03-25-1968 - Regular Meeting - Minutes•
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL
CITY OF WEST COVINA, `CALIFORNIA
MARCH 25, 1968.
The regµlar meeting of the City Council was called to order by Mayor Krieger at
7. 3 0 p . m . , in the We st Covina City Hall. The Pledge of Allegiance wa s led by
Councilman Gleckman. The Reverend Charles R. Simmons of Methodist Church of
West Covina gave the invocation.
ROLL CALL
PRESENT, Mayor Krieger, Councilmen Gillum,. Nichols, Gleckman
ABSENT, Councilman Snyder
ALSO PRESENT: George Aia ssa, City Manager
H. R. Fast, Public Services Director
George Wakefield, City Attorney
Lela Preston, City Clerk
George Zimmerman, Ass't. City Engineer
Owen Menard, Planning Director
Ray Windsor, Administrative Assistant
Donald L. Russell, Administrative Assistant
R. Gingrich, Director of Recreation & Parks
Louis Winters,
J im Butler, 0-)V/G NGi vim& T
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
March 11, 1968 - Approved as corrected:
Councilman Nichols: A correction on Page 4, next to last paragraph, 4th line
from bottom, the word 'dreated" should be "increased. "
Mayor Krieger: Page 5, second from the last paragraphs, second sentence
the words "to have" are repea-ted. Page 22, last paragraph,
seventh sentence "1/2%" should be"1/2�
Motion by Councilman Nichols, seconded by Councilman Gleckman, and carried, that
the Council minutes of March 11, 1968, be accepted as amended.
CITY CLERK'S REPORTS
TRACT 28049 LOCATION: Hillward Avenue South of Cameo
GRADING WORK Vista Drive.
IDAHO CONSTRUCTION CO.
Motion by Councilman Nichols, seconded by Councilman Gleckman, and carried, that
the City Council accept the grading, compaction and excavation improvements and
authorize the release of National Union Fire Insurance Company. of Pittsburgh, Pa. ,
performance bond No. 70159 in the amount of $59,000.00.
- 1 -
REG. C.C. 3-25-68 Page Two
CITY CLERK'S REPORTS - Continued
PRECISE PLAN 517 R LOCATION. North of Frontage Road, west of
STREET & SANITARY SEWER IMPROVEMENTS Citrus Street.
ERNEST W . HAHN, INC.
• (For Lincoln-Mercury)
Motion by Councilman Gleckman, seconded by Councilman Nichols, and carried, that the
City Council accept street and sanitary sewer improvements, and authorize the release
of the American Insurance Company faithful performance bond No. 7100341 in the amount
of $ 6, 800.00 ,
PRECISE. PLAN 473 R
STREET IMPROVEMENTS
M.D.S. COMPANY
LOCATION° Northerly corner of Sunset and
Cameron. Avenues
Motion by Councilman Gleckman, seconded by Councilman. Nichols, and carried, that
the City Council accept street improvements, and authorize the release of Insurance
Company of North Nnerica performance bond No. M 47 45 76 in the amount of $8,000.00.
DISTRICT AD 1-67
BARRANCA STREET IMPROVEMENT
• DISTRICT (1911 Act)
LOCATION. Barranca Street, from Cortez
Street to South Garvey Avenue.
Councilman Nichols. I don't know if the staff can answer or if we need to refer
the question to the Assessment Engineer, but I would be
interested in knowing what the statement "Part credit"
implies.
Patrick Rossetti Up until this last year or two whenever we went through a
Vice -President street improvement and part of the property was already
L., J. Thompson Inc. , dedicated and we were acquiring new properties to bring
1141 Highland Avenue the street to the required width because of the contribution
by the State Gas Tax, we had to have certain maximum
widths. At that time anyone that gave his property received no credit. For example,
you. had 50 pieces of parcels of land involved and maybe 40 parcels had given
dedication and the other 10 had not and these people would not dedicate their property
but wanted the City to buy and the City couldn't buy because of price involved and it
had to go through condemnation proceedings in Court. The City would then secure the
parcels at a price set - each property owner would present a. separate case thereby
property alongside of each other would get more money possibly. So we would then
have $20, 000 - $30, 000 or $50, 000 in condemnation costs and according to the law the
spread of that cost of acquisition alone had to be spread over all properties equally.
Therefore the people that gave their property were just nice guys and they had to turn
around and help pay for the acquisition of the property of the other 10 - 15 or whatever.
For many years we tried to get Legislation to overturn these decisions. Then there was
an amendment passed to try and rectify this particular injustice as we call it, and now
we have come to the point that we are going to test it. (Explained.) We feel now that
the law has been changed that we should try it.
Mayor Krieger. Are there any further questions on the Engineer's report?
A motion to accept would be in order.
So moved by Councilman Gleckman, seconded by Councilman
Gillum, and carried.
- 2 -
REG. C'. C. 3-25-68
Page Three
•
C]
CITY CLERK°.S REPORTS - Continued
DISTRICT AD 1-67 Continued
RESOLUTION NO. 3758
ADOPTED
""Mayor Krieger:
The Deputy City Clerk presented:
"A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL.OF
THE CITY OF WEST COVINA ORDERING THE
CITY ENGINEER TO FURNISH PLANS AND
SPECIFICATIONS FOR THE IMPROVEMENT
OF BARRANCA STREET AND OTHER STREETS
AND RIGHTS OF WAY. (AD 1-67 a)
Hearing no objections, waive further reading of the body
of said Resolution
Motion by Councilman Gleckman, seconded by Councilman Gillum, that the City
Council adopt said Resolutions Motion carried on roll call vote as follows:
AYES:. Councilmen Gillum, Gleckman, Mayor Krieger
NOES: Councilman Nichols
ABSENT: Councilman Snyder
RESOLUTION NO. 3759 The Deputy City Clerk presented:
"A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF WEST COVINA APPROVING
ADOPTED MAP OF ASSESSMENT DISTRICT FOR THE
IMPROVEMENT OF BARRANCA STREET IN
THE CITY OF WEST COVINA (AD 1-67 0)
Mayor Krieger: Hearing no objections, waive further reading of the body
of said Resolution
Motion by Councilman Gleckman, seconded by Councilman Gillum, that the City
Council adopt said Resolution. Motion carried on roll call vote as follows:
AYES, Councilmen Gillum, Gleckman, Mayor Krieger
NOES: Councilman. Nichols
ABSENT: Councilman Snyder
---------------
RESOLUTION NO. 3760 The Deputy City Clerk presented:
"A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL. OF
ADOPTED THE CITY OF WEST COVINA, ADOPTING
THE PROFILE AND IMPROVEMENT PLAN AND
SPECIFICATION FOR THE IMPROVEMENT OF
BARRANCA STREET AND OTHER STREETS FOR
RIGHTS OF WAY IN THE CITY OF WEST
COVINA (AD 1-67 �)
Mayor Krieger: Hearing no objection waive further reading of the body of
said Resolution. '
Motion by Councilman Gleckman, seconded by Councilman. Gillum, that the City
Council adopt said Resolution. Motion carried on roll call vote as follows:
AYES.- Councilmen Gillum,
NOES.- None
ABSENT.- Councilman Snyder
Nichols, Gleckman, Mayor Krieger
- 3 -
t
REG. C.C. 3-25-68 Page Four
CITY CLERK'S REPORTS - DISTRICT AD 1-67 - Continued
RESOLUTION NO. 3761 The Deputy City Clerk presented.
"A RESOLUTION OF THE'• CITY COUNCIL OF
ADOPTED THE CITY OF WEST COVINA INSTITUTING
PROCEEDINGS AND ORDERING THE REPORT
• FOR THE IMPROVEMENT OF ASSESSMENT
DISTRICT NO. AD 1-67 . (Barranca Street.)
Mayor Krieger. Hearing no objections, waive further reading of the body
of said Resolution.
Motion by Councilman Gleckman, seconded by Councilman Gillum, that the City
Council adopt said Resolution. Motion carried on roll call vote as follows:
AYES. Councilmen Gillum, Gleckman, Mayor Krieger
NOES. Councilman Nichols
ABSENT. Councilman Snyder
Mayor Krieger. Let the record reflect that the Mayor is signing the
Resolution which has just been adopted by City Council
and is handing to City Clerk for attestation. Mr. Rossetti,
representing the Assessment Engineers, will you please
present your report?
(Mr. Patrick M. Rossetti., Assessment Engineer, L. J. Thompson Co., summarized
the report for Council. Council was then asked if there were any questions. Questions
• were answered by Mr. Rossetti.)
RESOLUTION NO. 3762 The Deputy City Clerk presented:
"A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF
ADOPTED THE CITY OF WEST COVINA SETTING THE
TIME AND PLACE FOR HEARING ON THE DEBT
LIMIT REPORT OF THE IMPROVEMENTS OF
ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO AD 1-67.
(Barranca Street)
Mayor Krieger: Hearing no objections, waive further reading of the body of
said Resolution.
Motion by Councilman Gleckman, seconded by Councilman Gillum, that the City
Council adopt said Resolution. Motion carried on roll call vote as follows.
AYES. Councilmen Gillum, Gleckman, Mayor Krieger
NOES. Councilman Nichols
ABSENT. Councilman Snyder
RESOLUTION NO. 3763 The Deputy City Clerk presented.
"A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL. OF THE
CITY OF WEST COVINA DECLARING ITS
ADOPTED INTENTION TO IMPROVE BARRANCA STREET
BY THE ACQUISITION OF RIGHTS OF WAY
AND CONSTRUCTION OF IMPROVEMENTS
IN THE CITY OF WEST COVINA DEMANDING
THAT BONDS SHALL BE ISSUED TO REPRESENT
THE COST THEREFOR. .DECLARING THE WORK
TO BE OF MORE THAN REGULAR OR ORDINARY
PUBLIC BENEFIT AND THAT THE EXPENSE
THEREOF SHALL BE ASSESSED UPON DISTRICT
AD 1-67 . "
- 4 -
REG. C.C. 3-25-68 Page Five
CITY CLERK'S REPORTS - AD 1-67 - Continued
Mayor Krieger- Hearing no objections,. waive further reading of the body
of said Resolution.
. 'Motion by Councilman Gleckman, seconded by Councilman Gillum, that the City
Council adopt said Resolution. Motion carried on roll call vote as follows:
AYES: Councilmen Gillum, Gleckman, Mayor Krieger
NOES: Councilman Nichols
ABSENT- Councilman, Snyder
RESOLUT.IONNO. 3764 The Deputy City Clerk presented:
" A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF
ADOPTED THE CITY OF WEST COVINA DETERMINING THAT
LIQUIDATED DAMAGES SHALL BE PAID
(AD 1-67) . "
Mayor Krieger- Hearing no objections, waive further reading of the body
of said Resolution.
Motion by Councilman Gleckman, seconded by Councilman Gillum, that the City Council
adopt said Resolution.
Councilman Nichols: I have a question. I do not understand. "liquidated damages. "
Mr. George Wakefield: This Resolution simply follows the provisions of the 1911
City Attorney Act that requires if liquidated damages are to be assessed
against the contractor if he fails to complete the work in
the time specified in the contract then at the time a
contract is awarded a'. liquidated damage provision is included in the contract by Resolu-
tion.
Motion carried on roll call vote as follows:
AYES. Councilmen Gillum, Nichols, Gleckman, Mayor Krieger
NOES-, None
ABSENT. Councilman Snyder
Councilman. Nichols. One additional question for information. I didn't have the
opportunity to see the maps showing the geographical
area. Mr . Mayor can you ask Mr. Rossetti to briefly
explain ?
(Mr. Patrick M . Rossetti briefly explained with the use of the map.)
BARBERSHOP HARMONY WEEK
• (Mayor Krieger advised the Council that a chap.ter_of the Barbershop Quartet was present
this evening and would sing; that the quartet was better known as the SPEBSQSA which
stands for the Society for the Preservation and Encouragement of Barbershop Singing in
America. The quartet sang three numbers. The leader of the quartet then advised that
the purpose of the group was to help children borne with a speech impediment and that
all monies earned were for that purpose. Mayor Krieger thanked the quartet.)
Mayor Krieger: The week of April 14th to April 20th will be proclaimed
Barbershop Harmony Week in West Covina, if there are
no objections by Council. (No objections.) So pro-
claimed.
- 5 -
REG. C.C. 3-25-68
Page Six
n
LJ
•
•
SCHEDULED MATTERS - BIDS
PROJECT SP-68006
STREET IMPROVEMENT
March 20, 1968.
LOCATION: Cameron Avenue from Azusa
Avenue easterly to Hollenbeck Street.
Bids were received in the office of the
City Clerk at 10: 00 A.M.. on Wednesday
The Deputy City Clerk, Mr. Windsor stated the bids
for City Project SP-68006 were opened by the City Clerk on Wednesday, March 20,
1968. A total of eight (8) bids were received and reviewed. All bids were checked
for errors and were determined to be valid bid proposals.
This project calls for the reconstruction and widening
of Cameron Avenue between Azusa. Avenue and Hollenbeck Street, installation of curb,
gutter and sidewalk in various locations, and catch basin. The estimated cost of this
project was $ 71, 3 00. 00 which did not include 10% contingencies. The total amount
of the low bid was $63, 500. 00. Bids were as follows:
HIGHWAY HEATING 10% bid bond 63, 550. 54
AMAN BROS. K, 246. 00
D & W PAVING 67, 699.90
LAIRD PAVING CO. 69,713.01
L C CONSTRUCTION 69, 730.91
D & G,- CONCRETE 69, 938. 70
REX W. MURPHY 70, 540, 70
SULLY -MILLER 70, 665.20
It is recommended that the bid of Highway Heating, Inc. , of El Monte, as presented
at the bid opening on March 20, 1968, for Project SP-68006, be accepted and that
the Mayor and City Clerk be authorized to execute an agreement with the said Highway
Heating, Inc. , for the work.
Mayor Krieger: This is a. low unit price lump sum bid. If there are no
questions, a motion would be in. order.
Motion by Councilman Gleckman, seconded by Councilman Gillum, that the City
Council accept the low unit price lump sum bid of Highway Heating, Inc. , E1 Monte
for work under Project SP-68006, and that the Mayor and City Clerk be authorized to
execute an agreement with the said Highway Heating, Inc. , for the work. Motion
carried on roll call vote as follows:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
HEARINGS
Councilmen Gillum,
None
Councilman Snyder
Nichols, Gleckman, Mayor Krieger
STREET VACATION OF A CERTAIN PORTION LOCATION: Northwesterly corner of
OF BARRANCA AVENUE Barranca Avenue and the North Frontage
Road.
Hearing of protests or objections set
for February 36, 1968 by Resolution No. 3725 adopted on January 22, 1968. Hearing
held open and continued to this date.
