Loading...
05-24-1976 - Regular Meeting - Minutesi MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL CITY OF WEST COVINA, CALIFORNIA MAY 249 1976. • The regular meeting of the City Council called to order at 7:30 P.M. in the West Covina Council Chambers by Mayor Nevin Browne. The Pledge of Allegiance was given. The invocation was given by the Reverend Larry Cole of the Community Presbyterian Church. anti CALL Present: Mayor Browne; Councilmen: Miller,",. Chappell, Shearer, Tice Others Present: Leonard Eliot, Acting City Manager Michael'Miller, Public Serv. Director Harry Thomas, City Engineer Lela Preston, City Clerk George Wakefield, City Attorney Ramon Diaz, Planning Director Craig Meacham, Deputy Police Chief Ross Bonham, Administrative Ass't. Kevin Northfield, Administrative Ass't. Gloria Davidson, Deputy City Clerk Renee Futter, Administrative Aide Eric Cohen, Staff Reporter - Sentinel Bill Freemon, Staff Reporter - S.G.V.D.T. PRESENTATION Mayor Browne: Tonight we have with us an outstanding young man • who has been working towards his Eagle Scout. He came beforeCouncil several months ago indicating he would like to take on as his project the painting of fire hydrants on Glendora Avenue with the bicentennial theme in mind. This young man on his own went out into the community and painted over twenty fire hydrants and to me this is indicative of the true spirit of our younger generation. (Presented to Wayne .Brewer a Certificate of Commendation for his outstanding service to the City.) APPROVAL OF MINUTES Motion by Councilman Tice to approve the minutes of the Council meeting of May 3, 1975 (Joint Council/ Planning Commission); seconded by'Councilman Miller and carried. Motion by Councilman Shearer to approve the minutes of the adjourned regular meet- ing of City Council on May 5, 1976; seconded by Councilman Tice an'd carried. Motion by Councilman Shearer to approve the minutes of the regular Council meeting of May 10, 1976; seconded by Councilman Miller with a correction on Page 21, second paragraph, last sentence, reword to read: t "I would like to give credit....". Motion carried. CONSENT CALENDAR Mayor Browne explained the procedure of the Consent Calendar items and asked if there were comments on any of the following items: -1 - r • • CITY COUNCIL CONSENT CALENDAR — Cont'd. 1. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS a) UPPER SAN GABRIEL VALLEY MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT b) J. C. OKEY 3136 E. Virginia Ave., West Covina c) DALE C. EMMERT and MRS. DALE C. EMMERT 3023 E. Virginia Ave., West Covina d) CATHY BROWN 1105 S. Holly Place West Covina e) PETITION RE GEMINI STREET IN BREN TRACT TAMARA HOMES Page Two 5/24/76 Re establishment of water rates to become effective July 1, 1977 by the Metropolitan Water District of South— ern California. (Informational — Receive and file) Protesting Z.C. No. 503. `(Refer to Hearing Item No. B-1) Protesting Z.C. No. 503. (Refer to Hearing Item No. B-1) `Requesting permission to hold a Bicentennial 4th-of July block party on the 1100 block of South Holl Place. (Refer to City Manager's office�(Refer to discussion on Page 3) Request cul—de—sacing of Gemini Street because of burglary, speed and vandalism. ' (,Refe.r to Staff (Withdrawn.Refer to discussion'on Pages 3 and 4.3 f) ADDITIONAL PROTESTS Refer to Hearing Item No. B-1 AGAINST Z.C. NO. 503 Dan Spadier 410 La Serena Drive, W.C. Carol Gossett 432 Charvers, W.C. Mr. & Mrs. C. Justi 3133 E. Sunset Hill Dr., W.C. Arthur Forkert 3125 E. Sunset Hill Dr., W.C. Mr. & Mrs. J. P. Morrison 322 Campana Flores Dr., W.C. James U..Gossett 432 S. Charvers, W.C. Mr. & Mrs. D. P. Hodges 3227 E. Virginia Ave., W.C. g) CHESTER J. FALICKI 809 W. Pine St. West Covina 2. PLANNING COMMISSION a) SUMMARY OF ACTION 3. YOUTH ADVISORY COMM. MINUTES. 4. ABC APPLICATIONS a) Mariposa Enterprises, Inc. 3109 E. Garvey Avenue West Covina Herman Joseph Wade, Pres., 10379 Topeka Dr., Northridge, Ca. 5. TRAFFIC COMMITTEE MINUTES Commending Ray Diaz, Plannin Director. (Receive and file May 19, 1976. (Accept and file) April 15 and May 6, 1976. (Receive and file) Chief of Police recommends NO PROTEST. dba MARIPOSA INN 3109E. Garvey Avenue May 18, 1976. (Accept and file) Report for month of April, 1976. (Receive and file) 2 — f, CITY COUNCIL Page Three CONSENT CALENDAR - Cont'd. 5/24/76 Mr. Robert Smith asked for discussion re Item I-e; Councilman Diller requested withdrawal of item I-d. Lotion by Councilman Shearer to approve consent calendar items with the exception of Items I-d and I-e; seconded by Councilman Tice and • carried on roll call vote as follows: AYES: Diller, Chappell, Shearer, Tice, Browne NOES: None ABSENT: None ITEM I-d Councilman Diller: This type of RE PERMISSION TO requesr has come HOLD A BLOCK PARTY before us previously and in the past I have been nonsupportive of it and in this case I will also be non - supportive. I feel this type of request the people should be encourag- ed to utilize the parks in our community and thus save the inconvenience to those people not involved in this type of activity. I just want my personal feelings on the record in regard to this. I will agree to have it referred to the City Manager's office as recommended here. Councilman Shearer: In the past I think the action of the Council has been dependent on unanimous participation of those people involved and this happens to be a cul-de-sac street and I think this is the purpose of referring it to -the City Manager, for his indication that this is in fact a block party and not something that just a few people would attend. However, if there are people on the street opposed to it then I would have to join Councilman Miller, but I don't think we know.that'at this time. Motion by Councilman Shearer to refer this item to the City Manager • for a report back 'to Council; seconded by Councilman Miller and carried. ITEM I-e ,Robert Smith: Members of Council, I PETITION RE GEMINI believe most of you STREET have read the petition submitted to you in writing. What we would like basically is to request from Council in our tract that they put a moratorium on any further construction in the continuation of Gemini Street through our tract until such time as Council can get a new study of the present and existing conditions in that new tract. We would like to see the study made by the City Engineer, City Planners, City Traffic Committee, Fire Department, Police Department and three residents of the street which have some firsthand knowledge of the facts re traffic circulation, vandalism, etc. The things that are going on right now in our tract and that the City may not be aware of. .e f.eel"there has been some misrepresentation in our tract in respect -to planning, sales and a few other items which we do not want to go into now. We feel it needs to be studied and can't be done in one night. We have 42 residents in our tract at present, all young with nice families and all expect to live there many years. We feel this tract should go through as shown when we pur- chased and not what has been told to us recently and that we have • all been misrepresented and we are a little upset and don't know what we can do about it. We come to you for help. Councilman Tice: Mr. Mayor, I took the time this weekend to ride around in that area and the surrounding county area and there definitely is some problems. Blocking off the street I am not sure CITY COUNCIL Page Four CONSENT CALENDAR — ITEM I—e 5/24/76 will solve all the problems. I feel it should definitely be re— ferred to staff for further study. Mayor Browne: Mr. Smith. I would recommend that you allow us to refer this to staff and we • will have Mr. Miller contact you and he will inform you of the procedures that will be set up to try and overcome some of the difficulties you are encountering. We have already granted the Tract Map and the Precise Plan has gone , through and I don't believe we would be within our legal rights to call a halt to construction. I would rather refer this to our City Attorney and staff and have them do some research on this. Mr. Smith: All right. I have talked to the Planning Department and City Engineer and from my understanding the one area Which we would like to save both the City problems and the con— tractor expenses at this time was not finally approved. He is doing this in phases and the section we are talking about is Phase 6, which is not under construction except for the street portion. - It is open to such an extent that people are coming through at un— desirable speeds for the residents and our children. There are no barricades to slow them down or keep them out. If we can get something there to stop this type of traffic it will help until we can find out something further. Mayor Browne: Mr. Eliot, will you look into this matter in the morning to see what the seriousness of the traffic is and if it necessitates some legal barricade to cut down the speed. In the meantime we will have Mr. Miller arrange a meeting to study this. (Councilman Tice asked that the Deputy Police Chief be included in • that meeting.) Councilman Shearer: Mr. Mayor — my memory is somewhat hazy but it seems to me at the time we dis— cussed this",traet this question of a cul—de—sac or not a cul—de—sac, a through':street, etc., came up and I see a nod of affirmative from the former Planning Director — I would like that information brought back. It seems to me it had something to do with the access to the school. Motion by Councilman Tuce to.refer this matter to the City Attorney and City staff for further study and report back to Council; seconded by Councilman Miller.and carried. AWARD OF BIDS PROJECT NO. MP.'77176007 Location: Cameron Park, Cortez Park, CONSTRUCTION OF PLAY Orangewood Park, Palm View Park and EQUIPMENT AREAS Walmerado Park. Bids were received in the office of the City,Clerk up to 10:00 A.M., on Wednesday, May 5, 1976, and thereafter publicly opened and read. Held over from 5/10/76. Two bids received as follows: is Alternate A Alternate 8 Roy C. Barnett $429800 2,500 sipooff 2908 Jefferson Riverside, Ca. Ryco Construction $68,340 $6,600 $5,000 San Pedro, Ca. 4 — CITY COUNCIL Page Five AWARD OF BIDS: No. 76007 5/24/76 Alternate A: Lump sum — Soil preparation and seeding of areas dis— turbed for drainage adjacent to play area. Alternate B: Lump sum — Remove and dispose of play equipment and footings. • Motion by Councilman Chappell to approve the transfer of $5,700 from Account 149-318 Park Fee in Lieu "B" to Project No. MP-76007; and accept the bid of Roy C. Barnett of Riverside as presented at the bid opening on May 5, 1976 for City Project No. MP-76007, instruct staff to negotiate a change order deleting the play equip— ment in Walmerado Park thereby reducing the contract amount to $369000, and authorize the Mayor and City. Clerk to execute the con— tract and change order with said Roy C. Barnett for the work to be done; seconded by Councilman Miller and carried on roll call vote as follows: AYES: Miller, Chappell, Shearer, Tice, Browne NOES: None ABSENT: None • U BID NO. 76-55 Bids were received in the office of the" FURNISHING UNIFORM Purchasing Agent up to 10:00 A.M., on SERVICES Wednesday, March 31, 1976, and thereafter publicly opened and read. Held over from 4/12 & 5/10/76. Council reviewed Con— troller's.Report recommending Hold over to June 14, 1976. So moved by Councilman Miller; seconded by Councilman Shearer and carried. BID NO. 76-79 FURNISH ASPHALTIC CON— CRETE PAVING MATERIAL Associated Asphalt, Inc. Azusa Blue Diamond (Sully —Miller) Long Beach Industrial Asphalt Azusa Bids were received in the office of the Purchasing Agent up to 10:00 A.I., on Wednesday, May 19, 1976, and thereafter publicly opened and read. Council reviewed Controller's Report. Bids received as follows: Added Cost* @10o per mile Total Cost $8.00 per ton .35 8.35 $8.65 per ton 1.02 $8.50 per ton .36 Vernon Asphalt $8.75 per ton .63 *A 100 mileage charge is added for evaluation. 