06-23-1969 - Regular Meeting - MinutesMINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL
CITY OF WEST COVINA, CALIFORNIA
JUNE 233 1969.
The regular meeting of the City Council was called to order at 7.34 p.m.,
by Mayor Leonard S. Gleckman in. the West Covina City Hall. The Pledge of
Allegiance was led by Councilman. Ken Chappell. The invocation was given
by Reverend Gerald Summers of the United Methodist Church of West Covina.
ROLL CALL
Present_° Mayor Gleckman; Councilmen. Gillum, Nichols,
Chappell., Lloyd.
Also Present< George Aiassa, City Manager
H. R. Fast, Public Services Director
Lela Preston, City Clerk
George Zimmerman, Ass't, City Engineer
Michel Bedaux, Asst. Planning Director
William Vanettes, Director of Communications
Ray Windsor, Administrative Assistant
Royal M. Sorensen) City Attorneys
Carl Newton
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
May-26, 1969
- Approved as corrected.
• Counci.lman Nichols; On Page 10, second paragraph, sixth line, a
semi -colon should be i-nserted after the words
"improvement project;" and on Page 27, third
paragraph, fourth line from the bottom of the paragraph, after the words
"news media, etc.," there should be a 1,eriod and the word "so" removed
and the word "it" the " i'Y should be capitalized. On Page 29, third
paragraph.from the -bottom of the page, the last five lines I would like
om tted 'from the minutes.
Motion by Councilman Nichols, seconded by Councilman Chappell, and
carried, that the minutes be approved as corrected.
AWARD OF BIDS
Legal Advertising for Fiscal Year 196 9-70
The City Clerk advised that two bids were received; a bid from the
West Covina Tribune Weekly Newspaper quoting $2.02 per inch first inser-
tion, $1.88 per inch second insertion.; and San Gabriel. Valley Tribune
$3a.68 per inch first insertion., $3.55 per inch second insertion. These
are the same quotations we received last year.
Councilman. Lloyd.- T honestly don't see what we are gaining.
The West Covina Tribune is a subsidiary,
wholly -owned and operated by the San Gabriel
Valley Tribune. The way this is presented it would appear that it is
competitive bidding,whereas they are 'both owned by the:same person.
Are we really accomplishing something, or am I missing the point?
Mayor Gleckman- Madam City Clerk, do we have any other news-
paper in. the City of West Covina?
City Clerk. Not printed or published in the City.
- 1 -
REG. C.C. 6-23-69 Page Two
AWARD OF BIDS - Legal Advertising - Continued
Mayor Gleckman: Does the Ordinance require this?
Mr. Sorensen., A statutory law requires it.
City Attorney
Mayor Gleckman: So even if we wanted to invite bids from
other people we couldn't do it?
Mr. Sorensen., This is true.
City Attorney
Councilman Lloyd: My point is that in reality they are one and
the same, and the point I make in submission
of this is we are making it seem like some big
decision between the two bids, but actually there is no decision. We
could just as well say the San Gabriel Valley Tribune and then pay the
weekly rate which is $2.02. That is the point I make. I feel there is
a tendency here to mislead the public that might read this portion of the
record. I am not questioning our use of the Tribune, but I think we
should say it is the San Gabriel Valley Tribune weekly newspaper
normally known as their throw -away paper.
Mr. Sorensen: I am not familiar with the corporate set up of
the two papers or the names underwhich they
have been. adjudicated, but if they have had
separate adjudication and separate corporate entities then it would be
proper although it may not mean anything, but the form followed would
be the proper manner to go and if you wish to make some comment for the
record and have it in the minutes there would be nothing wrong with that.
Motion by Councilman Lloyd that the weekly rate of $2.02 per column inch
be used as the legal advertising rate for the City of West Covina, and
that the bid be awarded to the West Covina Tribune. Seconded by
Councilman Chappell and carried.
PUBLIC WORKS ITEMS
Unclassified Use Permit No. 137 Location: Northeasterly corner of
Street Improvements Glendora and Merced Avenues.