- 6 -
REG. C.C. 3-25-68 Page Seven
U
is
•
HEARINGS - STREET VACATION - Continued
"Mayor Krieger: If my recollection is correct, this was a matter heard and
there was no protest, or objection:_ and the Council
adopted the necessary Resolution and the matter was then
brought to our attention during oral communications an attorney for the objecta'nt was
heard from and on Council action the matter was reopened and continued. with. the hear-
ing open to this date. . In summary, is that correct Mr. Wakefield?
Mr. Wakefield: That is correct. There is one preliminary matter which
should probably be disposed of. You will recall at the
February 26 meeting the Council reconsidered its -action
by which Resolution No.. 3752 had been adopted. The City Clerk and I have had
several discussions with reference to the state of the record and I think to clear the
matter up so there will be no confusion. I would recommend that the Council now
rescind its action by which Resolution No. 3752 was adopted on February 26, 1968
and then procged with the continued hearing.
So moved by Councilman Gleckman, seconded by
Mayor Krieger?
(COUNCI.L D.ISCUSSI,ONA
On roll call vote the results were:
AYES: Councilman Gleckman, Mayor Krieger
NOES: Councilmen Gillum, Nichols
Mayor Krieger: The action of the Council, Mr.. Wakefield is two in the
affirmative and two in the negative. If I understand the
rules or order correctly this would not be sufficient to
rescind the prior action of the Council?
Mr. Wakefield: That is correct, Mr.. Mayor.
Mayor Krieger: Based on the vote of the Council the prior action of the
Council stands and Resolution No. 3752 as previously
adopted by this Council stands. Is there further action
required on this as a matter of law, Mr. Wakefield?
Mr. Wakefield: This is the time and place for the continued hearing on
the matter. In the condition the record now stands, the
effect of your action tonight has been to leave the
original adoption of Resolution No. 3752 which vacated the street'assessment,
stand. My advise to you would be that no further action can be taken at this time by
the Council in the light of your just completed action.
Mayor Krieger: In light of the ruling of the City Council the chair will
hold, unless overruled by the Council, that the action by
Council of Resolution No. 3752 stands and this matter
has been completed.
Councilman Gleckman: I have a question of the City Attorney.. Is it possible to
rescind this action at our next meeting?
Mr. Wakefield: It would be necessary to agree to continue the hearing
again on the matter until your next meeting and it could
at that time be taken up. . It would mean that you would
have to reconsider to continue the hearing which has been scheduled for tonight.
- 7 =
REG. C.C. 3-25-68 Page Eight
HEARINGS - STREET VACATION - Continued
Councilman Nichols: Mr. Mayor - in consideration of the steps that lead up to
this moment I would move that the Council reconsider
its action to reconsider its prior action.
• Seconded by Councilman Gleckman.
Mayor Krieger: It has been moved and seconded that the Council re-
consider its prior action in failing to rescind its action
in adoption of Resolution No. 3752. The effect of
adoption of this motion would not be to rescind its Resolution but to merely reconsider
the Council action on this Resolution.
Motion carried on roll call vote as follows:
AYES: Councilmen Nichols, Gleckman, Mayor Krieger
NOES-. Councilman Gillum
ABSENT: Councilman Snyder
Mayor Krieger: Now does the Council desire to take any action with respect
to Resolution No. 3752?
Motion by Councilman Gleckman, seconded by Mayor Krieger, that the City Council
rescind Resolution No. 3752. Motion carried on .roll call vote as follows:
• AYES: Councilmen Nichols, Gleckman, Mayor Krieger
NOES: :Councilman Gillum
ABSENT: Councilman Snyder
Mayor Krieger: The Council action in adopting Resolution No. 3752 is
rescinded by a majority vote of the Council.
Mr. Wakefield are there further preliminaries?
Mr. Wakefield: No.
Mayor Krieger: Mrs. Preston - will you readvise the Council with respect
to the publication of this matter, please?
Lela Preston: It was published in the West Covina Tribune
Mayor Krieger: Do you have an affidavit of that publication?
Lela Preston: Yes, I do.
Motion by Councilman Gleckman, seconded by Councilman Gillum, and carried, that
Council receive and file.
. Mayor Krieger: To keep the record clear and open I think it would be well
advised if the staff would make a short presentation on
this again, for the benefit of the Council and anyone
present on this matter.
(Mr. Zimmerman, Ass't. City Engineer, briefly summarized and presented slides
and pointed.out the area.)
THE CHAIR ANNOUNCED THIS IS THE TIME AND PLACE FOR THE PROTEST HEARING.
- 8 -
i
REG. C.C. 3-27-68 Page Nine
HEARINGS - STREET VACATION - Continued
IN PROTEST
A. L. Renick I have been trying to resolve this issue with Mr. Elliot
• 315 So. Beverly Drive and I would like to ask Mr. Elliot first to see if we could
Beverly Hills, California possibly come to an agreement.
Mayor'Krieger: We do not want to use the Council Chambers for this
purpose - you may ask him one question and get one
response.
A. L. Renick: I am now ready. (Asked for the use of the slide for
presentation purposes - agreed..) The important thing in
this particular matter is the fact that my client -
Mrs. Place, has the property that has a frontage along this street which is
approximately 300 or more feet. She needs this particular street to have a use for this
particular parcel of land (pointed out on slide map.) If this Street is taken away from
her the value of her property will diminish probably about 80%. . She will just have the
land portion up at the front. I believe that portion would be the piece designated in
blue on the map. The 26' is what she would have. The part that is not in blue is
apparently the part that is not going to be vacated but it leaves her only a total of
about 60' frontage with a piece of land going back 200' in depth and the part that
abutted the street was 300' and she would not be able to use that particular parcel of
land in anyway that she could have used it From a financial standpoint it would be a
• tremendous financial hardship if this road were closed and it is for this reason that we
ask this Council not to have that street vacated. Thank you.
Mayor Krieger: Anyone else for the purpose of objecting or protesting to
the proposed street vacation? Mr. Wakefield, there may
be some confusion with people present this evening -
does anyone have the opportunity of talking in favor or as well as protesting at this
juncture of the hearing?
Mr.. Wakefield: The purpose of the hearing is to allow those who desire to
Protest the vacation to be heard; it lies within the discretion
of the Council whether or not do hear those people that
may be present who desire to support the proposed vacation.
Mayor Krieger: It would be the desire of the chair to give those present
the benefit of oral presentation - does the Council have
any objection? (No objections.) Is there anyone here
that wishes to speak in favor of or opposed to this? This would be the time and place.
Tom Elliot I have talked with the attorney in the last week or two and
1650 East told him what we were willing to do, to square these two
Glendora, California pieces of prop erty up to where they are reasonably useful.
The first proposal was to start at this i:point (explained with
• the use of the map.) I also offered to have appraisers look
at it and then the one getting the better piece would pay the difference, but they did not
want to have anything to do with that.
Mayor Krieger: Please restrict your remarks to whether the City should
vacate, Mr. Elliot.
Mr. Elliot: I believe they should. There has been plenty of time and
there have been legal notices, postponements, etc.
I don't know what else can be gained but whatever you say
I am willing to go along with. Once the Council has acted on this and the City is out of
aREG. C. C. 3-25-68 Page Ten
•
•
U
HEARINGS - STREET VACATION - Continued
the picture an agreement can be reached.
Mayor Krieger: Thank you Mr. Elliot. Anyone else desire to speak in
favor of or in objection to? There apparently not being
anyone, the chair will entertain a motion to close the
hearing .
Motion by Councilman Gillum, seconded by Councilman Gleckman, and carried, that the
Council close the public portion of this hearing.
COUNCIL. DISCUSSION
Councilman Gillum: Mr.. Aiassa, when the street is vacated whom does it
return to?
Mr.. Aia s sa : I believe that is a legal problem.
Mr. Wakefield: The property will return to the owner of the underlying fee,
the City has obtained a preliminary title report and if I
correctly analyze that report, it would be my opinion that
the vacated portion of the street would become the property of Mr. Elliot in its entirety.
I would caution the Council the ownership of the underlying fee is really not a matter of
concern to the Council. The concern to the Council is simply whether the area is or is
not required for a public street. Once you have made that determination. then the title
to the vacated street follows the line of ownership as that existed.
Councilman Gleckman: Can the staff fill us in as to how we received this street
in the first place?
Mr.. Zimmerman: This was dedicated by one of the prior owners to the County
before it became part of the City of West Covina. I don't
have the exact date but it was before Mr. Elliot and
Mrs. Place purchased the property.
Councilman Gleckman: What was the purpose of vacating this piece of property?
Mr.. Zimmerman: The original statement and I believe Mr. Wakefield
indicates that according to law it is a question of
whether it is needed for public use and the staff
recommends that the Council find it is not needed for public purposes.
Mayor Krieger: Why or how at this time and place did this question come
up before the staff and City Council?
Mr. Zimmerman: For several years Mr. Elliot has been before us requesting
that it be vacated. We said we felt it was necessary to
get a final approval of the Freeway Agreement so we know
none of this property would be needed .for ramps, etc. , and now that the Freeway Agreement
is signed it appeared proper to proceed with this request.
Mayor Krieger: So the request was timed by the City's recent execution of
the San Bernardino Freeway widening agreement.
Mr.. Zimmerman: . Yes sir.
Mayor Krieger: Any further questions or discussion on this matter? What
is before us is a Resolution which if adopted would vacate
a portion of Barranca Street subject to the reservation of
- 10 -
Q
ti
REG. C.C. 3-25-68
Page Eleven
•
HEARINGS STREET VACATION - Continued
certain easements including the utility easements and our easements for storm drain
purposes. Is that correct Mr. Wakefield? (Answer: Yes.)
RESOLUTION NO. 3765 The City Clerk presented:
"A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF
ADOPTED THE CITY OF WEST COVINA ORDERING THE
VACATION OF A CERTAIN PORTION OF
BARRANCA STREET AND RESERVING AND
EXCEPTING IN FAVOR OF THE CITY OF WEST
COVINA CERTAIN RIGHTS AND EASEMENTS
LOCATED THEREON FOR PUBLIC UTILITY AND
OTHER PURPOSES.
Mayor Krieger: Hearing no objections, waive further reading of the body
of said Resolution.
Motion by Councilman Gillum, seconded by Councilman Nichols, that the City Council
adopt said Resolution.
Councilman Nichols: Mr. Wakefield, by any stretch of the imagination will the
City leave itself open to an allegation of an improper
action in vacting those portions shown to be vacated and
leaving for street purposes those portions shown on this
map for street purposes? .
• Mr. Wakefield: I have discussed this problem with the Assistant City
Engineer. The purpose in leaving the area outlined in
blue on the map is simply to guarantee that there will
be adequate access to the parcel owned by Mrs. Place. This I think is legally adequate
to satisfy whatever claim she may have to access rights and should protect the City
against any claim that it has arbritarily deprived her the access to an area outlined in
back.
Councilman Gleckman: Along the same lines, if this were dedicated and
accepted by the City prior to the purchase of these lands
by Mrs. Place and Mr. Elliot, have we received this
particular street as access to the separate parcels of property or have we legally
accepted this street as stated in the report for easements fiq, the utility companies - -
I am curious to know if we have the moral obligation if we originally accepted this
street in order to retain access to both parcels which might then have induced these
people to buy these parcels knowing that they have access and then we as a City
turn around and say we as a City no longer need this as a Street?
Mr. Wakefield: As I understand it the area proposed to be vacated is an
area that has been left because of the realignment of
Barranca Street.
Councilman Gleckman: That is good enough - thank you.
Mayor Krieger: Further Council discussion on the motion to adopt the
Resolution?
Motion carried on roll call vote as follows:
AYES: Councilmen Gillum,
NOES: None
ABSENT: Councilman. Snyder
Nichols, Gleckman, Mayor Krieger
REG. C.C. 3-25-68
Page Twelve
HEARINGS
VARIANCE NO. 620 LOCATION. 1925 East Garvey Avenue
PRECISE PLAN NO,, 540
JAMES J. SANTIAGO Request to reduce the required side yard from
11 feet to 5 feet, approved by Planning
Commission Resolution No. 2028; request for
approval of a two-story motel in R-3 Zone approved by Resolution. No. 2029. . Called
up by City Council On March 11, 1968.
Mayor Krieger: Without objection by the Council the chair will consoli-
date these two matters for hearing and hear as one item
at this time. Is there any objection by Council? (No
objection.) Mrs.. Preston, do you have the affidavit of publication?
Lela Preston; Yes, -I do.
Motion by Councilman Gleckman, seconded by Councilman. Gillum, and carried, that
Council receive and file.
(Mr. -Menard, Planning Director read.Planning Commission. Resolution No. 2 02 8 on
Variance No. 620, and Resolution._No. 2029 on Precise Plan No. 540 and briefly
summarized . )
THIS IS THE TIME AND PLACE FOR THE PUBLIC HEARING ON VARIANCE NO. 620 AND
PRECISE PLAN NO. 540.
• IN FAVOR
None.
IN OPPOSITION
None.
Motion by Councilman Gleckman, seconded by Councilman Nichols, and carried, that
the Council close the public portion of the hearing.
COUNCIL DISCUSSION
Councilman Nichols. I called this matter up largely to give the Council the
opportunity to look at the general procedure that
involves the use of the R-3 for a C-zone land use. The
only possible area where the Council could conceivably be concerned might be in
point Number C under the granting of the variance. That is, to whether or not it
would be an the public interest. The only thought that has come to my mind is that
those lands are presently zoned R-3 and there are other lots in this area, not in this
immediate block, but in the area they are zoned R-3 and the maximum density permitted
in the area for residential purposes is 31 units per acre and on this property the
number of units that could be projected for motel purposes would be about 55 units
• on an acre. Theoritically it was the same type of usage but the density would be
increased greatly. It has also come to my attetition that some of our motels in the -
City which are operating as motels have recently. gone out of business because there
was not sufficient transit business for them, and others are putting signs on the
premises to advertise their units for rent by the day, week or month, indicating
they might favor a more permanent tenancy. If this should continue I would think
we might see a situation where so-called motel units begin turning to permanent
tenancy competing unfairly with those that had to build at the cost and density
limitations of the R-3 zone and increasing densities in the areas where City
- 12 -
REG. C.C. .3-25-68
Page Thirteen
C
0
HEARINGS Variance No. 620 and Precise Plan No. 540 Continued
Council in granting the use, did not anticipate. I wouldn't go so far as to say this use
per se should be denied but I do believe it is a source of concern and I think that
just turning over R-3 zone to C-1 development in motels is a mistake.. Finally, I
have one question I would like to ask. Has the staff seen any Precise Plan.in terms of
actual unit development, the size of the units, kitchen facilities, etc. , anything that
would give us a better picture of what we are talking about here?