9.67 8.86 9.38 Motion by Councilman Tice to award Bid 76-79 to Associated Asphalt, Inc., and authorize the Acting City Manager to issue an Annual Pur— chase Order for approximately $249000; seconded by Councilman Miller and carried on roll call vote as follows: AYES: Miller, Chappell, Shearer, Tice, Browne NOES: None ABSENT: None PUBLIC WORKS PRECISE PLAN NO. 257,R2 Location: Southwest corner of Sunset Strauss Construction Co. Avenue and West Covina Parkway, — 5 — CITY COUNCIL Page'Six PUBLIC WKS: PP No. 257,N2 5/24/76 Motion by Councilman Shearer to accept construction of driveway approaches, curb and gutter, sidewalks, trench and backfill for street lights, and authorize,release of Great American Insurance Company's Bond No. 7 00'73 79 in the amount of $4,800; seconded by Councilman Miller and carried. • 1975-76 SECOND Loca::.tion: Various throughout City. SUPPLEMENTAL WEED AND (Council reviewed Street Superintendent's RUBBISH ABATEMENT report.) AMENDMENT Mr. Wakefield: Mr. Mayor and members of Council, this resolution amends Resolution of Intention No. 5106 approving the second Supplemental Weed and Rubbish Abatement List and setting Monday, June 14, 1976, at 8:00 P.M., for protest hearing on the proposed removal of weeds and rubbish from properties on said list. RESOLUTION NO. 5240 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE ADOPTED CITY OF WEST COVINA, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING RESOLUTION OF INTENTION NO. 51069 BY APPROVING THE SECOND SUPPLEMENTAL WEED AND RUBBISH ABATEMENT LIST. Motion by Councilman Tice to waive full reading of said resolution; seconded by Councilman Miller and carried. Motion by Councilman Tice to adopt said resolution; seconded by Councilman Miller and carried on roll call vote as follows: AYES: Miller, Chappell, Shearer, Tice, Browne NOES: None ABSENT: None FEDERAL AID URBAN Location: Citywide. • SYSTEM (Council reviewed Engineer's report) RESOLUTION'NO. 5241 The City Attorney presented: ADOPTED A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF WEST COVINA, CALIFORNIA, APPROV- ING THE CITY OF WEST COVINA PORTION OF THE 1980 FUNCTIONAL USAGE STUDY AND THE DESIGNATION OF FEDERAL -AID URBAN ROUTES IN SAID CITY. Motion by Councilman Shearer to waive full reading of said resolu- tion; seconded by Councilman Miller and carried. Motion by Councilman Shearer to adopt said resolution; seconded by Councilman Miller and carried on roll call vote as follows: AYES: Miller, Chappell, Shearer, Tice, Browne NOES: None ABSENT:None MONTHLY STATUS REPORT Motion by Councilman Shearer to receive (Informational) and file; seconded by Councilman Tice and carried. CITY ATTORNEY AGENDA • ORDINANCE The City Attorney presented: INTRODUCTION. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF WEST COVINA, CALIFORNIA, ADOPT- ING A REVISED SCHEDULE OF FEES FOR.THE PROCESSING OF MATTERS BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT AND PLANNING COMMISSION. 6 - • 11 CITY COUNCIL CITY ATTORNEY AGENDA: Ord. Introd. Page Seven 5/2.4/76 Lotion by Councilman Shearer to waive full reading,of said Ordinance; seconded by Mayor Browne. Councilman Tice: Mr. Mayor, a question of staff. What does this do to an individual that wants to build a carport or an addition to the house? There is no sliding scale as I -look at this. Mr. Diaz: Mr. Mayor and members of Council. For the individual who wishes to add on to'his house there are no requirements fors. precise plans in -the single family residential zone. He would not be required to abide by this, unless he had a variance. Councilman Miller: Mr. Mayor, a question, on the variance. The amount of $200 that will affect the others - how was this arrived at? Why do the businessmen in the community looking for a variance have to pay the extra amount? Mr. Diaz: The reason for the $200 for all others and $100 for single family residential when the study was conducted and presented to the City Council -it was the wish of the Council that the variance fee for single family residents remain the same. The reason we increased it for all others was to cover the increased cost incurred by the Department. Although the survey average for variances, as indicated here, is only$1201 $200, is still substantially below many cities and will not cover the entire cost of processing variances. Councilman Miller: Mr. Mayor, this held evening to some time for a briefing on this. I personally would like to see over. I am not prepared this vote on this. I would prefer Councilman Shearer: Mr. Wakefield, as I understand this is a motion to introduce the ordinance and the second reading will be in two weeks - is that correct? (Mr. Wakefield answered "yes") I would ask Councilman Miller if that would give him sufficient time to gather whatever information is wanted and at that time.the ordinance could be adopted or rejected on the basis of further information. Councilman Miller: That is all right. Motion carried. ORDINANCE NO. 1302 The City Attorney presented: ADOPTED AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF WEST COVINA, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING THE WEST COVINA MUNICIPAL CODE SO AS TO REZONE CERTAIN PREMISES. (Zone Change No. 502 - John R. Harris, Jr.) Motion by Councilman Tice to waive full reading of said ordinance; seconded by Councilman Shearer and carried. Motion by Councilman Tice to adopt said ordinance; seconded by • Councilman Shearer and carried on roll call vote as follows: AYES: Miller, Chappell, Shearer, Tice, Browne NOES: None ABSENT: None - 7 - CITY COUNCIL Page Eight CITY ATTORNEY AGENDA - Cont'd. 5/24/76 RESOLUTION Mr. Wakefield: Mr. Mayor and members of Council, this item is related to Item No. 1, except this'is a resolution and if adopted this evening it would become immediately effective. City Council may wish to post- pone consideration of this item until your next regular meeting along with the ordinance which has been previously ,i.ntraduced. What this relates to is the charges which are levied -by the Planning Department in those instances where the law dirdcts that the City prepare and process Environmental Impact Reports. The present .fee fixed by resolution is y$50. This resolution would increase that fee to 4$100. Motion by Councilman Shearer to defer action on this resolution to the next regular meeting of City Council; seconded,by Councilman Tice and carried. HEARINGS ZONE CHANGE NO. 503 LOCATION: East side of Barranca Street, ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT north of Virginia Avenue. REPORT - MAYER CON- REQUEST: Approval of a change of zone STRUCTION,COMPANY, INC. from R-A (Resident.ial-Agricultural) to MF-8 (Multiple Family, Condominium Zone, 8 units per acre) on an approximate 6 acre parcel and Certification of the Environmental Impact Report. Recommended by Planning Commission Resolution No. 5-76-2656(a). City Clerk verified Proof of Publication in the West Covina Tribune on May 13, 1976 received, and that 37 mailed notices were sent out. Mayor Browne: The Planning Commission at its regular . meeting of May 5, 1976, by a vote of 3-1 approved Precise Plan No. 584, Rev. 2, and recommended approval of Zone Change No. 503 for the property located on the east side of Barranca Street and north of Virginia Avenue. Th`e Chairman of the Planning Commission wished that it be noted that the only reason that he was casting an affirmative vote on this proposal was that so a decision would be reached and the matter go to Council. Had the Chairman voted "no" on the proposal as he desired, the vote would have been 2-2 with no decision reached and another public hearing would have had to be held. In view of the fact that the ultimate decision on the zone change would rest with the City Council, further public hear- in.g before the Planning Commission would cause unnecessary delay in the final decision on the proposal and undue inconvenience to those who have appeared at public hearings on this matter in the past. I will state clearly that this hearing is solely to hear the zone change on this property. This went through the due hearing process of the Planning Commission at its regular meeting on May 5 by a vote of 3 to 1, as stated. Mr. Diaz, Planning Director, presented slides indicating the • location of the property and explained. He then stated the issue before the Council is whether or not the requested zone change is appropriate now or in the future. The fact the General Plan has the area designated as a transitional area recommending high re- sidential uses does not commit the Council to approve said zone - 8 - CITY COUNCIL Page Nine HEARINGS: Z.C. #503 5/24/76 Change. 'In fact:.even_'if-,th'e'-General Plan designated the parcel for'Mf—B zoning, which is what.is being applied for, the Council is not bound or obligated to approve the zone change if it did not feel said zone change is appropriate now or in the future. However, if the Council feels the zone change is not-ap-propriate then it should instruct the staff to amend the General Plan. • The amendment could take the form of either: I.— a specific General Plan amendment; 2 — a specific plan which would amend the General Plan; 3.— a revised General Plan which the City is now in the process of completing. Mr. Diaz: I want to emphasize this point very strongly - the Council is not -obligated to approve a zone change merely because a color is shown on the map. If that were the case then the decision — making powers of the City would be withdrawn from it as soon as a General Plan were adopted. In effect the General Plan would be a zoning plan, which was never the intent of -our current General Plan nor AB1301 which is the bill that set forth the consistency of the General Plan zoning. (Mr. Diaz then proceeded to summarize sections of the written staff report dated May 5, 1976: Zoning and General Plan Considerations; Expanded Market Analysis Review.) Mr. Diaz: There were some side issues brought up at the Planning Commission which I would like to deal with at this time. First, was the fact that whether a street or natural boundary should be used as the division line between a more intensive and less intensive use. As indicated in the minutes, and I would still stand by the statement I made at the Planning Commission meeting, [°whenever possible a natural boundary would be better" because when you have a more intensive use on one side of the street and use the street as a justification for the division between less intensive and more in— tensive uses the more intensive use can create enough traffic on that street to make the less intensive use totally undesirable in that area. The other issue raised at the Planning Commission was the fact that AB1301 and other key court decisions and pieces of legislation have been adopted since the City's currently adopted General Plan was put into effect in 1969. The effect of this is one could question whether or not the 1969 General Plan as adopted envisioned these pieces of legislation which commit a City to a greater degree of implementation than was the case in 1969 AB1301 went into effect in March 1972 and as indicated in the joint report between County Council and the City/ County of San Diego Planning Department prior to that time General Plans were just viewed as "dream sheets". Since _the adoption of AB1301 the effects on cities have been,`tremeridous,. So the key issue before the Council tonight is the appropriateness of the zoning i:n that area. If'the Council does not feel the zoning is ;appropri'atet'hen the existing General Plan should be amended utilizing one of the three steps I have indicated previously. PUBLIC HEARING,OPENED • Mr. Dale L. Ingram Mr. Mayor and members of Council, I am Box 5922 here tonight representing Robert L. Mayer, El Monte, Ca. Mayer Construction Company, Inc., 8121 E. Lawrence, Downey, California. J f CITY COUNCIL Page Ten HEARINGS: Z.C. k503 5/24/76 The proposal before you tonight.. is for a zone change to MF-8, better known as the -condominium zone, which is 6 units per acre. It is important that we mention the number 6 because the Notices did not call it out or speak to the fact that this is in a so-called area district that does limit the number of units per acre to 6 in this particular zone. The Precise Plan was filed and approved by the Planning Commission. (Described the location of the area under consideration. Speaking to the Planning Directors point of zoned boundaries I would point out to you that the channel is a zoned boundary. The other side is a commercial zone. (Continued on with describing th.e surrounding area.) And to the west we have Barranca, which I feel I should mention because all of the