
hearing.
Mr. Mayor, rather than going on into Item
Number 2, we can probably bring out Mr. Zimmerman's report and Staff
does have a mock-up on the wall indicating the areas the Huntington
Beach Freeway will possibly run through, if ever. We also have copies
of the General Plan available which better denotes the routing of it.
Mr. Zimmerman, would you like to speak to this letter?
Mr. Zimmerman: Briefly summarizing the matter, there has
been a report on it presented to the Planning
Commission,and City Council, the Huntington
Beach Freeway is shown on the General Plan of the City as approved in
1969. Since that period of time the freeway system as a whole has
undergone some reorientation and thinking and. planning and there has
been a hearing on it on the exact alignment on it in Orange County.
One of the results of that hearing was a legislative effort to delete
• the route from the system. As an evident compromise to that deletion
the matter has been turned over to be proposed to a study for a
Multiple Use Corridor. This would amount to a possibility of it
coming out as a bus line) rapid transit facility, also as an enlarge-
ment of our local road system and could also remain as a freeway.
The results of this program would not be known for a considerable
period of years. Estimated by my informant who deals with these
things at the Division of Highways, as up to eight years. At that
time a decision would be made as to what mode_ could be used to
handle.the traffic needs in the corridor. Then they would start
hearings for route alignment and then we are faced with po.ssibly
CITY COUNCIL Page Three
JOINT MEETING` Huntington Beach Freeway 4/2/73
a fifteen to twenty year period before actual construction would be
completed on such a route. Briefly that is the :statiis '. on the
Huntington Beach Freeway at this time.
Mayor Young: Mr. Chairman, does the Planning Commission
• itself have a recommendation?
Chairman Browne: We have discussed it in our meetings and re-
solved that we were pretty well of the con-
clusion that it should be eliminated from the
General Plan; however, we felt we should come to the City Council
to feel out their tempo to see if they are in concurrence with our
thoughts.
Mayor Young: Would it be in order at this time with the
Staff Report and your comments to declare this
matter open for comments?
Chairman Browne: We thought we could possibly sit here as two
bodies and have a sort of open discussion on
this, keeping relatively brief dissertations...
Councilman Nichols: When this matter first began generating itself
in our community the discussion was that the
actual route adoption was to be in a couple of
years, I believe the spring of 1972, and then the spring of 1973, our
inquiries of the State at that time indicated it was coming upon us .
This was not really a matter of our option, that it was going to be an
advantage to the City to recommend a route rather than object on some
course of action. The Chamber of Commerce held meetings and studied
• the issue and as a result of the whole thing general consensus was it
was coming and so we developed a preferred route alignment.
If the input now is true�I am all for getting
it off just as fast as we can get it off.
Councilman Lloyd: I concur. I think the people of West Covina
have certainly indicated strongly enough in
the ensuing years they don't want another
freeway and after the devastating results of the freeway that currently
exists at ground level out here where you can't even open a door and
hold a meeting, I think we have arrived at that point where we have
received most of the benefits that are going to accrue as a result of
the freeway. I think at the present moment, and I am sure there are
those that are infinitely more skilled and knowledgeable in the area of
movement of traffic than I am, but there is an interesting thing
occurring in the Southland and that is, as evidenced by some of the
studies by SCAG and others, that we have a leveling off of population
growth and a leveling off of cars contrary to what we believed in the
past. I think this great system of freeways predicated on 1950
automobiles never seems to catch up and we have to seek other
solutions in our society at the present time and I see no reason why
West Covina should stand here to be disected once again if we can
avoid it and I think we can, and we should take a stand and say -
we don't want to be involved in that. I recognize also that any hard
stand really goes back to the State and Mr. Shearer is much more
• knowledgeable than I am in this case. I really don't know what our
prerogatives. are. However, I certainly would be glad to hear from
both Mr. Shearer and Mr. Mayfield - because I think they know more than
I do on this subject.
Mayor Young: May I comment? I am in favor of deleting this
from the Master Plan for the reasons stated
by Chairman Browne, in the sense that from
our staff report it indicates that things are a lot further in the
future than was ever envisioned in the first place from the historical
information Mr. Nichols gives us.
- 3 -
CITY COUNCIL Page Four
JOINT MEETING: Huntington Beach Freeway 4/2/73
So if suddenly the date has been set away off
in the future and perhaps in limbo, then you are absolutely correct.
This line on the Master Plan must complicate Planning Commission
hearings as well as complicate things for the Council at a later time.
• I think that Councilman Lloyd makes some very
good points in the sense that we are in a revolution, we have
revolutionary thinking in L.A. County that we didn't have two years
ago and we have it now. So without going quite as far as saying
"no, I don't want it" - which is true - but without putting that on
the record I say eliminate it from the General Plan and develop our
City with this thing off the General Plan because if it comes up
in fifteen or twenty years, or even ten years, then it should be
adapted to that particular period of time. You have three votes
already.....
Councilman Chappell: I don't think you can stop counting yet,
Mr. Mayor. When this thing first came out
the question was asked, as pointed out by
Mr. Nichols - what alternatives do we have? We were told by the
State people we didn't have any choice and we best make a decision
.as to where we wanted it in.our community where it would do the
least damage and disruption to the community. That is the way we
moved along on it. I was very happy when Bill Campbell came out with
his bill to put a halt to it and I would like to say I am with the
majority of the Council this evening, so that makes four, Mr. Mayor.
Mayor Young: Right. Is there anybody else that wants to
comment?
• Councilman Shearer: Surprisingly enough I would join with my
colleagues, perhaps for different reasons
and I don't want to go into the pros and
cons of freeways at this time so I will just make this one statement.
With all of its bad aspects if it.weren't for the San Bernardino
Freeway we wouldn't be here.
I think from the standpoint of reality of
twenty to twenty-five years in the future, if we can believe even a
part of what we hear with regard to gas rationing, etc., we may
not.have enough gas to run our cars by the year 1990. I think from
that standpoint we should perhaps go ahead and delete the freeway
from our General Plan. This does not mean that some day the State
legislature may not dictate that there will be a freeway in the
area, but because of the uncertainty of it I think our community
should go ahead on the assumption then that does not cloud this issue.
Commissioner Adams: I assume this will be shown on the State's
Freeway and Expressway Plan?
Councilman Shearer: It will be continued to be shown as long as
the State Legislature in its wisdom decT.ees,.ther,
.will_ be . a Route :39 freeway._ Now I may sound defensive but I think we
should all recognize that this is not an idea that the State Agency's
bureaucracy Division of Highways has decided, the State Legislature in
a particular statute says there will be a freeway and until such
• time as they reverse themselves and say "delete it" as they have with
other roads in the last few years, then it will no longer be shown
on the plans.
Commissioner Adams: Is there any movement underway to delete the
Huntington Beach Freeway and some of the
others that seem to be in limbo?
Councilman Shearer: I am not aware ofany legislation that
revolves around Route 39-freeway.
