10-10-1977 - Regular Meeting - MinutesMINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF CITY COUNCIL
CITY.OF WEST COVINA, CALIFORNIA
OCTOBER 101 1977.''
The regular meeting of the City Council called to order at 7:30 P.M.,
• by Mayor Chester Shearer in the West Covina Council Chambers. The
Pledge of Allegiance was led by Mayor..Pro Tem Herb Tice; and the in
vocation was given by,,the Reverend Father William K..Bramble of
St. Christopher's Church.
ROLL CALL
Present: Mayor Shearer; Mayor, Pro Tern Tice;
Councilmen: Miller, Chappell, Browne
Others Present: R. Fast, G. Wakefield, L. Preston,
L. Eliot, M. Miller, H. Thomas, R. Diaz,
M. Volmert, Chief Allen Si1T, T. Tynes,
K. Armstrong, E. Sloman, G. Salazar,
Bill Freemon — S.G.V.D.T.
•
Ll
PRESENTATION The Automobile Club of Southern California
presented to Chief Allen Sill and the City
of West Covina, a proclamation for out—
standing accomplishments in the last year in the area of pedestrian
safety. Chief Sill accepted the Pedestrian Safety Award for the'City
stating this award was won be -cause of -the concerted efforts of
everyone working for the Cityq not'only..the',Police Department, but
the cooperation of all.
The Mayor presented a proclamation to
Tillie Cain, President of the West Covina Professional Women's Club
declaring the week of October 16 thru the 22nd as National Women's
Week.
CONSENT CALENDAR
1::;:,'WRITTEN.°:COMMUNICATIONS
a) THE NEW SPIRIT OF HOPE
CHAPTER OF THE CITY OF
HOPE
b) RESPONSE TO ALLEGATIONS
2. PLANNING COMMISSION
Request permission to conduct an art
auction at Palm View Community Center
for the purpose of a fund—raising
event. (Staff report. Recommend
approval) .
Re Community Park
Meetings. (Staff
Building Public
Report) (Council)
a)
SUMMARY OF ACTION
October 51-1977. (Accept and file)
3.
CLAIMS FOR DAMAGES FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK:
a)
SYLVAN S. SHULMAN CO.
Seeks indemnification from any
liability and defense costs "re
accident (Humphrey) at intersection
of Garvey and California Avenues.
(Deny and Claimant to be so notified)
4.
ACCEPTANCE OF IMPROVEMENTS
AND/OR RELEASE OF BONDS
a)
TRACT NO. 32462
Location: Adjacent to and northerly
ACCEPT IMPROVEMENTS
UMARK/BUTLER
of Shadow Oak Drive between Adrienne
_D-rive and Nogales Street.
CITY COUNCIL Page Two
CONSENT CALENDAR 10/10/77
Take.the Following Action: Accept street and sewer improve—
ments and authorize release of
St. Paul Fire & marine Insurance'
Company Faithful Performance Bond
No. 400 DR 4400/106 in the amount of
$79, 000. , _
• Accept
p grading improvements and
authorize release of St. Paul Fire
& Marine Insurance Company Faithful
Performance Bond No. 400 DR_4400/105
in the amount of $19,300..
(Staff recommends acceptance)
Councilman Browne asked that item
1—b be withdrawn for further discussion.
Motion by Tice to approve consent
calendar items with the exception of Item 1—b; seconded by Miller
and carried on roll call vote:
AYES: Miller, Chappell, Browne, Tipp, Shearer
NOES: None
TITEM 1—b Browne requested the City Manager to give
ALLEGATIONS a verbal report on the allegations made
September 12 by Gloria Hall. The City
Manager referred to his,written report to
City Council dated October 7, 1977, briefly summarizing .
Council voiced their agreement with the
findings of those who investigated the. allegations, stating they
felt Mr. Lomeli is totally efficient and well able to represent his
Department; and due to the fact that a series of meetings were held
after the discovery of the notices not being sent in time that this
covered the situation.
Motion by Tice to receive and file the
City Manager's report; seconded by Chappell and carried on roll call
vote:
AYES: Miller, Chappell, Browne, Tice, Shearer
NOES: None
GENERAL AGENDA ITEMS
PUBLIC WORKS
PARCEL MAP NO. 7212 Location: South side of Virginia Avenue,
VICTORY OUTREACH between Charvers Avenue and La Serena
Drive.
(Council reviewed Engineer's Report)
(Councilman Browne asked for a run down of the conditions attached
to the Planning Commission approval of this Parcel Map; Mr. Diaz
advised he did not have the file with him but could get it if this
•. item were held over for a short time. Council agreed to continue
on and come back to this item later in the evening.)
CITY COUNCIL PaRe Three
PUBLIC WORKS — Cont'd. 10/g10/77
1977-78 FIRST SUPPLEMENTAL Location: Various throughout the
WEED AND RUBBISH ABATEMENT City.
AMENDMENT Council reviewed the Street
Superintendent's report.
RESOLUTION NO. 5560 The City Attorney presented:
• ADOPTED A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF WEST COVINA, CALIFORNIA, AMEND—
IN6 RESOLUTION OF INTENTION NO. 5510 BY
APPROVING,.THE_FIRST ,SUPPLEMENTAL WEED.._
AND RUBBISN.ABATEMENT LIST. (Setting
Monday,.October.24, 1977 at 8:00 P.M.,
for protest hearing)
Motion by Chappell to waive full reading
of the resolution•,and adopt same; seconded by Tice and carried on
roll call vote:
AYES: Miller, Chappell, Browne, Tice, Shearer
NOES: None
PROJECT NO. SP-78002 Location: Easterly of Westport Street,
APPROVE PLANS AND northerly of LaPuente Road.
SPECIFICATIONS — AMAR Council reviewed Engineer's report.
ROAD, ET AL, STREET
IMPROVEMENTS
Motion by Chappell to authorize the
City Engineer to call for bids; seconded by Miller and carried.
TRACT NO. 33327
. ACCEPT GRANT OF EASEMENT
WILLARD V. HARRIS, JR.,.
and BEN C. HARRIS (BEACH
(CITY DEVELOPMENT)
RESOLUTION NO. 5561
ADOPTED
Location: Northerly of Amar Road,
between Ridgewood Drive and -Nogales
Street.
Council reviewed Engineer's report:'.`.,
The City Attorney presented:
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF WEST COVINA, CALIFORNIA,
ACCEPTING GRANT OF EASEMENT FROM
WILLARD V. HARRIS, JR. AND BEN C. HARRIS
AND DIRECTING RECORDATION THEREOF.
Motion by Tice to waive full reading of
the resolution and adopt same; seconded by Browne and carried on
roll call vote:
AYES: Miller, Chappell, Browne, Tice, Shearer
NOES None
PROPOSAL FOR ASSESSMENT Location: Prospero Drive.
ENGINEERING SERVICES Council'reviewed Engineer's report.
Motion by Chappell to accept the proposal
of Patrick.N. Rossetti, Assessment Engineer, for the furnishing of
assessment engineering services for the Prospero Drive assessment
district; seconded by Miller and carried on roll call vote:
• AYES:
Miller, Chappell, Browne, Tice, Shearer
NOES: None
— 3 —
CITY COUNCIL Pa a Four
PUBLIC WORKS - Cont'd. 10�10/77
AWARD OF CONTRACT FOR Location: Del Norte and Cortez Parks.
TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY.. Council reviewed Engineer's report.
Motion by Tice to approve contract with
Walsh & Associates, Inc., (low bidder) for topographic work in
Del Norte and Cortez.Parks, in the amount not to exceed $9,800,
. and authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute said contract;
seconded by Browne and carried on roll call vote:
AYES: Miller, Browne, Tice, Shearer
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: Chappell
REQUEST FOR WAIVER -OF Location: 1115 S. Sunset Avenue.
UNDERGROUND STREET LIGHT-. Request: Waiver of requirement for
ING - QUEEN OF THE VALLEY underground wiring of street lights.
HOSPITAL Denied by Planning Commission at their
meeting of September 7, 1977. Appealed
by Applicant on September 13, 1977.
Council reviewed Staff Report.
Mayor Shearer: I have been advised by the City Manager
and the City Attorney that techinically
this is sort of an informal hearing and
anyone wishing to comment may do so at this time.
Adrian Sullivan (Explained that the present project does
Administrator not demand the services of an electrical
Queen of the Valley engineer but the future significant project
Hospital totalling 31 million dollars will need
the services of an electrical engineer.
• Advised the future project has almost been assured approval by the
State of California as of November 1; asked for a waiver of the
street lighting until the future project goes through. Also this
present project proposed is so far removed from Sunset that it
seems like a waste o.f money for the. City and for the hospital to do
it at this time.)
Mr. Diaz summarized the Staff Report,
stating the requirements and conditions placed upon a project of
this size.
Motion by Tice to approve the applicant's
request for a waiver of the requirement for underground wiring of
street lights; seconded by Miller and carried.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
DEVELOPMENT PLAN NO. 22 (PCD-1) Location: Northeast corner of
TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 33553 La Puente Road and Nogales Street.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT Request: Approval of a develop-
HOLLENBECK DEVELOPMENT CO. INC. ment plan for 976 apartment units
(122 buildings), and approval of a
tentative tract map to subdivide
63.3 acres into 11 parcels, and
certification of the Environmental Impact Report. Rec.omm•ended by
• Planning Commission Resolutions Nos. 2764 and 2765. •Cit.y. Clerk::: -..•
veri.f_ied_:. the Proof of Publication in the West Covina Tribune
re the Notice of Public Hearing on September 1, 1977 received; 94
mailed notices. Hearing -held over from September 12, 1977 to this
date.
- 4 -
CITY COUNCIL Page Five
PUBLIC HEARING: DP #22(PCD-1). TT #33553, EIR 10/10/_77
STAFF RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT:
Mr. Diaz: The purpose of the report this evening
is to respond to the comments raised at
the regular meeting of City Council
• September 12 on the Environmental Impact Report. The evaluation
of the EIR has been made an integral part of any public agency's
decision.making process by state regulation and court decisions.
The public testimony portion of this hearing has been closed.
Upon completing the response to the comments staff will stand
ready for any questions which Council might have pertaining to the
EIR.
The comments raised on the 12th of
September generally fall into three categories. 1 — Those not
relating to environmental_.i.mpacts; 2 — those previously covered in
the EIR; .arid.'3. —:.-those. covered ,within`.the EIR'lfor which',greater
explanation is being given.
COMMENTS MADE VERBALLY BY MR. DIAZ RE THE ENVhRONMENTAL IMPACTS ARE
ATTACHED HERETO AND MADE A PART OF THE.MINUTES, INCLUDING THE,TWO
LETTERS.RECEIVED DATED.00TOBER.79.1977, (Hollenbeck Development.Co.,
and Mrs. Larry Walsh).
The Mayor asked if there.were. any
questions by Council on the.EIR responses just made. (None)
The Mayor then asked staff if.it were true that a county project
is soon to go in for traffic signals at Nogales and LaPuente and
Nogales and Northam; Mr. Diaz stated it is true and in communica—
tions received from the county road department it is anticipated
• it will be completed sometime in December.
COUNCIL DISCUSSION — ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT:
Councilman Browne: A question. Someone at the last hearing
indicated that the existing site as it
now stands was revised after the original
PCD went into effect in 1970, which was brought about by a trading
of land with the City of Walnut for realigning the boundary.
Initially when the PCD density factors were considered this piece
of property was much smaller than it is now — is that true?
Mr. Diaz: The total area involved, both the
commercial and the residential
development plan before you was the
same. The total area of development for residential is greater now
than it was in 1974 when the plan was amended. The acreage involved
at that time was approximately 46 acres, 25 DU's to the acre with a
maximum density of 1153 units and the remainder was to be a
commercial site.
Councilman
Browne:
The original density factor
at
the con—
cept of the PCD was 25 DU's
to
the acre?
Mr. Diaz:
Yes, and it is still the same.
Councilman
Browne:
Mr. Mayor — it would seem to
me
that
somewhere along the line th.ere
has been
a consideration of densities
given
and
all of a sudden
in the far
corner of our city we find a
slushing
in
of a higher
density than
any of us considered in 1970.
I
don't
think any of
us fully realized
that the impact would be
as
great as
it will be.
I think this
city council has strived to make
our city
— 5 —
CITY COUNCIL Pa e Six
PUBLIC HEARING: DP #22(PCD-1). TT #33553, EIR 10%10/77
a livable place and in giving considerations to such massive
developments for -areas asweare now considering sometimes we
lose site of the whole impact. I am wondering if consideration
could be given in relationship to working out something with the
land owners some sort of a modification in due respect to the
response to those people who have appeared from the City of West
• Covina and the City of Walnut — we have always tried -to be a.good
neighbor.
I am speaking personally. I have felt
for sometime that we are moving too rapidly in expansion of
,developments such as this without fully realizing the problems
down the road. for myself, I feel I would not be in a position to
take a firm action on this tonight;.however, I would like to hear
from my fellow councilmen on this matter.