oppon- ents do mention it in a derogatory manner, the 300unit apartment development there. I am not saying that it is a bad development in anyway - shape or form - but they all think it is, so I want to point out to you that it is directly across the street from this property. So if it has a bad effect then it most certainly must affect this property more than any other property in the area. (Described in detail the property itself.) My client acquired both properties to develop them in an orderly manner. The zone change contemplates and requires othe dedication of 51,000 square feet for the West Covina Parkway and.the temporary access to the site. The basic issue here is should this property north of the proposed West Covina Parkway be zoned and developed diffe.rent'than those on the south side of the parkway and along both sides of Virginia Street because of the detrimental effects of the San Bernardino Freeway which has just been widened and is now closer to it than before with increased noise. The • sound studies performed and the City's own records show that the property itself is within the 65 DB sound envelope which necessi- tates any construction along the freeway with no openings. This site has a commercial development between Garvey and the Wash. It has the flood control Walnut Creek Wash., it has„West Covina Parkway 110' wide and it will carry -heavy traffic when completed, it has the water reservoir. Barranca Street has had considerable amount of change to it also. The grading was raised creating a hill on the approach there and Barranca Street is*very heavily travelled. luny of these factors have taken place in recent years including the development of the apartment complex. We think this property is unique and that there is no other in the area that compares to it. We believe it is entitled to a different methodology of handling and a different zoning in development than those properties south of the proposed parkway. We believe that homes that must be sold at the same price level or higher than those along Virginia cannot and will not sell when faced with these negative effects. The General Plan consultants in 1968 and. the citizens of the City, the Planning Commission and -City Council obviously agreed that there was a difference, a distinct separation of the typesjof housing • on the north/south side of the proposed West Covina Parkway. That is why they established the core area and designated this property a-s high density residential to be developed in 5/10 years. That was in 1969. Here we are 7 years down the road and well into that time span - the transitional period following that General Plan - 10 - CITY COUNCIL Page Eleven HEARINGS: Z.C. #503 5/24/76 which the City has not changed. The General Plan is still in force. The staff speaks to the lack of requirement for enforcement or consistency of the General Plan. Section 65860 of the Government Code, quoting from another learned attorney — "After June 30, 19749 the primary and dangerous sanction imposed by 65860 terminated and thereafter consistency became more of a political problem than a mandatory requirement; i.e., by law still requires consistency but -no, penalities are imposed except as to the future changas-to-either the Zone oi•Plan when subsection (c) will again come into play. Subsection (c) says "in the event that a zoning ordinance be.c.ame.s.. inconsistent with the General Plan by reason of amendment to such a plan or any element.to such a plan that such zoning ordinance shall be amended within a reasonable time so it is consistent with the General Plan as amended." I point out to you that consistency is required. The Planning -Commission resolution speaks to the fact they, found: it,:nconsistent,: -.,,,„ That General Plan though is still in force and we now have the State Law requiring consistency, regard— less of what the Planning Department Director days. In the two previous cases the Planning Commission and staff has always said we were consistent. The Planning Commission operating under your General Plan and practicing good planning recognized the differences and agreed our development met the criteria for 6 units per acre condominium development and recommended approval of the zone change and approved the precise plan. Let's talk now about the changes brought about since we were here last and as it relates to the zoning on the property. The Harvey property outlined in yellow, I believe Council will recall a letter was read from Mr. Harvey asking that his pro— perty be exempted because he no longer had an agreement with Mr. Mayer and the City Attorney ruled it could not be because it had been advertised and it was too late to withdraw it. Now let me tell you what has happened. We proposed for the last three years to buy approximately 159000 square feet from Mr. Harvey and had an agreement .on $1.00 per square foot contingent on the zoning approval for the development. Between the Commission hearing, some three months ago, and your Council hearing that night, Mr. Harvey became arbitrary. He notified Mr. Mayer he wanted a 10 day escrow, no contingency and the price of $1.40 per square foot. Understand this, all we were proposing to do was provide the West Covina Parkway right—of—way to be dedicated by the Harvey property. We were willing to pay $15,000 plus the cost of development to improve the development but he got greedy. We could not pay him $21,000 and surely we are not going to buy additional land without approval of the zone change — so we had to design around,it. In doing so this does not create a problem. Your Council is familiar with the before and after conditions relat— ing to the Parkway where there is such a plan where it takes one form now and when the Parkway is put through then you have a widened street. You will have the same thing in this case. We have arranged and have adequate access and that has been approved by the various city departments and when Mr. Harvey wants to sell off the'back, of his deep lots he can make his own dedications and improvements. As I said, the density was • now reduced to the 6 units per acre. When we were before you last we were asking for variances and there are now no variances in - connection with the zone change case nor the precise plan. The application fills all the requirements of the MF-8 zone. — 11 — CITY COUNCIL Page Twelve HEARINGS: Z.C. #503 5/24/76 The economic projections and economics does figure into it. The City's ordinance requires economic con- sideration and marketing consideration projections. The marketing analysis showed if everything went well there would be an $8,000 profit on an investment of a million eight hundred thousand dollars. The staff has pointed out to the Commission the development of new high cost single family homes in the area, speaking specifically adjacent to Grand Avenue and south of the Parkway. Incidentally those properties over at Grand have a hill between the freeway and the parkway so they are well buffered from the noise. I would like to make one point clear - everyone of these new developments is south of the proposed Parkway and we have said all along that opening up the Parkway through there will open up all the property in there. Development with conventional single family homes would go on the south side. We have also said approval of our development would lead to develop- ment on the north side of the parkway and also lead to the develop- ment of the.West Covina Parkway'which the City has wanted for many years but did not have the money to build. Staff questioned whether there is a market for condominiums in this area. I would like to point out to you Mr. Mayer built a condominium development in the City of Covina at Hollenbeck and Badillo. This was built during the one and a half year recession we recently went through and he had no difficulty in selling out that condominium development and to stable citizens - teachers, doctors, lawyers, etc. In the last three months Aspen Village sales have picked up tremendously and they are now starting additional units because the market has picked up for condominiums as well as single family homes. We were in a recession and we are in a recovery now. Our own experience • and extensive research studies leads us to believe we can provide quality constructions, outstanding design, extra amenities to entice 36 families who want condominium style living, convenience to the freeway and commercial areas - enough to put up with the negative aspects in their proximity, and at the projected prices. We purchased this property to build 30 units per acre and that was denied. We tried an 85 unit condominium at 14 units per acre and had to withdraw that one. Then a 49 at 8 units - denied. We are now before you with a 36 condominium -unit or 6 per acre and looking at the bottom line of $8,000 profit because this is the last financially feasible method of developing this site. The Planning Commission resolution spoke directly to it, that the site meets the general intent of the 1969.General Plan of high density residential and that there is a need for this type of development for theintended zoning, and that there will be no adverse effects. Similarly their resolution on the Precise Plan is very positive. The Planning Commission believed this to be a good proposal and have recommended it. They felt this parti- cular corner of the property lying north of the parkway was entirely different than the balance of the property to the east lying north of the parkway. Is Mr. Mayor, you pointed out a qualification on the part of the Chairman of the Planning Commission and the resolution does not refer to that, it merely states the resolution was adopted 3 to 1. I would ask if perhaps the Chairman of the Planning Commission wasn't mistaken in his statement that this was the only alternative to be had in the case to rehear the case? - 12 - CITY COUNCIL Page Thirteen HEARINGS: Z.C. t503 5/24/76 There was a -verbatim transcript taken at the request of staff and I understand from staff in the past under similar cases where there has been a 2-2 vote that the matter has been continued to give the missing member the opportunity to review the transcripts and then . cast a ballot. I ask if that is true why wasn't this taken rather than prejudicing the case on the part of the Chairman? Also I have every reason to believe that had it been done in that manner and held for two weeks the matter would have come to you with a clean- 3-2 vote. The missing Commissioner Jackson supported our applica— tion in the. first case. He supported both the changed zone and the 49 units including the variances. I have no reason to believe he wouldn't have done so again. So I feel Mr. Bacon prejudiced the case. Mr. Bacon also made a misstatement regarding the sale price we paid pe�square foot. He did not take into consideration the number of feet in the gross taking, rather he used the figure for the net. Also in his statement qualifying his vote Mr. Bacon pointed out he was voting "yes" to move this on to the Council because it would get there anyway because anything Mr. Mayer brings before them is appealed.to::the Council and I would like to set the record straight. In recent years the Barranca Development apartments was not appealed to City Council. The next thing was the construction of the Ambassador Inn Hotel, there was no appeal taken by `my clients. The next request of the Planning Commission was to have the Commission undertake studies to look at reducing the width of the Parkway and we were denied the request and we did not appeal that to City Council. The only thing we appealed to City Council was the last case. So I think the Chairman for some reason, and I know not why, prejudiced the case. Mayor.Browne: I think the Chairman felt inasmuch as • zone changes are not final unless they are heard before the City Council for that reason he took the stand he did on this. I was in attendance at the meeting and you are merely assuming that:.had Commissioner Jackson been present he would have voted your way, so this is only an assumption on your part. But in all fairness Mr. Bacon wanted to expedite this to save both the developer money and save the city the time and efforts that are expended on these public hearings and automatically the zone change does come to City Council for final approval if it is not denied. Mr. Ingram: The question I had, Mr'. Mayps, was did not the Planning Commission have the alternative of continuing for two weeks to permit Mr. Jackson an opportunity to review and vote..... Councilman Shearer: Mr. Mayor, a point of order. I really don't see why this is germane to the issue. 