Dade Heights Stores
Motion by Councilman Gillum, seconded -by Councilman Nichols, and carried,
accepting street improvements, sidewalk and driveways; and authorizing
the release of Pacific Indemnity Company Performance Bond No. 267332 in the
amount of $1,050.00.
Traffic Signal Maintenance Agreement Location: Various locati(ns
throughout City of West Covina.
Motion by Councilman Gillum, seconded 'by Councilman Chappell, and carried,
approving Traffic Signal Maintenance Agreement with Traffic Signal
Maintenance Company; and authorizing the Mayor and City Clerk to execute
said agreement.
Project No. SP-68007 Location: West side of
Street Improvements Glendora Avenue from Sertice
Glendora Ave. (1911 Act -Short Form) AvenieOto a point approxi-
mately 460 feet north.
Mr. Fast: Mr. Mayor, we have an oral communication from
Wittman & Robb, and we request that this be held
- 2 -
REG. C.C. 6-23-69
Page Three
PUBLIC WORKS ITEMS -
Project Sp-68007 - Continued
over to an..a.djourned
regular meeting of the City'Council, July=7th
Motion by Councilman
Nichols, as per more .recent staff recommendation
that.th1sc:1tem.be,he1d over to an adjourned regula,r.meet ing of
the Council on July 7, 1969. Seconded by Councilman Chappell, and
carried.
Councilman Gillum.
Mr. Aiassa, if we wait until the 7th of July
and,hopefully,we have word from Mr. Wittman
and Mr. Robb, where does that put us as far as
this project is concerned?
Mr. Aiassa.
We are going to give them some time extension
for the utility problems; we also passed the
90 day time that would probably have been the
greatest advantage to
us and we hope we can work it into the same con-
tract program®
Councilman Gillum.
If we don't hear by that time, then what is
our next move?
'Mr. Aiassa.
We lave it as it is with the redwood headers,
etc. In other words it would be the drawing
you have seen with the reverse design.
Councilman Gillum:
Have you had any communication?
Mr. Aiassa:
Yes, we have. Both the Mayor and I have talked
to,Mr. Wittman and he has given us the names
•
of people to -call in Detroit which we did,and
the call was returned
to the -Mayor. It appears he has an oral okay
from them but he wants
something in the form of a letter or telegram
to give him the right
to proceed on this, and according to,Mr. Wittman
the attorneys would have to approve th s and it will take two weeks to
get it ' out .
Mayor Gleckman. Mr. Hibbard, connected with General Motors,
called me from Detroit on Friday and said the
communique would be mailed to,Mr. Wittman
on Monday, and he recommended that the City go ahead - everything was
alright except he had to get it through his attorn e,a;it would be pre-
pared for him on Monday. And from what I understand Mr. Wittman has
decided not to go ahead on this until he receives this in writing.
General Motors assured me they were 100% in favor of this project and
we should go ahead, but again we need Mr. Wittman''s permission to do so.
Mr. Aiassa: I think the Council should realize that only
Mr. Wittman and Mr. Robb can sign the deed
of right-of-way to us.
Project SP-68007 Location. Glendora Avenue.
Time Extension
Rush Engineering Construction, Inc.
• Motion by Councilman Nichols, seconded by Councilman Gillum, granting a
time extension of thirteen (13) working days to Rush Engineering Con-
struction, Inc., for Glendora Avenue Project SP768007.
Mayor Gleckmane Mr. Aiassa, by extending this 13 working days
and taking it to completion on July 24, 1969,
is there anything else in the contract that
would allow them any additional extensions?
- 3 -
REG. C.C. 6-23-69 Page Four
PUBLIC WORKS ITEMS - Project Sp-68007 - Continued
Mr. Aiassa: Not that I know of.
Mayor Gleckman.: The last time this came up at Council level
we discussed this matter and we were assured
•it would 'be completed by July 1 and there
wouldn't.be an extension, and now we are asked to give an extension, so
I would like to know if there are any more "whereas's" or "wherefores":;
that we may -get caught with?