Mayor Shearer: I will comment and say I agree with
Councilman Browne in general at this
point. I was prepared the other night
to ask some rather — what I thought were brilliant questions — I was
going to ask the School Board, why didn't you oppose this in 1970
because the density was there in 1970; and ask the City of Walnut —
why didn't you condition the exchange of property at the time it
was made with certain things such as the density being limited to
such and such, and finally I got around to asking myself — you were
sitting here why didn't you do that instead of pointing the finger
at someone else? I think the thing that got me to thinking that
maybe we ought to take a longer look was the statement by Mr. Jock,
who.said "it is not too late". I then thought the grading has not
been done, the concrete has not been poured, so it is not too late.
• I believe the EIR as presented and
commented on this evening is adequate. It does point out the
impacts and the mitigating measures. But the fact that one
approves or certifies -an EIR has no bearing on one's attitude
towards a particular project, it is merely a report given to the
.decision makers to assist them in their decision. It is merely a
report with a lot of equations and formulas analyzing noise,
air pollution, traffic, etc., and all of these seem to indicate
that this project would not have a significant adverse effect on
the environment. But in my book the bottom line is: do I want
an apartment complex of that size anywhere:.in West Covina, and
the answer I get is "no".
On the other hand I feel that we have
certain legal, perhaps moral obligations, to -the developer to
seek some sort of a compromise. I am sure many times compromise
does not satisfy anyone. So obviously I am not naive enough to
say that what I suggest this evening is going to make everyone
stand up and.cheer, but I do think that certain things should be
looked at. Number 1 — and I don't think it has been adequately
addressed, it may have been in the EIR for legal purposes but I
think the size of the commercial property is important and should
be considered at this time. It may not be set in concrete by
approval.of what is before us this evening but it is the next thing
to it. I think a decision should be made or looked at by staff,
• the developer and the Planning Commission as to whether or not
a development plan for the commercial area should be evaluated
before we close the door on the matter.
Another factor that should be looked at
is the maximum density. Mr. Diaz pointed out the overall density
is one thing versus the density on the parcel; the underlying
question is not what is the density a couple of miles away but
what is the -density here.
CITY COUNCIL Page Seven
PUBLIC HEARING: DP #22(PDC-1), TT #33553, EIR 10/10/77
We should look at the inconsistency
between the General Plan density of 14.9 maximum and what is
shown on the current PCD of 25 DU's and what is proposed of
slightly over 18. In that regard I think we should take a look
at perhaps a combination ofapartments.,�townhouses.,6nd_�condomin—
• iums, the latter being owner occupied and the other I would assume
renter occupied. In that, regard I would specifically suggest you
consider parcels 6, 7, 80 99 10 —.these parcels are adjacent to
LaPuente Road. I made some quick calculations along that line and
in those 5 parcels my calculations indicate there are 440 units on
a total of 23.1 acres. Subtracting 440 leaves a remainder on the
other parcels of 536 apartment units. Again, rather substantial,
but not too far different than other apartment developments that
we have in West Covina. If you apply a density factor of around 8
per acre to the 23.1 acres which I believe is a reasonable figure
for townhouses and condominiums you come up with 185. If you add
185 to the 536 remaining apartments you come up with the 720
total dwelling units on approximately 50 acres. 50 acres at 14.9
is 785. So that combination — and I am not telling anyone this
is the Way you should design your project, I am merely indicating
this is a possibility and 720 would be within the present General
Plan of 14.9 units per acre.
Lastly, I think consideration should be
given for a decision as t-o whether or not the rough grading of the
project should be done all at one time and all the peripheral land—
scaping be done, by that I mean around the boundaries, on the slopes
and along the streetsbe done in Phase I. The developer indicated
at the last meeting he was thinking of going in 3 phases even with
apartments. I think that should be addressed.
• I am not stating that these are
necessarily my positions; however, I think it is important to
indicate to staff, the developer and the Planning Commission some
of our ideas and thoughts,that we are more willing to accept
rather than the 976 apartments.
One further comment. During the testi—
mony September 12 the statement was made — how come the people
never get a waiver. That seemed to draw response from the audience.
I think in looking at it objectively the people do get waivers.
Maybe not in the legal sense but in the sense that even the plan
that is before us the density was about 25% below what was allowed
and called for under the Woodside Master Plan. And I am not going
to question the developer —why, it may have been in his best interests
to come in with 18. It was also in his best interests to ask for
some waivers. So while technically not a waiver it still was a
matter of less than what he could have asked for. The surplus open
landscape over and above what is required by our code could be looked
at as a waiver. I think it is important that we recognize that, often
a proposal before us does.,not go all the way and in my book that
could constitute a waiver.
I think the cooperation that has been
shown us by the'Umark Corporation, represented by Mr. Sloane in the
past.7 years, has been outstanding. That is not to say that we have
• not had our differences, or that is not to say that some of the
individual developers that have come in have not caused us some pro—
blems, but the underlying negotiations with Umark have been out—
standing.
Councilman Tice: Mr. Mayor, without repeating the state—
ments of Councilman Browne and your
statements, I have two specific areas I
am concerned with. The EIR indicates the noise impact would not .
— 7 —
CITY -COUNCIL- Page Eight
PUBLIC HEARING: DP #22(PCD-1), TT #33553, EIR 10/10/77
significantly be anymore than what already is existing in the area
with regard to traffic, and if there is an, impact the new homes
could be built to counteract it. However, the homes that already
exist have no protection to the increased noise. The other point
that concerns me, while Nogales and LaPuente may be certified to
handle the estimated traffic I seriously question the ability of
• these two roads to handle the.increased traffic from one or two
feeder roads in peak traffic hours. I think we would have quite a
traffic problem:
I think the concentratiort:'is too much in
those 53 acres. I would like to see this go back to the Planning
Commission for consideration on a combination of condominiums,
townhouses and maybe some single family homes.
Councilman Chappell When we.started.on this complete project
of Woodside Village we looked at a piece
of paper. We didn't see mark ups or models
of the whole area and perhaps we did overlook some of the density
factors that we now speak of. I think your comments covered all of
our opinions — we do have too many apartments going in at this
location and I think the recommendations you have made of condo—
miniums and townhouses and sending back to the Commission in an
attempt to do that are timely and I concur with them.
Also, at that time Walnut had part of
the land and even though the apartments were there we didn't look
at them in that number. We perhaps didn't call the correct plays
at the time we originally heard this and I was a member of the
Council at the time.
• Councilman Miller: I concur with my colleagues on the
statements made. I have been deeply
concerned about the density in that
area. This came before Council back in 1974, when I just came on
Council, and at that time I concurred with the 25 DU's per acre.
We all looked at an overall average and I envisioned at that time
some type of a development that would be complimentary to the
surrounding area. I concur at this point that this should be
looked at in more depth and considered in a more complimentary
manner to the surrounding area.
Councilman Browne: Mr. Mayor, one thing that was brought
out — we should impress the developer
that this plan will impact this
particular area of our city more than any other area that we have
in existence no.w in the'way of apartments and allowable living
units per acre, and to me that is something we certainly didn't -
plan on.
Mayor Shearer: Mr. City Attorney, based on our com—
ments how do we proceed?
Mr. Wakefield: Mr. Mayor, if it is the determination
of the majority of the City Council to
refer the development plan and the
• tentative tract back to the Planning Commission for further con—
sideration, I think the appropriate way to proceed would be to
adopt the resolution as it appears on your agenda, certifying the.
EIR and then adopting a second resolution referring the tentative
tractmap and the development plan back to the Planning Commission
for further consideration of those items which have been enumerated
by the City Council this evening as problem areas.
CITY COUNCIL Pa a Nine
PUBLIC HEARING: DP #22(PCD-1). TT #33553, EIR 10�10/77
As I have noted those comments this
evening they relate to the following items: 1 — the size of
the parcel designated for commercial use, whether or not the
approximate 10 acres proposed by the Tentative Tract Mapis or is
not an appropriate size for the commercial parcel; and whether or
not a development plan for.that parcel should be required before
• the Tentative Map is finally approved. The third item relates to
the overall _density of the development proposed for the remaining
53+ acres and whether or not that density should be reduced to
approximately the density specified in the General Plan, a maximum
of 14.9 DU's per acre. Associated with that item as apart of it
is the recommendation that has been made that parcels designated
on the Tentative Tract Map as 6, 7, 89 9, 109 be developed with a
combination of condominiums, townhouses, or single family dwellings,
and if that is deemed to be'appropriate it would have the effect of
reducing the overall density of the development to approximately 720
dwelling units.
Mayor Shearer: Mr.. Wakefield, in the event that the
first two items which you listed, and
were in response to my list, would
include some sort of a development plan for commercial development
would the EIR that we have, since it really addresses another type
of project, would it be adequate to cover the commercial develop—
ment also?
Mr. Wakefield: Mr. Mayor, it is directed towards the
commercial development on the 10 acre
parcel; however, the environmental
considerations would be lessened if the commercial parcel were
decreased in size or even if it was increased in size it would
• take the place of some unspecified number of apartment units
and the parcel designated for apartment development would be less,
and it would be my feeling that the approval of the EIR and its
certification would be adequate to cover the entire proposed
development, assuming that the overal density is not increased
beyond that currently proposed and assuming that some area is
designated for commercial purposes.
With regard to the action tonight.
If it is the determination of the City Council to refer the
Tentative Map and the Development Plan to the Planning Commission
for further consideration that could be done in a single action
resolution. You would have two resolutions, one relating to the
EIR and the other relating to the development plan and tentative
tract map.
There is one problem associated with
the Tentative Tract Map which I think needs consideration. There
are some provisions in the Subdivision Act Map that fix specific
time limits for action that should be taken on the Tentative Tract
Map. If it is not disapproved this evening but simply referred back
to the.Planning Commission for further consideration the developer
should be asked whether or not he is willing to waive those time
requirements of the Subdivision Act Map, so there may be time for
consideration before time runs under the statutory provisions,
• Mayor Shearer: The option then would be to either get a
waiver or approve or disapprove. I would
ask the developer at this time if he
will waive the time requirements?
��
CITY COUNCIL Pa e Ten
PUBLIC HEARING: DP #22(PCD-1). TT #33553. EIR 10)10/77
Stanley Rosen My understanding is that there is per —
Attorney haps another alternative. The basic
Hollenbeck Dev. Co., idea of the Council is to address itself
in essence to the development plan. I
am not quite sure whether there can be a waiver on the Subdivision
Act Map — I haven't checked that out. Perhaps what can be done is
• the referral of the Development Plan, the approval of the EIR, and
the Tentative Tract Map, because that in essence would only.approve
a 10 acre parcel tract map and not define any development in each
of those parcels. Would that be an alternative?
Mr. Wakefield: Mr. Rosen, the provisions of the Sub—
division Act Map dictate action by the
City Council and appeal within a
certain specified period of time and if that action is not taken
then the statutory provisions provide that the map will ,be deemed
to be approved. In order to avoid that possibility I think it
would be in order.for the subdivider to simply waive.t-he statutory
time limits setforth in the Subdivision Act Map for action by the
City Council on the Tentative Tract Map. The suggestions for
approval by City Council this evening on the Tentative Tract flies
really in the face of the suggestion made by.the Mayor with refer—
ence to the ultimate size of the commercial parcel, whether it
should be 10 acres as delineated on the Tentative Tract Map or larger
or smaller. If the Tentative Tract is approved tonight it has the
effect of authorizing the developer to come in with a final map which
conforms with the Tentative Tract Map which would include the size of
the commercial parcel and effectively preclude any change in the size
of that parcel if it is determined to be appropriate.
Mr. Rosen Mr. Mayor and Council, it is not my
• position or that of Mr. Hollenbeck to
try to it anyway circumvent the feeling
tonight; if, as Mr. Wakefield points out, there is a concern with
regard to the size of the acreage we would like some indication
whether it is to be smaller or larger, so when it goes back to the
Planning Commission and developer they know what direction to go.
Mr. Hollenbeck: Mr. Mayor — I would go on record as
waiving the time restraints.
Mayor Shearer: First let's discuss the EIR — we
either approve or hold for further
evaluation. Mr. Wakefield, certifying
the adequacy of an EIR locks no one in in anyway of a ultimate pro—
ject described in the EIR?
Mr. Wakefield: That is correct. The purpose of the EIR
is simply to provide a basis for and
completely inform for a ultimate decision
by the decision makers, but it does not obligate in anyway either
approval or disapproval of the project.
Mayor Shearer: It seems to me that the EIR does not
specifically address itself to any
commercial development. That is sort of
. a new twist we made this evening. One of Mr. Diaz's.commenta.we-re
that it would be addressed at such time as the.specific i-_c.ommercial.
development came in. I would seriously question that the EIR we
have before us would adequately cover any specific commercial develop—
ment when it comes in. It may adequately cover any residential
development on the 49 or.50 acres at a density equal to or less than
what is proposed but I have my doubts that we could really say that
the EIR covered one acre, ten acres, or fifteen acres right on that
corner. I question whether certification is in order.
— 10 —
CITY COUNCIL Page Eleven
PUBLIC HEARING: DP #22(PCD-1). TT #33553.-EIR 10/10/77
Mr. Wakefield: Mr. Mayor, normally a development
could not occur on the so called
commercial area until a development
plan had been prepared and submitted for approval for that
approximate 10 acres. At that time it might very well be that a
• supplemental EIR would be a requirement. That could be made a
requirement this evening.