'The vote,was 3 to 1, I am not going to challenge Mr. Bacon's reason for voting against it anymore than I would Mr. Kochis, Mr. Jordon or Mrs. Christopher's negative vote, or Jackson's absence.. I don't see that this is evidence pro or con. As the Mayor indicated the matter before us was the zone change. If there is an issue as to Mr. Bacon's propriety in the way he voted I submit that is an entirely different issue and I would like to.'suggest that we get on with the evidence of the case and not the personalities involved. (Council agreed and Mr. Ingram asked to continue on that basis.) Mr. Ingram: I think the Planning Commission believed this was a good proposal and the zone change was proper. Conditions have changed — 13 — CITY COUNCIL Page Fourteen HEARINGS: Z.C. #503 5/24/76 through the years that affect this property making it unsuitable for the same zo.ning classification as those properties south of. the parkway so they recommended the zone change. We ask the City Council to end the long years of controversy and recognize that this proposal is probably the best possible solution„and to support the Commission's recommendation for approval. IN OPPOSITION John W. Arbenz L.shall read my presentation because 3149 E. Virginia of the type of material it contains West Covina, Ca. -and present this material to the recorder for the record. Mr. Mayor and Council members, during past hearings on the Mayer Construction Company's applications for condominiums residents of the East Hills area have protested the reque6ted,Zone Change to MF-8. We have protested because we do.not want the unique, rural character of this area changed. The applicant has admitted in his reports that the condominiums will change the area. At the May 5th hearing Mr. Mayer's representative, Dale Ingram, also suggested that cer— tain lot splits were already changing the rural nature at our end of the City. This presentation, hopefully, will emphasize the continuing rural atmosphere we wish to preserve and our strong opposition to any zone changes that will change the character of one of the most beautiful areas in the City. This series of photographs which I now submit depict this rural charm. Traditionally the area south of Walnut Creek Wash has been considered a good single family area and a major portion of it has been so developed. Photos on Sheet 1 • show an East/West view of the Mayer property. It illustrates the .natural beauty of the land and a panorama of the adjacent areas. Sheet 2, Photograph A looks westerly on the Mayer property along what is destined to be the West Covina Parkway and Photograph 2—B shows the area to the East on the West Covina Parkway where 7 new single family lots have recently been subdivided. This is the same type of land that in the past has been developed to single family residences. Sheet 3, Photographs A & B depict the distinctly rural charm of the single family home at 3057 E. Virginia Avenue. The Mayer acreage adjoins this attractive pro— perty on the north side. The next four pictures on Sheets 4 and 5 illustrate the typical homes on Virginia Avenue that will be most seriously affected by the -requested high —density development. The home numbered 5—A was just sold for $729000. These custom built homes were constructed on property similar in character and comparable to the Mayer property. Sheet 69 Photographs A & B will show you two new homes that have been built in this block. Photo A. the upper one, is located at 3292 Holt Avenue, Photo B, the lower one, is located at 3255 Virginia Avenue. Both of these homes. have recently been completed and purchased for prices in excess of $70p000 each and occupy.-ied by new neighbors who were attracted to the area by its rural character and natural beauty. Sheet 79 Photograph A is of the Emmert Home at 3023 Virginia Avenue. Special note should be taken of this house which is located just east of the reservoir and immediately next to the Pump House and is valued at $759000. Mrs. Emmert, the present owner, has testified that neither the reservoir nor the pump disturb her tranquillity and enjoyment of her home. She and her family suffer no detriment due to the water facilities and they live, sleep and eat within.50 feet of the pump house. — 14 — CITY COUNCIL . Page Fifteen HEARINGS: Z.C. ##503 5/24/76 Please note the wa-ll on the right of the photograph to the east.of the Emmert home. Then refer to Mr. Mayer's exhibit marked Study Plan A. You will note that there is a proposal to locate the entrance to these,36 condominiums right adjacent"t,o her house. Furthermore, units A C C B at the . southwest end of*the Mayer Plan are placed directly behind the Emmert house. Two of these units are 2-story and overlook her backyard. Gentlemen, Mr. Mayer has pleaded hardship but observe, if you will, the hardship he would willingly work on the Emmert family. Surely, you realize that the proposed plan will not be in the interests of either the physical or psychological health of the Emmerts. It will endanger their safety, will act to the detriment of their welfare, and by no stretch of the imagination will it be in conformity with good zoning practices. Sheet 7, Photograph B takes you to the extreme east end of Virginia Avenue and shows a new single-family home presently under construction at 3337 Virginia Avenue. This home is located at the northwest corner of Virginia And Grand Avenues. As you know, Grand Avenue is a major highway and has an interchange with the San Bernardino Freeway. If this property can be utilized for a single-family home there exists no reason why the Mayer property is not also suitable for the same purposes. Mr. Mayer has testified that his property has to be developed to multi -unit buildings because it is north of the West Covina Parkway, and for that reason pleads for special consideration. Sheet 8, Photograph A shows the home at 3228 Holt Avenue, which is a single-family home existing north of the Parkway. Please take special note of the right side of this picture. You will see,an iron rail fence which protects the • Walnut Creek Wash. This home is next to the Wash and its owner has suffered no detriment nor has ever asked for special consideration due to its location. Sheet 8, Photograph 8 shows the picturesque home at 3264 Holt Avenue in its sylvan setting. It, too, is located North of the Pai<way. It is enjoyed by its owners who ask no special treatment of the kind Mr. Mayer pleads that you accord his land because it is located north of the Parkway. The current Mayer project proposes 36 units in multi -units and multi -story buildings on an area of 2629175 square feet. Translated into a density figure each home would be allotted only,7,116 square feet of land. And, mind you, this figure would include the common facilities such as tennis courts, swimming pools and the cabana. Adjacent to this land , as a dominant feature, are single-family homes on lots that meet and mostly exceed the Area District III requirement of 14,400 square feet minimum lot size. None of the lots on the north side of Virginia are less than 169650 square feet. Various of them exceed that and some are double that square footage. On the south side of Virginia most of the lots are 18,000-square feet but there are also properties of 1 acre, 12acres, 22acres and an estate type property of 52acres. Section 9207.of the Municipal Code states that the purpose of the.Condominium Zone is- to�classify and set standards for orderly development in a manner that will be compatible with surrounding properties. Please consider the incompatibility of a high -density development with a multi -unit allocation of 7,116 square feet per unit, when the rural nature of the surrounding lands provides an average in excess of 20,000 square feet per single-family home. - 15 - CITY COUNCIL Page Sixteen HEARINGS: Z.C. #503 5/24/76 Sheet 9, Photograph A depicts the rural nature of the area and shows the home of Mary, the mare, who resides on a gracious 180 foot frontage at 3128 Virginia Avenue. Mary and her companion horses who occupy the 2? acre pasture belonging to the Prows family who live at 3146 Virginia Avenue next door refute • Mr. Mayer's statement that there are no horses on the south side of Virginia. Sheet 9, Photograph B was taken from the East Hills Equestrian Trail and shows the horse corrals at 3228 Holt Avenue just east of the proposed Mayer project and displays the rural character of the adjacent lands. The West Covina Parkway has been used as a whipping boy and cited as a reason why this land should be rezoned to MF-8. Reports and maps show the location of seven new single-family lots adjacent to the Parkway just east of this con- dominium proposal. Sheet 109 Photographs A & 8 show Grand Avenue, a heavily travelled, 6-lane major highway with a median strip dividing the traffic lanes. Beautiful homes line and face into this roadway. These homes are much sought after and form the perimeter of one of the most gracious areas within the San Gabriel Valley. Consider then the West Covina Parkway,.n'ewly redesigned for residential areas and renamed for such areas, the Residential Scenic Highway. The original 6 lanes have been reduced to four. A beautifully landscaped median strip divides the two travel lanes on each side, a meandering 4-foot sidewalk and a five-foot bike route are other features. North of this scenic highway and next to the Wash is the Equestrian Trail. The continuing rural nature of the East Hills area and the consistent upgrading and building of single family homes on spacious lots has brought about the new and welcome design. So we cannot agree with Mr. Mayer, who at the May 5th Planning Commission hearing stated, "we will be bounded on the south by the West Covina Parkway which is going to be a 110 foot right-of-way and which will produce a tremendous amount of noise. Our new Scenic Highway will not be the noisy monster Mr. Mayer has stressed. On the contrary it will be a beautiful and welcome addition to the area. We have described other property located on busy corners in this area and on heavily traveled Grand Avenue. All of this has been developed to high class single-family residen- tial use. Why then should the north side of the proposed Scenic Highway be less desirable for homes than these other locations? We would like to emphasize that Mr. Mayer's property is not next to the freeway. The wide Walnut Creek Wash, a commercial strip of development and a service road lie between the Mayer acreage and the freeway. There is also a city owned strip of land along much of Mr, Mayer's land which affords a further separation from the freeway. Consider that the Government Code, which since 1970 demands that the zoning be consistent_ with the General Plan also includes the following statement of b`p0,1 cy. Quote "Blocks of single-family homes need to be protected, intact, as long as they are economically useful and until a specific demand developes for an additional transition in the area." The demand has not developed. The market analysis shows 560 unsold attached units. There is no need for additional attached units. On the other hand, single-family homes in the area are in great demand and new ones are sold before they are completed. There has been no basic changes in the area which would indicate a need for a change of zone. The surround- - 16 - CITY COUNCIL Page Seventeen HEARINGS: Z.C. #503 5/24/76 ing area is still the same rural, single-family area it has always been. The applicant has not carried his burden of proof to show that the change should be accomplished. The surrounding residents have demonstrated by their presence their letters and their peti- tions that they do not see reason or cause for a change of zone. . We do not object to development in accord with and compatible with the existing zoning and the surrounding area. We do, however, object to a change of zone that has no reason, logic, or legal basis. We respectfully request your action to deny the Mayer application for a