Mr. Menard: The most precise thing on that would be the Precise Plan
as submitted, which indicates units of approximately
27' in depth and it would appear they are 17 to 18' in
width. Some of these facilities are not indicated one way or the other.
Councilman Nichols: Mr. Wakefield, if an individual in the City builds a
motel in a zone that allows apartments but by variance
has constructed a motel and then find they are unable
economically to operate that motel,as one, and they begin to advertise for and take in
tenants on a permanent basis - is this legal? In terms of our zoning ordinances for
multiple land and the minimum size of units relative to the amount of land available
or could a person in fact operate a motel as an apartment building if they saw fit
under these conditions?
Mr. Wakefield: I think it is obvious that there would have to be
substantial alterations in the structure to make it
useable as apartments and if those alterations were
undertaken they would have to develop with the requirements of the R-3 zone.
Councilman Nichols: May I interject by saying that I think you are conjecturirig
that? Let's not assume there has to be alterations,
let's assume the unit is there and has a kitchen, a
bed and a bathroom, and someone wants to rent it permanently - now can a person
that has built a motel by variance in.a R-3 zone rent the units on a monthly basis?
Mr. Wakefield: A motel is defined and intended to be used as a transit
facility and to convert to an apartment use would con-
stitute-- a violation of the zoning law.
Councilman Nichols: Thank you.
Councilman Gleckman: Can you tell us Mr. Aiassa or staff, the motel that is
on Parcel 13 and on No. 12 - how many units are
contained in each. one of those motels?
Mr. Menard: I don't have the information available but I can get it
for you.
Councilman Gleckman: I would like to know because I think the point
Councilman Nichols brought up tonight is a good point
and I would like to know what the density is in those
presently existing R-3 zones. As I recall our R-3 calls for 25 units to the acre
maximum.
Mr. Menard: This is correct.
Councilman Gleckman: I would like that information because if we have a motel
sitting next to a motel and one has 20 units and this
man is asking for 55 units on a half piece of parcel
equal to that we can get a good idea of the square footage of each .unit he' plans -to put in.
- 13 -
Z
REG. C.C. 3-25-68
Page Fourteen
0
0
HEARINGS - Variancee No. 620 and Precise P1an..No. 540 - Continued
Mayor Krieger- I think you would also like the respective diminsions of
the property?
Councilman Gleckman: Right.
THE CHAIR DECLARED A 10 MINUTE RECESS AT 9 P. M. TO GIVE MR. MENARD THE
OPPORTUNITY TO GET THE INFORMATION ASKED. COUNCIL.RECONVENED AT 9- 10 P.M.
Mayor Krieger: Mr. Menard, we have an unanswered question. Can you
now respond to it?
Mr. Menard- Right.. In the motel directly to the east, containing
1.7 acres there -are 83 units; and the next motel consist-
ing of approximately 1.2 acres there are a total of 76
units. And the parcel we are talking about is 55 units on 1.2 acres.
Councilman Gleckman: The parcel we are talking about now is exactly what
Mr.. Menard?
Mr. Menard: 113' x 450' or 1.16 acres.
Councilman Gleckman: The reason I asked the Planning Department for this
information is that the pattern and the precedent has
already been set in this particular area and this
applicant accordingly is not asking for anymore in.my estimation than already exists.
Mayor Krieger- Then actually, Mr. Menard, according to your response
that motel that is two parcels east has a greater ratio of
units per acreage than the parcel here, as far as the
ratio of units to size ?
Mr. Menard:
That is right.
Mayor Krieger: The observation that Councilman Nichols has made - - has
the Planning Department been made aware of the situation
and has.anything been done in study or in formulation of
recommendations as to the existing motel usaggs along
Garvey Avenue which has been predisposed to expand their uses to encompass apartment
uses?
Mr. Menard: Not in regard to the apartment usage. I think the Planning
Department and the Planning Commission have undertaken
two particular things that might be germaine to the
subject. No. 1 - an attempt to clean up the land use variances of which there are a
great number granted in the past; we have city -initiated many actions to bring this
into a proper zone, a commercial use that fits the use and the North Azusa Avenue
study that is at this moment underway in the Planning Department and will be before the
Planning Commission at its next meeti rig, at least in a recommendation from staff and
will indicate a commercial zone coming down through here and perhaps turning the
property here that already has the motel use on it.
Mayor Krieger: Further questions or discussion on the Variance or
Precise Plan? If not a motion would be in order. First
of all with regard to the Variance.
Motion.`.by:.Councilman Gleckman, seconded by Councilman Gillum, that Variance
No, 620 be granted subject to the conditions set forth in the memorandum dated
March 6, 1968.
- 14 -
REG. C.C. 3-25-68
Page Fifteen
•
0
HEARINGS - Variance No. 620 and Precise Plan No. 540 - Continued
Mayor Krieger: I assume from the motion - upon the findings of the,
grounds as stated in the Code as to the granting of a
Variance?
Councilman Gleckman: Right.
Motion carried on roll call vote as follows:
AYES: Councilmen Gillum,
NOES: None
ABSENT: Councilman. Snyder
Nichols, Gleckman, Mayor Krieger
Motion by Councilman Gleckman, seconded by Councilman Gillum, that Precise Plan
No. 540 - James J. Santiago, be approved subject to the conditions of the Planning
Department. Motion carried on roll call vote as follows:
AYES: Councilmen Gillum,
NOES: None
ABSENT: Councilman, Snyder
Nichols, Gleckman, Mayor Krieger
Councilman. Nichols: I would like to offer a motion on the prior matter that
came up this evening. I believe the City Manager is
looking into this in some extent, but it might be
appropriate for the Council to take some additional action. I would move that the
Council authorize and direct the City Manager to make a surveyof hotel usages in the
City in an effort to determine what percentage of those usages seem to be turning to
apartment type rentals.
Seconded by Councilman Gleckman, and carried.
(Councilman Nichols asked to be excused at 9. 15 p.m. , stating he had another
meeting to attend.)
---------------
AZUSA VALLEY WATER CO. Grant of Water Franchise.
FRANCHISE APPLICATION Public hearing set for this date by
PROTEST HEARING Resolution No. 3753 adopted February 26, 1968.
Mayor Krieger: Madam City Clerk have you the affidavit of publication?
Lela Preston: Yes.
Councilman Gleckman moved to accept and file. Seconded by Councilman Gillum, and
carried.
Mayor Krieger: Mr. Wakefield, are there any comments you would care
to make?
Mr. Wakefield: Yes Mr. Mayor. The Ordinance granting the franchise
has been prepared in draft form, a copy of the
Ordinance was submitted to the Company in pursuance
of their application. There is only one area of disagreement between the Company and
the proposed draft. There is a Section 10 in the proposed draft of the Ordinance which
would require the Company to maintain at its own cost and expense all company owned
- 15 -
REG. C.C. 3-25-68 Page Sixteen
HEARINGS - Azusa Valley Water Franchise - Continued
fire hydrants within the service area of the Company and within the City. This pro-
vision was included in the draft following a series of discussions which I had with
Mr'. Aia s sa and members of the staff. At the .time it seemed to us that the inclusion
of such a provision was in the City's interests, primarily because we felt the problem
was maintenance of company owned fire hydrants that had never been completely
explored -and was an area of which was uncertain. We were aware, I think, that the
current rate schedule of the Company requires the City to pay $2.50 as a monthly
service charge for each hydrant which also requires the City to maintain the hydrant.
However, simply from the standpoint of logic it seems unrealistic and an administra-
tive .burden on the City to have to maintain property that actually belongs to the
Company. At the time of our discussion I was not aware and did not discover until
this afternoon that in 1965 the City Council had considered this matter and had
instructed the City Attorney to prepare a letter agreement with the Company and, in that
letter agreement the City agreed to maintain the hydrants that are here in question.
I am sure the Council knows that matters of this sort only come up occasionally for
review which seems appropriate I think to reconsider the matter in connection with the
grant';ing of a new franchise which will run for 20 years.. As I say this was a
provision, included in the draft following our discussion and review of the problem and
I think it: is a matter the City Council may want to pursue further. With that exception
the draft: of the Franchise Ordinance is, as I understand it, acceptable.
Mr. Aiassao I would like to emphasize one item. The item that was
reviewed on September 14, 1965, was at thei time nthe
Water Company ceased to be a private utility and
became a public utility and at that time we did not have the agreement as far as
is hydrants were concerned and this was arranged by Mr. Williams, and at that time we
agreed the City would maintain the hydrant cylinder and stand and they *ould maintain
the cut off valves, etc. , in the Street. At the time the Utilities granted them a rate
increase this was the first time in many years a hydrant rate of $2.50 was awarded._
Many other Water Utilities are paying from $1.50 to $2.00 and some $1. 00. We have
a good working relationship with the Azusa Water Valley Company; in 1966 we received
in franchise payments the full sum of $2960.55. We now have 260 hydrants which cost
us $2.50 per unit per month - a cost of $7,020 a year plus the incidental maintenance
which we do not show against this expenditure. This is just a flat expense. The other
expense is carried in the Fire Department maintenance budget. We feel that some
type of provision should be made per se, the fire hydrant does belong to the Water
Company and it makes it rather awkward for us to maintain property that does not:
belong to us. I frankly feel something should be done to clear this matter. It is
getting more muddled each year.
THIS IS THE TIME AND PLACE FOR THE PUBLIC HEARING.
IN OPPOSITON
None
IN FAVOR
Ray Curran, Attorney There are several points I want to raise. The
Azusa Valley Water Co. , Company finds some fault with just one phase of the.
634 So. Spring Street proposed Franchise, that is the provision which deals
Los Angeles with the shifting of the burden of the cost of the
hydrants. We felt it was an inappropriate one because
we had already entered into an agreement with the City which provided they would
maintain the hydrants. That had been established under the Public Utility rules and
regulations, and under the constitution of the State of California this authority is
vested in the State and not in the Cities. Under our rules and regulations which we
are operating under at the present time this particular function, the function of fire
hydrant service sets the rate at $2.50 per hydrant and one of the conditions is that
- 16 -
REG. C.C. 3-25-68
Page Seventeen
HEARINGS - Azusa Valley Water Company Franchise Continued
the cost of installation and maintenance of the hydrants will be borne by the public
utility. Now, Mr. Aiassa's comments may have been slightly misleading in that he
made it sound like the -chain -of events were that we had -this agreement and then had
a rate increase. The fact was the Company applied for a rate increase from $1.50 to
$2.50 as a result of a public hearing -and the determination by the Public Utility
Commission that this was necessary and reasonable and it was only after that: that we
came to the City and attempted to have -the rate of $1.50 changed to $2.50 to comply
with the PUC. So the events were that there was a rate increase and then we entered
into this agreement with the City.
Another problem with respect to this is that the
franchise the City grants is applied for under the Franchise Act of 1937 and that law
set forth in the PUC code provides specifically what the City is to receive in exchange
for the use of this Franchise. It sets out the percentage of gross receipts the City
will receive. It is our feeling that this request the City is making to shift the burden
of the cost of the maintenance of the fire hydrants to the Company on the guise of it
being an additional charge or additional provision in the Franchise is really exceeding
the authority under this Franchise Act of 1937, which has already set forth what the
City can ask for in exchange for this Franchise.
The last point I would like to make is that there is a
note that it may be unreasonable to ask the City to maintain the hydrants; we are not
talking about oiling them up and seeing that they don't leak which the Company does
now, as a matter of fact without charge, I think the main concern is if the fire
• hydrant gets knocked over who pays the burden for putting it back. In trying to
analyze whether it: is fair or not to have the City bear this burden or the Company,
you have to realize that if the Company had its say, the Company would put most of
its water lines underground so they could easily service all the people with water
without subjecting the equipment to the dangers of being knocked out, and the fact
they have to maintain for city use up above ground is a reasonable feeling that if there
is damage to it it is not unreasonable to ask the City to pay for that cost in
maintenance. Thank you.
Mayor Krieger: Is there anyone else present this evening, wishing to
speak?
Ira R. Calvert First I would like to mention that repairs to hydrants
Secretary -,Manager in the City of West Covina amounted to $26.63 in
Azusa Valley Water Co. 1965; $22.50 in 1966; and $145.43 in 1967. The three
617 No. Azusa Avenue year total is $194. 56. The reason being that we have
had the cooperation of the Departments here and we are
usually able to obtain payment of damages from who ever damages the hydrant. Also,
I think if youtalk with the Fire Department: you will find that we do cooperate with the
Fire Department. We get along very well and do render adequate service. The agree-
ment, which Mr. Williams drew up in 1965, after our rate increase and he appeared
at: the first hearing where he opposed the $2.50 charge and at the second hearing he
did not, and then he drew up the agreement. This agreement specifies that the Azusa
Valley Water Company will receive $2.50 per month per hydrant and that we will
• maintain only the valve .to the hydrant. The City's responsibility is for the hydrant
above ground. I have to be quite firm in this, being manager of the Company, but
if you do not delete Section 10 1 don't think my Company can accept this Franchise
but with the deletion of Section 1.0 we are agreeing to it and we will pay you the
sum of approximately $3, 000 per year and will continue to operate as we have in the
past.
Mayor Krieger: Thank you, Mr. Calvert. Is there anyone else present
who desires to speak to this matter? If not, the chair
will entertain a motion to close the public hearing.
- 17 -
REG. C.C. 3-25-68
Page Eighteen
HEARINGS - Azusa Valley Water Company Franchise - Continued
Motion by Councilman Gleckman, seconded by Councilman Gillum, and carried, that
the Council close the public hearing.
COUNCIL DISCUSSION
•
Councilman Gleckman: Mr. Wakefield - if their company does not go along
and sign this Franchise, what will we do for water?
Mr. Wakefield: They have the continuing obligation to serve water
whether we sign the Franchise or not.
Councilman Gleckman: I have a question of Mr. Calvert. Has there been.a
notable change in the amount of hydrants we have had
from 1965 to 1967 ?
Mr. Calvert:
246 in 1964 - 267 now.
Councilman Gleckman: The repairs referred to by Mr. Calvert, is this the
only thing the City would be gaining by putting this
clause in this Franchise?
Mr. Aiassa:
We also paint them.
Mr. Wakefield: Mr. Gleckman, it is difficult to say. Under the existing
• arrangement as I understand it the Canpany actually goes
out and repairs a leaking hydrant and does so at its own
expense but certainly it is not clear to me that that is their obligation and that they
might at sometime in the future :bill the City for the cost of that type of maintenance.