(Council agreed that this would be an,acceptable solution)
RESOLUTION NO. 5562 The City Attorney presented:
ADOPTED A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF WEST 'COVINA,.CALIFORNIA, APPROV—
ING AND CERTIFYING AN ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT REPORT FOR THE AREA COVEREDz'BY DEVELOPMENT NO. 22 (PCD-1)
AND REQUIRING A SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT WITH
RESPECT TO THE PROPOSED COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT INCLUDED.W.ITHIN
TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 33553.
Motion by Tice to waive full reading of
resolution and adopt same; seconded by Miller and carried on roll
call vote:
AYES: Miller, Chappell, Browne, Tice, Shearer
NOES: None
RESOLUTION NO. 5563 The City Attorney presented:
ADOPTED A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE,CITY.OF WEST"COVINA, CALIFORNIA,
REFERRING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP,NO..33553
• AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN NO. 22 (PCD-1)9 TO THE.PLANNING COMMISSION FOR
FURTHER STUDY AND POSSIBLE HEARING WITH INSTRUCTIONS TO REPORT ITS
RECOMMENDATION TO THE CITY COUNCIL. ..
Motion by Chappell to waive full reading
of resolution and adopt same; seconded by Miller and carried on
roll call vote:
AYES: Miller, Chappell, Browne, Tice, Shearer
NOES: None
THE MAYOR CALLED FOR A RECESS AT 9:10 P.M. CITY COUNCIL RECONVENED
AT 9:25 P.M.
TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP Location: 1116 Spring Meadow Drive.
NO. 81489 VARIANCE NO. 745 Request: Approval of a tentative par —
NEGATIVE DECLARATION.OF:.. cel map for a two —lot subdivision on a
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT 1.2 acre parcel in the R-1 (Single
CREATIVE HOMES Family) Zone of the Hillside Overlay
Zone, Area District III, and approval
of a variance :from the.minimum lot area
standards of the Hillside Overlay Zone,
and certification of the,:Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact.
Denied by Planning Commission Resolution No. 2786. Appealed by.
Applicant o;n September 23, 1977. City Clerk verified Proof of
Publication in the,West'Cowina Tribune of the Notice'of Public
• Hearing on September 29, 1977 received. 7 Mailed Notices,
Mayor Shearer: During the intermission.I was approached
by one of the neighbors and due to some—
thing —.lack of mail delivery or the use
of::,the right:. rol'ls_,ot:.whatever, a number of people in the area have
indicated they did not receive adequate notice. The City Attorney
advised we have several options. The one I would.re'commend is that
CITY COUNCIL Page Twelve
PUBLIC HEARING: TT #8148 ,VAAR. #745, NDEIR 10/10/77
we go ahead and conduct the hearing, subject to the approval of
Council, and hold the matter over a few weeks with the hearing
open to allow the individuals in the area to become a little more
familiar with what is going on.. -,,(Council agreed)
• Staff presented the report along with
slides showing location, etc. The Planning Commission recommenda—
tion is to disapprove and the staff recommendation is to approve.
Thewritten staff report was summarized by Mr. Diaz, stating the
reasons for disapproval by the Planning Commission and approval by
staff. In concluding, Mr. Diaz stated staff does not enjoy finding
themselves in this position; staff recommends that the City Council
approve the Variance request and approve Tentative Parcel Map #8148
subject to the conditions that were recommended to the Planning
Commission at their meeting of September 21, 1977.
Mr. Diaz: Mr. Mayor, I would like to indicate that
I did receive a call from a property owner
indicating she had not been notified, she
is directly across the street, and the problem is she is not listed
on the latest equalized assessment role. The new role will not become
available until December; although she had,moved into her home in
July.'•,A notice was sent to the home but in the name of the former
property owner, therefore it was returned to the City. The same
thing I believe occurred with regard to the other individuals who
were not notified. They were not on the equalized assessment role
which is the list we.use for notifying.
(Staff presented maps to Council covering Lot 369 1116 Spring Meadow
Drive and the surrounding lots; lots in black are the lots below the
40,000 sq. ft.)
• . PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
.IN FAVOR
Jane L. Hadley (Owner of Lot 36) I have been a resident
Laguna Beach of West Covina 25 years; we bought our
home at 1100 Spring Meadow Drive in 1961
and a few months later we bought the lot next door which is 1116.
I have been an owner of that lot over 15`years. 'We sold 1100 to
Mr. Grayce in 1974 but I retained the lot. It was my -knowledge
the entire time that we owned both lots that.you could split the
lots that were over 2 acre parcels and as part of the Rancho Estates
I am aware that several other lot splits have taken place over the
years and I would appreciate your consideration in approving the lot
splits.
Mike Pearson (Distributed pictures to Council; displayed
Creative Homes a graphical layout of the.proposed develop —
Developer ment
Carson, Calif. Creative Homes does not own the property
at the present time. We.are in escrow
with the property and one of the contin—
gencies is that there be a lot split, to create the two residences as
you see them displayed now. This property as it exists now has two
• level pads. (Explained the slopes on the two pads, and the development
of both pads,..placement of homes, grading would be minimal, etc.) We
are offering to the City a 10' easement on the southside to be used
by the City for future development of a street; the City has also
requested a sidewalk in the front of the property; there are no
sidewalks in the area and this was a concern of the homeowners. We
are in agreement in not putting in a sidewalk if the City does not
require it.
— 12 —
CITY COUNCIL Page Thirteen
PUBLIC HEARING: TPM #8148, VAR. #745, NDEIR 10/10/77
As the developer we are trying to
address ourselves to the problems raised at the last meeting
and also meet the requirements of the city.
The existing zoning for the area is
149400 square feet, our proposed parcels are 20,000 sq. ft. We arE
looking at homes that will be put in at approximately 3000 sq.. ft,
selling for approximately $2009000+. The Hillside Overlay Zone as
we see it applying to this lot, as the pictures will show, the
homes in the area are basically developed on the useable space of
each lot. The people in the area do have 1 acre lots, however
there have been lot splits and what have you, but each one acre
parcel in the area is developed on the useable space of each lot.
We are taking the useable space that we have and developing two
single family residences. Our residences will concur with the
existing area. (Pointed out homes in the area that are quite close
together, whereas the two proposed have about 85' between; existing
homes some are as close as, 301.)
We were told at the Planning Commission
meeting that 12 lots in the area are less than 40,p00 square feet
so we are not trying to create something new.
Warren Caruth The only other thing I would like to
Builder bring out at.`this-time is that the land
values of raw land has gone up so much
that we can't really go in and buy one parcel and build a home on it
and make it feasible. This is why we are suggesting this lot split.
IN OPPOSITION
• Dr. Propper I live adjacent to the property. I was
1132_ Spring Meadow Drive not notified but found out about it today.
West Covina I have lived in my house lz years and I
was surprised that a notice was not sent to me. I have just seen.the
proposal tonight, I note there is a road that will be put between my
property and the property under discussion. I think that is a very
dangerous place for a road. There is a blind hill coming off Spring
Meadow Drive and people going back and forth on the road proposed
will have very little chance to get ina nd out when somebody comes
over the top of that hill. I think great consideration should be
given to putting a lot in that position.
I don't understand how these two proposed
homes will be in conformity.with the rest of the neighborhood which
have one house to a lot and no road leading into a house where there
are two houses off one road, the way this is proposed. If I under—
stand the proposal correct.
(The Mayor asked for�a,clarification on the road, stating the road
Mr. Pearson referred'to really has nothing at all to do with the lot
split and access to the two proposed homes.)
Mr. Thomas The future street shown was required at
City Engineer the time this was subdivided in 1946; it
had a 20' width for a half street. The
• requirement placed on this current lot split is 10' to add to the
street width. (Explained the purpose is for access to property
easterly of Spring Meadow Drive and in no way concerns the two
proposed homes, thes_e.are independent of it and whether one home is
built on the lot or two would make no difference.)
13 —
CITY COUNCIL Page Fourteen
PUBLIC HEARING: TPM #8148, VAR. #745, NDEIR 10/10/77
Dr. Propper--: I would like to have permission to
address Council at the next session
because I really did not have time
to go over this tonight.
• (The City Manager asked that those individuals that did not
receive notice leave their address with staff tonight.)
Arlen Cohen I IivevY, directly across the street but
1145 Spring Meadow Drive I did not receive notice.
West.Covina
I have two major points to make in
opposition. I think the Planning Commission had very good reasons
for feeling the way they did. In particular I would like to go
through the staff report regarding requirements A & B for granting
the Variance. I don't feel they addressed the problem one bit.
Apparently staff feels"there are exceptional or extra ordinary
circumstances not applicable generally to other property or class of
use in the same vicinity or zone" They cite as exceptional or extra—
ordinary circumstances the fact that there are power poles running
along the perimeter of the property. I submit there are power poles
all over West Covina and all over our•.ne-ighborhood. We all have
electricity and telephones and it is nonsense to claim this is an
extraordinary circumstance.
A dirt road. I think you will find not
only criss cross this property but traverse many of the hills in
West Covina. This is a rural neighborhood and I submit that this is
not an extraordinary circumstance. The fact that native vegetation
has been stripped from several locations is'regretable and I_agree
• with the builder and the neighbors that this is a very unsightly
place. However,.:I'fail to see why building two houses rather than
one will change _that;.,,. '.I think one house properly built .on one lot
would clear up' thi�s,,problem just as easily. The fact that two
partially graded areas should be use'd'as an argument for building two
homes seems to me the height of absurdity.' It completely denies the
entire purpose of zoning. If you are supposed to build homes on one
acre lots and someone comes along and puts in, .'three pads I don't see
why that is an argument for not sticking with your zoning:regulations.
I see nothing in this entire paragraph
that staff has prepared that adequately rebutes the feeling of 3 out
of 5 Planning Commissioners, who say that the requirement has not
been met.
As for B ",A v-ar:iance: is n,e_cessary ; for the
pr.dservatidrn an,d. enjoym-en.t. of.- a substant-i-al property's ght poss.essed
b:y :'ot'h.e:r.:-prop-ert-y..bu.t whi.dh is denied, .to_ the .:property.]:in q'uestioh... ".
I . have, ye.t. -t'o hear anybody .7menti.on. wha>t property right has been
denied to this property owner except the right to build twice as many
houses on this piece of land as anybody else does in the neighborhood.
As regards complaint C. They argue the improvement of the subject
property will upgrade the neighborhood by developing a property that
is presently maintained in a very unsightly condition. This is
completely beside the point — the same purpose would be served by
building one house on one acre parcel as is generally the case all
• around. "Moveover these two lots would be similar in size to future
lots that would develop under the standards of the proposed revised
Hillside Overlay.... " — I don't know what that means. If the zoning
requirements are changed rather than just proposed change, then he has
an argument. Right now they are not changed. -I don't see a valid
argument along the lines that someday we will change the requirements.
In short I don't see that staff has answered the questions raised by
the Planning Commission.
— 14 —
CITY COUNCIL Page Fifteen
PUBLIC HEARING: TPM #8148. VAR. #745. NOEIR „10/10/77
My second argument is really that I
bought a'house in a relatively rura.l.neighborhood and I would.sub—
mit that a review of.the Planning Commission m'eetinIg minutes which
I had a chance to do in the 20 minutes or so before I got up to
speak, reveals that an argument is made about previous variances —
• I am not sure that argument was substantiated, but .I wish Council
would remember if this Variance is granted what you.are really
doing -is changing the zoning regulations because the next
attempted Variance will argue from this granted Variance and
what you are eventually going to do is change the entire nature
of this neighborhood, and I am not sure that is justified.
Donald Brais Dr: Propper and Dr. Cohen both stole my
1100 Spring Meadow Drive thunder, but I want to reiterate a'bit.
West Covina Three years ago when I bought my proper—
ty I was under the assumption that these
lots could not be splits and that is why I bought. We have horses
and we wanted to live in a rural area.- The vegetation referred to
was stripped by motorcycles. I am no large booster of motorcycles
and I did get out there and do.my thing to get rid of them but
it appears that was filled in the construction of my home and
leveled out. There has been some dumping there, I have complained
about this on various occasions but received no response. It is a
bit unsightly but frankly you cannot see it from the street, I can
see it. I believe this is the City of Beautiful Homes and this is
considered one of your scenic highways and the building of two
homes on that lot would not enhance thearea.
(Council discussed the dumping problem, advising if Mr. Brais
could supply a license .number something could be done about it.)
• Peggy Prbpper, My husband and I own the property
1132 Spring Meadow Drive adjacent to the subject property. I am
West Covina also upset that I didn't receive a
notice. I, have not had the opportunity
to review the matter. There are allegations made that similar
variances were made on other properties. I don't see any lot
between this property and Citrus and I don't think anywhere else
on Spring Meadow Drive that is less than an acre. I really don't
understand what the future load means. Does that mean that the
developer that builds these two homes will build this road, pave it,
sidewalk it', street light it?
Mayor Shearer: No. The road that seems to cloud the
issue is completely irrelevant to this
particular development and would only
be built if and when Council approved some extension on to the east
of the undeveloped property. The road would not be built in
conjunction with this property whether the lot was built with one or
two houses.. The sidewalk was a requirement of staff to be done by
the builder. .