zone change based on our submitted testimony and facts. Thank you. Melvin H. Krause (Sworn in by the City Clerk) 321 S. Charvers Gentlemen, it was interesting to see the West Covina tremendous amount of time the proponents of this zone change put forth in trying to tell us ho-4 desirable this piece of land could be made as condominiums in this peculiar location, as they described it, costing about $50,000 a piece and about 6 units per acre and yet somehow implying that these very same things could not be done to provide homes of only slightly more money per unit and only slightly less density per acre. On that basis alone I feel they did not prove their case. They do repeatedly refer to West Covina Parkway, which may never be built and may not be needed and there may not be funding for it. Finally, I should like to present to the City Council th.e contents of this folder which contains three things: some maps which show the area, Area District III single family dwellings in the area we are talking about, two letters from protesting homeowners unable to be here and finally petitions signed by 238 property owners and voters in this area. I can assure you these property owners and voters did indeed know what they were • signing when they signed this petition and were indeed opposed to the present proposed zone change. Keith Lefever (Sworn."A n'by the City Clerk) 3142 Virginia Ave. Mr. Mayor and members of Council, I think West Covina the real issue here 'as'I see it'and the companions in the neighborhood that I live in, as we all see it, we talked about this amongst us, the real issue here is does this zone need to 'be changed? Mr. Mayer and his associate keep speaking of the General Plan, which was drawn up in 1969 and things have changed since that time. It was based on current information available to the Planning Commission in 1969. Certain criterias have not been made that the plan was based on. I am asking you this, this particular General Plan is up for review now, why isn't it possible that we wait and hear the results after the plan is reviewed and see whether this area should be considered a high density area or a low density area? When that General Plan was first initiated the very things used as criteria in designating that as a high density area have not taken place. That is.,one of the reasons the plan is up for review. Another thing,, -when talking about does the zone need to be changed - well I am not here to advocate that Mr. Mayer be stuck with a piece of land that he bought and have to sit on it and have it remain idle - I feel, along with most of my neighbors, that the land should be developed. What we want is that it be developed in a way that will benefit the surrounding community and the surrounding community is made up of rather large parcels. I believe 20,000 square feet on the average if you take it on the immediate vicinity of Virginia Avenue. If these are that size parcels why should we grant a parcel that.will have - 17 - CITY COUNCIL HEARINGS• Z.C. &503 Page Eighteen 5/24/76 something like 7000 square feet. That does not blend adequately with the area. Mr. Mayer and his associate are con- stantly bringing up the amount of.money they spent and the return • they will get on their investment. He is a businessman and these matters do not concern the private people of the area. If he has made a poor business judgment and spent too much money for the return and isn't able to receive an adequate return on his investment then he has made a poor business decision and the people of West Covina and.the immediate vicinity shouldn't have to pay for his error. I feel if anyone is willing to pay i.. $50000/55,000for a single bedroom condominium and not on anything but that particular unit they would certainly be able to pay S75/80,000 for a parcel the size designed in that area. I think it is 14,500 minimum lot requirement in that zone now. All we are asking is that the land be used the way it is zoned presently. Thank you. Brian Levy (Sworn in by the City Clerk) 3238 E. Holt Ave., Mr. Mayer, gentlemen of the Council, I West Covina am a newly moved to the area. I moved into a home in East Hills and I am an attorney and practice law and I moved my office to West Covina. The thing that attracted me to West Covina was two -fold. First of all the Court House is perhaps the second busiest court house in the county seat. 'Secondly, East Hills is a very beautiful rural area. I own an acre and a quarter and I am north of the proposed parkway and ju.st east of the proposed condominiums. Perhaps in the next year, if this Council chooses to allow condominiums, I will be able to look out of,my window and see a two story condominium looking squarely at my kitchen, living•room and stables. I hope • to have horses. I was attracted to this area because of the rural nature. This is one of the last places where you can buy a house and have some land and not be disturbed with a crowded density. I urge Council to vote "no" on this zone change and let this beautiful area develop naturally. We don't need condominiums. We don't want condominiums. You have 230 signatures saying "no" and I ask you to be responsive to your constituents. Daniel Hodges (Sworn in by the City Clerk) I am in the process of purchasing a home at 3227 Virginia Avenue. As far as the desirability, everyone I know in the Covina or West Covina area knows that area as being very desirable and we just wonder whether we made a wise decision spend- ing that..much money.for that big of a house, with that big of a Tot and Have them plop down a bunch of condominiums in multi -type buildings'. We bought in this area because we are at present in a hgh.density area and wanted out. We are now wondering whether it would not be better to lose our big down payment and get out now or what are we to do? Don Sheffer (Sworn in by the City Clerk) 3408 Jodi Drive My basic purpose is to make a cgrrection West Covina in the record -so that we are dealing with facts. The statement was made before the Planning Commission and here again tonight and I refer specifi- cally to thos.e two houses under construction on Grand Avenue. One on the corner of Grand and Virginia and�the other the corner of Grand and Holt, that they were blocked from the freeway by a hill. If you recall, Grand Avenue goes under the freeway there. I don't CITY COUNCIL HEARINGS: Z.C. #503 Page Nineteen 5/24/76 know if it is their side yard, front yard or back yard, but those two houses look right onto the freeway. Now there is a hill on the right side and on the left side but the cut of the four lane highway and the sidewalks on either side give them a . straight cut right in the freeway and those houses are equally as close as the condominium units in question. The other point I would like to make is that I have heard several times that the proposed West Covina Parkway is going to be some magic barrier between these condominiums and the homes and I don't believe that any street is going to change that kind of a boundary. Nevertheless, I would like to repeat that in my way of thinking what the issue is here tonight is will single family homes of the character already in this area be built on this property if condominiums are not? And there is only one word answer to that - absolutely.. This is not conjecture, the houses in the area that are currently being built prove that statement to be.true. There is no question. If anyone of you gentlemen will drive through the area and take a 'look at the houses, and the location and the houses being built you will know that houses of the character we are talking about will be built on this property. And the houses are equally close and the same reasons will prevail as we are talking about for the reasons for the need of condominiums. There is one other point I would like to make. If you approve this change then you have no reason when the next builder comes before this Council requesting proposed changes on property to the east of this to build more condominiums. It is my point if you approve this then you have started in motion the wheels for degradation of the area and not the continued valuation of the property that is happening right now. Thank you. Juan Diaz (Sworn in by the City Clerk) 3102 Virginia. Mr. Mayor and members of Council. I West Covina also am new in the area and invited here" to attend. The Mayor opened the session by saying that we were here to hear facts. I was glad that somewhere in the middle of the consultant,- Mr. Mayer's hired, there was to be a halt on some of the kinds of statement he was making. I believe he was thoroughly argumentative and I am con- cerned about the fact he made many statements based upon assump- tions rather than facts. Recognizing that you are all intelligent men I know you will take that part of his presentation.based on assumption and recognize the facts only and vote "no",.on his presentation. REBUTTAL Dale Ingram Mr. Mayor and members of Council. Speaking first of all to°the testimony of Mr. Arbenz who went into great detail regarding the so called "rural area"'{_;and without considering the fact that it is true the area is changing. �In the past_ 6 months you have approved those lot splits and cuts that have seen the rear properties facing Virginia be approved for new lots and I believe those lots are slightly under 14,400 square feet and I don't believe the remaining lots are 20,000 square feet but down to the minimums allowed for the area. The gentleman also spoke and took pictures showing you the view west. I recall one of the statements made by one of the Planning Commissioner's saying "yea, I would like to speak to that view west - stand.on the Barranca frontage of the property and look across the street and you have apartments that - 19 - CITY COUNCIL HEARINGS: Z.C.' #503 PageTwenty 5/24/76 you don't have from any other single.family area around there." And that is a changing condition. They constantly refer to this as high density and it is not. General Plan densities are based on gross areas including the streets and actually the gross density of this property is 4.3 units per acre. That is not high . density. He discusses at great length the Emmert home and I would like to point out to you that the Emmert home sits squarely in the middle of the West Covina Parkway projection that was approved and precised on by City Council in 1969/70. So the Emmert home is affected by the development of this property and will be affected by the development of the Parkway. Ultimately the City will have to acquire it and when they do they will pay the fair price and the law now requires relocations so it will not be a hardship to them. But they do sit right square in the middle of the Parkway. He mentions again the open area and this is true, this is open area now and people in the area have had horses but that property is transitional and that day has come when that area is to be developed and as those lots are split those lots become no longer large enough for horses unde0he City's ordinance. It is in the cards that they will not continue to have horses. The experience in other cities and I am sure here too, as people move in and lots:are subdivided, horses are forced out. Again the develop- ment he talked about a lot of it is at Grand and Holt and some of the properties he mentioned are specifically long existing single family homes, most of which I believe were there prior to the free- way being built. Regarding the size of lots on Virginia, I challenge the fact that these will be 20,000 square feet lots. • They have already.been-reduced and as .the Parkway goes through those other properties -will be split off too. Mr. Arbenz speaks to the matter that this property is not'next to the freeway. just as close to .the freeway as you can possibly get residential property in there. It is close enough that.. -it is within that 65 DB range that the Environmental Protection Agency lays down as a strict restriction and if i.t-'were any closer and the range was any higher it could not be developed for residential units. fir. Arbenz again mentions the code An&: -the General Plan as did Mr. Diaz about blocks of single family and that is taking a portion out of context. That speaks. to.blocks of developed single family where houses are there and 'considered transitional to