CITY COUNCIL Page Five
JOINT MEETING: Huntington Beach Freeway 4/2/73
Commissioner Jackson: The legislature put it on the basis of a study
made prior to 1958?
Councilman Shearer: Yes, based on their judgment at that time and
the projection of traffic at that time.
• Obviously the legislature took into account
as do we, the City Council, collected information from their Staff,
but it is not staff that makes the decision, it is the Council. In the
case of Sacramento it is the legislature and not actually any Agency.
Commissioner Jackson: And what has actually come to pass?
Councilman Shearer: It has been reversed in a number of cases.
Route 1 that was on the freeway system has
been deleted - and there have been a number of
them.
Commissioner Adams: Would it be appropriate for some follow up
action - initiate some action to have it removed
from the State plan? Hopefully supported by som
of the other communities. My other question is apparently it is being
shown in the SCAG study which is current and a very comprehensive study
of this area and many counties. What I am getting at,I guess,is maybe
we don't feel it is not necessary but as long as it is being shown for
whatever reason by the State and Regional Planning Agencies, are we
again looking the other way while this thing continues to be reflected
and perhaps some day implemented?
Commissioner Mayfield: I don't think that is cause for concern. What
we are faced with is that the program is in.such
a decline in the State and it just isn't an
option to us for the next twenty to thirty years. What we have ahead of
us now is Assembly Bill 69, which is the Department of Transportation P1
which starts its implementation by July 1, and by 1976 the legislature i
supposed to have a statewide Transportation Plan and by 1975 we are
supposed to have a Region Transportation Plan. Now these plans, the
Region Plan and the State Plan, will designate a corridor system .
throughout the State. It won't determine the modes of transportation,
just come up with a corridor system based on input from the
communities, counties and cities through the SCAG organization.
When this system is worked out the next step
will be the initiative of the local governments to enter into a
cooperative transportation study on each of the undeveloped corridors.
This would be a cooperative effort with the cities, County and State,
jointly participating in the development of data and the carrying on
of public hearings and working out the alternatives for the different,
types of transportation modes. The Rapid Transit alternatives, the
Busway alternatives, freeway, or just enlargement of conventional
street systems. That would be a cooperative study and under the
agreement the parties entering into it would becommitted to come to
some conclusions. I can't see how the City could get confronted with
this unless there was_ a lot of initiative at the local level on that
question until about almost ten years from now. Within the next four
years it is just going to get this corridor designation.
• Now say you have in the State Plan and the
Region Plan a corridor designation where Route 39 is now on the map,
that still is not precised and I think it wouldn't be prudent to try
and make it a factor in our General Plan at this time.
Mayor Young: And you still have the prospects that
Mr. Zimmerman pointed out, that it could express
,itself. in several different ways.
Commissioner Mayfield: That is right. This is a multi-modo study.
If you look at the situation you have, in the
5 -
CITY COUNCIL Page Six
JOINT MEETING: Huntington Beach Freeway 4/2/73
past when we had a heavy program and the period between the decision
making on where it was and construction was within five to seven years,
it was realistic to think in terms of controlling land development in
the area it was, the route was adopted, it was realistic to orient
land development for this future facility and take advantage of the
• opportunities and our General Plan reflected that to some extent. But
since there is no option or no assurance, what you have now is a
serious handicap on a lot of owners with this configuration on your
General Plan. With that kind of a situation I think the best option is
to go ahead with the planning on your local street system which is the
only option you have and revise your General Plan. Now how do you
revise your General Plan.....
Mayor Young: With hearings, don't you?
Commissioner Mayfield: Yes, but I meant the approach to revising.
You can go into detailed studies - the
circulation study on the General Plan was made
back in 1968 so we should go back and rethink it in detail and the
effect of it on the whole system and come up with some new scheme of
arterials, etc., to solve the problem in certain areas.
Mayor Young: I don't follow that on this issue. It seems to
me the issue is whether the Huntington Beach
Freeway remains as it is -projected as part of
our General Plan - we have Azusa Avenue and a potential on Citrus and a
lot of other north/south arteries.
Commissioner Mayfield: I said this was one alternate. The other is
to simply say we will go back to the existing
• street system and assume Azusa Avenue will
carry the load and then all of the land uses would reflect the adjacent
land uses we have segregated out with this plan, we would simply go
back to the land uses there which are mostly R-1.
Mayor Young: What I want to know is do we have to come up
with alternates? I gathered from Councilman
Nichols that when the freeway got into the
picture because it was legislated mandated thing and it appeared would
be precised within a two year period of time when it first got into the
General Plan and I gathered if it hadn't had these immediate projections
it wouldn't be on the General Plan right now if it were one of those
far out in the future things, twenty years or so, is that a correct
assumption?
Councilman Nichols: Probably so.
Commissioner Mayfield: I think you have a circulation element here
which is part of your General Plan and it is
based on the idea the freeway will take a
certain route and now that wouldn't be the basis anymore. So you have
a option here, you can go back and take the trouble to reassess your
street system without the freeway or you go ahead and assume you
will take care of it when it comes up and simply wipe the freeway out
now and reverse to the land uses on your General Plan. You have two
approaches. One is less expensive than the other from a planning
• point. I think the latter approach probably is the best.
Mayor Young: It seems to me we have the recommendation and
the consensus because of the whole change in
concept right now that seems to be underway
in this whole matter of freeways and transportation in general,
the movement of the masses of people and that it appears to be the
collective wisdom of the people at this table that the Huntington
Beach Freeway is a complication on ou_ General Plan which is not
a realistic complication at this time, therefore we would have public
hearings to determine whether or not we revise the General Plan -
CITY COUNCIL Page Seven
JOINT MEETING: Huntington Beach Freeway 4/2/73
n
L
•
and bring into play some of the factors you mentioed now in terms of
alternatives and in terms of movement of traffic north/south in
particular, and which might develop some changes in the colorings on
this map as they relate to commercial and multiple uses and what have
you. We might go a step further or we might not in terms of alterna-
tive north/south movements. As you say we might revert to what we
have now, in fact it is not a reversion it is what we have now, and we
might want to go further, although I don't think we would need to do
this all in one shot, and get into the area Councilman Lloyd's brought
up and that is an active open opposition to a freeway north/south
through the City of West Covina. These are all prospects and all
relate to the traffic movement you mentioned. The question then would
be what immediate steps do we take, how do we get this process rolling?
And that is where we might get some motions and determinations going.
Commissioner Mayfield: It would seem to me you would want to ask for
a study, a re-evaluation of the Huntington
Beach Freeway .on the Genera.lPlan.
Mayor Young: I don't want to spend any money on it, the StatE
is not going to build it anyway.
Councilman Shearer: Mr. Mayor, I think the general consensus is to
delete it. I would not be in favor of spending
any money on a study because based on the
present state of the art., the result of your study, etc., I can tell yoL
what it is going to bring - is that you are going to need a freeway.