Peggy Propp.,er'4 There isn't a sidewalk any other place on
Spring Meadow Drive. We purchased our
proPerty to be,in a country setting, to
be able to have horses. Our children ride their horses through
• the hills as did the people from whom we bought our home. We
bought 10 years ago and I am not anxious to see it developed. I
.understand the builder is proposing somewhere between 3000/4000.sq.
ft. structures going somewhere between $150,000/200,000, which
would be fine for an acre of property but it doesn't conform to the
rest of the neighborhood if there are -two homes built.
— 15
CITY COUNCIL Page Sixteen
PUBLIC HEARING: TPM #8148, VAR. #745„ NDEI 10/10/77
I don't believe we have had ample
opportunity to research this, and there are other people on our
street who have not had this opportunity and because we have an
acre and a half or a little more. or less — and our neighbors only
two doors away from the proposed houses are not entitled to notice
and have not received notice and I think they should have an
opportunity to know about it.
(Council asked Mr. Diaz to clarify the zoning in the area; he
advised the zoning is Hillside Overlay. The underlying zoning
is Area District III. The Hillside Overlay based on today's
regulations has one unit for every 5 acre.s because the slope in—
volved is 17%; the density under the newly passed Hillside Overlay
which will become effective within the next 30/45 days is one
dwelling unit per acre, under either Overlay the Variance will be
necessary, under the new one it is not as much of a difference as
under the old one.
Motion by Tice to hold this matter over
for two weeks with the public hearing.open; seconded by Chappell.
Councilman Browne: Mr. Mayor, I would be in agreement with
the motion but first of all I feel
Council should get to the bottom of
why so many people are coming in to these public hearings saying
they have not received proper notice.
Mayor Shearer: I believe that rather than criticize,
the attitude of Council to hold over
is a demonstration of our wanting to
be as open as we can and any further criticism of the City in
• that regard would serve no purpose. I am concerned as to why
periodically we get these complaints and ways should be explored
as to how it can be minimized. I think I have the feeling and
concurrence of Council to hold this matter over with the hearing
open, so I ask that anyone wishing to testify not be rep.et-itive
of what has already been said.
Motion carried.
(Chappell asked that the map showing what has been done in the
area be made available to anyone interested.)
Mr. Fast3 Mr. Mayor, relative to the notifica—
tions. I have in my.hand 3 returned
notifications, all sent back by the
PO marked "not deliverable at the address, unable to forward".
The City's procedure and by law the required notification is to
notify everyone within 300' on the basis, of the latest Equalized
Assessment Role and those individuals named on that role. It is
possible for a person to move into his home and live there for a
year and a half before the City is notified of the new owner.
We will receive the next assessment role for March in December.
Also it is possible that the new property owners do not immediately
notify the assessor relative to the fact they are the new owner and
it even takes the assessor a while to find out'who the property
owner is. Another factor, when you -get into a large lot area the
requirement of 300' does not cover many parcels and if a change of
ownership takes place in the immediate area then this sort of
thing arises.
(The Mayor suggested that if possible the City send out another
letter upon receipt of a return, addressed to the Occupant plus
address — City Attorney asked if this would be legal?)
— 16 —
CITY COUNCIL Page Seventeen
lO�lO�77
' '
Mr. Wakefield:` ..� ' Yeo* that could be done. The problem
is simply a problem of being able to
� `� . follow up on the returned mail so a
follow up ootlon�goeooUt°. The only other alternative is to
require the applicant in cases of this sort to supply an owner's
list of thboa properties within 300' of the proposed development,
that owner's list to be token from the title reports available at
-~ Title Insurance Company and notice sent to those individuals that
appear.on that list as well as those that appear on the list of
Equalized.Assessment Role, but this tends to increase the cost
to the epplioeot'of a proceeding'and something staff may not want
to consider. .
(The City Clerk advised the name for lllG Spring Meadow Drive as
ouner is Lee Max Construction, [l Monte,,' he called and advised he
does not own.that property and she immediately sent out a notice
addressed to thabaddreoo 1116°\
`
Mayor 'Shearer: ' ` Am'a policy by -Council for
' the future I
would like to suggest that upon return,
of any of these types of letters that
we follow immediately with a letter addressed to occupant (city
Clerk advised she has already made that a practice for City ` Council
notice). It appears that our process covers it but in this case
the process fell down. I would suggest that staff make an effort
to attempt to notify everyone that has given their address this
evening and tho faot that we are carrying it over covers the
situation,
`
ZONE CHANGE NO. 522 Location: Generally uaot of Azusa
NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF Avenue and south of Franoiaquito
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT Avenue where Aroma Drive intersects
���ota
�~ ARCTERO & SONS A.zuaa:Aoenug°
Request: Approval of a change of zone
from MF-15 (Multiple Family - 15 units -
per acre) t/ R-l» `
7�SO8 (Single Family,
7500 square feet minimum lot size) n a 26 acre parcel of land,
aod aartifioation of the Negative Declaration of Environmental
Impact. Recommended by Planning Commission Resolution 2781°
City Clerk verified proof of Publication in the West Covina Tribune
of the Notice /of Public Hearing on September 39, 1977v received;
8 mailed notices.
�
o no oao,
Staff report summarized.by Mr. Diazv
along with slides shown. '
`
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
IN FAVOR
'
Wes Lind d
I wish to ask the Council to again
2065 Huntington Drive tbaffirm the Planning Commission poai-
Weot Co,ino tion. I think the issue pertaining
' to the Tentative Tract Me|' and the
traffic were taken care of at the Planning Commission meeting.
We would like to have this zoned down to the single' family use.
IN OPPOSITION None.
COUNCIL'DISCUSSION
`
', `(Gh,�ppeIl �ibked�uhat'�type of graiding
is proposed and the developer advised
as the property exists now there is a -
single knolI on the uoat side of Azusa, the top! of the hill would
'
` .
- 17 -
CITY COUNCIL Page Eighteen
PUBLIC HEARING: ZC &522-_, NGDEI 10/10/77
be cut <,at the -very back to create the level pads on both sides
of one street and it then d.ro.p.s 25 feet on the westerly side to
create the cul—de—sac street that goes in and the fill material
will be placed on'the tapering part of the property as it
approaches the property lines to build up the pads located there.
Most of the houses will be above the neighboring houses.
• Motion by Tice to direct,:,City=At,torneY 'to
P't,ep.are.l.th.e.,necessary ordinance; seconded by Chappell and carried.
ORDINANCE_ The City Attorney presented:
INTRODUCTION AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF WEST COVINAO CALIFORNIA, AMEND—
ING THE WEST COVINA MUNICIPAL.CODE BY,
AMENDING THE OFFICIAL ZONING.MAP.
(Zone Change No..522 — Arciero & Sons)
Motion by Tice to waive full reading of
said ordinance; seconded by Miller and carried.
Motion by Tice to introduce said
ordinance; seconded by Miller and carried.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None.
PUBLIC WORKS ITEM I— The City Engineer read .the conditions
PARCEL MAP NO..7212 applied to the Tentative Parcel Map as
requested by Councilman Browne.
Browne questioned the existing sewerage
hookup — did it include the.existing house. City., Engineer advised
it does not include the existing house and explained why it was not
• required and that it could only be required if it were a health
problem. Browne said he had telephone calls from some of the
existing residences on the extensive usage of.the properties
owned by Victory Out Reach and the number of people involved on
weekends, they questioned the sanitary facilities available.
Asked the City Attorney if there is some way we can impose this
condition?
Mr. Wakefield There is no way in light of the exist—
ing Parcel Map and our present ordinances
that a sewerage connection could be
required for the large lot in the rear. At the time the application
for approval of the Parcel Map was being heard by the -Planning
Commission there was indication that it was the owner's intention
to ultimately subdivide and develop the area that is in the rear.
of the residences but pending that ultimate development I think
there is not we can do in the absence of a health problem.
RESOLUTION NO. 5564 The City Attorney presented:
ADOPTED A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF WEST COVINA, CALIFORNIA, APPROV—
ING FINAL MAP OF.PARCEL_MAP NO. 7212,
Motion by Chappell to waive full reading
of resolution and adopt same; seconded by Miller and carried on roll
• call:
AYES: Miller, Chappell, Browne, Tice, Shearer
NOES: None
CITY COUNCIL
CITY MANAGER AGENDA
LEGISLATION: A8 598
JUVENILE JUSTICE
Po e Nineteen
10)10/77
MotlOn.by Tice to,a&thorize�thecMa�br to
write to,tho approPriate- Calif Urnia,�
Legislators urging that AB 958 be pested
out of committee and enacted into law;
seconded by Millar and carried.
Mr. Fast: Mr. Mayor, I-haoe two informational it
em�°
�~ (Advised Council re the Police Dopartmgnt
receiving a second plaque from the L.A.
Chapter of the National'Safety Council in recognition of the'
mare driving of Police Officers.averaging 509000 miles per yoar°�
Secondly, the Tribune wrote a very good
article relative to the implementation of.the City Council
authorized census which will tend to'hopofully result in additional
revenue to ±he`City° (Explained a special report will be given
Council so when citizens call they will be informed.)
MAYOR'S -
RESOLUTIONS OF M She
arer: garer: We haVa two letters of
COMMENDATION
resignation» one from
Brad Heinz Human
Resources Commission; and the other from Suzann Mgokan Youth
Advisory Commission. I would like concurrence for o reqblution of
commendation to these two young people.
oarried. So moved by Tice; seconded by Browne and
MayorShgarer: ]Jg o� .�u hevtwo v�oonoio�� om`our�Human
.
- RbsourobaICom�iebio-n�, Co�noiImbn}
Tioe
and'Iouill`b6ime6ting�n�br��y�to-!discuss tho koplaogmoht��o Mr�Heihz�. In that regardwe'would like to
recommend to Council the appointment of Kathekne Heinz to'the
vacancy on the Human Resources Commission# Are the
re any comments
or objections? (None)
R[SOLUTIONNO" 5565 The City Attor.oy'| rg|ontgd:
UN |
ADOPTED A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF [JEST CDVINA"CALIFORNIA» APPOINT-
ING NATHIRIM`HEINZ TO THE HUMAN RESOURCES
COMMISSION FOR A TERM EXPIRING JULY 1.0 I978°
Motion by Tice to waive full reading of
said resolution and adopt same; seconded by Chappell and carried
on roll oaII vote:
AYES: Miller,,C' ' ll 8 �-
nap�o » roun�» Tice, Shearer
NOES: None
` '
(City Manager asked to prepare o letter, for the Mayor's/ signature
advising Mrs. Heinz of her appointment-.) '
'
Mayor Shearer: The next lte/.'�.ib/.a ointments to the Park
Public � ' o Facilities Committee. I have
bogn unable to get aold of everyone, proposing from the Reoroetion & Parks Commission,, Mr. Reyn"ldo
;Suoie Paoifioo from the Woodside Area; Olivia Kinzlor»and I havebegn attempting to contact one of the Senior Citizens Organ�iza^ionoto get a representative from that aroatand Councilman Tice has
�g ere
given ma the Oomo of Jim Gonzales.A there -any otho-
r Dameo that
anyone would like to.propose - or any comments?
We need a total offive°
'
`
- 19 -
•
CITY COUNCIL
MAYOR'S AGENDA
Page Twenty
10/10/77
Mayor Shearer: I•would like Council concurrence in send-
ing a letter of appreciation to Jim Lloyd
for his assistance in the Phase II public
works bill, and also with that a request for his support in.opposition
to the federally mandated social security coverage for city employees.
Motion by -Browne ;.authorizing the Mayor to
send two separate letters to Jim Lloyd as proposed; seconded by
Chappell and carried.
One last item. In the last two issues of
the Tribune there have been reports on the efforts of SCAG in the
area of housing requirements and it is interesting to note that
West Covina has the opportunity to provide an additional 1500
low cost houses; E1 Monte is over supplied. I hope that staff can
present to us a report by our next meeting as.to the full impact of
what SCAG is discussing.
COUNCILMEN'S REPORTS/COMMENTS
Chappell.reported he would be out of
town Wednesday. Thursday and Friday, attending a LAFCO Conference
in Santa Barbara.
APPROVAL OF DEMANDS Motion by„Tice to approve Demands total-
ling $8520284.11 as listed.on UCB #63551
and #63810; seconded by Browne and.
carried on roll call vote:
AYES: Miller, Chappell, Browne, Tice, Shearer
NOES: None
ADJOURNMENT (Mr. Fast advised the Chamber of Commerce
has requested a time to present their
quarterly report to City Council; October 20 suggested as an
acceptable time to the Chamber members if convenient with Council.
Council agreed.
Motion by Browne to adjourn meeting at
10:55 P.M. to Thursday, October 20, 1977 at 7:30 P.M., seconded
by Miller and carried.
APPROVED:
MAYOR
ATTEST:
- 20 -
• HOLLENBECK DEVELOPMENT CO., INC.
' 202 "b" e. alton, santa ana, california 92707
f
October 7, 1977
1977
Mr. Ray Diaz, Planning Director
City of West Covina
.1555 West Garvey Ave.