another higher and better use. Admittedly that is not the case of this property. This property is vacant. It should be handled in a different way. Logically the vacant property will be subject' -.to development prior to the re- development of existing solidly built up blocks of homes. I challenge again the report of unsold units that he used the figure on. I say it is not current and not uptodate. The units sold in the last 90 days changes that report drastically and it takes a long time to build units and long before new ones can come on the market that inventory can be completely gone. Speaking to the facts specifically the density in here and why couldn't homes be built the same as on the south side. I point out that a 14,400 square foot lot permits less than 3 units to an acre. So it probably would be a maximum of 15 - 20 - CITY COUNCIL - HEARINGS: Z.C. #503 Page Twenty-one 5/24/76 lots and those _15 lots faced with the cost of the Parkway plus acquisition costs for the off site development of the property makes those lots far more expensive than.the lots on Virginia Street. . Mr. Lefever raises the question why would people be willing to pay.the price for condominiums in that area and I say he overlooks the desire by some people that want to live in condominiums. People who have raised their families and now want to have the recreational facilities and maintenance free living so they can travel and do as they wish. Mr. Lefever talked about the East Hills area, granted the East Hills area is a beautiful residential area and as you go farther from the freeway to the south you get into the hills more where you really do have large lots and lots that will probably always have horses. Mr. Hodges, the buyer, questioned whether his desire is right. I would suggest that.he or any other buyer in'buying should look at a vacant piece of property and make every effort to determine what the probable use'is for that vacant property before investing in it. It is unrealistic to believe that property can remain vacant for any period of time with the tax structure of today. It is his responsibility to check.with the proper authorities and find out what the situation is and what the General Plan calls for. And let's keep in mind that the General Plan is not just a pretty picture but is a commitment on the part of the City for future development. It used to be just a guideline for the cities but the laws were changed to change all of that. Mr. Sheffer spoke about the degradation of the area. I..would point out we are certainly not degrading the area. We are not asking for any variances, we are building strictly ' to the MF-B ordinance that the City just put,into effect in the last year or two. Many of the same people here tonight had a voice in the preparation and adoption.,of that ordinance and are now here pro- testing the utilization of that ordinance on property. It is difficult to see how this can be a degradation of the area when we are proposing homes that will sell for $50,000 plus. Of course, the last gentleman didn't specifically mention any of my statement so I can't offer any rebuttal or clarification on those points. In closing I would say that we believe the conditions that affect this property are such that the property is entitled to special consideration and to be treated differently than those properties lying south of the property and that this has been the name of the game since 1969, when the General Plan was adopted and it should still be in good faith for the program of development of vacant property in that area. Thank you. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED. COUNCIL DISCUSSION. Councilman Chappell: Mr. Mayor, I probably should start it off because I think I am the only Councilman that was ...: aboard `when we prepared this General plan. Comments keep being made about the General Plan and the reasons for it and the time involvement of it. Many of the items on, -the General Plan Council looked at and were not in agreement of various portions of it but since it was a General Plan and not a Precise Plan and since it was designed to go through 1990 many items were allowed to remain on the General Plan that perhaps would have - 21 - • CITY COUNCIL HEARINGS: Z.C. #503 Page Twenty-two 5/24/76 been taken out had it been a Precise Plan to be developed in 5/10 years. But as Council deliberated on this and had hearings 1990 was the date that many of us looked to when we were approving portions of this plan. This area happened to be a part of that long range planning. The Huntington Beach Freeway was forced upon us at the time. As you remember we were told we would have it whether we wanted it or not and best we work with the State officials and help align that freeway so that we would at least have it approximately where we "wanted it. All of these things were upon us at.that period of time. This area is not ready for any zone change to multiple family at this time. It might be in 10 years. Councils sitting at that time, I am sure, will make that determina- tion, but anyone referring to.what went on during that General PLan in putting it together - - I was there. So no one can assume what I voted on or what I thought. I will say this once again, that this was a far longer range plan than 5 or 10 years as we have been told this evening. In my opinion, my being there and listening to the testimony and hearing the citizens talk, things have changed tremendously since 1969. . Our General Plan must be updated and is in the process,of being updated because of these variables that have changed and Will continue to change. In the past few years we have continually reduced the size of multiple family. We have found through experience of multiple family projects that they are not the greatest and are not really what West Covina wants in the way of residents. So anyone who feels this plan was set for 1976 to be converted to multiple family anywhere in this corridor I think has a misconception. Councilman Tice: Mr. Mayor, I am not particularly against development of this nature but there is a place for it and I don't feel that area is the place for it. I think that whole area is a definite asset to this City and I can't see any reason for lousing it up by putting in a unit which would distract from the purpose of that area, so I cannot support this zone change. Councilman Miller: I'will say what I said about two months ago - that in order to change the zone there has to'be an established need. I still hear the same thing tonight - we are talking in degrees again but the degree in respect of favoring the single family dwellings outweighs the need for these condominiums. So I too will hold for what I voted for two months ago. Councilman Shearer: Mr. Mayor, the dye is cast but I feel I should express my opinion, unless someone gets tied up on the occasional misuse of the term "multiple family." I know,myself) and I am sure my colleagues on Council recognize that this is not in a traditional sense multiple family. I hope no one jumps on that phrase and says you didn't understand what w,e were asking for. Multiple family as has been used here and sometimes during the Planning Commission hearing was merely -a catch-all phrase to distinguish from single family residences. Two things bother me and both are very uncertain. Councilman Chappell has already addressed the subject of the General Plan and that at best is a tool to perhaps guide the thinking in the future but is not a Precise Plan. Anything - 22 - CITY COUNCIL' HEARINGS: Z.C. k503 Page Twenty—three 5/24/76 designed and adopted by a group of men is always subject to its shortcomings and frailities and along that line is'West Covina Parkway. One gentleman this evening used the term "it has become a whipping boy" and I think in this case it perhaps has. It may some day materialize and I emphasize the word"may". If it were . there.and it was carrying heavy traffic as the.proponents say i.t will that perhaps would be a different situation. The fact is it isn't there and therefore isn't carrying traffic -.and my guess .is it will be many years before it is carrying heavy traffic. Soto build a case on the premise of a nonexisting street and how it might�:affect sometime in the future, is questionable. So it finally gets down to, as I see it, that we' have many things in West Covina that we can be proud of and one thing is the area that I use the word "pure" — meaning free from other uses and in this case if you want to call it multiple family or condominiums or anything other than single family. The area east of Barrancar, I think is that area. One gentleman indicated if we approved this zoning it would become much more difficult to hold the line and I think it would. I think Barranca°• has already moved that far east and if it is our.goal in West Covina to maintain the single family atmosphete bd`h.ave to stop somewhere and I think this is the place to stop and serve notice to"future developers to take note of that, that anything less than a.single family proposal meeting the appropriate area single family:btandards I believe would meet with the same response from this Council. Mayor -Browne: In summation, I think the Council has pretty well expressed their opinions of the situation regarding the General Plan. I, too, was around on the Planning Commission when that General Plan was drawn and I agree with.Councilman Chappell's comments. I will n,ot be redundant on it. The General Plan now in existence was merely a guideline. I think the higher courts have upheld the prerogative of City Councils to maintain a status in their community by the way of development density. I think we have too few places left in our City where we have the prerogative of keeping an ongoing situation of homes of the status we have in that area. Speaking to the Area District, cluster housing or whatever you want to call it, I think we have to main— tain that stability. I have always felt this way that the zoning in that area is proper. I have yet to see a suitable development come forth that I felt would be compatible. In regard to all the testimony brought out about the transition — I think the new General.Plan will re— adjust this when we go through the hearing process. I think the .people expressed their desires and this Council is responsive. It looks like we have five not in favor of a zone change so may we have a motion. Lotion by Councilman Shearer that Zone Change No. 503 be denied; seconded by Councilman Tice and carried on roll call vote as follows: AYES: (filler, Chappell, Shearer, Tice, Browne NOES: None ABSENT: None — 23 — t CITY COUNCIL Rage Twenty—four HEARINGS: Z.C. #503 5/24/76 Councilman Shearer: Mr. Mayor, as a follow—up to that I believe Mr. Diaz outlined three alter— nates as far as the amendment of the General Plan. The third alternate had to do with the current re— vision of the General Plan and the action tonight should be . reflected in that revision — Mr. Diaz, is that correct? Mr. Diaz: Yes — I would say to instruct staff to proceed with the General Plan updating and to bring it before the Commission and Council as quickly as possible. Councilman Shearer: Along that line I have a couple of questions. Approximately timewise when do you estimate the General Plan will come before the Planning Commission? Mr. Diaz: The Planning Consultant has received the additional information which he felt he needed to properly•complete the General Plan, last Friday. We are contacting him to get a dead— line date as to when we can anticipate the public hearing before the Planning Commission. I would anticipate the matter should be before the Planning Commission at the first meeting in July. Councilman Shearer: Do you have pending in the Planning Department any requests for additional zone changes in the City? Mr. Diaz: Not at the present time. Councilman Shearer: In your opinion from your standpoint as a Planner the fact that we are towards • the end of the,date for the revised General Plan is there a need to declare a moratorium on zone changing until this new Plan is developed? Mr. Diaz: I would like to see it but I would refer that to the City Attorney. Mr. Wakefield: Mr. Mayor and members of Council, such a moratorium could be proposed for a period of 120 days on an Urgency basis pending the final resolution and