Mr. .Zimmerman: The original, time limit was July 1. However,the
contract has in it a condition of non -working
days are not counted, such as rainy days
automatically are not counted,and that accounts for the difference in
time. And it isn't likely that we will have any non -working days in
July so it is very doubtful that any other,date than July 24th will be
the final. working date.
Mayor Gleckman: That is the only provision for extension?
Mr. Zimmerman: That is correct.
Motion carried.
PLANNING COMMISSION
Review Action of June 18, 1969
(Council considered each item individually.)
Councilman Gillum: Item 3 - there are two strong schools of
thought on this street, and I am wondering if
there is anyway the city staff could work with
these people so we don't end up with half wanting a cul de sac and half
wanting to cut through. I have talked to people on this street and I
would hate.'them to choose sides.
Mayor Gleckman: The recommendation. was to hold over to six
months and then make a decision; I would hope
that in the six months period staff would be
able to come up with. a recommendation.
Motion by Councilman Gillum, seconded by Councilman Lloyd, and carried,
accepting and filing the action of the Planning Commission dated
June 18, 1969,,
(MAYOR GLECKMAN CALLED AN EXECUTIVE SESSION TO DISCUSS PERSONNEL MATTERS
AT 7:55 P.M. COUNCIL RECONVENED AT 8:05 P.M.)
HEARINGS -
Street Improvement District Location: Cameron Avenue from Lark
AD,1-68 Ellen to Azusa Avenue and west side of
• Cameron.Avenue - Protest Hearings Azusa Avenue from Cameron Avenue to
330 feet south of Cameron Avenue.
The City Clerk advised she had'the affidavit of publication. relative to
the hearing.
Motion by.Councilman Chappell, seconded by Councilman Lloyd, and carried,
to receive and file.
- 4 -
REG. C.C. 6-23-69 Page Five
HEARINGS - Protest re. District AD 1-68 - Continued
Mr. Zimmerman, Assistant City Engineer, verbally
stated the changes in the.Di.strict boundaries as set forth in Resolution
No. 3987, and that the change in the work to be done resulted from the
change in the assessment district boundaries.
• U `_CITY�;CLERK ADVISED SHE HAD RECEIVED NO WRITTEN PROTESTS OR OBJECTIONS.
ORAL PROTESTS
Mr. Asmus
1433 E. Cameron, Avenue
West Covina
Mayor Gleckman: Mr. Asmus, before you speak I would like to ask
the City Attorney, in these particular matters,
does a written protest have to be filed in order
for the oral protest to be made or may they make one without a written
protest?
Mr. Sorensen: They may make an oral protest without a written
City Attorney protest, however it is only a written protest
which has a legal effect upon the council's
ability to proceed.
Mayor Gleckman: Thank you - I wanted that for the record.
Mr. Asmus: I would like to mention that I don't know if it
is necessary to be notified in writing regarding
the changes in. boundaries, but I was not
• notified in any form of the changes to be made nor of what nature;
therefore,I had no opportunity to make a written protest.
Mayor Gleckman:
Mr. Sorensen:
Thank you. Mr. City Attorney, is it a require-,
ment in changir... the boundaries that we send out
a written notice to the people adjoining?
No, just published notices.
Mr. Asmus: I object to the boundaries on the ground that
the benefits to be derived by the precise
boundaries of the district are not reflected by
the people that are paying for the particular improvements involved. The
large majority of the *benefits will accrue to the School District but a
much larger share of the cost for the proposed improvements is to be borne
by the adjacent property owners. I feel as the improvements are most
beneficial to the School District they should pay for their fair share of
the improvements. Furthermore I feel the 1911 Act is misused in this
instance. The Act says that if a large percentage of the major share of
the improvements benefit parties other than the directly improved
involved property owners the District should be enlarged to such a degree
that the improvements are paid for by those who gain by the improvements
and I don't think the property owners are gaining anything to any degree.
I think the 'boundaries should be redrawn so the improvements will be paid
for by those gaining the benefits.
•Mot -ion by Councilman Chappell, seconded by Mayor Gleckman, and carried,
to close the hearing on protests.