West Covina, Calif. 91790
Subject: R-1 Single Family Feasibility
Tract 33553, NE Corner of La Puente Road
• and Nogales, City of West Covina
Dear Mr. Diaz:
In response to our phone conversation today regarding the
economic feasibility of constructing single family homes
on the above captioned property, I am writing you this letter.
You mentioned your estimate of $10,500 per lot, based on 3.5
dwelling units per acre, for offsite improvements if single
family dwellings were to be developed in lieu of the present
apartment plan.
I should like to direct your attention to the letter attached
dated Sept. 30, 1977 written to me by Bill Frost of Bein and
Frost Engineering firm in Newport Beach, California. Based
upon a total of 5.dwelling units per acre density, Bill's
considered professional opinion is that the offsite improvement
costs would amount to $17,250 per unit.. This also, as the
letter points out, doesn't take into consideration the carrying
costs that would accrue during the processing period of
approximately six months.
• The $17,250 per unit figure coupled with per unit land cost
of $10,200 would combine to make .a total of $27,450 per
finished lot. Again, these figures reflect the costs if we
were to get 5 lots per acre. My opinion is that due to the
topographical problems of the property, a density of 5 lots
per acre would be unlikely.
0
On small lots @ 5 per acre, the average square footage per
dwelling would be approximately 1500 square feet and that
figure multiplied by construction costs of $30.00 per square
foot would be $45,000. Add this to the lot cost and you come
up with a 1500 square foot house that costs $72,450 to build
before any profit is added.
It is my.opinion that the subject property could not
accommodate single family development in an economically
feasible manner.
Very truly yours
HOLLENBECK DEVELOPMENT CO.,INC.
r
James R. Hollenbeck, President
• JRH:mp
PS: Please attach this letter to,.and make it a part
of the Environmental Impact Report,i
0
Oct. 7, 1977
• City of West Covina
14la.LF W. Garvey Avenue
West Covina, CA 91792
Dear Mayor Sherer and Councilmen:
Have you in the last few weeks driven down Nogales Street
through those beautiful hills which only a short time ago were
covered with hay and cows?, I have traveled widely in both the
United States and in Europe; do you -realize that here in West
Covina is one of the most beautiful spots in the world. We
have watched with aching hearts as "progress" has come to this
area. We have watched as Nogales Street which ended at the
high school has become a major throughfare that is dangerous
to walk across even at a stop sign. Do you realize how many
people are now concentrated in this area? It is beyond my
comprehension that a City like West Covina can even consider
letting an apartment complex like the one planned for the
corner of Nogales and La Puente Road reach the planning stage.
If this apartment complex is built in the City of West
Covina it will be one of the gravest wrongs ever committed by'
the City. Number onesit is a beautiful area; one that is a
pleasure to drive through. If any thing,tit should be preserved
as park area. Number two, this area is already over crowded,
• and populated too fast to be absorbed properly by the area.
Traffic is already heavy and the concentrated use. of water (for
additional people and landscaping) for a time when we have been
asked to be more economical in our use of both water and other
natural resources seems to go counter to what a well planned
city would want. An apartment complex bringing in another
three thousand people with at least half that many additional
cars is not only undesirable but extremely damaging to a
peaceful environment, and an already confused traffic situation,
unhealthy nois&,_,,level and impossible smog situation.
If bhig portion of West Covina is to be developed, then I
suggest only single family homes. Revenue from apartments can
in no way ever compensate for the contribution to smog, traffic
dnd the high density of people which these apartments would
bring to the area.
Thank you for your consideration in this matter.
Very truly yours,
Mrs. Larry Walsh -
358 Frankfurt Ave.
West Covina, CA ,91792
0
Response to Comments
Received From
Stanley Oswalt
521 So. Ch4rvers Avenue
West Covina
Superintendent of Schools
Rowland Unified School District
Comment: "The District feels the proposed apartment complex
would substantially increase the opportunities for
non -students to be in the vicinity, thus increasing
a school's security problems."
Response: This is not an environmental impact which should be
addressed in an Environmental Impact Report.
Even if it were, it cannot automatically be assumed
that non -students in the area will adversely affect
the school. Persons who are attracted to the school
• for the purpose of committing illegal acts will be
there regardless of the type of development that
occurs in the area.
In addition, most vandalism in schools are committed
by students who attend that school. This has been
verified by Los Angeles Unified School District,
Chief Security Agent.
40
•
0
Response to Comments
Received by
Mr. Brian Dahl
3001 Cornell
West Covina
Comment: "The air pollution situation as it would pertain
to the health of people in the immediate area,
particularly the students of Nogales High School"
Response: See response to comments made by Mrs. Gloria Hall.
A copy of the Draft EIR was submitted to the South
Coast Air Quality Management District for comments
and their comments and response are part of this
EIR.
Comment: "The crime problem in this area will skyrocket with
this kind of a development".
Response: A casual relationship between crime and density has
not been established in his book Crowding and Behavior
the Psychology of'Hi h Density Livin , Professor
Jonathon Freedman of Columbia University states.
"Overall, there is a small but appreciable tendency
for high density to go along with higher crime.
About 9 percent of the variation in crime rate is
associated with density - not a strong effect, but
one that cannot be entirely ignored."
"On the other hand, this figure alone means little
because density tends to be associated strongly with
other factors, such as poverty, educational level,
and ethnicity. The crucial question is what happens
when these variables are controlled. The answer is
straight -forward and unambiguous - when other social
factors are equated, the relationship between density
and crime disappears entirely. When people's income,
education, and other life situations are equal, the
level of density under which they live plays no role
in the amount of crime they commit."
E
n
LJ
Response to Comments
Mr. Brian Dahl
Page Two
Professor Freedman continues --
"Even with nothing controlled, the relationship
between density and crimes of violence -- murder,
rape and aggravated assault -- are even lower than
with the overall crime rate or crimes against
property. Those crimes most related to aggressive
feelings, which should be the best indication of
the effects of crowding, show absolutely no rela-
tionship to population density."
Dr. Freedman also noted that his results were al-
most identical with those reported by two other
studies.
In citing the study done by Galle, McCarthy and
Gore, Freedman states."There were no reliable re-
lationships of any kind between household crowding
and pathology, and density per acre was actually
seen to have a reverse relationship with suicide
and homicide. The higher the density, the lower
the rate of these two measures of•pathology."
Further, the
such that the
be comparable
rent levels for these apartments are
income levels of the residents should
to those of the surrounding area.
0
•
•
•
Response to Comments
Received from
Mr. Charles Barrett
2437 Pauline Street
West Covina
Comment: Why were there no photos of the west side of
Nogales.
Response: There is a photo of the site northwest of the
project; photo number,31 and an aerial oblique
looking southwest which show the west side of
Nogales.
Continent: Grading done at one time would maximize impact
on people and minimize the cost to the developer.
Response: From the standpoint of impact on surrounding
residents, grading completed for the entire area
in one operation would have a lesser impact than
grading completed incrementally or in phases. In
terms of construction, the greatest noise and
dust generator is grading.. By having that portion
of the project completed at one time, the incon-
venience to surrounding residents could be ended
as quickly as possible. -
Comment: Enforcement of "no parking" areas; the problems
at the railroad crossing on Valley.
Response: Enforcement of "no parking" areas on La Puente
Road will be done by the County of Los Angeles;
along Nogales it will be done by the City of
West Covina.
The issue of the railroad crossing is addressed
in the response to the comments of Mr. Bailey,
which are incorporated in this Environmental
Impact Report.
•
0
•
Response to Comments
Received from
Mr. Bill Cotten
20432 Flaherty
Walnut
Comment: Concerned with traffic and safety on La Puente
Road; particularly the impact on the homes that
front on La Puente Road.
Response: La Puente Road can accommodate the traffic that
would be generated by this project at an accept-
able service level. The homes that front on
La Puente Road are east of this project; and
the only traffic that would impact this area
would be those vehicles heading east, which would
not constitute a major portion of the vehicular
traffic generated by the development.
r�
L
n
�J
• 0
•
•
C�
Response to Comments
Received by
Mr. Lawrence Jock
2412 Belinda
West Covina
Comment: "The construction that is going on in this area
really concerns us -- the noise, the pollution,
the traffic."
Response: The impacts of noise, pollution, and traffic are
addressed in the Environmental Impact Report as
well as the responses made to other comments per-
taining to the impacts in these areas.
Comment: Concerned about the density of the development.
Response: The development's density is below that permitted
by the Woodside Master Plan.
Response to Comments
. Received from
Mrs. Gloria Hall
2142 Evangelina Street
West Covina
1. Traffic - "While the EIR did address itself to the traffic
problem, it meant that residents in Woodside Village and
Walnut would have to live with intolerable level of traffic."
Response: The designed capacity of the streets in the area are
adequate to handle all traffic which would be genera-
ted by the project at an acceptable service level.
This matter was also addressed at the Planning Commis-
sion hearing of July 20, 1977, whose minutes are part
of this Environmental Impact Report. In addition, the
reader may wish to refer to the response to the comments
of Mr. Bailey, Mr. Cotten and Mr. Collines.
2. Noise and Air Pollution - Were not adequately addressed, es-
pecially the impact of noise south of the proposed development.
Response: Pages 24 and 25 of the Planning Commission hearing
transcript address the noise impact issue. In addi-
tion, Page 3 of the response to the comments by Mr.
• Bailey addresses this issue. Finally, additional
noise readings taken on La Puente Road and Nogales
indicate no significant adverse impact from the devel-
opment in terms of noise pollution. In terms of air
pollution, the South Coast Air Quality Management
District has indicated "probably no substantial ad-
verse effect" caused by the project. Their comments
and responses are part of the Environmental Impact
Report.
3. Proximity of the Project to Nogales High School - The school
is already experiencing problems with its neighbors.
Response: This is not an environmental issue. The reader is
referred to the response to the comments'of Mr. Bailey.
4. "While the EIR addressed itself to the cost to the City for
increased services such as police coverage, we ask the City
Council in view of the last City budget hearings, how they
propose to increase the police staff? Where do they propose
to find the funds?
Response: The issue of city expenditures and budgeting is not an
environmental one. The project at its completion will
generate enough revenue to hire additional personnel;
• however, the ultimate decision on how any tax funds
are utilized are addressedat the time of budget prep-
aration. These budgetry decisions must be made with
the entire City's needs considered.
For further comments on the relationship of crime and
density, refer to the response to the comments from Mr.
Brian Dahl.
• Response to Comments
Received From
Mr. Patrick Collins
19419 Avinda Del Sal
Walnut
1. No evidence of "economic infeasibility" of single family homes on site.
Response: The alternative for single family units is addressed in
the alternatives section. However, based on a 3.6 dwelling
unit per care density, which is the density of the single
family homes to the east, the following costs result per
unit.
Land Cost $ 12,200
Improvement Cost 10,500 Based on March 1976
Includes: grading, storm estimates
drains, water, streets,
street lights, fees, and
landscaping
$ 22,700
Construction $32 per foot
1500 sq. ft. home 48,000
• 70,700
2% finance $ 11414
4% marketing 2,828
2% general admin. l►
5,656
$ 76,356
This unit price does not include profit; and, is above the
price level of similar homes in the area.
The economics,of course, would vary with densities.
It should also be noted that the above does not include re-
locating of a storm drain which could be necessitated if
single family homes, as opposed to apartments, were developed.
If an additional $1500 were added to the lot improvement costs
which is not out of line with increases since March 1976.
The total cost of homes without profit would be $77,856.
Based on a.density of 3.6 as opposed to 4 DU's per acre, the
impact on the school district would be as attached.
•
•Revenue generated by 191 Single Family Dwellings
Total Total
DU's Price DU Total MV Assessed Value
191
x $60,000 =
$11,460,000
= 4 =
2,865,000 x
191
x 70,000 =
13,370,000
- 4 =
3,342,500 x
191
x 80,000
= 15,280,000
= 4 =
3,820,000 x
191
x 90,000
= 17,190,000
= 4 =
4,297,500 x
191
x 100,000
= 19,100,000
i 4 =
4,775,060 x
Tax Rate
Yearly Revenue
Generated to RUSD
4.38
= $ 125,.487
4.38
= 146,402
4.38
= 167,316
4.38
= 188,231
4.38
= 209,145
Students generated at .92/DU = .92 x 191 = 175 students*
The total cost to the Rowland Unified School District generated by the
addition of 175 additional students would be:
175
x 1097.51=.$192,064
(rounded
to nearest dollar)
Selling Price
Yearly Revenue - Yearly Cost
= Cost Revenue Difference
$ 60,000
$ 125,487 - $
192,064
= $-66,577
70,000
146,402 -
192,064
==45,662
80,000
167,316 _
192,064
_-24,748
• 90,000
188,231
192,064
- 3,833
100,000
209,145 -
192,064
= 17,081
Single family homes would have to sell for more than $90,000 in order
to provide the RUSD with a positive cost revenue benefit.
* Although the Rowland Unified School District feels that a figure of
less than .92 students/DU as shown by a city-wide survey, would be
more appropriate, a survey conducted by them in the Woodside Village
area yielded a figure of .92. It is felt, therefore, that .92 is
more applicable to the Woodside Park apartment project.