They report they would not do it and I assume the fact the total claim in the last three
years of $194. would bear that out. I don't mean to'argue the point but if you look
at the Santiago variance and precise plan which the Council has just approved, I think
you. will see what the problem is. Under the .Fire Dept. requirements the owner of
the property is required to install some additional 8" water mains and fire hydrants
and when that fire hydrant is installed it will become the property of the Company
and the City will thereafter be responsible for its maintenance and be responsible for
the payment of $2.50 monthly service charge. So what we are really talking about
here is a matter that goes to the fact that the hydrant rent rates established by the
PUC are necessarily done on an. arbritary basis simply because there is not the same
foundation in fact for the establishment of rates as in the water rates themselves.
The hydrants are supplied to the Company without cost, there is no capitalization.
involved. Yet the maintenance of the hydrant is the responsibility of the City once
it becomes the property of the Company; and this seems to me to be both .illogical
and a matter that I am sure has not been carefully reviewed by the PUC in the actual
establishment of the hydrant rates,
Councilman Gleckman: Do we maintain the hydrants of all the other water
companies that have a Franchise in the City of West
Covina ?
• Mr. Aiassa: Yes we do on all of them. The Fire Department services
them, paints them, and checks them. The repairs are
normally done by the Water companies and they send us
a statement.
Councilman Gleckman: Mr. Calvert, you don't have to answer if you don't
want to, but you made the statement that if Section 10
were to remain in here that you as Secretary to this
Company don't feel you could sign this agreement. My concern is you made a point
REG. C.C. 3-25-68 Page Nineteen
HEARINGS - Azusa Valley Water Company Franchise - Continued
.of the $194 over the past 3 years - if I get the inference correct that means the $ 194
projected over the next 3 years would either cause a great deficiency, in the profit
of your company or maybe I am missing the boat here. If it is too small to discuss
• because of the cost being too small why is it so large to make an issue out of it?
Mr. Calvert; Mainly because the PUC has jurisdiction over our
Water Company and I feel you are entering the field
of the PUC prerogative. It is not the money so much as
the ruling. It i's the idea of the City of West Covina getting their foot in the door, so
to speak. Perhaps not wi th out utility but perhaps with others. I don't know if this
i's true. I think legally our Company can charge the City for fire hydrant practice use
and that is something we have never done. We have cooperated with you in every way.
We have even rendered a public service to you a few years ago.
Mr. Aiassao I think we still have a point - they have a franchise and
they still use our public streets. He is talking about
opening hydrants, etc. , we could make it very difficult.
Councilman Gleckmano I was just curious of the advantages of Section 1.0
remaining in the contract versus the disadvantages and
that is about all I am concerned about. Of course I am
also concerned with good will but we are talking about this particular section.
What do we have to gain and what do we have to lose?
. Councilman Gillum: I am concerned with this thing on the fire hydrants.
As I understand it now if someone knocks over the fire
hydrant Azusa Valley is responsible to see that it is
replaced and paid for under the way the Franchise is written now?
Mr. Aiassao No - we are- responsible.�at present..
Mr. Wakefield: That is correct. Under the existing regulations it is
the responsibility of the City to pay the cost for
whatever new hydrants or repairs are necessary. At
the present time the Azusa Valley Water Company attempts to collect from whomever
caused the damage. The purpose of Section 10 is to reverse this obligation and
in those instances where the hydrant is owned by the Company , the Company would
assume the responsibility for the repair and maintenance.
Councilman Gillum- With the other franchises is there a Section 10 in, or a
similar section?
Mr. Aiassao No. These franchises were written 30 or 40 years ago.
I have never seen such loosely written franchises until
I came to West Covina.
Councilman Gillum- Is it possible that the PUC will grant other water
companies the right to increase their rentals?
• Mr. Aiassao I can't preceive what the PUC will do, but this might
establish a very serious precedent being that there are
only two in this area - Arcadia and Azusa that have a
$ 2.5 0 rental.
Councilman Gillum: As I understand, the PUC awards these rentals on
apparently public hearings and the applicant has to
justify a rate increase ?
- 19 -
Rego C.C. 3-25-68
Page Twenty
HEARINGS - Azusa Valley Water Company Franchise - Continued
Mr., Aia s sa : We have a communication on this, but ba sica lly I don't
think PUC understands
• Councilman Gillum: I am not questioning PUC, what I am trying to establish
is they have set the rate for $2 0 50 and this Section does
not appear in the other franchises we have e a , e
Mr. Aiassa: But you have not had the opportunity of reviewing the
other franchises. This is the only one we reviewed in
the 10 years I have been here
Mayor Krieger: In 1965 however this matter of hydrant rental was before
us. I believe according to Mr. Curren's chronology
of evidence it was after the Company appeared before
the PUC. I remember that we authorized the City Attorney to make a protest as to the
amount of hydrant rental and I don't believe the PUC heeded our concern in that regard.
What does concern me is this that at least at this date there seems to be'a difference
of opinion as to what this City's jurisdiction is in this matter. Mr. Curran - please
just respond to the question - is it your contention that it is without the jurisdiction
of this City to include in its franchise this Section 1.0 language having to do with
maintenance at the cost and expense of the Company?
Mr. Curran: Yes - for two reasons. One, in the light of the 1937
Franchise Act and the other that it goes against the
• Company's established rules and regulations which say
they must furnish service to the City where the City does pay the maintenance
Mayor Krieger: Thank you. Mr. Wakefield, I am not too concerned
with the company's policies and regulations they are
apt to change, but how about this 1937 Act? Do you
have any sufficient familiarity with it to respond to the question of jurisdiction?
Mr. Wakefield: I think so Mr. . Mayor. It is true that the present: rate
schedule for the Company -approved by the PUC does
require the City to bear the costof the maintenance of
fire hydrants. I think the only answer I can give to you is that the 1937 Franchise Act
establishes the rate which may be charged by the City for a franchise at a fixed 2%0
The question here is not so much whether or not the imposition of the responsibility
for the maintenance of its own property is on the utility is or is not in violation of
the franchise act, the question is whether or not it would violate the company's rage
structure as approved by the PUC, and the only answer I can give to you is the City
has one opportunity to analyze and re-examine that question and that opportunity
comes at the time the franchise is granted and I think that is why the matter is before
you tonight. It seems clear to me that the franchise is in effect a contract between
the utility and the city and that this kind of a contract: will modify the September 14,
1965 agreement between the city and the company if this condition remains in the
franchisee There is still the question as to whether or not the provision is in
violation of the rate structure and whether or not the PUC has jurisdiction to alter that
. situation, whether the changing of this condition would again be cause for re-examining
the rate paid by the City for the monthly service charge for water service to fire
hydrants.
Mayor Krieger: So in your opinion what we are faced with in the 1937
Act really has to go to the consideration for the granting
of the franchise and then in terms of the imposition of
maintenance costs on the franchise the question then becomes one whether or not the
PUC rate structure in 1965 is being undermined by this condition imposed upon the
franchises by the City. If so then I assume the applicants position would be directly
with the PUC regarding the rate structuruather than with the franchisor,
REG..C.C. 3-25-68 Page Twenty-one
HEARINGS - Azusa Valley Water Co Franchise Continued
Councilman Gleckman: The other question I had with what has been.implied
this evening, that this is strictly against the Franchise
Act and if we were to leave this in and they were to
sign this and then proved to the City it is illegal or against the Franchise Act then
. it would not be a legal Franchise? In other words we couldn't ask them to hold to this
agreement if we were violating the Franchise Act of 1937.
Mr. Wakefield: This particular Section of the Franchise would have to
come out.
Councilman Gleckman: I would like to test it. .
Mayor Krieger: Mr. Aiassa this business of hydrant rate and hydrant
maintenance basically seems to me to be two different
cats. There doesn't seem to be any legal question
that the PUC has the right to establish the hydrant rental schedule and they have done
so as recently as 1965 with regard to this Franchisee.. Now it is the position of the
staff that we have been operating with these franchises not just Azusa Valley Water
but these other companies you have listed for us, on a rental of hydrants with the
fact that we pay the rentals and have the additional responsibility of maintaining
them by virtue of the Franchise - is that correct?
Mr. Aiassa: Yes.
Mayor Krieger: And it is the staff's position if we are going to pay
• hydrant rates then the maintenance responsibility
shoulddevolve upon the franchisee. Is that correct?
Mr. Aiassa: Yes.
Mayor Krieger: So the question before the house is whether or not we
want .to take the position of imposing this as a conditio;i of
our Franchise here and I assume setting a precedent for
other Franchises that subsequently expire.
Councilman Gillum: Do either of you know on what basis the request for
the increase of hydrant rental was granted? What did
they use to justify requesting the increase?
Mr. Aiassa: I have the exhibts they submitted. (Read from the
exhibit, mentioning conditions 1 to 4)
Councilman Gillum: Are we being charged for that other than. fire use?
Mr. Aiassa: We don't use it for other than fire.
Councilman Gillum: Are we charged for the street sweeper use?
Mr. Aiassa: No we don't use quantity.
Councilman Gillum: Mr. Calvert do you know on what the PUC justified
the rate increase to $2.50?
Mr. Calizert : I probably should refer to the application exhibits -
but briefly I might say that the overall usage needed
for fire protection is what the PUC is interested in and
the PUC staff makes a study on every water system and I don't think the staff of the
Commission is inclined to agree with the Water Company. In fact I find it usually
- 21 -
REG. C.C.. 3-25-68 Page Twenty-two
HEARINGS - Azusa Valley Water Company Franchise Continued
more concerned about the customers.
Councilman Gillum- What I am trying to establish is the justification for
the increase in the hydrant rental because evidently
• the other companies are still charging $1.50 or less.
Mr. CalVbrt- I don't know of any recent cases that haven't gone up.
Mayor Krieger- I think the PUC either was quite : magnanimous in
their conditions by allowing the public authority to pay
for the maintenance charges or they looked at our
existing Franchise Agreement and said —well now the public authority pay for the
maintenance bharge,s� so this will be one of the conditions of the fire hydrant rental.
'In either case I think the conditions of our Franchise to the extent that we are
allowed to exercise discretion in these matters should be exercised in favor of the
public authority with the imposition on the franchisee of whatever conditions the
public authority can legally impose and I haven't heard anything to suggest so far
that legally we cannot impose this by virtue of a condition of the PUC may have
voluntarily imposed on the rate structure. I would be in favor of the Franchise as
proposed. Further council discussion on this matter?
Councilman Gillum- I have one question. Mr. Wakefield - if this Section
10 were left in this Franchise and I understand
Mr.. Calvert expressed himself as saying they couldn't
• sign it if it were left in and if it were left in and they did sign it and then it were
found. it was not in their rights to sign it- what position would the City be in legally?
Mr. Wakefield- I feel the recourse of the utility would be to go back
to the PUC and request an adjustment in the hydrant
rate which would in effect offset the additional cost
to the Company for providing this maintenance service and then it would be up to
the PUC to examine this question specifically, and write the maintenance requirement
in the Franchise.
Councilman Gillum- So instead of the $2.50 we pay they could come back
and say we pay maybe $4.50 or whatever?
Mr. Wakefield: There is a possibility.
Councilman Gillum- I think gentlemen, although I am inclined to agree
with you in this earlier thinking, it might be a case of
stirring up something here that may cause us
additional money over the $2.50 and I honestly think - and of what I have seen
of PUC - that any Water Company could possibly go back and prove justification
and ask a rate increase on hydrant rental, so instead of paying $2.50 we could
possibly be paying $3.50 or $4.00 and. it is not worth that much to me to prove a
point.
Mayor Krieger- I lose the figures of the justification. If it cost
$194.56 for three years that comes out to $65.00 a
year for 260 hydrants and we are paying them
$30. per year per hydrant and it is costing $60. maintenance a year for 260 hydrants - -
How the evidence before the PUC would ever justify an increase?
Councilman Gillum- In this figure you don't have what we are spending if
you are referring to the maintenance. What I am
saying is the figure you don't have is the figure the
City pays for painting of the hydrants.
- 22 -
REG. C.C. 3-25-68
Page Twenty-three
0
HEARINGS-- Azusa Valley Water Company Franchise - Continued
Mayor Krieger: Is there further discussion on this matter? If not a
motion would be in order.
Motion by Councilman Gleckman that the. Azusa Valley Water franchise application as
submitted be approved, and an Ordinance be drafted. Seconded by Mayor Krieger.
Councilman. Gillum:
This is to include Section 10 ?
Councilman. Gleckman: Yes. I think the point was well made this evening
that this is against the Franchise Act of 1937 and if it
is true who ever this Franchise applies to it is
illegal and if it is proved it will be thrown out, but if it isn't I would like the City to
take advantage of the situation.
Motion carried on roll call vote as follows:
AYES: Councilman Gleckman, Mayor Krieger
NOES: Councilman. Gillum
ABSENT: Councilmen Nichols, Snyder
Mayor Krieger: The motion carries. Mr. Wakefield - it is the
interpretation of the chair that a simple majority is all
that is necessary to instruct the preparation of the
Ordinance ?
Mr. Wakefield: That is correct.
ORDINANCE INTRODUCTION The City Attorney presented:
"AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF WEST COVINA GRANTING TO AZUSA
VALLEY WATER. COMPANY, A .CORPORATION,
THE RIGHT,_=PRIVILEGE,AND FRANCHISE TO LAND
USE PIPES, DITCHES, CONDUITS AND APPURTEN-
ANTS FOR TRANSMITTING AND DISTRIBUTING
WATER.FOR ANY AND ALL PURPOSES.
ON CERTAIN OF THE PUBLIC STREETS, ALLEYS,
AND PLACES AS THE SAME MAY NOW OR
HEREAFTER EXIST IN THE CITY. "
Motion by Councilman.Gleckman, seconded by Councilman Gillum, and carried, that
City Council waive further reading of the body of said Ordinance.
Motion by Councilman Gleckman, seconded by Mayor Krieger, that Council introduce
said Ordinance. Motion carried on roll call vote as follows:
AYES: Councilman Gleckman, Mayor Krieger
NOES: Councilman. Gillum
ABSENT: Councilmen Nichols, Snyder
SERVICE AVENUE AND WALNUT CREEK PARKWAY
NAME CHANGE CITY INITIATED
LOCATION: Service Avenue between
Orange Avenue and Sunset Avenue;
Walnut Creek Parkway between Sunset
Avenue and. Glendora. Avenue and its
extension known as Valinda Avenue
between Vincent Avenue and Glendora
Avenue.
- 23 -
REG. C.C. 3-'25-68
Page Twenty-four
0
6
SERVICE AVENUE - WALNUT CREEK PARKWAY NAME CHANGE Continued
Mayor. Krieger: Mrs. Preston, do we have the affidavit of publication?
Lela Preston: Yes sir.
Motion by Councilman Gillum, seconded by Councilman Gleckman, and carried, that
Council receive and file affidavit of publication.