Mayor Gleckman: Mr. Consulting Engineer,what percentage of the
owners of the property have protested the proposed
to be done? changes of the District boundaries and the work
Patrick Rossetti As of the last meeting we determined it was less
L. J. Thompson than 50% of the assessed property owners that
Assessment Engineers have protested the change in boundaries.
Manhattan Beach - 5 -
REG. C.C. 6-23-69 Page Six
HEARINGS - District AD 1-68 — Continued
Francis J. Garvey, Attorney (Representing Albert Handler, a
281 Workman Avenue protestor) Mr. Mayor - if the
Covina, California protest is with respect to the
change in boundaries - I did not
intend to foreclose the rights of my client a few minutes ago when you
• were talking about the change in boundaries, because our original protest
went to the boundaries as they.were then set up and the work to be done
both generally and specially. If the change of boundaries was satisfied
by your conclusion of the hearing then I was misled_ in saying we did not
have a protest in respect to them, and I would like to be heard on that
particular issue because we do object to�the inclusion within the
District of the School District property. That was part of the original
boundaries and all they really did was exclude part of my client e-,pprppgb:�Y.
0
Mayor Gleckman:.
Mr. Sorensen, we are now hearing the change of
boundaries ...
Mr. Sorensen: And the change in work as well.
Mayor G1e,ckman: My point is we are 'supposed to have a public
hearing regarding the 1911 Act Assessment
District as now proposed once this Resolution
is adopted?
'Mr. Sorensen: Once the changes are ordered, assuming they are,
then a further hearing will be first on the debt
limit report and if.you decide to adopt, then
there will be a third hearing on the work and the assessment district
boundaries as changed.
Mr. Garvey: So it would not foreclose me from presenting
my objections to the inclusion of the property
excluded?
Mr. Sorensen: No, it would not.
Mayor Gleckman: The Consulting Engineer has advised the Council
that less than 50% of.the assessed property
owners have filed a protest as to the proposed
change of boundaries; we have a Resolution for the change in boundaries
and the work to be done in Assessment District 1-68.
Councilman;Gillum: A question of Mr. Rossetti --Mr. Mayor? You
say less than 50% of the assessed property
owners protested, does this include the area
of the West Covina Unified School District? Are they considered some
one being assessed for that work?
Mr. Rossetti; The School withdrew its,protest -Mr. Zimmerman?
'Mr. Zimmerman:
Mr. Rossetti;
Mayor Gleckman:
Mr. Rossetti:
on Cameron Avenue.
That is correct.
Then you are over 50% by a majority.
The question was - is the School District
owners of property to be assessed in the change
of boundaries?
Yes, they are to be assessed. The School
District and all property owners in the
boundary district for work undertthe 1911 Act
6 -
0
0
REG. C.C. 6-23-69 Page Seven
HEARINGS - District AD 1-68 - Continued
RESOLUTION NO. 3995 The City Clerk Presented. -
ADOPTED "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF WEST COVINA,
ORDERING CHANGES IN THE BOUNDARIES
OF THE DISTRICT AND THE WORK TO BE DONE IN ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 168."
Mayor Gleckman,, Hearing no objections, waive further reading
of the body of said Resolution.
Motion by Councilman Chappell, seconded by Councilman Nichols, adopting
said Resolution. Motion carried on. roll call vote as follows-.
AYES, Councilmen Nichols, Chappell, Lloyd, Mayor Gl.eckman
NOES.- Councilman Gillum
ABSENT.- None
Councilman Gillum° Mr.' Mayor - I would like to clarify for the
record that I am 'not opposed to the improve-
ment on Cameron Avenue. I am opposed to. the
boundaries as states in this'Resolution., namely- the southerly direction
on Azusa Avenue and excluding the residents on the north side of
Cameron, which I feel will receive an. indirect benefit from the widening
of this street.
DEBT LIMIT REPORT
PROTEST HEARING
Set for hearing April 28, 1969 by
Resolution No. 3955 adopted March 10, 1969,
Held over from April 28, 1969 to.May 2.6, 1969,
and from May 26, 1.969 to this date.