0
•
Response to Comments
Received From
Mr. Patrick Collins
19419 Avinda Del Sal
Walnut
Item 2:
Attached is a report of the City Engineer concerning
traffic generations which is in response to the commentw
of Mr. Collins.
0
0
•
•
4_0 �.
UCT .al
RECEIVED
PLANNING DEA''
TO Planning Department �� CITY OF
NEST COVINA
•
City of Wert Covina
Memorandum
FROM Harry W. Thomas c'Z(®�� October 6, 1977
City Engineer
SUBJECT: HOLLENBECK DEVELOPMENT COMPANY - ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Traffic projections have been prepared for comparative purposes with
the Environmental Impact Report of Hollenbeck Development Company:
Street Limits
Amar, Azusa to Shadow Oak
Amar, Shadow Oak to Nogales
Amar, Nogales to Lemon
Shadow Oak, Amar to Nogales
Nogales, Amar to Shadow Oak
Nogales, Shadow Oak to La Puente
Nogales, La Puente to Valley
Nogales southerly of Valley
La Puente, Nogales to Sentous
La Puente, Sentous to Lemon
Traffic
Engineering Environmental
Projections Impact Report
27,600 35,000
14,200 24,000
13,150 10,000
13,500 15,000
17,400 19,000
28,500 34,000
49,350 Not Given
52,000 Not Given
16,850 6,000
11,000 6,000
Lemon,
Amar
to
La Puente
11,000
10,000
Valley
west
of
Nogales.
22,000
Not Given
Valley
east
of
Nogales
18,900
Not Given
Capacity studies were conducted for the most critical intersections
which determine the capacities for Amar Road and Nogales Street.
Based upon a scheduled modification of the intersection of Amar
Road and Azusa Avenue to provide double southbound left -turn lanes
and three lanes through traffic for northbound travel, the inter-
section functions at level of service "D" during the peak hour.
• Development occurring in the area of Nogales Street and La Puente
Road will have little effect upon traffic at the intersection of
Azusa Avenue and Amar Road. Most of the traffic will dispense to
the south as major shopping, industry and the Pomona Freeway.are
•
•
•
•
•
Environmental Impact Report
10-6-77
page two
located in that direction. Projected traffic volumes at the
intersection of Nogales Street and La Puente Road were found to
be at level of service"C". The intersection of Valley Boulevard
and Nogales Street currently operates at level of service "B".
To function at service level "D", at full development, a double
northbound left -turn lane, three through lanes and a northbound
right -turn lane would be required. All of the additional improve-
ments would be located in the City of Industry. The type of
'development or option of no development will not eliminate pro-
blems at Valley Boulevard and Nogales Street.
Streets having traffic volumes of this magnitude normally have
overpasses or underpasses such as Azusa Avenue or Hacienda Boule-
vard at railroad crossings. Cost for a structure at the inter-
section would be.borne as follows:
Public Utilities Commission - 80%
(Grade Xing Separation Fund)
Southern Pacific Railroad - 10%
City of Industry
- 5%
City of West Covina - 5%
Because of the close proximity of the railroad and Valley Boulevard,
a grade separation would eliminate the majority of intersection
problems by carrying the majority of traffic over or under Valley
Boulevard.
Alternatives
With the critical intersection being Valley Boulevard and Nogales
Street, the level of service would not be changed by reducing to
the 14.9 dwelling units per acre as contained in the General Plan.
The intersection capacity would remain at service level "D" by
rezoning to four dwelling units per acre. Double northbound left -
turn lanes and three through lanes of traffic would still be
required. A similar change in traffic volumes will be effected
by Walnut reducing density in the area bounded by Nogales Street,
Amar Road, Lemon Avenue and La Puente Road to one dwelling unit
per acre.
Methodology
The following assumptions were made for projections of traffic
volumes and intersection capacity:
1) That nine trips per dwelling unit will be generated.
2) That.there are an existing 4,500 through trips per
day generated on Amar Road and Nogales Street.
• Environmental Impact Report
10-6-77
•
0
page three
3) That there will be a 50% increase of through traffic
on Amar Road when it is extended to Mt. Sac as shown
on the Walnut General Plan.
4) There will be a 25% decrease of through traffic on
Nogales Street when Amar Road is extended through.
5) Traffic will follow the closest route to major,
industry, shopping and the freeways.
6)
Traffic will go and come via
the same
route.
7)
That peak -hour traffic will
equal 10%
of the
average daily traffic.
8)
That development within West
Covina will meet
the maximum permitted under
the Woodside Village
Master Plan.
9)
That the street pattern and
densities
within the
City of Walnut will follow the Walnut
General Plan.
Conclusions
It is concluded that traffic volumes on Nogales Street non-
dependent on the type of development on La Puente Road and
Nogales Street will require the construction of a grade
separation at the Southern Pacific Railroad. Once a separa-
tion is constructed, capacity at the intersection of Valley
Boulevard and Nogales Street will not be a problem.
HWT : RLS : j k
Attachments
BY I)L/%/---..DATE.�Cc!�_�7--. S ECT.-//---�^R.PAG1� T� c SHEET NO._..--L .... OF
CHKD. BY ----------- DATE ------------ 1�R V_�eATY�ON.ate--------------------- JOB NO.---------- ------------------
----------------------�XL.Jjl )•�------------1- 77------------------------------- ------------------
& poet Parc�me+er5
E6 W6 N 8 58
1) Par k� n� Res+lric,A-iorns ye- .. _.PV-1i_ _/.V-Q ,
2 App►roach Wi4+ks_� 1D_36f !0 22'►�' ! �34
3) Pc-4 R;9 t Turps yD _ 722
...
4) PctTu r h s - __�
5) Pc+. -jrucksI Buses
.r5.30 .2.35 o4 .4
Gy
�� Pegk Hour Fact ors
N Z . P}1F =_22l % 3_Lx4 =
wa�. FHAF /�X4 =� W. PNF=..- / 14 ..X4-=
6
Wa) LQ"4 Use Fr=gam.. /4a_ 9) U�-bah AV -ea Popula{io�
lo) Service L.eve-1 ---B—
A, V-pac.\ VG�kArntS V= SL 4 x PFX LU x RT x LT x 6T ,* B5 xGG
fig: vT= l800A 1. 19 X 1.25 X 1,0 X I,05 X /.J X ,30 843
VR- —
VL= 800 X • 15 -- 120
VA -
we'. Vz= /600 X 1.22 X 5 X ec?,� X. 1,05 X 1.� X .35 = 883
VR= —
No'.?_ 19Do x 1, i x lr� 1.GS X 1�
_J f
= ?47
va= 600 X
Wr 1200 — 43 G = 7C4
VA=
SHEET
--------- ................. 0.
BY----------------
--- DATE-- -------
CHKO. BY-.--.-.-.. DATE._ ---------- . ........ .........
.............. ......................
.............. - ....... ................ ...... .............. ........ . .....
L) s
V,
se V7 = I x
V
Surnrnw-� 04 VOlUrne-!5 QnA CCkpac-%'�ies
CCO C-kAi
5 L 'tea k
+
oK
r= B -T
15 25�
6 A PPMCLC-h 254
OK
W6 -T
Wb L-T oK
9cl
6 PI-T j
Sr3 -7
Wb
17 OX 78 c?
NBT
W b LT oK
-7
NB RT
Nb kpproac-h C_-
SB-T
r'7
Se L'T
55 R-T
se APpv-,b*6\ CK
By ------- DATE .�I'-- 1`l_.� SOECT.--C-APAC,I_'t'.'(-------- .I ------- ---------
-
CHKD. BY DATE------------- �AV_�A?1QN.�____1..-:
o 1c� V_a .y----------- �_�_` c2-` F� �'_�: �_�1_ ;__ "--=---------
c,c � pa -cl me+e r s
SHEET NO- .._1____.-OF- -_....
JOBNO.---------- -------------------
------
��
E 6
W 5
N g
3) Pci R,9 t Tur hs
`-..�:�.
_-17—
TA
5) P�,� • -Cr uc, k s I Buses
-----
--�-
RA--los. 130'-c.1C� .E_8.56 35
�� Peak Nour fact ors
pHF If x 4 - __. N3; PNF - l lS 5 x4 _.11._..
w8' PHF= 537 145 =_► Sg. PHF- j_Ll.Lx 4-
Z.,:
J
�r) La"4 Use Eru9) Uv-bQh A�rt(> POPulaiiOn/ id---
� �. -7L
jo) Sfn v4 e_ Leve_l __ D _
t, pplroacl'1 �%alUmeS V= 5LV x PFx LU x RT x LT x ST x 85 XGG
1020 X 1,?, X I.0 X I+o5 X 1,0 X •?o_ q13
VL= . 1000 X 15 = 150
VA=
W e'. V -T= 1 0C, X 1. 2 2 X 9,? 5 X X f r 0 5 x
vR= --
v _OCT) it
174
1,03 X,
1000
VC v 0 �� l r L �., ♦ i t
VA=
DATE SLIWCT SHEET NO
CHKO. By DATE PJ Q. JOB NO.,.-
..................... ......
2 700 X 1. 2 1 x 1 )0 X
Ll
\JL= 11000
SUlr^ry-'Ckr(34 Flo 1uAyne-S CM CCkPQC-'4ieS
At p p t-0 a6l
F e -T
E-13 LT
r-- IB R-T
-T
Wb LT
w B pl-T
wb Aept006N
N5-T
V4 5 LT
NB RT
N 5 4p roach
CCL t Cut oi,ki--4
Volume-
5 L LL
150
10 7.37
1 K
15Q
21 7z)
30
Se L-'T
5B R'T
Se Appre-ocirN '76)
'tea k
tAe cl 5,tk W-t CA
va�ume
PM
3 so + 5 5
?OC)
3 SO
E Loo
55"0.::7 150+ 400
BY .____DATELQ-.j /_7 AJECT
.. ...............
.
//C-APAS.J.T C
CHKD. BY-- ------.DATE.......---.,..._ ....... - ..._1._C���v_Io-A7 .x_!.t4S-----_------...._
�xtslu�..... ------------------------------
_..
�a �cic-i �� Parameters
N g
�) Phr k� r,� Res+r-ickior)s
Yes
eS
L10.
5) Pc.+• Truc ks � Buses
e
ro) G /C- RA-T10S.
.2 .17.37
.tl__ f_jy
.2.29
SHEET NO.. 1 ...._OF .2-.....
JOB NO ...........
.23,2$ .48
�� Peq k �oUr �ac�' ors
pHF= 169 l 2 13 x4 - _ 83 Nr6; PNF- 1278 1442_x+ .72 ,
VWe'. PPHF =1_/ 90S 4 = . 7 SB'. P H F = _13 6 R 1-4 Ll4-
a) Laval Use l• Z5 9) Uv-ban Av-ea PopulQiiorn lX�, 4
to) Service Levei D 142 Sec cyci&
A, peVooac�\ Vokume5 V= SLV x PFx LU x RT x LT x 6T ,* 95 XGC
Eel VT=
1850
X
1,13 X
j,Z5
X 1,05 x I Id X l.0 X '? -= .513
VR=
1000
X
1, O X
.37
370
X
f, O X
_0-0
VA=
Wg'. VT=
I$S0
X
1,05 X
l.? 5,%-:
1,4 Y, 1,1;� �' %.:1 'h _.f� = 476
110
Vn=
ND', VT_
2loo
1,0S X
f/ZJ X
1GS 10 111 �'�) �' �2� - $ 71
Va-
I�0-0
x
1, O X ,
�
360
VA=
BY :. DATE...-- SACT.-C ...... .1.��5._.._-.... ......
CHKO. BY, ... DATE CA�.S.a.�AT.,G�Nr.......... .... .. .
•C� V ( ll JU i� 13 X ►. ri ►i Ito" Y .� r E 1 iC �. iJ i� .28
VR= how x 1,0 X - 480
VL= I$0-0 X 1,o X 14
VA=
SHEET NO.........OF....
JOBNO......... .............
$�5
Sur�rrmCkV-� 04 .Volumes CMA CaPQC%�-ies
A P p roc►c h CCi I cu. l CLted
�io�umE @
5 L .�
a -r 513 rvo .
Ea L-f 200 oK
E Q R-T 370 oK
• 1213 ApPmACJ'1
W 6 T 7 Nb
WBL7 '110 No
W a R-T 3 90 ox
wb ApPtO06h
360_ nx
N a RT
Na 12ru
Sep'
55 R.'T
58 IMPPrpo-c�\ 1
M
IAeasur*.d
Volume �c�r
P4, 'tea k
540
174
5 76
23
F/
3
/S
8 6 ± +f7a� = 943
335
7
12
J
13
dY... C
(3 , �,{, Jl`_ 'r Sl1CT_ 1..A.PAS.�.T..1-._...__ SHEET NO.....I OF..
CHKD. BY DATE. ...... .. .C_AI.:S.�_l..w wl._.-.....,-......._._ _ JOB NO........... ......................