Mayor Krieger: Does the staff have a report they wish to make on this
matter before we receive either affirmative or negative
comments ?
Mr. Aiassa:
No comments.
THE CHAIR ANNOUNCED THIS IS THE TIME AND PLACE FOR THE PUBLIC HEARING ON
THE PROPOSED NAME CHANGE.
Mayor Krieger: We will entertain any comments that anyone wishes to
make on the proposed name change. There apparently,
is no one present this evening that desires to speak to
this matter. The chair will entertain a motion to close the public hearing.
So moved by Councilman. Gleckman, seconded by
Councilman Gillum, and carried.
COUNCIL DISCUSSION
Councilman Gleckman: I am wondering if a move like this should be made prior
to sending out letters as we did once before regarding
a name change.. I coon"t:think we did it in this
particular matter. This is a city initiated hearing regarding a name change. Did we
send out any type of letter to all of the businesses affected?
Mayor Krieger: I received a formal notice of the hearing. Mrs. Preston -
will you give an answer for the record?
Lela Preston: The notice just said this would be for the changing of the
name of Service Avenue between Orange and Sunset
Avenue and the name of Walnut Creek Parkway between
Sunset Avenue and Glendora Avenue and its extension known as Valinda.Avenue between
Vincent and. Glendora Avenue.
Mayor Krieger: Basically as the agenda item is headed.
Councilman Gleckman: Fine. I wasn't familiar with that.
Mayor Krieger: In response to the other question - I have a recollection
that when our last consideration of a proposed name
• change that of Glendora Avenue, we did send letters to
each of the property owners along there.
Lela Preston: I think we sent them a copy of the notice, as I remember.
Mayor. Krieger: At that time my office was on Glendora Avenue and I
thought I got a letter.
Councilman Gillum: Did we come to the point of saying - West Covina Parkway?
Have we decided on that name?
- 24 -
REG, C.C. 3-25-68 Page Twenty-five
•
0
SERVICE AVENUE NAME CHANGE - Continued
Mayor Krieger: No, the Council consideration is if the street name
should be changed and if so from what to what, and
where to what? That was the Planning Commission's
recommendation that it be named West Covina Parkway.
Counci lman Gillum: I have no comment on it, but I believe we did discuss
previously the area we wanted to change the name on -
from the freeway through Glendora Avenue.
Mayor Krieger-, We discussed whether we should initiate the procedures
to have the matter considered before the Council and
the procedures initiated was to send to the Planning
Commission and they came in with the recommendation to the Council which defined a
name but restricted the scope and then we set it for a public hearing although we were
advis-ed by the City Attorney that we could do with or without a public hearing.
Mr. Menard, do you have any kind of a visual presentation or map -or something to show
the alignment of the entire projection?
(Mr. Menard displayed a map and pointed out the proposed alignment of the proposed
name changeAs discussed by the Planning Commission.)
Councilman. Gleckman: I would like to say for the record that I am a little bit
surprised with all these notices being sent out to all
these people that are going to be involved in this name
change that we didn't have correspondence from one of them or app earance here this
evening from anyone. . I just can't believe that the name change which appears on their
stationery, etc., that it will not have any effect on any of these businesses.. I am
surprised that no one is here, but I guess we have taken the proper procedure and.I would
like the record to show that we have taken the proper steps to notify them.
(Mr. Zimmerman also used the map and explained the areas that would be affected by the
name change as being discussed by the Council,.)
Councilman Gleckman: I have a further comment. In looking over this list that
we have I see that our notices state termination at
Sunset Avenue and did not extend to the area that was
just outlined by Mr. Zimmerman.
Mayor Krieger: Mrs. Preston, do you have any information as to
whether there is any businesses fronting on Walnut
Creek Parkway or Valinda that would call for notices to
be sent to them?
Lela Preston: I don't know if there is anything on the Valinda Avenue
extension. This is the list that was submitted....
Councilman Gleckman: May I see that copy? This is a list that I don't have -
the one on Walnut Creek Parkway. The list I have only
goes to Sunset Avenue.
Mayor Krieger: Is there further Council discussion on this ? I have
of course an immediate and direct interest in this matter
because I would be one of the individuals affected by
the name change. Notwithstanding this fact I am very much in favor of renaming Service
Avenue so we have a freeway identification to West Covina and into particularly the
area this major interchange will feed. We have a number of streets in West Covina that
call out the name of other cities and don't go to the other cities and we don't have a
- 25 -
REG. C.C. 3-25-68 Page Twenty-six
SERVICE AVENUE NAME CHANGE - Continued
street significant or insignificant that identifies the. City of West Covina. I believe
this street will become extremely important as years go along. And by considering the
name change at this time it will give the businesses sufficient time to prepare them-
selves for the eventual name change at the time the freeway interchange is put in and
• which is projected somewhere between 1971 and 1973. I can't believe that anyone
has ordered stationery in sufficient quantities to last from now until 1971 so that they
would be discomforted by this change. On the other hand the City would be benefited
by the name change in terms of identification as to where you are and where you are
going
Motion by Councilman Gleckman, seconded by Councilman. Gillum, that the Council
establish a name change extending from the Freeway to Glendora Avenue to encompass
the changing from Service Avenue to West Covina Parkway; from Walnut Creek Parkway
to West Covina Parkway; and Valinda to West Covina Parkway, to be effective February 1,
1970.
Mayor Krieger: What is your best projection - Mr. Zimmerman, as to that
interchange?
Mr. Zimmerman: Time -wise - - we understand it will start about the end
of 1970. I think the signing is not finalized until the
project is well along and they tell us it will be about a
two year project. So the actual signing will not be finalized until 1972.
Mayor Krieger: The only thought I had on your Motion Councilman
Gleckman was to extend it an additional year to bring
it closer to the time when the interchange and signage
come into existence.
Councilman Gleckman: I agree with that but my thought was that it is two years
away and we have some projected plans on that and it is
all very possible they may come to this Council at an
earlier time -and say we would `like to have the name change at an earlier time so they
could post it on the freeway. -I think we could always change the date, make it 6
months or a year later if necessary.
Motion carried on roll call vote as follows:
AYES: Councilmen Gillum,
NOES: None.
ABSENT. Councilmen. Nichols,
PLANNING COMMISSION
Gleckman, Mayor Krieger
Snyder
REVIEW PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION OF MARCH 20 1968
VARIANCE 619 - Wallichs Music City Inc., and Zone Change
• No.. 387 City initiated set for hearing on April 8, 1968 - Informational only.
CITY PUBLIC RELATIONS PROGRAM - Commission letter (Item b)
Motion by Councilman Gleckman, seconded by Councilman Gillum, and carried, that
Item 10 (b) be held over until the first meeting in May for discussion by the new
council.
- 26 -
r
REG, C. C 3-25-68 Page Twenty-seven
PERSONNEL BOARD
Report from Personnel Department
Mr.. Aiassao There are two items being recommended to the City
Council by the Personnel Board and both of these
• items - Fire Department Work Week and Vacation Plan -
actually are established funds. If this Council took action on this it would make it
a matter of funding for the 1968-69 budget. There is a feeling that since these are
budget items for 1968-69 which will actually be determined by the new council that it
might be well to hold this to a later date.
Mayor. Krieger: Even so that would not stop the report from coming
in. We don't have the staff report on this from the
Personnel Board.
Mr.. Aiassa: We have a report and can present it to Council.
Motion by Councilman. Gleckman, seconded by Councilman Gillum, and carried, that
this matter be held over until report on the Fire Department Work Week and the Vacation
Plan is received at the first regular meeting in.April.
GENERAL MATTERS _ ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
Willliam G. Beem Part of this may turn out to be a slight bit of discussion
549 N. Foxdal.e for orientation only with the Planning Director to clarify
• West.Covina a few problems we think we have with the Sign Ordinance.
Basically we are here representing the West Covina
Center. These are a few items that concern us in regard
to the new Sign Ordinance. We all received notice with your signature Mr. Mayor, on a
letter, and a breakdown of a section of the sign ordinance and I am not sure that it is
really complete.
In reviewing this, most of us have been quite concerned
with two or three major issues, one is the ID signs, section 1005 #6 in the Municipal
Code concerning C-3 zoning of which we are the only C-3 zoning in West Covina.
(Read section from the code.) This is a limitation in our ID signs which is established
as a painted sign on the window at the present time. In this we feel that it is not
justified in cutting the size of our ID signs to 2 sq. feet area adjacent to the entrance.
For example, I have a 20'sq. ft-., ., I discounted the -door, and I have a 100 sq. ft. of window
spaceand of that I have 6 'sq. ft. for identification sign. So by letters and length the
height and length gives me a total of 6% that I can qualify for but when we condense this
into a 2 sq, ft. area then it is cutting my ID down so much that it will not be legible from
the street by cars passing by and almost unlegible by people passing by. I have had
discussion with the city staff and Mr. Menard and we have gone into depth on this, which
I don't believe I will have to bring up to you tonight but there are things such as this
that we are in -question of and want to know if it is possible to have a study of this by
you gentlemen and the staff so that we can come up, with something that would benefit
us and our idenfication, because we feel we are losing this. . Also the painted signs
on the exterior of the buildings. This is to be done away with completely under the new
ordinance.
I believe most of us agree a good portion of these signs
should be done away with but on the other hand as the Ordinance states someplace in here
it seems we are allowed to put a sign of size comparable to the painted sign on the
outside of the building in paper, wood or frame.. A good example is the Center. Market
which will incorporate a paper sign ,.on a frame tlhatt has to be changed every 30 days.
But if we were to put up a permanent sign on the outside of. the stores in place of the
painted sign I think it would look worse, it would be torn by the wind, rain and weather
- 27 -
JI
REG, C.C. 3-25-68 Page Twenty-eight
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - SIGN ORDINANCE - Continued
and come out looking much worse than a painted sign. I agree there should be a
happy medium and a stipulation in painted signs because they do deteriorate but of
all the areas in West Covina we do feel that the C-3 zoning if at all possible
should be the exception in a painted sign on the exterior of the store. ;There is
another point while on the subject, we ourselves are not familiar enough with the 1965
sign ordinance to know if we are in violation or not. According to the city staff if
we are not in violation of the 1965 ordinance we have until September 1970 to discard
the sign that would be in violation but if we were in violation of the 1965 ordinance
and have not been cited or served a paper then we are to discard all of the signage
by March 28, which is this week. This literature did come to us just a few days ago
and it is possible that we should have been aware of it on our own and come to the
City to find out something from time to time whether we comply or don't, however
I do: think the merchants themselves feel as I do that something should or could be done
to notify .the.merchants regarding the sign ordinance or a portion that would concern
them, much sooner than we are getting now with the stipulation that it has to be done
by March 28.
There is one other part of the recommendation that
we would like to give to the Council to study and this pertains to our idenfifica-tion
sign. . As I stated the size of mine is 6% but this does not incorporate anything in
literature to identify the sign as my particular sign. Of course I am fortunate that in
my particular store I am not competitive and I am fortunate that I am in that position.
In other shops that are more competitive they should have identification other than their
name attached to the sign. On my shop again with my "One Stop Party Shop" listed on
• my two large windows and underneath one I have "Wedding Supplies" and the other
corner "Party Supplies" and another place "Greeting Cards. " This identifies me to what
I am selling more than just the generality of the shop and I think this would pertain to
the majority of the shops in West Covina. Therefore we all do feel that we should have
a larger percentage than just the 6% and our recommendation is 12% of the window for
the identification signs and not 2 sq. ft. Because that is really drawing the line too
thin. I have discussed this with the staff also and I would like for you gentlemen to
understand in our particular instance on Glendora Avenue as you are driving along in a
car the driver in looking f or a particular store will naturally look up on the parapet
or the canopy for identification of the shop and they will see my sign from driving by
but if they are driving closer to the store along the service section of the road they
cannot see up above the canopy, therefore they looking closer to what I consider a
high level sign which would be on the window and an identification sign as you are
driving by has to be larger than a 2 sq. ft. sign adjacent to the street.
We have another point which was brought up by one of
the staff the other day - that we do have a 1 x 5' sign that is called a canopy sign
and it is stated so in the ordinance that it is eligible to hang underneath the canopy
of our store for identification but truthfully we feel we would like to discard this and
be able to incorporate more on our window because this sign to us is nil. It doesn't
do us the good we really need. If we have to give up something to incorporate something
else we would like to give up that particular sign. There is a discrepancy that we are
not really clean on - this I believe is more or less an experiment - the advertising sign
and identifying sign. The advertising sign in the ordinance refers to #10 which gives us
a 20% of the total square footage of that window for a sign that has to be taken down and
put up every 30 days. I don't think any of us object to that. This definitely is an ad
sign and we are not in bust ness in this City to degrade the City, we are actually trying
to upgrade it and as merchants I think we are all interested in more business and the way
we can obtain more business for ourselves and for revenue to the City, is to help us to get
the traffic there and when they get there is to give us the benefit of the advertising
so they will be able to find our shop. So the 20% in advertising is fine and I believe it
is allowed in signs painted or attached to the window - that is fine. There is no
objection to that, but we don't want that to be an ID sign, so therefore the difference
I 'REG. C.C. 3-25-68 Page Twenty-nine
•
•
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS SIGN ORDINANCE - Continued
between the two would be (read advertising sign from the ordinance, and the identifying
sign) and this is our confusion. Is this supposed to be our ,2 sq. ft. sign adjacent to the
window. This may be confusing to us and not to the staff but in talking with the staff we
still, cannot come up with the definite conclusion that we have more than 2 sq. ft. to work
with for an ID sign, and this is what we are after. We do need that much at least.
Also neon signs we are not clear on either. Whether they are illegal or they are not under
this new ordinance. We are not clear on this either. My understanding is that the only
signs that would be legal now are the ones that are lighted from the back encased in
glass or plexi-glass and if this is true we have thousands of dollars in signs that will
have to come down and whether it is this month or 1970 the fact remains they still have
tocome down. I think there is a good deal of clarification needed for the merchants
on this sign ordinance and we feel the best way is for the city council to review these
areas with the staff so we know legally in what status we are standing Are we legal
or aren't. we? Thank you, gentlemen.
Mayor Krieger: Anyone else desire to speak to the Council under oral
communications?
Bill Schmidt I don't know if I am out of order right now but I would
Building Industry Asso. like to talk about Item 11 - the contractor's fee.
1571 Beverly Blvd.
Los. Angeles
Mayor Krieger: That is not a public hearing item so you are not out of
order if you wish to talk about it under oral communica-
tions.