Now you may not accept that but that is my opinion. Based on current
traffic demands, present projections, etc., based on present trends
you can come up with the answer that a freeway is the answer. Now we
are rejecting that, so why spend money to come up with an answer that
we know is going to be unaccepted. Now in twenty-five years the state
of the art. might be different, we.may be riding around in tubes, zoominc
from here to there in Buck Rogers' style. So I think when we talk
about deleting the freeway it should be done on a plain motion.
Commissioner Jackson: I think there is a little more involved than
that. If we remove it I think we will have to
make a study of land uses in that area.
Councilman Nichols: You are talking about a Planning Commission
study?
Councilman Shearer: I thought you were talking about a study as to
what we will do with traffic...
Commissioner Jackson: No. We may find out we don't need to worry
about that traffic. I am sure the trends
are already there with the present population
zeroing out and the fact that we can't stand anypore motor vehicles,
etc.
Councilman Nichols: I think what Council doesn't want to do is go
outside and hire a study done. In terms of our
options I would think if the Council amended
the General Plan to remove the freeway this may give some relief to
those people at the present time who do not favor its presence but to
go out and beat the drums I think these preliminary corridor studies
in the next few years will give the local communities an opportunity
to express their feelings on an approach.
Chairman Browne: Yes, I think we have enough inhouse information
to have staff prepare such an inhouse report
and I think the Council and the Planning
Commission can direct staff to come up with relevant information needed
to hold a hearing.
- 7 -
CITY COUNCIL Page Eight
JOINT MEETING: Huntington Beach Freeway 4/2/73
Motion by Councilman Nichols that the West Covina City Council direct
the Planning Commission to initiate a hearing and any subsequent
studies that might be desirous with a view in mind to possibly remove
the Huntington Beach Freeway from the General Plan. Seconded by
. Councilman Chappell.
Councilman Lloyd: Will you explain to me where that leaves us
that we weren't already at:
Councilman Nichols: Well in the first place we cannot order the
Planning Commission to delete the freeway
because that is done through,public hearings
and a vote and a recommendation. All we can do is recommend that they
entertain this possibility and hold a public hearing and make a
recommendation based upon their.findings. Secondly, in the process
of doing this they may determine that certain studies are needed
concomitantly with that or..they may determine following any action one
way or the other that studies might be needed.
Councilman Lloyd: In other words the door is still open.
Councilman Nichols: Yes. The.purpose of the motion is to
direct the Planning Commission to look into
this area, conduct a hearing and initiate
such other actions as may be allied with that
towards the view they recommend, that either we delete or do not delete
the Huntington Beach Freeway from the General Plan.
Motion carried.
• WEST COVINA PARKWAY Chairman Browne: I will just give a
ALIGNMENT portion of the back -
and ground on the next
CORE AREA CONCEPT two items that run in concert with each other.
I will call upon staff for a showing of
pictures of the area indicating the route of
the West Covina Parkway. We are all generally familiar with the
Master Plan of Streets designating West Covina Parkway precise
alignment westerly as far -as Glendora onto the freeway and then there
is a void which comes up to Citrus. And then the Parkway has been
precised from Citrus to Grand. This all being a part of our
circulatory planning phased in with the loop system within the City
to provide a fast mode of transportation from one end of the City to
the other. Here again our General Plan indicates in the areas
of precise alignment that there are transitional areas involved in
zoning and development. We have held public hearings on various
portions of the alignment and have run into opposition from residents
who do not want a 110' right of way going through their residential
areas; however in researching we find it necessary to have such a
route through the City, whether it be 110' wide West Covina Parkway or
a 60' street affording an effort to go through an area of land locked
parcels. (Maps passed around showing the area.)
Speaking of the area between Barranca and
• Grand Avenue, we recently had a hearing scheduled which did not
materialize for a MF development which incorporated some of the par-
cels under discussion and shown on the map in yellow of land locked
properties that will never be developed unless there is some access
road running down through the central portion. I think there is a
total of 13.2 acres.
I can agree with the residents that we are
in a revolutionary period of development here and again our General
Plan calls for high density through this area and we have a portion
of that group protesting the development. However, it did not come
to a hearing .but they did quite a bit of research and came up with
facts that we are knowledgeable of. However, the fact that the
- 8 -
CITY COUNCIL Page Nine
JOINT MEETING: W.C. Parkway & Core Area Concept 4/2/73
•
•
U
General Plan is directing us to do one thing and good sound planning
directs us to adhere to the General Plan. I do think the need of
input from local area residents sometimes is of great value to us
because they are the people that have to live with the situations
Crea.ted. I have to reiterate we must have access through these pro-
perties and inasmuch as West Covina Parkway is precised through here
we are asking for some wisdom from City Council as to the implementa-
tion of it, because we know we are going to have further public
hearings in the area.
We have considered and discussed with
Mr. Zimmerman and Mr. Munsell the possibility of going out and meeting,
probably two Planning Commissioners, a Councilman, Staff and sitting in
and getting some input from the people there and try and explain to
them the problems we have in trying to handle planning in the area.
I feel this is a two-way route. If the people
realized the situation as it really exists they might settle for a
lesser thoroughfare through there. That is one topic. Mr. Munsell,
would you like to show some of the pictures. (Slides shown and
explained by Mr. Munsell.)
Mr. Munsell: One of the things sent in the packet was a
portion from .LARTS and there is a little red
dot on the back and the reason for the red
dot is that LARTS (which is a portion of the Division of Highways
working with.SCAG) has indicated in their determination that the
San Bernardino Freeway is going to be extremely congested and
Mr. Lippitt was telling me that his contact at the Division of
Highways indicates that it won't be too long even with the freeway
widening before the San Bernardino Freeway will have metered on --
ramps. So those of you who are not at the other end of town often
where they have metering - the metering has a significant effect
on the surface streets paralleling the freeway. What it is intended
to do is to stop the short trips from getting on the freeway so
traffic going a greater distance can use it. The impact of course/is
there is a greater thrust on local parallel streets and/the plain
fact of the matter is we haven't any. West Covina Parkway is one
answer to that. The total impact I am not prepared to respond to
as to how many cars will affect us. But as a practical matter that
is just one of the total number of considerations that went into
the Parkway. The others being - what do you do with land next to
the freeway - how good is it for development - if not good for
single family, housing how many people can you put next to it?
With that then I think the staff and the members of the Commission
were most concerned.
We have two adopted sections of West Covina
Parkway and that is between Citrus and Grand at the east end of town
and the adopted section in the CBD area which is from the freeway at
West Covina Parkway to Valinda. The questions and foresight I
think Chairman Browne has asked - - are we still committed to a
thoroughfare and how much of one and those of us charged with
attempting to carry out your policy with every day decisions that
some day in the future will create a whole project, how do we deal
with it so that we can meet your needs and the total community needs?