•
l
N 6
1 Pq.r k� hq Res'}'lric-�-ions i
�1 r
2) APprooch Wic�+�S 1123l4�_ 23i422_ 33%2
3� Pc� R �9 � t TurhS
5 in 30
4} P J. 7kA Ir V)
5) Pe.+• Trur. k s � Buses
r. G /C RATios 142 ;L,,t
cycle
1Sf%
20
26
5%
.2 .17.37 .11,17.39 .2 .28
12
.23 .2$
1� Peak Noun- "actors
C-lb: PN.F=�l2�x.4 -_ • 3 Nt3; PNF= 1278/4_ 4Lx+- 2
we' PNF= 5 X4= 071 56'. PNF= 136•.' LD4-X4=
�) Lan, Use Fr_i' )�F _I�IG'a 9) U�-bav\ Area f opulctiioh /X/0+
lo) Service L.eve.► D
A pProO.Ci\ VOIu►mes �J= 51. V X PFx LU x RT x LT x 6T BS XGC
G: VT=
1850 X
1.13 X
1,25 X
1,05 X 1.10 X 1.0 X .17 = 513
VR =
1000 X
1. O X
. 3 7 =
370
VL=
1000 X
1.0 X
.20 =
200
VA=
VT=
1950 X
1,05 X
U, X
1.0S X I.10 X 1.44X .17
VR=
1000 X
1. C X
.39 =
3 90
vim_
�000 X
I,0 x
.if
110
VA=
NB'. V -r=
270 X
1.05 X
1,25 X
1.015 X 1,1 . X 1,0 X • 28 = 1 108
VR=
—
V�=
NOD X
I.G X
VA=
C. ACAS.► ..� DATE SHEET NO. �..._.OF.
•Sk3. VIZ. ".)- X I��-, X I��iS X ,7�fl�0 ,X. , 3 = 1158
�L= IS00 X 1,0 k .23 414
V�=
Surnm ckr� o -4 Voltm es ah�► Ca paci i-ies
P rccx�h CqI GuI 0.t ec7 idleQ cured
volume- @ Volume- �Ov-
5 L � _. _ 9e.ca k
E a _T 13 _ 1 -
EQ L-r 200 600
Allen
37U 00
W B LT
W B PcT
j 27,5�
WB AnP�Q�
NBT l r _ 2270.
N B L-T 0Z Z
NBRT _ Its "
N 6 A,pprouch F1 a- [_.qI00
WT
Ger.
SB CT1
5B R-T _ 3 S ._ .
sB 1572 113 2
Jy- ---- OJECT_CAPAC._( ......... ..............
CHKD. BY ----------- DATE ---_---------- --------------- ---------------
---- ------------
N B
Park r,� Res+l-;c_kichs
2!L
-2)qpp�-oacA
3) Pc-i R tS k tTA r- VVS
4) PC- i - + TA Ir h S —
PC-+. 7ru''C' ks I Buses
G/c FpcTlos
4.4
SHEET NO.__ A ...... OF
JOB NO ---------- -------_-------------
-----------------------------------------
Nr$,, PgF x+z
W e'. P NF = _____ / x 4 = 56'. PHF..r_ Z
0 �?,,) Lov�4 Use 1,20-1,25
10) Service Level —D
Ap.evoock Vaturnes
V-6: \4.T=
VAX
N
9) Uv-bah Av-eot PoPtAtetiiaN 1XIO
V= SLR/ x pV= -x. LU x R-T x L7 x 8 T K 85 * GC
-T= 2 e 0 0 X 1. 2
VL
VAZ -
-Tz- X, X It 2 5 X 1 0 3 X
\IL= --
VA = --.
SHEET NO....�l..._.OF_... .__..
----------- ---- -�
@�t/:............... .. .DATE ....... ..... SU�T.._.A.�.... ----. -
JO® NO....
CH KD. BY . DATE CA�.S..LeA�T.�G� N-'..............
..... ._..._.•.....
......
v�= 270o x r. i9 X 1.25 X i,os X I,�D X 1.03 X 5 � 2653
Surnm car o -� Volumes and Ce► pnci �-ies
q roach CCL cul aged Mea �u�rQ d
PP
Volume. @ Voluw�e �c�r
5 L .� _PM
EaT
E.4 LT
C a R'T
E F3 ApP m ach
W 6 -T
W B L-T
C3 RT
W b A+PPtoa6\ v
NeT -'
NBLT
NB RT 7 $
50
2 F2200
N C3 A,pP roach
sg-T 2 l
Sl3L'T
5B R,'C
s I a -APPiroach . Z �4 l
•
Item 3:
Response to Comments
Received From
Mr. Patrick Collins
19419 Avinda Del Sal
Walnut..
Attached is a report from Olson Laboratories, Inc. concerning
the Acoustical Analysis of Tract No. 33553, which is in response
to the comments of Mr. Collins.
Based on the findings of the acoustical analysis completed by
Olson Laboratories, Inc., and with the implementation of appro-
priate mitigation measures, the proposed apartment project will
have no significant adverse impact on the environment related
to noise.
9
• oLson
LRBOF Tones. inc.
October 6, 1977
Mr. Bruce Matthias
Robert Bein, William Frost
1401 Quail Street
Newport Beach, California
and Associates
92663
® An Envirodyne Company
Subject: Acoustical Analysis of Tract 33553, City of West Covina
Dear Mr. Matthias:
77200
2000-69
Per your request, Olson Laboratories, Inc., has conducted an acoustical analysis
of the proposed development on Tract 33553.
Environmental Setting
The existing noise environment at the proposed Hollenbeck development site,
northeast corner of Nogales and La Puente in West Covina, was assessed during
a noise measurement survey conducted on October 4, 1977. Four measurement
sites were selected to characterize the ambient noise and are depicted in
Attachment 1. Noise measurements were made on the A -weighted scale of the
sound level meter, producing readings in the dBA index. The noise levels at
each of the sites was measured for a minimum of 10 minutes.
The data were reduced statistically to derive statistical noise descriptors --
the L�O, L 0, and L10 noise levels. The Lq0 is the noise level which is
excee eod 9(� percent of any sample time period and is used to describe the
background or ambient noise level. The L50 is the noise level which is exceeded
50 percent of the time; it is the median noise level. The L1 is the noise
level which is exceeded 10 percent of the time and indicates 2he.near maximum
levels which occur. Also the equivalent noise level (L ), the average energy
content of a fluctuating noise source, was established. egThese results are
presented in Table 1.
Table 1. NOISE MEASUREMENT SURVEY RESULTS
(Referenced to 50 feet effective distance)
dBA
Location
L90
L50 L10
Leq
• 1
48
57 .66
63.4
2
50
59 66
64.3
3
56
64 71
67.7
4
57
62 69
65.4
1360 So. Anaheim Blvd., Suite 139 o Anaheim. Calilornia 92805 9 Telephone: (714) 533.65,11
• 0
Mr. Bruce Matthias
Robert Bein, William Frost and Associates
• October 6, 1977
Page 2 of 4
The dominant noise in the study area is traffic -generated noise along Nogales
and La Puente. According to the City of West Covina the average daily traffic
(ADT) on La Puente is currently 6,000 vehicles, while the ADT on Nogales
Street is 10,000 vehicles. Based on these ADTs, the computed Community Noise
Equivalent Levels (,CNELs) are 65.4 CNEL at locations 1 and 2 and 70 CNEL at
locations 3 and 4. CNEL is a time -weighted annual average noise level which
is determined by weighting the hourly noise levels (L for 1 hour) for each
of the 24 hours in a day with greater weighting on thegevening and nighttime
hours. The CNEL index which is specified in State noise regulations is commonly
used as a land use planning guide.
Attachment 2 shows guidelines for environmental noise land use compatibility
with respect to the CNEL index.
The proposed project is adjacent to noise -sensitive land uses on nearly all
sides. A high school is located to the west of the project across Nogales,
and single-family residential homes are located along La Puente Street and in
the hills above the project to the northeast. The proposed development itself
is located on PCD-1 (Planned Community Development No. 1) zoned land.
• The survey of the existing noise environment confirmed that the proposed
development is located in close proximity to two major noise -generating road-
ways. However, when moving farther away from these roadways, the sound levels
would be characteristic of a quiet environment. For illustrative purposes,
sound levels of various environments are shown in Attachment 3.
Environmental Impacts
The proposed Woodside Park Apartments Tract No. 33553 will generate some
incremental changes in the noise environment. The major source of noise
generated by the proposed development will be surface transportation (i.e.;
automobiles, trucks, and motorcycles). Motor vehicle noise is a major concern
because it is characterized by a high frequency of events, short duration, and
close proximity to noise -sensitive areas. Secondary noise sources in the
Woodside Park area will be short-term construction and residential and community
activities.
Short -Term Impacts
Short-term impacts are those associated with construction activities of the
project. Two types of construction noise are.public works' noise and building
construction noise.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has established typical ranges of
noise levels from construction equipment. Attachment 4 lists noise levels of
• typical equipment used in constructions activities.
� r
Mr. Bruce MatLi las
•Robert Bein, William frost and Associates
October 6, 1977
Page 3 of 4
In building construction, the initial ground clearing and excavation phases
generate the greatest noise levels while foundation and erection phases tend
to produce less amounts of noise. Earth -moving equipment and roadway building
equipment generate noise levels in the range of 70 to 95 dBA at 50 feet.
Typical operating cycles may involve 1 to 2 minutes of full power operation,
followed by 3 to 4 minutes at lower power.
Long -Term Impacts
The principle source of long-term noise impact related to the project will be
the increased vehicular traffic it generates. The most heavily affected
surface streets will be Nogales and La Puente which will be the access streets
to the proposed development. The noise levels generated by traffic on these
roads.with and without the project were developed utilizing traffic data from
the Transportation Section of the EIR and traffic information from the City of
West Covina. Table 2 lists the.CNEL at 50 feet for the impacted streets with
and without the project.
Table 2. PROJECTED NOISE LEVELS WITH AND WITHOUT
THE PROPOSED PROJECT
• CNEL Level at 50 Feet Increase Due To
Street With Project Without.Project Project(CNEI)
La Puente
Nogales to Sentous Avenue 69.8 68.6 1.2
Nogales Street
North of La Puente 74.5 73.8 0.7
Nogales Street
South of La Puente 76.5 75.5 1.0
From Table 2 it can be seen that the increased traffic from the project does
not significantly add to noise impacts on sensitive land uses adjacent to La
Puente or Nogales Streets. The maximum increase the project will cause is
1.2 dB which is below the 2 to 3 dB increase usually used as the threshold for
detecting a change by the human ear.
The distance from the roadway centerline to the 65 CNEL contour was computed
to be 104 feet from La Puente and 216 feet from Nogales (Attachment 5). The
65 CNEL will impact part of the proposed development property along these two
streets. The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) discourages
the construction of new dwelling units on sites which have, or are projected
to fall within a 65 dBA noise level.
The potential impact of noise upon schools is another area of major concern.
• the U.S. Department of Transportation has identified design noise standards
for schools. A level of 70 dBA exterior and 55 dBA interior has been designated
Mr. Bruce Matthias
Robert Bein, William Frost and Associates
• October 6, 1977
Page 4 of 4
as an acceptable noise environment for schools. The Woodside Park Apartments
will not cause the nearby Nogales High School to be in violation of this
Federal regulation.
Attachment 6 shows the location of the 65 CNEL value in the study area for
roadway traffic with and without the project.
Mitigation Measures
o Enforce the California Noise Insulation Standards, California Admin-
istrative Code, Title 25 and Chapter 35 of the Uniform Building
Code, and require all of the proposed residential units to have
interior noise levels in living areas that are no greater than a
CNEL of 45 dB.
o Orient structures in such a manner to minimize the noise impact from
adjacent streets (e.g., setback buildings). Limiting the number of
windows or use of double insulated glass in windows facing major
streets can significantly reduce noise impacts. This measure is
particularly important in multi -story residences which have direct
line of sight to adjacent roadways.
o Construct block walls along La Puente and Nogales Streets to shield
planned residential areas from traffic noise impacts. Studies
should be performed to determine the construction requirements for
noise barriers which would decrease traffic noise to acceptable
levels.
o Designate the Nogales Street as the principle access street for the
proposed apartment complex.
o All grading and construction activities should comply with the
Uniform Grading Ordinance and have designated limited hours of
operation to minimize adverse acoustical impacts.
o Enforce West Covina City Noise Ordinance.
Sincerely,
Q`�
f
Paul H. Dunholter
Environmental Engineer
PHD/dmb
• Enclosures: Attachments 1 through 6
i
•
Attachment 1. NOISE MONITORING SURVEY LOCATIONS
a
E
LAND USE
DAY —NIGHT AVERAGE LEVEL, Ldn6
55- 60 65 70 75 80
WSIDENTIAL — SINGLE
FAMILY, DUPLEX,.
MOBILE HOMES'
...... .
.
.......
....... .
RESIDENTIAL
MULTIPLE FAMILY
SCHOOLS, CHURCHES,
HOSPITALS
X
OUTDOOR SPECTATOR
SPORTS,
PLAYGROUNDS,
NEIGHBORHOOD
PARKS
GOLF COURSES,
RIDING STABLES,
WATER RECREATION,
CEMETARIES
.......
X-
[: OFFICE BUILDINGS,
PERSONAL, BUSINESS !AN:DIPROPESSIONAL
T ........