Mr. Rossetti, Assessment Engineer, described the changes in the
boundary of the District and the work to be done, stating the Debt Limit
Report as set forth the first time is changed by the elimination of
Parcel 13, the lower half of the Handler property. The only changes
affected in this report is the deletion of the assessed valuation of the
land and improvements of the assessment that would have been placed
against that parcel. of land, mainly on. Azusa Avenue, and .reduced the
cost both in, the acquisition and the construction. It reduced the total,
cost of the project roughly from $104,000 to around $95,000. It also
reduced the cost,generally speakin.g,of some of the assessments in that
area. The School. assessment is affected and the Handler assessment;
The School from $4500 to $3500; Handler's assessment will be roughly
about $25,900 and the previous one was $35,445.25.
Mayor Gleckman-
Are there any questions of Mr. Rossetti?
Madam City Clerk,have you received any protests
which, were not read at the meeting of
April 28, 1969?
City Clerk.
No, I have not.
Mayor Gleckmano
Is there anyone filing a protest tonight?
(none). Are there any oral protests or
objections? (None).
Mr. Sorensen:
City Attorney
Those written protests filed on April 28th
which have not beenwithdrawn in writing still.
apply.
Mayor Gleckmano
Mr. Rossetti, will you please compute the total
of the protests that were filed?
Mr. Rossettiz
I would have to take a few minutes to compute,
but it is less than 50% by far.
Councilman Gillum-.
This protest - it is based on front footage?
�7-
REG., C.C. 6-23-.69
HEARINGS - Debt Limit Report - Continued
Page Eight
Mr. Rossetti: No, on. anarea basis based on total square
footage of the property as prescribed by law.
• Motion by Councilman Chappell, seconded by Councilman Lloyd, and
carried, that the hearing be closed.
RESOLUTION NO. 3996 The City Clerk presented.,
"A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
ADOPTED OF THE CITY' OF WEST COVINA9
MAKING FINDING OF FEASIBILITY OF
ACQUISITION OF NECESSARY RIGHTS OF WAY AND IMPROVEMENT OF CAMERON
AVENUE AND AZUSA AVENUES IN ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 1-68."
Mayor Gleckman.: Hearing no objections, waive further reading
of the body of said Resolution.
Motion 'by Councilman Nichols, seconded by Councilman Chappell, adopting
said Resolution. Motion carried on roll call vote as follows:
AYES: Councilmen Gillum, Nichols, Chappell., Lloyd, Mayor Gleckman
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
HEARING OF PROTESTS AND OBJECTIONS TO FORMING 1911 ACT
ASSESSMENT DISTRICT
Installation of street improvements in Cameron Avenue Improvement District
AD 1-68. Set .for hearing April 28, 1969, by Resolution of. Intention
No. 3956,,adopted by the City Coun.ci.l on March 10, 1969. Held over to
5/26/69 & to this date with hearing held open.
Mayor Gleckman.
received at -the April 28,
City Clerk:
ORAL,PROTEST.
Madam City Clerk,h.ave you received any written
protests or ubjections against the proposed
improvement in. addition to those which were
1969, meeting?
No, I :have not.
Francis J. Garvey, Attorney First, I either misunderstood the
281. Workman Avenue, Covina Assessment Engineer or else I need
something to overcome my shock. I
was led to believe by the City Engineer's office that we were talking
about an assessment On my client`s property in the nature of $5,000 to
$8,000. If he was talking about assessed ialuation, then I can recover
from my shock. But if he was talking .in dollar assessments, then both
my client and I have been grossly misinformed. I would like that
clarified.
Mr. Rossetti: I believe the figures I quoted were correct
forthe assessment.
Mr. Garvey: But you indicated the cost of the assessment
would be reduced f.rom.$35,000 to $25,900 - you
were talking in thousands of dollars?
Mr. Rossetti: That is right.