Councilman Nichols: Very few policies that are set along these
lines are set in a vacuum; they are set because
they are recommended by staff. Staff
recommends it to the body and the body adopts it and staff goes around
saying that is policy and we are just interpretating policy. So it
gets to be quite a round :robin thing. I remember very clearly when
all of this came up and it came up as a result of very strong
recommendations away back.
I tell you the way I always have personally
CITY COUNCIL Page Ten
JOINT MEETING: W.C. Parkway & Core Area Concept 4/2/73
felt about it is that there is no remote prospect of this City putting
West Covina Parkway all the way through the City. Now if it is broken
up in any substantial segments then it cannot be a main arterial.
When you look and think in terms of that section from Valinda to
Citrus, that area is basically through the heart of the built up City -
• you are talking about so many millions of dollars in land acquisition
that it would take a flat out miracle of the Lord himself joining in
revenue sharing before this City could ever condemn land and build a
110' street, let alone 601. Now that is the fact and yet we made that
adoption and we put it there and then we have the result of trying
to get a 110' street wherever we can along the way. I share the
responsibility for those on the Council who accepting that and
truthfully I cannot honestly say tonight exactly how I did vote when
that came up.
My own feeling is where we have landlocked
parcels access has to be provided. Alignments that happen to coincide
with a dream perhaps of a West Covina Parkway certainly wouldn't be
inappropriate and if we want to call it that - fine., but to try
irrevocably for 110' all the way through with the thought that is what
we are going to have one day, I don't think that is possible. So in
conclusion my own feeling is we should take dedication of right of
way and definitely develop in the areas where we are opening up land
for development in terms of this dream. It is no more realistic for
us to tell our community that we are going to put West Covina Parkway
in that we are going to put it right down through to the East than it
is for us to tell our people we are coming in with the Huntington Beach
Freeway. One is just as unrealistic as the other. If we are going
to be realistic on one we should be on the other.
• Councilman Shearer: I would add one comment to that, I think it
even more unrealistic because with the freeway
we have a source of revenue that is not
available to the City. The practicality of the Parkway is even more
remote from the economic standpoint than the freeway. I would agree
in the area of development we should require perhaps not as great a
dedication as is on the plan but obviously circulation is going to be
required.
Councilman Lloyd: I have changed my philosophy a great deal since
coming on to this Council. I have generally
speaking been favorable to the concept but I
am not favorable to the methodology that says we either pay for it or
subtract'. it from each develops as we go along. "Subtract" is a very
unkind situation. I think while we talk about legislative action and
constituentcy we have not been too mindful - and I have been as
guilty as anyone, of the desires and wishes of the very people we hope
to serve. I don't know the solution to the problem as far as traffic
flow and circulation. We have men such as Mr. Mayfield, Mr. Shearer
and our staff who are infinitely more capable than I in this area,
but I think that we again have got to go to the people and say "you
know you are going to have to put up with problems and you are going
to have to make it work out". I note we have blocked off Barranca
at the present moment with a big chunk of concrete for the past six
months, which for the life of me I don't understand why it is there
• except they are going to do something with it some day, but the people
have adjusted to that and they have made it work. The people don't
want a circulation or a flow, they really flat out don't want it, and
I for one as an elected official do not intend to stuff it down their
throat.
I think we have arrived at a point where we
have to be mindful of what they want. We have heard of these great
schemes of how we were going to do these things - the flow of traffic
and the bringing of people and people have said in a very clear loud
voice "we do not want any more people - this is it.,, We have arrived
- 10 -
CITY COUNCIL Page Eleven
JOINT MEETING: W.C. Parkway & Core Area Concept 4/2/73
at a point where West Covina, Covina and all the areas around us
do not want any more people. I realize there are those developers
who want to develop and sell their land but in the philosophy of
things I would ask every person at this table and in this room to
consider carefully the desires and wishes of the people. We have
• talked about ecology but I think we will solve the problems of
smog and the problems of other things and we are even going to have
to solve the problem of human pollution which is just plain old
numbers, because that is where our problems come from. As a result
I think those things we do must be done cautiously and where we
encouraged 300 apartment buildings we should not do that anymore.
I think we have asked our people to be patient and we have sought
the development we have had in this City, we have exploded from
five thousand to now over seventy thousand. This is all well and
good but in the final analysis people are saying - we don't want
any more - and I think this Council must be mindful of that voice,
it has to be heard. In hearing that voice, and perhaps I am partly
a perpetrator in some of the things that have occurred in this area
in that I have encouraged these people to make their reports, do
their surveys and bring forth information which is more meaningful
I think than some of the information we have received in other areas
because it reflects the desires of the people and to me this above
all if the most important singular thing we can do. So I will not
vote for a continuation of West Covina Parkway,flat out will not. I
am through.
•
Mayor Young: We are adopted up to Glendora and from Citrus
to Grand and this is where the problem area
is.- this is part of the issue to unadopt
Citrus and Grand?
Chairman Browne: tYes, the issue is to get the feeling of the
Council at this time so the Commission and
staff can be directed towards future develop-
ment in the area. We have indicated the necessity of some type of
thoroughfare in there and we intend to find out through some research
and background study with staff and with two volunteers of the
Commission and Councilman Lloyd and some of the people from that
area and try and get some input from them. If Council will sanction
this we would be willing to go forth on this.
Councilman Lloyd: And anyone else that wishes to attend.
Councilman Chappell: We can say a lot of things here tonight but
we have a tremendous amount of streets in the
City today that have not been extracted - I
think that is the correct terminology - street after street has been
built by a developer and turned over to the City for maintenance and
I imagine Virginia Avenue is one of them. I find no fault in doing
this when you have a development to have land dedicated and curbs,
gutters and sidewalks put in to facilitate the people that are going to
live in the area to move up and down the street rather than dirt
roads or climbing fences or whatever they might have to do to get
around. Maybe the 110' right of way through here is a little bit
out of reason, but when I first started looking at this I thought in
• my own mind some of our problems on Virginia Avenue would be
eliminated of the heavy traffic and the speeding traffic and that it
would move over to a street more accessible .and more readily available
perhaps farther through the City and it would take some of the traffic
off of our local streets and I consider Virginia in that vein because
it is a residential type street. We do have to have some sort of a
street through this area to open it up. In the past the street I
live on the developer built the street and dedicated it to the City
and where Mr. Browne lives and the rest of you it was done in the same
way, that is not uncommon and I find no fault in doing that. As
pointed out by Councilman Nichols to go through that area from
- 11 -
CITY COUNCIL Page Twelve
JOINT MEETING: W.C. Parkway & Core Area Concept 4/2/73
Glendora to Azusa unless we can go on top of the Wash and I don't
know how we can do that without funds but we probably could pick up
those funds a lot easier than buying out all those houses and moving
all those citizens out. We don't have that problem from Citrus to
Grand of a tremendous amount of homes that will have to be moved.
