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 -