Bill Schmidt: Thank you. The amendment that was written by
Harry Peacock which we think is rather good except for
a couple of items here. . In clarification of the amendment,
Item 2, he says the $25. will be deducted from the job fee, yet the amendment doesn't
quite state that and we would like a clarification on that. Item 4 we don't feel is quite
equitable. We feel this is penalizing the general contractor because the way we
interpret Item 4 the owner -builder can build any building in the City without taking out
a business license, yet a general contractor would have to take out that same business
license„
Mayor Krieger: Excuse me Mr,. Schmidt - were you made acquainted with
a memorandum dated March 25th circulated on this matter
from Mr.. Peacock?
Mr. Schmidt:
No, I don't believe so.
Mayor Krieger: Both of the items you mentioned here were touched in a
report received from Mr,. Peacock today. I would
suggest that perhaps the staff let you take a look at
that communication and then if there is something that isn't covered in it, we will be
glad to receive it. In the meantime we will go on and if necessary you may again
be heard.
Mr.. Schmidt:
Thank you.
Mayor Krieger: Is there anyone else desiring to address the Council under
oral communications? There apparently is not. This will
conclude oral communications with the exception of
Mr. Schmidt, he may pursue this matter further after reading the memorandum.
,-29-
r
REG. C.C. 3-25-68 Page Thirty
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - Continued
Councilman Gillum-. Mr. Mayor - I went down to the area they are speaking
about on South Glendora and I talked with the different
merchants and I believe there are some areas that I am
• not clear on after getting into the area and looking at some of the signs. As I stated to
them when you write an ordinance you try to do a good job in general but we cannot
write it: for every individual area. There are areas that pertain to them that may not in
other parts of the City. . In other. words - say the 2 sq. ft. - if this is enforced it will
be an expensive thing to remove the gold letters from the windows and things of this
type. , I would like to suggest to the Council that these areas they have inquired into
whether they are legal or not, that we refer to staff. Apparently Mr, Menard and
Mr.. Beem have been meeting and discussing these areas and have the staff come back
to us with some recommendations. I want to make it clear that I don't want to get into
an area of everytime we discuss something we are going to rewrite the sign ordinance
but I, do believe there is enough in this area of misunderstanding that I would like to
see the staff and someone from this area sit down and help clarify the areas they feel
are or are not acceptable.
Mayor Krieger: The only comment I would like to make is that it seems
to me any sign ordinance by the definition of sign
ordinance creates a hardship on someone. The moment
you tell someone they cannot do something that they want to do or that they would do
if you did not tell them they could not do it, you are limiting their rights and therefore
creating a hardship. I have sat on the Council four years and I don't know of any
other subject matter that has been so continually before the Council as the sign
• ordinance. And I can't think of any time that there has been such an exhaustive
research of the entire subject matter, as the last time we went through this sign
ordinance. I am distressed that there are businessmen in the community that find that
this information that was circulated this month was a disclosure,. but other than calling
on each businessman in this Citywith the proposals we had and revised and revised, I
don't know how a better job could have been accomplished by this City.in getting out the
information that we were totally looking at the sign ordinance from the top to the bottom.
Maybe you men kept track but I can't even conceive of the number of hours we have sat
in these chairs and this Chamber with people from the Chamber of Commerce,
individual property owners, Mr. Sullivan - and Mr. Sullivan standing up there night
after night on the Center Market talking about his problems and other gentlemen talking
about their problems and we went through it step by step, sent it back to the staff,
sent it back to the Planning Commission, back to the Chamber, back to the Council
and through it all time and time again. One thing this Council did do prior to this
letter, , we said there is going to be no more moratoriums on the Sign Ordira nce, and this
Ordinance is going to start from that date on -and signs must be brought into conformity,
whether it happens at the end of March or sometime in the future it is going to be a
traumatic experience for this community and the businessmen of this community and
everyone who relies on signage to any extent at all. I don't know of any foolproof
way that we can get the word out that we are studying the Sign Ordinance. I know the
newspapers ran article after article on the subject of signs - that we were going
through a revision in the Sign Ordinance, And if these labors are worthwhile at all
then they are only going to be worthwhile if we develop something and implement it.
• I am distressed to have the people appear before us and
say that the situation is not clear to them - - nor to the staff - after the number of
sessions we went through. Mr. Beem brought up the difference in definitions - - how
many times did we go through the definitions of Advertising and Identifying signs Time
after time as to what distinguishes it. If the staff isn't equal to administer this
ordinance then something is wrong with the staff and I will say that right now because
we went through this so many times that there should not be any definition there that is
open to conjecture by staff.. If there was they had the responsibility at these meetings
to say this isn't clear, how do we administer? The whole purpose of this sequence of
events and literally I don't know of any other matter that has taken as much of the
- 30 -
REG. C.C. 3-25-68 Page Thirty-one
0
•
•
SIGN ORDINANCE - Continued
Council's energy and time as -the Sign Ordinance for years, and hopefully we had
reached the point where we had a firm and a fixed and a, understandable program that
could be administered.. Sure there was a cut off date, because past Councils passed
the buck to us, so finally we took it and said there has to be an end to this somewhere
along the line. I hope there is an end to it and I hope this is the end to it.. If what
you are suggesting is a moratorium on C-3 zoning or anything that suggests that we
reopen the extensions on this thing then all I can say is that you are going to be
sitting here for the next two years, I am not, but you are going to be inheriting
something that I did four years ago and I don't want to pass it on to another Council.
I would rather accept the responsibility now.
Councilman Gillum: I said to these gentelemen as far as I am concerned
the Sign Ordinance is going to be enforced but what I
am trying to say to you is that it is very difficult for
any five men to sit up here and make a perfect Ordinance and I am saying to you that I
in myju.dgment have seen areas where possibly we can be wrong in trying to enforce it
complet-ely. I am not asking this Council to go past March 28th, but there are certain
areas thatI don't think we could have taken into consideration at the time but that I
think -the staff and these people should look into and discuss, so they can be given a
definite -answer.. In my opinion there are some areas that no matter how long we looked
into it and discussed it, there are still areas that I don't think we really considered.
I believe it is not in the sign ordinance but in the bus ness ordinance and all I am
asking is that we return it to the staff with some of these recommendations and questions
these people have. I am not asking to go beyond March 28. This was told to me today,
that everyone knows the Sign Ordinance was put in effect in 1965 and everybody knows
it wasn't enforced - I made it very clear to everyone I talked to that this is the Sign
Ordinance and it.will be enforced. But I think we should give them the courtesy and
time to look into what they have stated.
Mayor Krieger: Perhaps I misunderstood you. What does the staff do
past March 28th regarding these matters that are going
to be discussed with the staff? How do they handle it?
They have a directive on March 28th to enforce the Sign Ordinance - what happens
beyond that date, if you say review these individual situations?
Councilman Gillum: I am not asking that. I am just saying if in their
opinion there are areas that should be reconsidered
they should be brought back to the Council.
Mayor Krieger: They can always do that. .As far as future councils
passing on items of the Sign Q dirwy►M�or any other
Ordinance.
Councilman. Gillum: There are certain signs that I feel in my judgment are
possibly wrong that what we are trying to do is possibly
wrong. But if the Sign Ordinance is enforced on March 28
and there are mistakes that we possibly made in these areas, we are going to (cause
great deal of expense to certain of these people. I just want to make absolutely sure
we are right in these areas as far as interpretation.
Mayor Krieger: Mr. Wakefield, as I understand it, one of two things has
to be changed either the Sign _ has to be
changed, or the law has to be changed as of March 28th?
Mr. Wakefield: That is correct, Mr. Mayor.
Mayor Krieger: So if the law isn't changed by March 28th it would seem
to me the sign has to be changed and if you have some
31 -
REG. C.C. 3-25-68 Page Thirty-two
SIGN ORDINANCE - Continued
other approach other than the granting of another moratorium on the sign ordinance?
Councilman Gillum-. I can't actually say I want a moratorium on the signs,
• but I do believe, because as I said I went down through
the area and I believe there are places we made a
possible error in our thinking on certain of these signs.
Councilman Gleckman: Mr. Mayor - I think that nothing is cut and dried. If
you are going to take anything that we do here as an
elected body as the final word on the Ordinance being
the final word and there is no deviation then there is no use for a City Council either
because you can just write your laws and everybody either does it or they are guilty.
I am not saying that you have implied this, but sometimes we get that impressionAhat
this is the only way to go and I think it behooves a body of our type as an elected body,
to consider anything that is done and not from the basis whether it is 100% right or
100% wrong-, but as to the basis of can we live with it? And what type of community do
we feel is best for all of us? It is difficult to write ordinances but it is easier to do than
enforce ordinances if that is all we are going to do once we have the ordinance, but I
think think theory is one thing and practice is another.. I think that is the reason for
us having legislative bodies because there are certain things brought into being such as
this Sign Ordinance that looks good on paper, that looks good in review, that is
something that may be most desirous and then when it is tried on it just didn't work
the way we thought it would work, or look the way we thought it would, or be
applicable in the manner in which we thought it would be applicable.
First of all, I am surprised that the "One- Stop Party
Shop" was the only commercial we had tonight, but I feel that they do have a problem
and, this is the proper place for them to take their problem and instead of this Council
standing steadfast on what we did in the past, consider the problem and then if we
still feel they don't have a logical reason for being concerned as to requesting some
type of change or moratorium, then we go ahead and enforce the Ordinance as it was
written and adopted. I have been in business in this community and I know the value
of a sign. I also know there are different businesses within the same zone that rely
on different things to bring business into that particular area. What is good for
one business next door to another is not good for that business and when we talk
about identification - this is the number one thing that all businesses need. Now
what is proper? We have written a blanket ordinance that I felt and still feel is
generally good for all concerned but fheie_.are_ee'rtain particular areasfh the -manner in
which this City grew up and in which it is presently built and if we had our way we
would change a lot of it, but we have to live with what we have and then eventually
make the change. I think since this Ordinance was written, and since these notices
were sent out, and I am not speaking of the majority of the signs but the identification
signs on windows - I can see where we could have overlooked a 6% to 12% regarding
window space, this is possible, . The Ordiance we wrote isn't perfect and I think if
the only way we can get reaction is to enforce our Ordinances where it affects the
people and have those people affected then come to us, if this is the only way we
can get our business people interested in community development then this is the
• man.ner in which we have to proceed. We have an Ordinance, it is established, we
have a deadline of March 28th, some business people have come to us and pointed
out in their opinion the Ordinance could stand another look. -in a particular area, and
I don't object to this. I would say that between now and the time the Ordinance is
enforced in full. we will probably have other businessmen, come to us. I don't think
this necessarily means we should c-harige..i:t., bu't I:th-ink'thi-s:.-n-ecessarily means -we should
take another"Took in the areas in which they are having a problem. How do we propose
to do this? Many times in the past we have had similar situations regarding other
Ordinances and there is no way humanly possible that this staff of ours could possibly
go out and within a weeks time, two weeks or even 6 months time, properly enforce the
- 32 -
REG. C.C. 3-25-68 Page Thirty-three
SIGN ORDINANCE - Continued
Ordinance with a deadline as of March 28th. There is no doubt in my mind that there
will be many people who have violated our Sign Ordinance as of March 29th, as of
April 20th, or May 1 and maybe even further. We can only enforce it to a certain
extent day by day, we don't have the manpower to possibly go out and do it that we
have to get so excited that unless this is all done by March 29th everybody is in
violation and we either cite everybody and them before the District Attorney - - as far
as I am concerned the letter that was sent out signed by the Mayor was in fact
authorized by this City Council as proper action and I stand behind that action, but I
still feel. there are ways in which the staff could administer the enforcement of this
Ordinance in the particular areas where we do not have the business people coming
before us explaining their hardship and in the area where they do have a hardship
have the staff and City Council take another look at that area and if we feel they are
justified in their complaint and there is some type of action we can then take to amend
the Ordinance we should do so. I agree with the Mayor that in fact as of March 29th
they are in violation but that doesn't mean we are going to cite them all, but that in no
way excuses the violation. It is unfortunate that the Mayor's letter couldn't have gone
out 6 months prior to this but this Council at that particular time didn't see fit to do so.
I.agree Mr.. Mayor there should be an end to this, that this is something this Council
inherited, but at the same time the businessmen are not concerned that they have had
2 years, •6 months, or 8 years, in order to comply, their concern is that they have to
comply with it now and now is when it bothers them. Not any different than any
zoning case, or any other thing that the Council does, that the citizenry that elects
us do not take an interest in until it affects them in their own backyard. So I agree
with you, but this problem has now come to our attention and I would say we should
administratively handle it to the best of our ability.
Mayor. Krieger: So far I haven't heard a difference of opinion really
between the three councilmen. We have only said it
differently. We have said this is the law of this City
but until it is changed it remains the law of this City and if people affected by the
law of this City are upset by its application then their procedural step." is to bring it
to the City Council which is their legal right, either in writing or under oral communi-
cations, which they have done and we welcome this. Procedurally speaking .until the
law is changed it remains the law and the time schedule remains and the procedure,
as I understand it, that would be in front of this Council at this time would be to
direct the staff to meet with these people and review the basis of their complaints
and if the staff has any suggestions administratively to make to the Council, to do so.
If the people who are aggrieved wish to file or apply for a variance then the Council
will have to pass upon the merits of their individual case by procedure. The only
thing I would not encourage and I haven't heard anything to suggest this, I don't
think overtly or covertly the staff ought to be told to hold back, don't do something,
don't administer the Ordinance or don't do your job. Because if we ever get into that
field of selective law enforcement we are in trouble, because then we are strictly
objective as to who we are going to apply an ordinance too and how we are going to
apply. These people don't want that type of law enforcement and we don't want that
type of law.
Councilman Gillum: I would like to make a motionto direct the staff to
0 meet with Mr. Beem or anyone or more of the people
in that area to discuss the problem areas they feel
will greatly affect them and return to the Council a report on the subject of the signs.
Councilman Gleckman: Seconded.
Motion carried on roll call as follows:
AYES: Councilmen, Gillum,. Gleckman, Mayor Krieger
NOES: None
ABSENT. Councilmen Nichols, Snyder
- 33 -
REG. C.C. 3-25-68 Page Thirty-four
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS
DEDICATION OF OROVILLE DAM
Motion by Councilman Gillum,. seconded by Councilman Gleckman, and carried, that
• Council receive and file.
NOTIFICATION OF ADOPTION OF RESOLUTIONS BY
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS PROVIDING COUNTY AID FOR IMPROVEMENTS:
a( Badillo Street
b( Cameron Avenue
c ( Glendora Avenue
Mayor Krieger: These items are all informational. I think Item C -
is a great job by Mr. Aiassa and his staff. To get
this type of commitment out of th@ County- $97, 000
for Glendora. Avenue.
Motion by Councilman Gillum, seconded by Councilman Gleckman, and carried, that
Council receive and file.
Mayor Krieger: I have a letter from Mandy Williams Olds. Mr. Aiassa
do you have any comments?