MMERCIAL
COMMERCIAL ,(I
HOLESALE, SOME
ETAIL, INDUSTRIAL,
MANUFACTURING,
UTILITIES
77
1
1
...
*The L dn (Day -Night Average Sound Level) compares to the CNEL
within .5 dB for typical highway vehicular traffic situations.
Attachment 2. GUIDELINES FOR ENVIRONMENTAL (EXTERIOR)
NOISE -COMPATIBILITY LAND USE
0
CLEARLY
ACCEPTABLE
NORMALLY
ACCEPTABLE
NORMALLY
UNACCEPTABLE
CLEARLY
UNACCEPTABLE
•
0
dBA
EXTREMELY LOUD
Sonic Boom
w:!5
Jet Takeoff at 200'
Oxygen Torch
-SSw:
Discotheque
.r14
Motorcycle at 15'
Power Mower
VERY LOUD +%.
Newspaper Press; Jet flyover at 1,000'
Freight Train at 50'
Food Blender
Electric Mixer, Alarm Clock
Washing Machine; Garbage Disposal
Freeway Traffic at 50'
'.-407;.
Average Traffic at 100'; Vacuum Cleaner
LOUD `-65
Electric Typewriter at 10'
`::--b0-:
Dishwasher at 10'; Air Conditioning Unit
Normal Conversation
-5¢
Large Transformers
Light Traffic at 100' ; Refrigerator
Bird Calls
Library
QUIET
Attachment 3. SOUND PRESSURE LEVELS OF VARIOUS
EVENTS IN THE ENVIRONMENT
L�
•
11
•
•
NOISE LLVEL (dbA) AT 90 FT
EO 70 HD 90 100 PO
COI. PACTERS (RO!.LERS)
H
FRONT LOADERS
N
W
Z
z
BACKIWES
Z5
W
O
z
M
TRACTORS
o
x
-3
a
SCRAPERS. GRADERS
CO
W
H
ZE
0
� PAVERS
J
'
7
TRUCKS
x
w
z
z
CONCRETE: MIXEItS
CO
0
CONCRETE PU1.4PS
W
l
a
3
N
a
CRANES (MOVABLE)
o
IL
F-
v
W
a
CRANES(DERRICK)
H
z
41
a
oc
PUMPS
z
w
O
GENERATORS
a
H
COMPRESSORS
�--
PNEUMATIC %'TRENCHES
�z
W
Q2
as
JACK HAMMERS AND ROCK DRILLS
W
PILE DRIVERS (PEAKS)
W
VIBRATOR
x
p
SAWS
Note: Based on Limited Available Data Samples
Attachment 4. NOISE LEVELS FOR TYPICAL CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT
•
•
0
N
O
LL
Q
m
O
Z
Q
Ln
lG
O
t0
U-
C)
W
Z
r-�
J
_
O
F-
Z
O
U
J
uJ
Z
U
O
F-
Lil
U
Z
Q
F-
Ln
►.,
cm
LLJ
F-
U
LLJ
LL
LL
Ltl
O
00 C) to
t�
O M
V)
•'-� r L
Z
O
•--� F-
Lr)
-::t to M
F- U
to
O -4 Q1
Lu
N N
� 7
Z O
O cc
O
to V) �--�
U D_
to
N ct to
LAJ 2
►-ti
O O O
F- 3
to O O
F-
00 Ln O
U-
�
w w w
Q
to 0D
�
O
O O t-.
ON 1-4
V)
O U
+ W
F- '7
U-)
t0
t\ LO N
00 M L.[)
1- 4 O
e-i N
0 �
Z a.
O
UF-
t0
00 N CT
r-L LO
uJ O
=F-
O O O
F-
O O O
= 3
F-
t0 LO o,
LA-
Q
w w w
N L!)
� N M
O
O r�
tN
^
N L1) LO
Z
O
LC)
(M 00 M
►-+
F-
to
LO O N
im
Z
O
O
Ln M LO
U
t0
.--+ tM to
ri N N
O
Z
O O O
V)
F-
O O O
X
Q
N
to Ouj
a�
c
GJ
Q
Ln N O
O 4-) 4-)
F-
4 N O
LLJ
C O
L LI
N a. OL
�
N
F-
t0 co
V)
O J J
i-)
GJ 4-
4-) Ln O O
C C1 N N
N r OJ L CU L
t6 r 4-3 r �
C► 0) t0 L t0 O
o rn(:> rno
toz oz ov)
J Z Z
r
C1
V
O
N
Ln
•�
.]L O
O
N
U -a
Z
GJ
L 7 t0
a'
b
EEC
3
O
LOae'OR
L
Z
cfi N N
On
2
J
LU
Z
U
C
•r
to
C
O
Gl
(n
•�
+-)
d
O
L to
E
aL L.
c•
E F- C7
Ln
(A
t0
L1•)
Q ,
J
M -4
\ / ` 65 CNEL without project
\ ` ---- -- Increase due to project
1 1
1 \
1
1 \�
1 \
11
1
I I I 1 \
—
I I I
I I 1
1 i I
j I
I I 1
I I
1 I i
I I
1 I �
I
I
I I OII �!o
I i JO /00
I
Attachment 6. 65 CNEL CONTOUR DUE TO SURFACE TRANSPORTATION
WITH AND WITHOUT PROJECT
•
Response to Comments
Received From
Mr. Patrick Collins ^
19419 Avinda Del Sal
Walnut
4. "The EIR fails to disclose whether the reasonable
alternative of rezoning the property to single family
use would dramatically reduce the adverse traffic im-
pact of the project.
Response: Comment presupposes that single family development
is a reasonable alternative, which has been shown
not to be economically feasible in the alternatives
section of this Environmental Impact Report.
The impact of traffic would probably be less by
development of single family residences on the site.
However, the issue is not whether an alternative
• would have less of an impact than the proposal; but
rather, does the proposal have a significant adverse
impact. The data provided within the Environmental
Impact Report supports the finding that it would not.
r]
0
Response to Comments
Received from
Mr. Patrick Collins
19419 Avinda Del Sal
Walnut
5. "The EIR fails to disclose and discuss the undesirable
contact between transient occupants of this high density
apartment project and high school students which will re -
result if the project is constructed".
Response: This comment relates to impacts which are not of
an environmental nature and, therefore, not addressed
within an Environmental Impact Report.
Even if it were, it cannot be assumed that:
a. The occupants of the project will be transients
in a negative sense.
b. That there will be contacts between high school
students and apartment dwellers.
• C. That if there is contact that such contact will
be of an undesirable nature.
The design of the apartments, the width of Amar Road
and probable income levels all serve to minimize the
contact between project residents and students.
•
:1
• Response to Comments
Mr. Patrick Collins
Page Two
•
6. "The EIR covers up the fact that this project does not
rovide its fair share of park space for the 3,000 resi-
dents ot the project. The EIR assumes other park space
will be provided nearby, but does not explain how this
will be achieved nor, evaluate the likelihood it will
not be achieved at all."
Response: The project will not have a population of 3,000
persons; but, rather less than 2,050 based on
two adults per unit and a maximum of 99 children.
The public park space dedication requirement for
Woodside Village was based on the Master Plan of
which this project area is a small part. The park
dedications have been obtained from Umark, Inc.,
the underlying property owner. As has been the case
with all development plans in Woodside Village, park
dedication is not required on an individual devel-
opment plan basis because the sites have already
been designated and dedicated. The neighborhood
park which will service this project is Creekridge
Park located to the west across Amar Road less than
1/4 mile from the project. In addition, each phase
of the project will provide its own recreation
facilities.
The public parks have been dedicated and their ul-
timate development scheduling will rest with the City,
and be placed within the City's Capital Improvement
Program.
The requirements of this builder's park obligation
has already been met.
0 - 0
• Response to Comments
Mr. Patrick Collins
Page Three
7. The EIR fails to disclose whether the subdivision approval
creates a commercial island which is contrary to the adopted
West Covina General Plan. It fails to evaluate impacts from
this commercial development, particularly traffic.
Response: The commercial area is not created by tentative tract
No. 33553, but just delineated by it. The Woodside
Village Master Plan established the commercial desig-
nation for that particular corner. The tentative
tract map merely formerly identifies and establishes
the boundary of the commercial portion.
The West Covina General Plan does not specifically show
commercial development on the area in question; however,
the designation is consistent with the City's adopted
General Plan.
"A land use proposal is consistent with the General
Plan if the land use authorized is compatible with
the objectives, policies, and general land uses and.
programs specified in such a plan (Gov. Code, Section
. 65860, as amended by stats 1972, Chap. 639"1
"Ex. If the General Plan classification of
an area is Low Density Residential, a pro-
posal to rezone a portion thereof for a shop-
ping center would be consistent with the
General Plan only if the shopping center con-
templated were of a size and type compatible
with surrounding low density residential uses.
A small shopping center would be consistent
with the General Plan. A large regional
shopping center generating substantial traffic
which could be operated economically only if
the population of the surrounding area achieved
a high density of several thousand to the square
mile would be inconsistent with the General Plan.
2
1
AB 1301 and Local Land Use Decisions, P. 14, a study prepared
by San Diego County Counsel and Planning Dept. 1972.
S 2
ibid, P. 15.
0
Response to Comments
Mr. Patrick Collins
•
Page Four
A General Plan does not need to specifically desig-
nate a land use in order for consistency to exist
between proposed land use and the General Plan.
Within,the purposes of the planned community devel-
opment zone are the following:
"Direct new community growth and development
in the process of implementing the General
Plan" and
"Encourage the most effective use of a site
with a variety of residential environments
providing necessary public facilities, ample
open space and a functional, well-balanced
community".
One of the principal criteria which had to be met
at the time the area was zoned Planned Community
Development was compliance with the adopted General
Plan.
• Thus at the time of the designation of this area as
Planned Community Development Zone and approval of the
Master Plan, the determination of consistency with the
City's adopted General Plan was made.
In terms of the traffic generated by this specific
commercial site, such an examination will be made as
part of the Development Plan review procedure which
must occur prior to any construction or development
of the parcel. As part of the Development Plan process,
a separate environmental assessment and either focused
or complete Environmental Impact Report will be developed
and the traffic impact assessed. The examination of
traffic at that time is more appropriate since the
commercial area's design and building area will be
available and appropriate mitigating measures if
necessary and applicable can be established at that
time.
0
Response to Comments
• Mr. Patrick Collins
Page Five
8. The EIR fails to consider requiring construction of an
earthen berm or open space area adjacent to Nogales and
La Puente to insulate project residents from street noise
as well as provide needed open space.
Response: The Environmental Impact Report on pages 10, 13,
and 18 address the issue of noise impact on the
project's residents and the City's Uniform Building
Code will mitigate the noise impact on the project's
residents.
While the EIR does not address the construction of
an earthen berm or open space area to insulate the
project residents from street noise, such facilities
are not necessary because the design of the entire
project mitigates any such impacts, so do building
codes, and the location of the open space recreation
areas are far enough away from principal arterials
that no significant traffic noise on the residents
of the project will impact the residents.
•
•
°• Response to Comments
Mr. Patrick Collins
Page Six
9. The EIR fails to describe the project, particularly its
visual impact on surrounding neighborhoods. For example,
the height of land fills and apartment buildings is not
disclosed.
Response: Impacts of any type are not addressed with the project
description portion of an Environmental Impact Report,
but rather in the impacts section. Within the Devel-
opment Plan review process the design and appearance
of the buildings are examined.
n
U
0
•
Response to Comments
• Mr. Patrick Collins
Page Seven
11. The EIR fails to
project exceeds
General Plan.
•
J
disclose whether the density of the
the maximum permitted by the West Covina
Response: In terms of analysis of density and General Plan
consistency, this particular parcel must be taken
as part of an overall Master Plan for 1100 acres
of.Planned Community Development zoned property.
At the time of the property's zoning,consistency
with the adopted General Plan was determined. The
key issue is not the density on this particular
parcel, but the density and land use designations
on the entire Master Plan of Development for
Woodside Village.
The Woodside Master Plan as approved, is consistent
with the adopted City General Plan particularly the
objectives, policies, general land use set forth in
that plan. The General Plan densities established
from the Woodside area range from 4.1 to 25 dwelling
units per acre• The overall density approved by the
Woodside Village Master Plan at the time the Planned
Community Development zoning was approved is 7.2 units
per acre; when non-residential acreage is considered
the density is 8.5.
• Response to Comments
Mr. Patrick Collins
Page Eight
12. The EIR fails to discuss any of the waivers from zoning
requirements which have been proposed by the City Planning
Commission staff.
Response: The waivers requested are:
1. That each lot within the proposed development
stand on its own with respect to all provisions
of Section 9206.
2. Balconies may extend into required yards not
more than 25 percent.
3. Accessory buildings (carports) shall not en-
croach into required yard.
4. No building shall exceed a length of 200 feet.
5. No off-street parking shall be permitted
within any front yard setback when adjacent
• to a street.
6. Six-foot solid masonry wall shall be provided
where property abuts R-1 zone.
None of these waivers would cause a significant adverse
impact on the environment. Further discussion of these
waivers can be found in the Planning Department staff
report dated July 20, 1977, and the addendum to that
report dated September 12, 1977, attached herein as
response to this comment.