• From the pictures shown this is basically a lot of vacant landlocked
land so there is no way of getting it out unless they build this
street for us and dedicate it because we do not have the funds.
I remember what it cost us to build Cameron Avenue in. front of the
high school, some $220,000 for a block - we don't have those kind of
funds. But by allowing the people who own the land and want to open
it up for single family residences or whatever, I find no fault with
that. It certainly is no change from anything we have been doing
since West Covina was formed but again the 110' street might be a
little too much to even expect in this area.
Unless somebody wants to challenge my comments
I still believe Virginia Avenue will benefit by such a street provided
it continues all through there and doesn't just deadend at Citrus and
lay dormant. Up until recently I didn't know there was such
opposition from the residents in that area.in fact who are here tonight
in numbers more than any other part of our community. That is my
thought on it now, Mr. Mayor, and maybe we can start out with
Mr. Lloyd's thoughts and my thoughts and accomplish the movement of
traffic and the opening up of this land locked land. I wouldn't want
to own it and be paying taxes on it today.
Councilman Nichols: I don't think there is really essential dis-
harmony in what you are saying, I think a
very great source of the objection is the
• concept of our opening up a 110' right of way boulevard all through
the City because that in term makes it a Garvey Boulevard which in
terms of type of development makes it very offensive to residential.
I think the consensus here is that it is impractical to strive for
the concept that we are going straight across the town from one end
to the other. Those areas where there are landlocked parcels, where
there is undeveloped land obviously access has to be provided. I
think the Planning Commission in its wisdom and with the input it
will get will come up with reasonable answers to this. How wide this
type of street should be - it perhaps will have to be segmented for
many many years, so it is what is reasonable and what is proper.
I dispute very much that there is anyone living in that area where
these lots are that is not cognizant of the fact that one day a
street will come through there and open these parcels up to some
kind of development which we all hope will be appropriate to the area.
The question of street width - 110' or 80' or whatever it is will
resolve it but if we can agree in philosophy that we are not going
to attempt to drive this across the City or convey to developers
that they are going to be on a main cross town arterial, I think we
have come a long way to meet our objection.
Councilman Lloyd: You are absolutely right. As a matter of
fact I asked some of.these people and they
told me what they didn't want particularly
in regards.to the condominiums that were proposed by Mayer - the
major objection as far as Mayer is concerned was the 300 unit
apartment. It has the people just plain unhappy with it.
The thing I did say to them was you must
come up with an alternate plan - what are your objections, you can't
just say you don't want anything - although we did have some say
they wanted nothing, which obviously is unrealistic. So what they
did was they got together and they have come up with some plans of
their own which they wish to submit to the Planning Commission.
They have drawn it up and have worked very hard on it and it is not
unrealistic either but it does incorporate a 60' street which is in
essence at least a recognition of what you have just said. I find
- 12 -
CITY COUNCIL Page Thirteen
JOINT MEETING: W.C. Parkway & Core Area Concept 4/2/73
no feeling of resistance or antithesis as far as your thinking and
what I have said here, I have perhaps stated it philosophically
fairly strongly in order to convey a thought, but this can be worked
out. We are going to have to ask ourselves when we get all through
• not only as elected officials but I as a person that has lived in this
area and at one time President of the East Hill Homeowners' Association,
which seems to be the center of the unrest and I have said to these
people you cannot tell a man that has $400,000 wrapped up in land or
whatever the amount is, you can't say you can't do anything because
we are not prepared as a City to buy the land for a park or anything
else. We have to be realistic about it and we are prepared to do that
but when we say, as Mr. Nichols pointed out, arbitrarily there will be
a 110' right of way coming right through the center, these people and
justifiably so say "hey the world is coming on me fast enough and
don't do that to me". I think that is reasonable.
Commissioner Cox: May I make a couple of comments. You are
making a lot of comments but I don't think reall
it is with forethought of planning. One thing
you have to recognize in our City is that we are the only City that I
can call to mind that has its main street being a freeway. This is
a result of Garvey being eliminated. From a planning standpoint it
becomes an impossible task because most cities have a main street of
some sorts going through their city. We don't. We have distressed
our Central Business District, one reason being it is a lot easier to
go a further distance than across our City. These are things that
affect our tax dollar, our retail sales dollar, etc. So the question
is and I think perhaps Councilman Nichols may have answered it, if it
is totally impossible to ever contemplate through some sort of funding
. the implementation of West Covina Parkway then let's forget itl But
from a planning standpoint to eliminate it it would be a gross error.
Now if it can't be implemented and if there is no way in the world we
can ever look to federal or state funding to get that road -in then I
agree we should eliminate it but it is bad planning to eliminate it,
but if we can't do it then why mess with it? That is the first comment.
The second comment - also I think as we get out
in the east end people frequently associate circulation plans with high
land yield and that does not have to be. For example if you, look along
Azusa Avenue look at the low density development in there, that is
basically all R-1 stuff ....
Mayor Young:
And very unhappy owners!
Comissioner Cox: That was the reflection and desires of the
community and that is what I think the east
end wants, they want R-1 there and if that is
what they want that is what they should have. But I don't think
land use and highway circulation plans should be totally balled into
one element. The County of Orange has developed extensively with
arterial highways sprinkled through out the major developments and it
has worked out pretty well through wall systems and so on, so it can
be done and still have R-1 use.
Personally I would kind of blow up if I thought
• West Covina Parkway was eliminated because of an east end element
because the scope of it goes for the entire city. But if someone
assures me_ as a planner that it is never going to be implemented then
I say forget it, we have to plan with an economic sense and if the
economics say we are not going to get it then let's dump it, because
we are just playing games to plan it. But if there is a chance I
think we should take a long look at it.
Mayor Young: Any area is a very dangerous area to take a
hard and fast position on at any given moment
because times do change and just a flat say
that this can never be - well I don't know that I share this view.
13 -
A
CITY COUNCIL Page Fourteen
JOINT MEETING: W.C. Parkway & Core Area Concept 4/2/73
Although I concede the particular thinking as we stand right -now in this
City the practical thinking certainly indicates that Councilman Nichols
is correct. Really I have never given a lot of thought to this north/
south artery here. I see the beautiful 110, street and I see the
landscaping down the middle of it — well I always enjoy going along
• Huntington Boulevard for example with a big beautiful street with
beautiful homes alongside of much of it, some commercial in various
places but on the face of it it seems like a nice thing and it seems
even nicer when you go through some of the areas that have been
planned for the City - Orange where it is planned at this time I think
this is an area of developing blight, from Lark Ellen over to Barranca
it is there and it is getting worse before it gets better and this
might be one of several avenues to prevent that from happening or at
least rehabilitate it if that is the way it goes and in fact some of
the area is there now. I think this is an area of developing blight
down here - Lark Ellen to Barranca. So I rather like the dream of
a nice boulevard rather than a hodge-podge but at the same time I
don't see the north/south aspect being that essential. You have
Workman and Cameron and you do have some changing patterns which I
think you will find significant when you get Hollenbeck opened up
north/south and Lark Ellen without the interference of the freeway,
which will make access easier north of the freeway. We are really
south of the freeway oriented in all our thinking and planning.