adoption of the revisions to the General Plan. It would require an Urgency Ordinance to be prepared and pre— sented to City Council.. Mr. Diaz: Mr. Mayor. I recall there has been one 6-p, zone change applied for but I don't believe that would be affected by the Urgency Ordinance since the application has been made. Mr. Wakefield: Mr. Mayor and members of Council, it would pick up those that are filed but not yet processed. Councilman Tice: Mr. Mayor. I wonder by doing this whether we may be stepping into a problem from the standpoint of somebody that has a multiple family zoning right now wishing to change it to R-1 or something like that I know he said only one zone change up was applied for. I agree with Councilman Shearer as far as the idea is concerned. Mayor Browne: Could the ordinance be drawn that any zone change other than up — or would it ,have to speak to zone changes period. — 24 — CITY COUNCIL Page Twenty-five HEARINGS: Z.C. #503 5/24/76 Councilman Shearer: Mr. Mayor, my intention was not to play games with the developers; my intention was to try and make it easier for the Planning Commission and Staff in viewing the new General Plan which may have some substantial differences between our existing plan. Councilman Chappell: Mr. Mayor, are we talking strictly residential zoning or all zoning in the City? Councilman Shearer: It is my intention to have the motion cover all zone changes until such time as we have either the 120 day maximum or the new General Plan is adopted. Councilman Chappell: I think we might be inhibiting some of the people working and looking at West Covina, to have an ordinance of that type at this time. We have a redevelopment area being actively pursued by the Chamber of Commerce and certain members of our Staff, I think we might end up doing more harm than good. If the word gets out that the City Council is very apprehensive about granting any zone changes unless they are really reasonable might suffice for that 120 days but I think to tie our hands at this particular stage of the game might be not in the best interests of the City. I think the idea is good and we have done it before but if you want to put a moratorium nn multiple family dwellings - fine, but blanketing the whole city it appears to me wouldn't be good government and we might be cutting off our nose to spite our face. Councilman Shearer: Mr. Mayor, I would not favor an ordinance • that would single out one type of zone change. I am not trying to practice law but I think that might come under the area of discrimination. I am beginning to feel that I don't have four votes which it would take to get an Urgency Ordinance passed. Councilman Miller: On a moratorium, do we have to go 120 days or can we get by with 30/60 days to allow staff time to implement what they need to do? Mr. Diaz: You would ultimately have to go 120 days. I believe though that the sentiments stated by Council are fairly clear and that on any zone change applied for between now and the new General Plan that the staff should be aware of.the changes that the updated General Plan might bring and to bring that -information before you when.viewing a zone change request - if.I am reading the Council correctly. (Council agreed) Mayor Browne: I would have to agree with Councilman Chappell that I would definitely dislike placing a cloud on zoning matters. I think the Council has the prerogative.of-handling each zoning matter on its own as we did this one tonight and under our discretion I think we can comply with whatever might come into the new General Plan. - 25 - CITY COUNCIL Page Twenty—six HEARINGS: Z.C. &503 5/24/76 Motion by Councilman Shearer that staff be directed to proceed with the updating of the General Plan taking note of the action taken this evening; seconded by Councilman Chappell and carried. COUNCIL RECESSED AT 9:45 P.M. CITY COUNCIL RECONVENED AT 9:55 P.M. • HEARINGS CONTINUED. WITHDRAWAL FROM WEST Location: Northerly of San Bernardino COVINA SEWER MAIN= Freeway, easterly of Grand Avenue. TENANCE DISTRICT Hearing set for this date by Resolution DE —ANNEXATION TO CITY No. 5233 adopted April 26, 1976. OF COVINA (Council reviewed Engineer's report) PROTEST HEARING Mayor Browne: Madame City Clerk, do you have the Affidavits of Posting and Mailing? City Clerk: Yes, I do. Motion by Councilman Shearer to receive and file Affidavits of Posting and Mailing; seconded by Councilman Miller and carried. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED. THERE BEING NO TESTIMONY FOR OR AGAINST PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED. COUNCIL DISCUSSION. NONE. RESOLUTION NO. 5242 The City Attorney presented: ADOPTED A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF WEST COVINA, CALIFORNIA, ORDER— ING THE. WITHDRAWAL OF CERTAIN TERRITORY FROM THE WEST COVINA SEWER MAINTENANCE DISTRICT. • Motion by Councilman Shearer to waive full reading*of.said resolu— tion; seconded by Councilman Tice and carried. Motion by Councilman Shearer to adopt said resolution;, seconded by Councilman Tice and carried on roll call vote as follows: AYES: Miller, Chappell, Shearer, Tice, Browne NOES: None ABSENT: None ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Mary Anne Murphy Gentlemen, I am concerned about an item under Public Works.— the Federal Aid Urban System. I would like t,o.know if this program will provide the city with funds for implementing and does the acceptance of these funds imply that a higher authority will determine where these funds will be spent? Also can you supply me with a copy of whatever you have with regard to these funds? Mr. Wakefield: Mr. Mayor and members of Council, the City Engineer has a copy which designates the streets which will be appropriate for urban aid purposes. Specifically no funds will be made available within the City of West Covina unless the City itself actually • applies for the funding of particular projects. So the.development of any street, whether it is on the urban system or not, is depend— ent on the action of the City Council. Councilman Shearer: Mr. Mayor, I would like to elaborate on this. I think we all recognize Mrs. Murphy's concern. I would think under — 26 — u • CJTY COUNCIL Page Twenty-seven DR;A;L 524 MMU{VICAIOV:S 76 CO. the action we took this'evening adding certain streets that "yes" this would make those streets eligible assuming the ultimate acceptance on the part of the State and Federal Highway Administra- tion would make those streets eligible for money. However, the pro- jects to be.built initiate with the City and not from the Federal Government and with the present funding of the Urban System even if the Council wanted to fly in the face of what I am sure would be strenuous objections of any of the streets named there would be only a mere fraction of the money available to build. I think truly "ryes" this action would make those streets eligible for urban funds but the realities of it is so remote that I personally would not be concerned. Mrs. Murphy: Are there strings if we accept the money? Councilman Shearer: We only accept monies on the projects that we initiate - Mr. Thomas, was the signals at the Urban System monies? Mr. Thomas: Yes, the Azusa Avenue signal was Urban money. The projects are established by the City and the only strings attached are that we must comply with federal requirements as far as right-of- way acquisition procedures and affirmative action plans and contract administration procedures. Mrs. Murphy: Is there a number on these dollars? Councilman Shearer: That depends on Congress each year. Mr. Thomas: The program is presently funded, I believe, through the 1977-78 fiscal year. And the amount available to the City includes matching funds and it is approximately S300,000 per year. Mrs. Murphy: Can you provide me with a copy? (The answer was 'Yyes") Thank you. Councilman Chappell: Mr. Mayor, a comment. When you talk of matching funds to the City of West Covina you are talking zilch about match- ing anything. We have no funds at the present time to match anything. Mr. Joe Michalson I am here to talk about the San Gabriel 1500 E. Cameron Valley Symphony. It is a nonprofit West Covina outfit that I have been working with for the past 6 or 8 years and this sym- phony must have some particular satisfaction in supplying the needs of many people because it has been around a long time. Next season will be going into the 50th years of performances. In fact it is one of the remaining sources of culture in the San Gabriel Valley. In, addition to providing prime music it also provides instruction and the opportunity to perform with the orchestra for young serious musicians. This is through young artists auditions. You may remember last year a graduate of Edgewood High won the classification for vocal and performed with the symphony. • We have reasonably priced -tickets for families. We give reductigns to students and senior citizens. I have provided each of y.ou with the background information and this includes th.e,source of funds -to meet last year's budget of S449000. Please note that our members do not just sit there and listen to concerts. They actually get out with many benefits to raise funds 27 - , CITY COUNCIL Page Twenty-eight ORAL COMMUNICATIONS 5/24/76 to make this thing go. Their personal efforts plus memberships amount to about two-thirds of this budget. As is the case with any of the performing arts it is necessary that help be obtained usually from civic sources.. You will note that the 7 cities of the San Gabriel Valley contributed $2800-,last year. Those cities . are: Arcadia, Azusa, Covina, El Monte, Glendora, Monrovia and San Gabriel. The San Gabriel Valley Symphony does not belong to any one city. We have members in most of the 27 cities covered in the Valley. Now you can see that the San Gabriel Valley Symphony is just as much a part of the San Gabriel Valley as is West Covina. About 7% of our membership are families who live in West Covina. So here is an outfit performing a valuable community.service which should and must be continued. We cannot afford the number of musicians in the L.A. Philharmonic but the quality of music we offer is every bit as good. It is requested that this Council give consideration in their budget for next year for.a grant of $200, to the Symphony to continue this program. We have a lot more information but I know you have a busy night.. I will be glad to answer any questions that you may have. Councilman Tice: Mr. Mayor, Mr. Michalson makes a fine presentation and one thing I will say for the Association is they have raised quite a bit of money on their own. All I can say -at this time is we will put this in for consideration but can't guarantee anything because we, have some budget considerations this year that are mighty tough. CITY ATTORNEY AGENDA - Cont'd. APPROVAL OF UCLA WORK Motion by CouncilmanChappell to STUDY AGREEMENT approve Staff recommendation and • (Staff Report) authorize the Mayor to execute the Work Study Agreement with U.C.L.A. as presented to Council; seconded by Councilman Shearer. Councilman Miller: A question. Does the general turn -out of students reside in this area and travel is not a problem or are you signing students from say the Santa Monica area and travel is a problem? Mr. Eliot: Mr.,Mayor and Council members, I believe in our experience the people who would want to work here are within our own community or close by. This contract runs from July 1 through September and these people are all home on vacation usually. Mr. Thomas'. department is the department that employed one of these people in the past. Mr. Thomas: Yes, the interne we had last summer is the same person we expect to have this year. He is a resident of West'Covina, attends UCLA and lives on campus during the school year. He was a excellent employee for the two months we had him last year. • Motion carried on roll call vote as follows: AYES: Miller, Chappell, Shearer, Tice, Browne NOES: None ABSENT: None • 11 • CITY COUNCIL CITY MANAGER AGENDA AUTHORIZATION TO EXECUTE LEASE (Staff Report) carried on roll call vote AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Page Twenty-nine 5/24/76 Motion by Councilman Shearer to,approve lease for the premises to. be used by the Project Team (San Gabriel Valley Burglary Prevention Program); and authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute said lease; seconded'by Councilman Tice and as follows: Miller, Chappell, Shearer, Tice, Browne None None YOUTH ADVISORY COMM. Mr. Eliot: 'Mr. Mayor and members of REQUEST Council, this is a request (Staff Report) from the Youth Advisory Commission for two attendees to go to the conference of National Network of Youth Advisory Boards in San Francisco. The Commissioners,are requesting a total cost of $306 which is in excess of the amount remaining in their budget. Therefore it would require action by Council - there is $240 in their conference account, they would require an additional $66. It would seem appropriate to allow only one to attend in order to stay within their budget. Councilman Tice: Mr. Mayor, with only one youth going up there I don't know if that is a good idea because of the age. Maybe two would be better. It is safer having two youths travelling together. Councilman Shearer: Yes, I agree with Councilman Tice. I am a concerned parent who has a daughter 17 and a boy approaching 16 and agewise could be on the Commission and I am not sure I would want them to go to San Francisco by themselves, not that they are not good kids. I wonder if this approach to it has really been addressed and if we may not be placing the parents of these Commissioners in kind of a tough place. (Explained further) I don't know what kind of super- vision is being provided in San Francisco for these young people. Most of our Youth Commissioners are of high school age. Mr. Eliot: I did discuss it with Renee and Fred - we discussed the very question you speak of and to our knowledge it was not brought up at the Youth Commission itself. I questioned why they were asking for two and they didn't know the answer. 