Mr. Aiassa: I would like to have it referred to the Staff, that is
have Mr. Eliot and myself review it and bring back to
• the Council on April 8th.
So moved by Councilman Gleckman, seconded by
Councilman Gillum, and carried.
Councilman Gillum:
Mr. Aiassa:
Councilman Gillum:
Mr. Aiassa:
Mayor Krieger:
Bill Schmidt
Building Industry Asso.
•1571 Beverly Blvd.
Los Angeles
CITY ATTORNEY
Mr.. Aiassa, is there some question whether we owe
this or not?
Well it isn't a question, it is a factor of dollars and
cents and whether we morally owe it.
We did go beyond the designated lease date due to
the other cars not being ready?
Well yes because of delivery and other things. We
will have a full report for you.
Mr.. Schmidt since you have returned - is there anything
that was not covered in the staff report?
No, it covers it very well. Thank you.
ORDINANCE INTRODUCTION - BUSINESS LICENSES RE.
CONTRACTORS' FEES
Mayor Krieger: We have requested of the staff additional information
as to the implementation of this Ordinance. We also
- 34 -
REG. C.C. 3-25-68
Page Thirty-five
CITY ATTORNEY- ORDINANCE INTRODUCTION - BUSINESS LICENSE - Continued
received a staff report today regarding these items that Mr. Schmidt briefly alluded
too having to do with credits and owner/builder. Council discussion on this matter?
Councilman Gleckman: I like the Ordinance as written and I think one of the
things that either was or wasn't pointed out, I am not
sure, was that the job fee we are talking about and the
examples put before us wasn't the example prior put before us as to one house being
built. In other words had there been 4 houses there would have been four times as
much.
Harry Peacock,
Administrative Analyst (Requested to step before the microphone for
City of West Covina questioning)
Councilman Gleckman: Speaking of the examples: you gave here, I think one of
the misleading facts that you didn't do or maybe that
you did do, is in pointing out that the job fee of the
$25. was with an example of a single transaction and not possibly of four transactions,
by the same party?
Harry Peacock: The $25. would be a flat minimum charge that every
contractor in the City ....
Councilman Gleckman: No, I was talking about your comparison figures, not
• about the Ordinance as it is written.
Harry Peacock: Right. The comparison would include the $25.
because the job fee is for a total business license
revenue.
Conncilman Gleckman: That is what I was interested in. Thank you.
Mayor Krieger: The thought I would like to make is I believe in the
philosphy of this type of Ordinance having to do with
business contractors. I like the idea of the credit back.
The incentive to the contractor to do work in the community and not as a form of they
are not doing work in the community but merely buying licenses. However, I think the
pendulum has swung back a little too far, by that I mean I would like to see this form
of Ordinance adopted but I would prefer to see and I would like to see the Council
think of this -• I would like to see that reduced from $100., for t1�e general and
$58 for the subs to $25 as proposed in the draft to reduce it instead from $I'00.'and $50 to a
flat $50. with this credit back relationship for jobs done in the community. The reason
I say that is this it seems to me to guarantee the position of the City a little more
equally than if we go to the. $25. on a flat fee basis. Because on a flat fee basis -
forget about the revenue permits entirely and look strictly at your revenue comparison
on your license income. . And under our Ordinance that existed prior to the one now in
existence, our revenues were $17, 790 and the system presently in existence it is
$28,325 and bear with me for a moment because this is what I was alluding to last
• week when I was trying to understand these figures - talking strictly about the
initial license fee, not that which comes in later through the processing of permits,
you are going to have $14, 025. I asked for a comparison from the staff if we adopted
the $50 across the board and it would still be a credit back but only against the
people who work in this City which is what the philosphy of the Ordinance is anyway.
What our income differential would be between the system we are now operating under
and the system we would be operating under as far as fixed revenues are concerned
I understand it is really a difference of around two hundred and some dollars
to the City by the $100 from generals and reducing it to $50 per year and taking $50
for all subs and keeping it at $50 a year..and on our r,prorat6rf's'9 the only ones we
_ 35,_
REG. C.C. 3-25-68 Page Thirty-six
ORDINANCE INTRODUCTION - Business License - Continued
would have for this year would be on our generals. Some of them would have paid
$109 -rather than the $50. There were some pick up items on subs that would be
coming in after the first of July, which would more than offset that item as far as
• revenue is concerned and then we know where we are as far as license fees are
concerned and we are not dependent upon our building cycle so much to insure this
revenue from permits as the projections are here. These may be good projections
and they may be bad. , They may be optimistic or pessimistic but I don't think the
City should get involved in that kind of game. I think it is perfectly well and good to
adopt the philosphy of the credit back to the builder and subs in terms of these items
that are covered under the principal contractor, the items covered as additional
fees as covered in the report of March 22, but I would rather work from a firm base
as to what our business license is and then let the economy take care of itself as
far as building permits are concerned because we are not going to have anything to say
about that.
Councilman Gleckman: Mr.. Mayor - you lost me someplace. The Ordinance I
have in front of me is the one we are presently talking
about introducing and adopting. In other words the
general contractors and all contractors $25. a year. as Item #l. As Item #2 in
addition every contractor shall pay, etc.
Mayor Krieger: Yes.
Councilman Gleckman: Your talking about a$100 fee and a. $50 fee?
• Mayor Krieger: That is our present Ordinance.
Councilman Gleckman: Yes but that is only applicable up until July 1, 1968.
Am I correct?
Mayor Krieger: Yes, but I am using the figures that if that Ordinance
was continued in effect and the income .....
Councilman Gleckman: I understand that, but my question to you is the
proposed Ordinance as submitted to us this evening,
what are you asking us to change if anything in that?
Mayor Krieger: Simply $25. to $50.
Councilman Gleckman: So if a contractor only did one job he would still pay
$50. instead of $25. ?
Mayor Krieger: Yes. I am talking about dollars and cents basically.
Councilman. Gleckman: Not being in the contracting business - Mr.. Peacock,
why did you come up with the $ 2 5. instead of $ 5 0.
and in your opinion, since you did the report, how
do you feel about the recommendation as discussed here this evening?
• Harr Peacock: I won't speak to the Mayor's suggestions,
Y y but I will
speak to the rest of it. Our assumption here is that
under our present permit fees for building, the amount
of work that would be covered under a $25 permit would be in the neighborhood of
$7 to $8, 000 to total valuation of building. If it came in on one job.. If it came in
on smaller jobs it would be between $5 and $6, 000. . It was my feeling that the $25.
represented in effect a minimum that you would normally expect a contractor to work
in the City. If he were working on a job that was less than $7, 000 there was no
reason to charge anything less and anything over would be covered by the job fee.
- 36 -
r REG. C.C. 3-25-68 Page Thirty-seven
•
•
BUSINESS LICENSE - Continued
Councilman Gleckman: Okay, you answered. Thank you.
Councilman Gillum: I was happy with the way it was written the first
time but I can see your point as far as this is con-
cerned.
Mayor Krieger: Would you comment on this statement in your report of
March 22 - "In reading over the second draft of the
Ordinance .......
Mr. Wakefield: I think I should probably comment on that.. It was my
understanding as a result of the Council action on
March llth that one of the objectives which you sought
to accomplish was to eliminate the bookkeeping that was necessarily involved in keeping
track of the permit fees as a credit, and so the Ordinance as I prepared it simply
provided for a basic license fee of $25. per year applicable to every contractor with a
provision for a refund of the additional amount which had been paid by general
contractors of $50. and a $25. refund for a subcontractor effective July 1, and that after
that every contractor would pay in addition to the basic $25.. the additional permit fees
required as a part of his license. Now if it is the desire of the Council to in effect
provide for refund of the $25. to the contractor based upon the amount of work he
does under the permit fee sections then we should put back into the Ordinance the
provision that provides for that kind of credit. There is no credit provision provided
for or necessity for keeping track of the permit fees except for the refund of the basic
license fee already paid by the contractors.. Beginning July 1, 1968 every contractor
would start out on a new basis paying the equivalent of the, $25. license plus the
additional fee permit for work done.
Councilman Gleckman: A good point Mr.. Mayor. Are we talking administratively
of what it would cost for us to go from the ',$25 to $50 - -
I have no objections to what you are suggesting
I am merely wondering, after Mr. Wakefield explained certain conditions, regardless
of the fee, whether it were from $25 to $50, would we still have the same amount of
bookkeeping, etc. ?
Mayor Krieger: We are assuming this Ordinance has a Section 5 in it
because all of the computations I went through was
predicated on the assumption that there was a credit
back for the license fee. That was for incentive. If you were to take the situation
that we presently have in terms of the Ordinance without a Section 5 then Mr.. Peacock's
figures in his report of March 22, 1968 - that $14,025
Mr. Peacock: That would become $21, 000 plus the $14, 025 which
would give us $35, 000.
Mayor Krieger: Yes but that really wasn't the philosphy that originally
set': this Council into motion having to do with this
Ordinance. So if we do that we really bring in another
cat to compare with this. It is confusing enough with what we have than to bring in
another comparison.
Councilman Gleckman: The only change you are .suggesting then is from a
$ 2 5. figure to a $ 5 0. figure ?
Mayor Krieger: I am suggesting that change and also that we go back
to the original philosphy of the Ordinance which included
Section 5 in the Ordinance. Mr. Wakefield, will you
please read Section 5 so there is no confusion to the Section that was left out?
- 37 -
i
REG. C.C. 3-25-68 Page Thirty-eight
BUSINESS LICENSE - Continued
(Mr. Wakefield read Section 5)
Mayor Krieger: Now this relates to what I was saying before. . Come
in and pay your license fee and then if you want a
credit you are doing it with your money and not our
money. If we cut it to $25. we are doing it with our money.
Councilman Gleckman: It is known as false economy. I have no objection.
Mr. Bill Schmidt:
Building Industry Asso. May I say something?
Mayor Krieger: If the Council has no objection? (No objections.)
Mr. Bill Schmidt: We are not changing the subcontractors basic fee any
by leaving it at $50. As I understand it if the general
contractor was $100 and the subcontractor was $50
by making them both $50.. If the subcontractor is the only contractor on the job he
still pays the $50 per year and then on top of that he pays a job fee.
Mayor Krieger: With a credit for the license fee.
Mr. Bill Schmidt: That is an awful lot of credit. It is a lot of work to
make up the $50. Well this is my only objection to
• it, I think the smaller contractor is being penalized,
like a remodeling contractor or someone like that.
Mr.... Wakefield: May I make one other inquiry? In the second para-
graph of the revised Ordinance, you state - "any
general contractor who paid a $100 license and a
special contractor paying $50 shall be entitled to a refund. " Is it the Council's
intention that the general contractor who paid $100 license fee will be entitled to a
$ 50. refund and the subcontractor will not be subject to a refund?
Mayor Krieger: My thought on this would be that the words. "any
special contractor who paid a $50 license fee" would
go out and then it would reconcile itself to the $50.
Mr. Wakefield:
Right.
ORDINANCE . INTRODUCTION
The. City Attorney presented:
"AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF WEST COVINA AMENDING
SECTION 6235.5 OF THE WEST COVINA
MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO BUSINESS
LICENSES FOR CONTRACTORS. "
• Motion by Councilman Gleckman, seconded by Councilman. Gillum, and carried, that
Council waive further reading of the body of said.Ordinance.
Motion by Councilman. Gleckman, seconded by Councilman. Gillum, and carried, that
Council introduce said Ordinance.
REG. C.C. 3• 25-68 Page Thirty-nine
CITY ATTORNEY - Continued
ORDINANCE NO. 1031 The City Attorney presented:
"AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
ADOPTED CITY OF WEST COVINA AMENDING THE WEST
COVINA MUNICIPAL CODE SO AS TO REZONE
CERTAIN PREMISES (Zone Change 389 - City
Initiated) "
Motion by Councilman Gleckman, seconded by Councilman Gillum, that Council
waive further reading of the body of said Ordinance.
Motion by Councilman Gleckman, seconded by Councilman Gillum, that the Council
adopt said Ordinance. Motion carried on roll call vote as follows:
AYES: Councilmen Gillum,Gleckman, Mayor Krieger
NOES: None
ABSENT: Councilmen Nichols, Snyder
ORDINANCE NO. 1032 The City Attorney presented:
"AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
ADOPTED CITY OF WEST COVINA AMENDING THE WEST
COVINA MUNICIPAL CODE BY REPEALING PART 10
OF CHAPTER 2' `OF' ARTICLE 1X1*THERYOF AND1
ADDING PART 10 TO CHAPTER 2 OF ARTICLE 1X
• THEREOF CREATING AND REGULATING THE USE
OF PROPERTY IN THE OFFICE PROFESSIONAL
ZONE (O-P ZONE) "
Motion by Councilman Gleckman, seconded by Councilman Gillum, and carried, that
Council waive further reading of the body of said Ordinance.
Motion by Councilman Gleckman, seconded by Councilman Gillum, that the City
Council adopt said Ordinance. Motion carried on roll call vote as follows:
AYES: Councilmen Gillum, Gleckman, Mayor Krieger
NOES: None
ABSENT: Councilmen Nichols, Snyder
-------------
RESOLUTION NO. 3766 The City.Clerk presented:
"A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
ADOPTED CITY OF WEST COVINA, CALIFORNIA, ORDERING
THE CANVASS OF THE GENERAL MUNICIPAL
ELECTION TO BE HELD ON THE 9TH DAY OF
APRIL, 1968 TO BE MADE BY THF, CITY CLERK
OF THE CITY OF WEST COVINA.
. Mayor Krieger: Hearing no objections, waive further reading of the body of said
Resolution.
Motion by Councilman Gleckman, seconded by Councilman Gillum, that the City Council
adopt said Resolution. Motion carri.ed on roll call vote as follows:
AYES: Councilmen Gillum,
NOES: None
ABSENT. Councilmen Nichols,
Gleckman, Mayor Krieger
Snyder
- 39 -
REG. C.C. 3-25-68 Page Forty
CITY ATTORNEY - Continued
RESOLUTION REGARDING PUBLIC NECESSITY AND CONVENIENCE FOR
ACQUISITION OF ADDITION TO CORTEZ PARK PARKING LOT
'Mr. "Wakefield: In order for this Resolution to be prima facie evidence it
. requires four votes of the Council, which will require
holding over of this item.
•
•
Mayor Krieger: A motion to hold over Item 15 of the. Agenda to the meeting
of April 8, 1968?
So moved by Councilman Gleckman, seconded by
Councilman Gillum and carried.
MINORS IN BILLIARD ROOMS
Mayor Krieger: I would make the same suggestion on Item 16. This report
was a request of a councilman that is not present tonight.