Mr. Garvey: We were given to understand if we went in on
a voluntary basis,t he total cost would be in the
area of $5500. The figures I was given by the
City Engineering Department indicated there was approximately $9500.
which would be reduced by this in terms of total cost.
REG. C.C., 6-23-69
Page Nine
HEARINGS - Forming of 191.1. Act - Continued
:Mayor Gleckman- Mr. Rossetti., are we talking about this
figure costing Mr. Handler's property
$34,000 to $25.,900 approximately, exclusive
. of what he would 'be paid for the dedicated property?
Mr. Rossetti- That is true,.
Mayor Gleckmano After we pay him for the dedicated property.
what would be the difference?
Mr. Rossetti° He would receive approximately $18,600 for the
property.
Mayor Gleckman: So we are talking about $7300. difference.
Mr. Garvey- Thank you. We wish to object to the overall
boundaries on the district. The proposal is
to include within the District major pieces of
property and 12 homeowners. One owner owns a lot that fronts on Lark
Ellen and backs on Cameron and it has been widened, paved, curbed and
guttered - no sidewalks, for about a distance of 130'. I believe there
is a. written. protest on that property for the balance of it. You had
originally Mr. Handler's 20 acres and in. changing the boundaries
you removed one 10 acre lot and determined not to put the improvements
included in the District along his southerly land frontage. You have
included, and logic fails me, the entire West Covina High School which
is approximately thirty to forty acres and runs back a great distance
further than Mr. Handler's two lots combined; which already has curbs,
• gutters and sidewalks, and you have included it in the assessment
district. At the same time, immediately adjacent to it, to the east,
you have what we refer to as Executive I, a subdivision formerly owned
by Mr. Handler and sold by him to developers wh.ich,has essentially the
same improvements as the High School "-as, yet you say all should be
included in the District and the individual. homes excluded.
I heard Councilman. Lloyd's views at the last Council meeting on this
subject, that the homeowner has already paid and will be reassessed, and
I think my client and I would agree that this is correct; and go further
to say that a homeowner has already paid for the improvements when. he
bought his home from the developer that had to put the improvements in.
But by no stretch of any system of logic which I know, can. anyone say
'that curb, gutters and sidewalks which are in. with respect to one
property are a 'benefit to it, but not a benefit to the other. This is
the situation between the development which the Carson Brothers call
Executive 2 - the homes on Cameron.Aven.ue, and run back towards Mobeck
Street. The .School District has sidewalks all the way around, so the
traffic of the school can 'be accommodated on that, so if the whole
purpose is to accommodate the School. District, then. I think logically
there is a misinterpretation. of who is benefited. Because it is not
the West Covina School District, a public body, but rather it is the
parents of the children who will attend that school, and if this is the
case then. the assessment district should 'be spread between the parents
of the children who will, benefit by the sidewalks for the children. to
use for going to school. The West Covina High School District starts
at Glendora Avenue and continues easterly to the easterly boundary
41 of the District east of Azusa Avenue and in any event there are a
great number of individual homeowners who will be benefited if the
only purpose of the sidewalk and widening of this particular area is
to provide access to the school. Because presently you do have
sidewalks on Azusa Avenue on the west side and you have from Glendora
Avenue all the way to Azusa Avenue sidewalks on the north side, and
on the southerly -side of Cameron you have sidewalks to about 100' more
or less just west of Gretta® So if the purpose of this improvement is
to provide sidewalks for the School. District then it should be spread
district wide and not merely on, the particular piece of property.owned
by the West Covina School District which happens to be occupied by a
.- 9 -
REG. C.C. 6-23-69 Page Ten.