I don't have a strong feeling about whether we leave this or take it
off the map in light of these thoughts.
Councilman Nichols: I wanted to add one other point. Commissioner
Cox, I don't dispute what you are saying in
terms of planning and by your comment you
recognize it is planning, it is politics and it is economics and a lot
• of other things. When I first came on the Council almost ten years
ago we all kept talking about this access problem and we put in so
many improvements now. I am thinking of Cameron Avenue now with its
final improvement through soon, a four lane signalized highway and
any one on the east end of the City on the south side that wants to
go to the Plaza within a minute can drop down and pick up Cameron
Avenue now. In those earlier days it ended at Glendora and you couldn't
get across at all and it is just one long block off of Cameron into the
Plaza now so I think our access has improved so much that the verbaliza-
tion of this problem in reality it has diminished over the years. I
think we have reasonably good access but I suspect if someone lives
out around Grand and Virginia the sheer reason they may turn and go
up Barranca or Citrus is simply because it is two or three miles
closer. No matter what kind of road you get on it is a long grind
from out there down to West Covina Plaza, probably about five miles,
whereas it is maybe a mile or a mile and a half to some .other shopping
area. So matter now good your roads are if you just live a lot further
from one shopping area to the other you really just head for the
closer one. I would reiterate again my thinking preliminarily
is that I don't see a foreseeable practicality of making a completely
through highway and I am thinking essentially of the area that is of
high density single family residences with 60' lots and dozens and
dozens of homes and millions and millions of dollars of right of way.
Now if we can't do that, if really practically we don't see it in the
foreseeable future then I think we should not plan for it and if we
can't plan for it then I think we should look at those segments that
• we can plan for and adjust those to the reality of the traffic load
they will carry and the kind of community they will serve.
Councilman Shearer: Didn't Chairman Browne have somewhat of a
recommendation that the Planning Commission
perhaps two Commissioners in concert with one
or two Councilmen get together with the people in the immediate area,
perhaps this is shortsighted but life is a series of shortsighted
episodes rather than long term, fortunately in some aspects -
Barranca to Grand - sit down and come up with a solution that perhaps
- 14 -
CITY COUNCIL Page Fifteen
JOINT MEETING: W.C. Parkway & Core Area Concept 4/2/73
is not too far out in left field from a planning standpoint but is
acceptable politically and economically and perhaps do it piecemeal
which isn't the best way but may be the only practical way.
If that is what you recommend I think it would be well to put that
in the form of a motion if agreeable to my colleagues and get on
• with the subject. We could debate from now until 1990 whether we
are ever going to get a Parkway and I don't think we would get the
answer.
Chairman Browne: My only concern is with that area between
Barranca and Grand at this time.
Councilman Chappell: -Not Citrus to Grand?
Chairman Browne: No.
Motion by Councilman Shearer that the City Council direct the
Planning Commission to work out a proposal hot'tied down by the
present precise alignment of West Covina Parkway that is acceptable
to almost all parties and make a recommendation to Council.
Seconded by Councilman Lloyd.
Councilman Nichols: Before bringing this to a vote, let me ask a
question. Obviously any discussion in this
area has been unleashed by certain statements
of philosophy that seem to bear a consensus in terms of an overall
projection of routing across the City. Don't you feel at some
appropriate point following a preliminary look in this area that any
recommendation in'this area should be a part of looking at the
alignment across the town?
• Chairman Browne: Very definitely, I think this would have a
direct affect on the continuity of it.
Whatever we resolve in this area would
include a recommendation to cover..the.0 ty.Z. People living in the
area between Citrus and Azusa on over to Valinda were up in arms
about the alignment there however we are working in an area now of
uninhabitants and we are primarily concerned with that portion of
it. I can understand Commissioner Cox's concern and I go along with
that from the standpoint of good planning but in this era of
revolution - as we call it, we better start planning for the present
and what the situation demands.
Commissioner Jackson: There is another point too. Actually this
fact finding committee, and it can be
nothing more than that, because it will be
necessary to bring this matter to,a public hearing for the major
input and two Councilmen and two Planning Commissioners and the
general interested public may come up with'a..plan that Staff can
look at and work it over, but I think we are on a little dangerous
ground legally as far as that motion.
Councilman Shearer: My motion was merely to make a recommendation
and any members of the community, Planning
Commission or Council can come up with a
• recommendation for consideration. I think that is what I said, that
is what I planned to say, that it be recommended for consideration,
it was not my intent to say well now we are dropping the..Parkway or
anything of that sort. There has to be a hearing and formal action
taken.
Commissioner Mayfield: I think really what we are asking here is
the Council's concurrence to try out a
methodology here, to try and work with the
community and come to some type of planning process and when you
firm it up we will have to have a public hearing. But it just won't
be staff having the whole share or the Planning Commission but it
- 15 -
CITY COUNCIL Page Sixteen
JOINT MEETING: W.C. Parkway & Core Area Concept 4/2/73
be the community having a share in the process of planning at the
beginning. This is an approach that is now being used in my work -
with plus and minus on it. We feel a public hearing is not a very
useful tool because what you do is bring in a plan before a group
• of people and they don't have any responsibility for the plan and
they can sit there and criticize and negate but never realize they
have a responsibility to solve the problem. This just doesn't get
you anywhere. Hearings may be great after some effort has been made
in the community but they are not the solution to the planning itself.
One.of the ideas I heard about in the new
City of Irvine is they have seventeen villages and they have their
people organized informally in Villages and all of their planning
matters are thrashed out in the area it is by the Village of that area.
They don't probably get the perfect plan you think about in terms of
planning proposals but they get a plan.
Commissioner Jackson: Of course they have the advantage of one land
owner.
Commissioner Mayfield: Yes, they have a lot of nice starts. Now the
City of San Diego started the other way. They
thought high powered staff and good thinking
and skill was really going to solve it but when they went out they
found so much resistance on the ground they went the other way. I think
that is what we are talking about here.. This is a beginning and I would
hope if this has success and can be implemented and everybody is
enthused about it that we should go on down the line and try it.
• Mayor Young: Okay, we have a motion which directly imple-
ments the recommendation that the Commission
has made and the motion has been seconded. Is
there need.for further -:.discussion?
Motion carried, all voting in favor.
GENERAL PLAN MAP Chairman Browne: We are just briefly
UP DATE going to touch on
this subject.
Mr. Munsell will touch on the highlights of the subject, explaining
some of the things necessary to comply with AB1301.