Motion by Councilman Gleckman, seconded by Councilman. Gillum, and carried, that
this report be held over for the meeting of April 8, 1968.
CITY MANAGER
CIVIC CENTER FURNISHINGS
PRESENTATION BY DESIGN CONSULTANT
Mr. Aiassa: Mr. Mayor, you have a written report. We also have
Mr. Frank Sata here. Two councilmen and two members of
city staff attended this review of the furnishings and
Mr. Sata is present to answer any questions, also he will present some visual
material pertaining to the furnishings.
Frank Sata, Architect I would like to briefly review what I have with me tonight
regarding the furnishings that were selected and reported
to you in written form. (Displayed visual pictures of the
proposed furnishings, color combinations, designs, etc.)
Councilman. Gillum: A question was asked of Councilman. Gleckman and myself,
pertaining to the Mayor's office. Should it or should it
not be furnished? This was left by Mr. Sata and Mr.. Aiassa
to the discretion of the Council. They had not decided on any furnishings or on what
type. We discussed it with them and gave them some idea of what we thought should
be in there.
Mayor Krieger:
What was the alternative? No furnishings at all?
Mr. Satan This has generally been at the discretion of the City
Council, and I felt you should have the desirability of
furnishing it.
Mayor Krieger: My own off-the-cuff opinion would be that the office should
be furnished in a style consistent with the rest of the
offices and the incumbent can personalize it by basic
furnishing items.
REG. C.C.- 3-25-68 Page Forty-one
CITY MANAGER - Civic Center Furnishings - Continued
Councilman Gleckman: That was our discussion also. We felt regarding the
City Manager's office the Council Chambers and the
Mayor's office, this was something not in existence
. primarily for those here now but those that would be here in the next 10 or 20 years
also.
Mayor Krieger: I think what you have presented is very impressive. . It
is simple in design.
Councilman Gleckman: Is this still based on the $78, 000 figure for furnishings?
Mr. Sata: Yes, but the Council should be aware that the way the
economy is jumping around that the furniture is subject to
an increase also. As of checking today, the $78, 000 is
sufficient but a few months from now would be hard to predict.
Mayor Krieger: Thank you Mr. Sata for making the presentation to the
Council.
Motion by Councilman Gleckman, seconded by Councilman Gillum, that the City
Council confirm the budgetary allocation for furnishings and draperies. Motion carried
on roll call vote as follows:
AYES: Councilmen Gillum,Gleckman, Mayor Krieger
• NOES: None
ABSENT: Councilmen. Nichols Snyder
Motion by Councilman Gillum, seconded by Councilman Gleckman, and carried, that
Council approve the interior design concept and general furnishing plans as presented
by the. City's interior design consultant - Mr. Frank Sata .
MUNICIPAL SWIMMING POOL
Mr.. Aiassa: We have with us tonight Mr. Davis, a representative from
the architectural firm and he is ready to present to you the
final plans and specs to go for bids. Item No. 1 is an
approved amendment to the Agreement, which. Mr. Wakefield has.
Mayor Krieger: Mr. Wakefield, is there anything you wish to add?
Mr. Wakefield: No, Mr. Mayor. The amended Agreement provides for a
contribution of 75% of the total construction cost
in excess of $135, 000 and not to exceed $40, 000 by the
Unified School District. It also provides that the payment
will be based upon total construction costs and will be due and payable at the
completion.of the project. The amendment to the Agreement has been approved as to
form by the School District.
Mayor Krieger: Mr., Aiassa it would be my impression that this matter is
on the School Board's agenda for adoption tomorrow night
without any anticipation of any problem at the school?
Mr. Aiassa: It has been cleared with the staff at the School District.
- 41 -
REG. C.C. 3-25-68 Page Forty-two
•
•
11
CITY MANAGER - Municipal Swimming Pool - Continued
Motion by Councilman. Gleckman, seconded by Councilman Gillum, that the City
Council approve the amendment between the West Covina Unified School District
and the City of West Covina and authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute the
same. . Motion carried on roll call vote as follows:
AYES: Councilmen. Gillum,
NOES: None
ABSENT: Councilmen Nichols,
William Davis, Architect
Kisner, Wright &
1125 6th St.
Los Angeles
Gleckman, Mayor Krieger
Snyder
(Presented a brief summary with visual aids
on the Municipal Pool.)
Mayor Krieger: Mr. Davis - this rendering that you have on the Board now -
is this a fair representation of what it will .look like from
Merced. Avenue ?
Mr. Davis: Yes sir.
Councilman Gillum: Is the electrical wiring overhead or underground?
Mr. Davis: Underground.
Councilman Gleckman: The only comment I would have would be that it be
named the West Covina Municipal Pool or plunge, rather
than the Edgewood. Municipal Pool as referred to by Mr. Davis.
Mayor Krieger: We will take that up under a separate item. It has not as yet
been named.
Mr. Aiassa: There was one thing we had a problem on and the architect
did a nice job of solving. This foreground area here.
(Mr. Davis explained that the crosswalk was a problem in design which was necessary
to overcome because it interferred with the athletic program at the high school.
Explained the problem and how it was solved.)
Mayor Krieger: Are there any further questions of Mr. Davis? As we
understand it if we were to approve the plans and specifica-
tions and call for bids the Sambra itself would be a
separate bid item.
Mr. Davis: If I may describe the bidding. procedure? (Mr. Davis
explained the entire procedure, advising that the entire
bidding period and .construction would be a period of
120 days .)
Mayor Krieger: If there are no further questions, this matter is ready for
Council action.
Motion by Councilman. Gleckman, seconded by Councilman Gillum, that the City
Council approve plans and specifications for the Swimming Pool facility and
authorize calling for the bids. Motion carried on roll call vote as follows:
AYES. Councilmen Gillum, Gleckman, Mayor Krieger
NOES: None
ABSENT: Councilmen Nichols, Snyder
- 42 -
REG. C.C. 3 25-68 Page Forty- three
CITY MANAGER Swimming Pool - Continued
'Mr. Aiassa: Mr. Mayor, there was one other item - the naming of the
pool. How would you like to go about it?
Mayor Krieger: I would think in deference to our colleagues we should
have this on an agenda item when all are present.
(Discussion followed. Mr. Gillum advised he would not be here for the meeting of
April 8th. Mr. Aiassa was requested to flag this item at the April 8th meeting so
Council could adjourn again to April 15th . )
1968 LEGISLATIVE. PROGRAM
Mr. Aiassa: I presented a digest to the Council on the bills that are
pending and coming up rapidly for review.. I would like to
have a work session with the Council so we can go into
more detail than what is summarized here and :when more than three Councilmen are
present.
Mayor Krieger: How about putting that on the 15th also. We will have
also Bid Awards, Name of the Pool, and Legislative Summary.
• UPDATING MUNICIPAL CODE INDEX
Mayor Krieger: We have a report from Mr. Wakefield - is this a
recommendation?
Mr. Aiassa: My recommendation to the Council is that we have not been
following through on this for several years and it is getting
more complicated every year.
Mayor Krieger: Yes, we have the report. Is it your recommendation that
the monies be expended for this service and what fund
would they come from?
Mr. Aiassa: Yes, and the funds would come from our unappropriated
reserve.
Motion by Councilman Gleckman, seconded by Councilman. Gillum, that the City
expend not to exceed $750.00 for the purpose of revising and up dating the index to the
West Covina Municipal Code and the money to be taken out of the unappropriated funds.
Motion carried on roll call as follows:
AYES: Councilmen. Gillum,
NOES: None
ABSENT: Councilmen Nichols,
Gleckman, Mayor Krieger
Snyder
WILLIAMS, COOK & MOCINE February 1968 Statement
Motion by Councilman Gleckman, seconded by Councilman Gillum, that Council approve
payment of the February, 1968 statement totalling $2,662 to Williams, Cook & Mocine.
Motion carried on roll call vote as follows:
AYES: Councilmen Gillum,.
NOES: None
ABSENT: Councilmen. Nichols
Gleckman, Mayor Krieger
Snyder - 43 -
REG. C.C. 3-25-68 Page Forty-four
CITY MANAGER CITATIONS FOR MECHANICAL DEFECTS - ACR 58
Motion by Councilman Gleckman, seconded by Councilman.Gillum, and carried, that
Council authorize a letter be prepared over. the Mayor's signature in support of bill
ACR-58.
• --------
YOUNG AMERICAN MEDAL AWARDS
REPORT FROM .POLICE CHIEF
Motion by Councilman Gleckman, seconded by Councilman Gillum, and carried, that
this item beheld over for the meeting of April 8, 1968.
REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF PROVISIONAL APPOINTMENT
TABER
Mayor Krieger, We have the recommendation, all the way down the line
from the Personnel Officer, City Manager and Bat. Chief
Hardin. Is there anything to add, Mr. Aiassa?
Mr. Aiassae Yes, Mr. Mayor. April 29th is the 'date for. the hearing
-on.-this case and I would like to ask that the provisional
appointment date be set to May 13.
.. So moved by Councilman Gleckman, seconded by
• Councilman Gillum, and carried.
•
CITY CLERK
ABC APPLICATIONS
Motion by Councilman Gleckman, seconded by Councilman. Gillum, and carried, that
there be No Protest on.ABC application for the Stop N' Go, 130 N. Hollenbeck,
re. transfer, of off -sale beer & wine application.
Motion by Councilman. Gillum, seconded by Councilman Gleckman, and carried, that
there be No Protest on ABC application for off -sale beer and wine for the 7/Eleven
Food Store, 1319 W . Merced.
Motion by Councilman. Gleckman, seconded by Councilman. Gillum, and carried, that
there be No Protest on ABC application for Charley Brown's restaurant, 3041 E. Garvey.
Motion by Councilman Gleckman, seconded by Councilman. Gillum, and carried, that
there be no protest on.ABC application for The Stage Coach, 642 Sunset Avenue.
Motion by Councilman Gleckman, seconded by Councilman Gillum, and carried, that
there be no protest on ABC application for Alta -Dena Dairy, 1643 San Bernardino Rd. ,
310-F Vincent Avenue.
CITY TREASURER
Motion by Councilman Gleckman, seconded by Councilman Gillum, and carried, that
City Council receive and file City Treasurer's report for Month of February, 1968.
REG. C.C. 3-25-68 Page Forty-five
MAYOR'S REPORTS
PROCLAMATIONS:
CANCER. CRUSADE WEEK - April 21 to 27, 1968
Mayor Krieger: Unless objection by Council, I will proclaim the week of
•
April 21 to 27,. 1968 as Cancer Crusade Week.
No objections. So proclaimed.
GOOD NUTRITION WEEK - April 8 to 12 1968
'Mayor Krieger: Mrs. Preston - did we have some cover correspondence on
this item?
Lela Preston: I don't know I don't have the communication with me.
(Discussion. Mayor Krieger asked that this item be held over until Council meeting
of April 8th and in the meantime attempt to secure some further information on this
organization.)
MARCH OF DIMES HEALTHY"BABY DAY May 2, 1968
Mayor Krieger: If there are no objections, May 2, 1968 will be proclaimed
as Healthy Baby Day.
No objections, so proclaimed.
D forDECENCY WEEK —April 22 to 28 1968
Mayor Krieger: Mrs Preston - where did this particular one come from?
I suggest we hold to April 8th and may we have some
further information at that time.
(BARBERSHOP HARMONY WEEK - this was proclaimed earlier in the evening.)
COUNCIL COMMITTEE REPORTS
Councilman. Gillum: In the past few months the Council has authorized new
Positions as you have requested Mr. Aiassa, and it appears
that we are having difficulty in filling some of these. I
would like to have a report returned to the Council within a short period of time,
advising what positions are open and what problems we are experiencing in trying to
fill these positions - such as License Inspector - some of these are very important.
(Mr. Aiassa offered to have a report back on.April 8th. Councilman. Gillum advised he
would be absent at that meeting and asked for a report on April 15th.)
----------
Councilman Gleckman: I received a memo from Mr.. Eliot, the controller and it has
to do with my suggestion about our appropriating some money
for the high schools band. going. to -Oregon, and I sure can't
make sense out of the memo. No. 3 says it would be necessary for the City Council to
make an appropriation if they wish to lend support for a new activity such as a band.
Mr. Aiassa: In previous years we had a fund for community activities,
this last year we specifically ear marked money for these
-45-
REG. C.C. 3-25-68
Page Forty-six
n
U
COUNCIL COMMITTEE REPORTS
various projects and if the Council wants to authorize this then we will have to
appropriate funds and if you tell us the amount we will then have a report for you.
Mr. Eliot was just advising that there was no funds for this item in the current
allocation.
Councilman Gleckman: I don't have the proper information that I was seeking
yet, When I do I will bring it up before the Council. I
don't think they are leaving until this summer.
Mr. Aiassa: This is one of the thoughts we had - if we had time it
could go in the 1968-69 budget.
Councilman Gillum: I think it is a good suggestion Mr. Gleckman, but I hope
we are not going to create a monster here that everytime
someone leaves the City, school band or something else,
that -we feel obligated to pay support on it. That is what concerns me about this item.
Mayor Krieger: One item - on this Los Angeles County Division on the
Transportation Evaluation Committee. The next meeting
of the County Division is on April 4th. I attended the
last meeting at .the Roger Young. Auditorium and this was battered from pillar to post
and I am not quite sure as to the necessity unless you have some further information
as to whether they will need an official position on the 4th or not. Do you?
Mr. Aiassa: I discussed with Mr.. Manning who is working with the
Transit group and they are trying to get a firmed up
decision from the League at the first meeting in April
and we will not have a meeting before the first.
±os �ry e (2y Gov,�tY
Mayor Krieger: I can report to the Council that the Division
was pretty badly split on this whole subject matter and
.I am seriously doubtful that they will get a concensus
out of the County Division on this question. There were a number that left that meeting
pretty irritated at the voice vote.. I think this is something that will be batted around
for a few meetings before it is resolved.
Mr. Aiassa - it seems with this agenda we have covered a
wide range of subject matters, is there anything that would cause this Council to
meet on April 1?
Mr. Aiassa: No, I have nothing specific.
DEMANDS
Motion by Councilman. Gleckman, seconded by Councilman Gillum, that the Council
'approve demands totalling $183, 488. 58, listed on demand sheets B373 through B376
and payroll reimbursement sheet. Motion carried on roll call vote as follows:
AYES: Councilmen. Gillum,
NOES: None
ABSENT: Councilmen Nichols,
Gleckman, Mayor Krieger
Snyder
REG. C.C. 3-�25-68
Page Forty-seven
Motion by Councilman Gillum, seconded by Councilman Gleckman, and carried, that
there being no further business Council adjourn at 12:10 :a.mo
•
ATTEST:
City Clerk
•
•
APPROVED: y
- 47 -
MAYOR