1. (Council members a reed they were concerned about the safety of the Commissioners. Motion by Councilman Tice to appropriate the additional $66-,making a total of $306 for the attendance of two Youth Commissioners.at the Conference in San Francisco; seconded by Councilman Chappell. (Councilman Shearer asked when the next scheduled meeting.of the Commission was and Mr. Eliot advised it was the first Thursday in Affte but reservations would have to be made prior to that.dat'e.) Councilman Shearer: Mr. Mayor, I will support the motion but I wonder if it would be appropriate for either the Mayor or myself as Council liaison to the Commission to contact the parents of the two Commissioners who are going and discuss the matter with them and if - 29 - 1 • CITY COUNCIL CITY MANAGER AGENDA Page Thirty 5/24/76 they have no concern and'have no feeling on their part that their youngsters are being pressured into it by the City ...... (Council accepted Councilman Shearer's volunteering to contact the parents and he asked that he be supplied with the names of the two attending the conference.) Motion AYES: NOES: ABSENT: AGREEMENT WITH WEST COVINA UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT RE PURCHASE OF UNLEADED 19ASOLINE (Staff Report carried on roll call vote as follows: Miller, Chappell, Shearer, Tice, Browne None . None Councilman Tice moved approval of agreement; seconded by Councilman Miller and carried. MAYOR'S REPORTS PROCLAMATIONS Hearing no objections Mayor Browne proclaimed "Honor.America" — June 14/ July 4, 1976: Mayor Browne: I have one request to make of the Council. The Co—ordinating -Council` has been operating in our community for many years and in the last two years they have become really effective in their efforts for the community. It has been our pleasure in the past to recognize the Presidents of some of the organizations that are this effective and I would request that Council direct the City Manager to prepare a Certificate of Recognition for the outgoing President — • Jack e:Chappell. as past President of the Coordinating Council. So moved by Councilman`Shearer and seconded by Councilman Miller. Motion carried. COUNCILMEN'S REPORTS/ COMMENTS Councilman Chappell: As you know the League of. California Cities Executive Board has been meeting with the Board of Supervisors on a quarterly basis. Our next meeting is tomorrow at noon. We will be meeting with them on a number of items pertinent to City Government hoping to work out some sort of arrangements. I will report back to you what we di.d.or did not.accomplish at our next meeting. Councilman Tice: Recently I attended the seminar that the West Covina Chamber of Commerce held in San Diego and it was very informative. They have some good ideas — it takes money. The one thing I'.would like to bring up to Council is this matter of the Transportation Center. I think the Council may have a misconception�of what is being talked about. In getting more detail it would not be the giant transportation center we see in El Monte;. I would -like to request that the RTD make a presentation to this Council on exactly what they have in mind. We may already . have a'Transportation Center here at the Eastland Shopping Center; from what I,understand there is some 500 hundred cars parked there daily. They have the parkland ride facilities and the May Company and the rest of the stores at Eastland are very happy with this set up. It is a good business generator. I would ask that the Council go along with it and in due time have a.presentation`by.the RTD to R f t,� • CITY COUNCIL COUNCILMEN'S REPORTS/COMMENTS see exactly what they have in. scaled down version of what we Page Thirty=,:one 5/24/76 mind. I think the Chamber has a thought of in the past. Motion by Councilman Miller to approve Councilman Tice's request; seconded by Mayor Browne and carried. Councilman Tice: One other item. Oneiof our constituents came up and mentioned the matter of smok- ing and since I am the smoker I thought I had better take the lead on this. The suggestion was made to divide the Council Chamber in half, smokers on one side and non- smokers on the other. I would prefer that we make the east side the smoking side and non-smokers on the east side. What does it take to do that - just the posting of signs? Mayor Browne: I will go along with that. Why don't we let staff come up with some recommenda- tions and present them to City Council? Councilman Shearer: Mr. Mayor, I would caution that if we do this we do it in a serious vein and I am sure that is what was intended and that we be prepared to enforce it. I noted with some humor the story in the paper the other day about the action on the part of the Board of Supervisors to prohibit smoking at the table and one particular Supervisor was pointed out as not having complied and everybody was laughing about it. I think if we are really serious that we should be prepared to graciously request in our announcement that smokers are on one side and nonsmokers on the other - if we are not then I would say forget the whole thing. Mayor Browne: I would be in agreement with you. If we are going to enforce anything that should • include all of us. Councilman Tice: I might point out Mr. Mayor, that I don't think I would go quite as far as having it completely banned. For your information I did attend a Smoking Clinic for the.past four weeks and when I started I was smoking about a pack and a half a day and when I completed the course I was back to two -and a half packs a day. (Staff asked to report back to Council with recommendations.) Councilman Shearer: Mr. Mayor, I do have two points. Going over_ a recent legislative. ,bulletin that the League of California Cities provided us with, and I think this is one of the very fine services we get from the League and it is keeping the various cities informed -as to the progress of legislation which sometimes very directly affects the day to day operation of our City. We frequently take action which requests our elective representatives to vote one way or the other and rarely do we send - thanks. The League Bulletin dated May 7 indicated a request to cities who had representatives who voted against SB839, having to do with the post employment claims under Workmens Comp to send thanks. Our representative is Senator Lancaster - I w.ould like to seea letter of appreciation sent acknowledging that we appreciate the_actio'n. • So moved by Councilman Tice; seconded by Councilman Chappell and carried. (Mr. Eliot asked to carry this request out.) 31 `- CITY COUNCIL Page Thirty-two COUNCILMEN'S REPORTS/COMMENTS 5/24/76 Councilman Shearer: The next item has to do with a series of legislation regarding redevelopment. Senator Montoya has introduced a number of bills and I would appreciate if staff could give us a brief run down in the near future on the effect of each of these bills • if passed on West Covina Redevelopment Projects. Also in looking over the West Covina Municipal Code — we recently received two updated books — I came .across a number of things, one of which I would like to bring to Council's attention this evening. Section 2101 having to do with the office of Mayor. I believe two years ago the State Legislature" changed the election days from April to March which has resulted in an inconsistency with the ordinance on the day on which we elect our Mayor. In reality, Councilman Chappell was elected a month to early. The ordinance provides in off years, other than election year, that the Mayor be elected in the second meeting in April, which in election year he is elected the first Tuesday after the election date, which means anywhere from 5 to 6 weeks difference. So I would move that the City Attorney be instructed to prepare a revision to Section 21.01 placing the term of Mayor. in off years consistent with on:years; seconded by Councilman Chappell and carried. FIREWORKS DISPLAY Mayor Browne: We have two additional AT W.C. HIGH SCHOOL items that the City Clerk -handed to us tonight. The -first is a fireworks display at West Covina High School Stadium for Edgewood High School. This request has been approved in prior years and staff recommends approval again. We have a letter from the Fire Department indicating their approval. • Motion by Councilman Tice to approve the request; seconded by Councilman Shearer and carried. CALTRXNS.SURVEY Mayor Browne: In connection with RE REGIONAL this survey we have TRANSPORTATION STUDY a request from the Decima Research Company who will be doing the field survey for CalTrans asking that the Business License fee be waived. Motion by Councilman Chappell to approve the request and waive the business license fee; seconded by Councilman Tice and carried; four voting in favor; Councilman Shearer abstained. SUNSET SCHOOL SITE Mayor Browne: You will recall at our previous meeting Mr. Henderson, President of the Board of Education had designated a committee headed up by Harvey Krieger to study the future use of Sunset School Site and facilities. They have appointed two members to that body and we have not yet appointed our two members. May I have some names within the next three days. (Councilman Tice informed the Mayor he sent in several names to Mr. Eliot; Mayor Browne said he would meet with Mr. Eliot and • screen those names submitted.) APPROVAL OF DEMANDS Motion by Councilman Shearer to approve Demands totalling S361,7B1.52 as, listed on Demand Sheets U.C.B. A • • CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF DEMANDS i . Page Thirty -,three, _ 5/24/76 No. 55403 through 55592; and B.A. No. 404 through 405; seconded by Councilman•Tice and carried on roll call vote as follows: AYES: l Miller, Chappell, Shearer, Tice, Browne f. -NOES: None ABSENT: None EXECUTIVE SESSION Mayor Browne: As you know the City Council has been inter— viewing applicants for the position of City Manager. We met Thursday and interviewed two applicants; we met`.. Friday and interviewed three and then went into a discussion trying to formulate an opinion which was uncompleted due to the lateness of the hour. So at this time we will declare an executive session for the purpose of further re— viewing those applicants that we had interviewed on Thursday and Friday. (Council went into the Executive Session at 10:40 P.M. City Council reconvened at 11:14 P.M. ADJOURNMENT at 7:30 P.M. at the West ATTEST: CITY CLERK Motion by Councilman Shearer, seconded by Councilman Tice to adjourn meeting at 11:15 P.M. to Wednesday, June 2, 1976 Covina Unified School District Auditorium. APPROVED: MAYOR •- 33 -