(Slides shown and explained by Mr. Munsell, with regard to the Core
Area concept, regional commercial area and the various other land
uses shown on the General Plan. Stated the prime concern now is the
Core Area. The City Attorney has indicated under the new legislation
that requires the General Plan and the zoning to be compatible with
whatever we show on the General Plan and generally speaking zoning
is compatible with the General Plan with one major exception, and
that is the core area where there are a number of areas that do not
have a land use designation at all, just have a time designation of
five to ten, ten to twenty and over. We still need to respond to
that by either removing the time phase and put a land use on it or
we need to define a zone which is appropriate to the time phase.
Staff would prefer to do that in response to a long felt need in
. many requests from the Chamber of Commerce and other groups to
orient certain kinds of uses to the freeway especially at major
intersections. Continued on with the showing of slides and
explaining the various areas appearing on the General Plan that
need to be defined because of thing; that have transpired in the
past few years. Pointed out the Urgent Areas such as a solution to
the Core Area - are we going to wipe out the time spanning or are
we going to write a zone for it? That is important to the City to
meet its zoning and General Plan format.)
Commissioner Mayfield: Another alternative for the Core Area would
- 16 -
CITY COUNCIL Page Seventeen
JOINT MEETING: W.C. Parkway & Core Area Concept 4/2/73
be to go back to the General Plan on a one to one and then when you
have time write the overlays to enable the various options in there.
That way you could quickly get back to 1301 and save a lot of money.
Why couldn't you do that rather than go into all the studies at this
• time?
Mr. Munsell: That is a viable alternative especially in
terms of cost. The easiest thing would be to
designate .the existing zoning or something
close to it, that has certain pretty difficult shortcomings in some
areas and in other areas it wouldn't matter at all. That is something
that I would be a little unwilling to jump at because I think all of
a sudden we are going back to a one at a time project by project
determining what the City is going to look like. This of course
is the major conflict of the professionals in the field with the new
State legislation, everybody agrees that oftentimes the General Plans
have not been lived up to and therefore it was not a bad idea to
start seeking away to bring the legislative process and the planning
process closer together. However, the way it was officially enacted
creates a problem because it has given many City Councils from doing
any future planning whatsoever, finding it much easier just to back
off and say - okay we have single family zoning all up and down the
freeway on both sides let's leave it that way. So somewhere along
the line we get short shrifted in terms of trying to make decisions
such as back up tight of way for major streets such as West Covina
Parkway in the Core Area.
One other final shot at it and this is
something the Commissioners in their original discussion on the Core
Area brought forth strongly and that is West Covina is the
San Bernardino Freeway and two shopping centers. This is our
industry. That is what makes this money come in to run the services
for the community. This General Plan that we are showing on this
slide says that is where it is so let's make it as viable and
productive as possible - now have a good second look, some of the
projections were projected on things that will not come to pass
because of the lessening of population and the Division of Highways
turning into the Transportation Department, etc., but without the
Core Area concept you haven't a General Plan at all. Everything
grows from that. The rest of it are colors that talk in terms of
residential uses, parks, recreation, etc.
Commissioner Mayfield: Of course on the other hand you can work out
the breakdown that you have an never predict
where it is going to happen, where is it going
to start, where,is the first consolidated land parcel going to start,
you can't predict those, that is why I mentioned the option of going
back to the one to one zoning and writing overlay ordinances in a
certain area district, you have all the options you have here now and
can still change your General Plan when you get ready to use one of
these.
Mayor Young: What is the specific recommendation if any
at this point?
• Commissioner Mayfield: The problem right now is you have some
question about conforming to 1301 and that
is the main thrust to devote some time on
some of the options to getting us into better conformance.
Commissioner Adams: I thought we had a pretty definite opinion
from the City Attorney that we weren't really
in a problem area as far as conformance.
Commissioner Mayfield: I think it is variable - some people say it
is and others say it isn't.
- 17 -
CITY COUNCIL
Page Eighteen
JOINT MEETING• General
Plan Map Update 4/2/73
Commissioner Adams:
Maybe rather than a legal matter it is a
planning matter.. Maybe the planning is no
longer valid and should be looked at rather
than it being such a big legal matter.
• Councilman Lloyd:
Do we need to take any action on this?
Chairman Browne:
No, all we are trying to do is to acquaint
the City Council with some of the problems
confronting staff and the Commission to come
into compliance with AB1301. They are very minor in comparison to
what most cities have.
The plan being relatively new and the City
Attorney rendered his
opinion which I have copies of here that they
are just minor areas that
have to be adjusted and there is no great
big issue, it is just
a little time involved as far as staff is
concerned in preparing
the necessary paperwork.
Mayor Young:
I think the Commission has done a very
commendable thing in determining to look back
at this zoning where it has changed.
Chairman Browne: I think every Commissioner here realizes the
fact and have reiterated many times that the
General Plan is only a guideline and it
changes as conditions change, economic -wise, population -wise, etc.,
and we are justified in going back about every fifth year and making
refinements on the plan. Community involvement is always brought into
play here because it necessitates public hearings.
• Commissioner Cox: Mr. Chairman, I want to make this comment on
the Core Area and the General Plan and that is
they do tie into one another. I am not sure
I.have any confidence in our General Plan as it now stands. I really
begin to wonder if we have a Plan that we can look at as a guide.
If you really look at it when we eliminated the freeway and take out
our basic thinking of West Covina Parkway and start studying the
east end and getting the property owners input I think I know the
direction that will go, the Core Area concept doesn't fit anything.
And now I will get practical and from a practical standpoint I
doubt that we will ever see this Core Area implemented within our
lifetime, simply because of the value of the homes in relation to
the value of the land if the home were destroyed. We are now talking
of something in excess of $5.00 a foot for the land. Taking a
$25,000 home value in the Core Area sitting on five to six thousand
square feet that is what you are talking them for the value of that
land for higher use. The highest values we have in our Central
Business District are between five )and six dollars per square foot,
so I already have some apprehension relating to the Core Area con-
cept and it even becomes a greater apprehension when we eliminate
these things and appropriately so, as to what kind of a plan we have
to work with. I think we should take a long look at the Core Area
and nail it down. I don't think this color purple is meaningful at
this point in time. There might be some merit in studying specifics
around Azusa and Citrus and the elimination of the off ramp at
• Lark Ellen and Hollenbeck pretty well concludes any freeway .
oriented uses there. So I think the General Plan as you look at it
is becoming a meaningless thing and we should take a long look at it
This is going a lot farther than Chairman Browne has indicated as a
few little minor changes.
Councilman Lloyd: May I respond to that? I think what he is
talking about was my intention at the
discussions on this. First of all I agree
with you, I concur that we have monumental problems that all started
when someone put a freeway through and said that is your main street
and that is really where the problem started. What we are trying to
- 18 -
CITY COUNCIL Page Nineteen
JOINT MEETING: General Plan Map Update 4/2/73
do now is find a methodology whereby we can solve the problems of
communicating with the people and achieve as close to a workable
reasonable plan with a minimum amount of unhappiness and a:maximum
amount of cooperation. What has actually happened of course and
partly involves itself here isn't just the east end it is the total
• area. I concur with you, I think when we get through with this
meeting and get the input from the people on the east side and see
how well it works, if indeed it does work then we will have to
implement that in other areas. So what we are really saying is
exactly what you said, we are going to change the Plan. But what
Mr. Browne is saying now is at the present moment we are not in
jeopardy with regard to the legislative action in Sacramento.
Commissioner Mayfield: I take a different view on the General Plan.
When I first came on the Commission we
launched into updating the Plan and with the
growth outlook we had in our community certainly better direction for
growth was an important thing. We invested I believe $75,000 or
$80,000 in updating the Plan which was five or six years old at that
time and thinking on a bigger scale we also went to the Real Estate
Research Company and got a very optimistic report from them and
some of that is being carried out today in the redevelopment project
area. I am conscious that you the Council are cost conscious of
those kinds of investments and right now if you take the Plan in
totality and try and do it all over again it will cost a lot of
money and if we use the conventional process we used before we
probably won't predict any better than we see what is happening now.
So I felt it was preferable to offer you the idea of taking a certain
problem portion of it and try and improve those areas rather than
taking it in totality. I don't think it should be done the way it
• was before, I think it should involve community involvement on a
greater scale.
Mayor Young: These of course are expressions of philosophical
thought I gathered from the presentation and
the comments made, there is no radical or revolutionary program in
the making. I think perhaps we are thinking in the short term and
throwing up our hands and saying - there goes the General Plan. These
are times that breed skepticism but at the same time I don't know
what the ultimate result will be. For example the Phase I in the
CBD - I don't know what kind of encouragement that will give to
broaden the concept there or in the Core Area. If it does continue
to expand and redevelopment does go on I think by sheer force of
nutrition we will see ultimately the Core Area coming into reality.
The presence or absence of Huntington Beach Freeway may interfere'
with that but we are still going to have major north/south traffic
through town. I agree with you I don't think this is the time to
throw it out and start with a new one. We are working with concepts
that are fairly new and developing. We are not behind the times and
at the same time we are not rushing headlong into things. I think
you have adopted a reasonable and conservative approach to it and I
think we are going along with that in all of our actions from
Virginia through to West Covina Parkway. We are not saying "throw
it out" either.
Commissioner Jackson: I think we must keep a General Plan for
development but the Planning Commission is
charged with the responsibility of looking
at this every few years and if it isn't financially possible to have
it updated right now - there are quite a few things in the Plan
that need changing but I do not agree that it should be started over
at this time.
Councilman Nichols: Mr. Cox does raise a very valid point. The
development of the community primarily
hinges on the economic factors and not on
the hopes and asperations , the mere fact of the methodology of the
- 19 -
CITY COUNCIL Page Twenty
JOINT MEETING: General Plan Map Update 4/2/73
redevelopment points this out, this could never have come about if
the municipality itself didn't initiate a program to physically
subsidize land costs and I don't think it is too unrealistic to
anticipate those kind of developments in the Core Area that we are
hopefully thinking about. We have seen more significant changes
. right down Glendora Avenue in the terms of.a core developing than
we did anticipate three or four years ago. I don't think Mr. Cox
advocates, nor do I, the throwing out of the General Plan and
starting all over again, what we are saying is it has to be a
living instrument, we are living in revolutionary times, things
are changing very rapidly and it is a charge that you gentlemen
have to look at these things and propose modifications and changes.
Commissioner Adams: I think as we get deeper into this imple-
mentation phase which has to be the most
difficult part of the whole process as well
as the most important, I think we are going to continue to have
these questions. As long as we feel we have a valid Plan then I
think we just have to face up to the implementation of it. We do
have a lot of new people involved and we are hearing a lot of con-
cerns by those that are going to be directly affected or
indirectly affected. That is probably what you are into now and
it does come as a shock sometimes as to really know if we are on
the right path or not. I remember the effort that went into the
West Covina Parkway alignment and the public hearings.
Councilman Nichols: Our great task really is to face the
concerns and make an objective judgment
as to whether the concerns are valid or whether
they are just concerns.
• Commissioner Adams: These things didn't just get on here or I
hope they didn't because somebody thought
they were a real nice color and would make
a nice freeway, I have to believe that there was a lot of thought
and talent and expertise that went into these documents. So I would
be somewhat hesitant to make major changes until we looked again
at what the thought was before and if it is no longer valid then it
should be changed, which is a process that is in part theoritical
but thank goodness it is still political too and we are all
conscious of that. We strive, all of us on both of these bodies,
to mesh these two interests as much as possible.
Chairman Browne: We are treading cautiously at the Commission
level and I would like to reiterate there
are many things that have to be done to
update the plan and bring it in compliance and those things will be
accomplished and the other things we can take a hard look at as we
progress.
(Mayor Young stated if there were no further comments the Planning
Commission might wish to adjourn at this time as the Council had a
few items of business to transact.)
Motion by Commissioner Jackson, seconded by Commissioner Adams and
• carried, to adjourn the Planning Commission meeting at 9:40 P.M.
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS
W.C. COUNCIL OF PARENT Re invitation to 17th Annual Luncheon
TEACH ASSOC., FIRST DIST., and meeting on Thursday, April 12,
CCPT 1973, Elks' Lodge -.Informational.
Mayor Young: We all have the invitation on this lunchecon.
Is there anything further?
Councilman Nichols: I sure hope you will all make itl
- 20 -
CITY COUNCIL
WRITTEX COMMUNICATIONS - Cont'd.
Page Twenty-one
4/2/73
SAN JOSE LITTLE LEAGUE Motion by Councilman Shearer that*the City
RE PARADE PERMIT Council approve the request of the San Jose
APPLICATION Little League for a parade permit for April 7,
1973, subject to Staff review and recommendatio
• Seconded by Councilman Chappell, and carried.
Mayor Young: Are there any others matters that should come
before Council?
Councilman Chappell: Mr. Mayor, I would like to request a brief
executive session to make our final decision
on the RTD Directorship that is coming up
for election this coming Thursday and I as your representative to the
League of California Cities must cast a vote and I would like to do
so on the decision of this Council and not on my own thinking.
We have a number of candidates and we should settle on one.
(COUNCIL ADJOURNED TO THE EXECUTIVE SESSION AT 9:45 P.M. COUNCIL
RECONVENED AT 9:50 P.M.)
Mayor Young: As a result of our Executive Session meeting
Councilman Chappell will vote for Adelina
Gregory - Councilwoman of the City of
Baldwin Park for the RTD Directorship as a first choice and if she
should drop out his vote will go for Mayor Don Yaeger of the City of
Covina.
ADJOURNMENT
•
ATTEST:
CITY CLERK
•
Motion by Councilman Nichols, seconded by
Councilman Lloyd and carried, to adjourn this
meeting at 9:55 P.M.
APPROVED:
MAYOR
- 21 -