HEARINGS - Forming of 1911 Act Assessment - Continued
high school or if by chance logic indicates a specific school should be
assessed then it should -be spread more evenly because we have gone to the
total debt of -the West Covina High School but failed to include those
portions of Cameron School because that elementary school district also
generates traffic past my clients lots and therefore it should be
included in -the District. But you can't include both School Districts
in it without defining -the indirect benefit derived by the property
owners who have already paid in one sense for the curbs and gutters. It
is very difficult in the matter of logic to find both black and white;
to find you need traffic partways for people to go somewhere and therefore
the School District is included for the full extent of its property in
this one area and excluded in another 'which will use at least a portion
of it to generate traffic to that school and exclude homes which are
also going to derive an indirect benefit 'by having less traffic,;passing
in front of their,homes by having the sidewalk on the other side. There
is something wrong with the logic and anyone looking at the District has
to use the word which I dislike definitely and positively, but what it
was called by Councilman Gillum at the last hearing, a gerrymander.
Because if this is for the improvement of the southerly side of
Cameron between Hollenbeck and Azusa then, the north side of Cameron has
no business being included. There can be only one reason for including
the School District and that is to generate a sufficient area of land
to exclude the voting power of my client, which voting power has been
diminished to some extent, although his dollar assessment has-n.ot been
sufficiently diminished by excluding one .lot.
On Azusa Avenue going north you have sidewalks,
on both sides of'the street.no.rth of Cameron Avenue because you have the
Methodist Church there and not;. -there for them on the easterly side. On
the west side of Azusa southerly of Cameron you have no sidewalks between
Pameron and Vine but at no time did this District propose to put
sidewalks in here at Vine Street and certainly they are included. At
the same time on the west side you have sidewalks extending
from Vine�;Street down. If you continue west you can go almost as far as
Hollenbeck and you will. find sidewalks on. the northerly side of the
Cameron and additional sidewalks were put in with the last development
in the process of construction now, but none on the northerly side. If
the School District is to be benefited it must be benefited totally by
allowing all of the residents the proper amount of sidewalks to come
to their district, if it is not going to be benefited totally then it is
only benefited in part, then what is the logic of taking the total of
thirty-five or forty -acres and including in this District because you
have now excluded my client's 10 acres. So with respect to the boundaries,
we say they are illogically designed in terms of spreading the special
assessment or establishing the District, because they lay the burden
directly on the people whose property is -included and they pay for the
major benefit of other persons throughout the City. In terms ff the
street widening I have been arguing for years with Council that Cameron
is your major artery across town and time after time by your votes you
have disagreed with me and now you are essentially agreeing with me
'by saying we must widen this last portion to permit a good deal of traffic
which is cauq fig impedence to the high school. The high school has
opposed improvement that we have wanted from time to time and you have
agreed in essence that it was not a major artery and did not require
40 the improvements that would have been put in voluntarily.
Now let's get to the law on the situation.
Streets and Highways Code Section 5222 says "that the majority of protests
made by owners of more than one-half of the area of the property to be
assessed for improvements...." The School District is not assessed. 'The
School District is.making a contribution which it is making under 5125.
For many years, going back to the Roman Act of 180,0 and which later became
the 1.911 Act- we were talking in terms of front footage and talking about
Ownpgship and the right of assessment and all of the cases on this deal with
cases prior to the recent amendment-,," when we were talking about front
f ootages.
10 -
REG. C.C. 6-23-69 Page Eleven
HEARINGS - Forming 1911. Assessment District _, Continued
Granted the Supreme Court has said from time to time that School
Districts and public Lands may be included, nevertheless,the last
legislation made a slight differentiation.. The first is that it used
to take the consent or lack of opposition of front footage owners, it
ft now refers to areas and not to front footages; secondly, it refers to
contribution by government agencies, which as far as I could ascertain,
did not formerly exist in the Act. Now an assessment and contribution
are two different things. The contribution section of the Act indicates
if a public body is benefited it may make a contribution if funds are
available.
In the first instance there was a proposed
request for a contribution. from the West Covina High School District
of around $4500. and there was one big vast protest by the Trustees of
that amount and there was a written protest formally before you at the
first hearing and the hearing was then continued. And thereafter, I
don't know if the Unified School District examined its budget or what,
but suddenly,the contribution came down to $3,000 or $3,500 and the
protest was withdrawn.. Gentlemen, if I negotiated a situation like that
for a private client, the newspapers would be screaming. Well,I do
represent a client and he says that his cost is not going down much
but a nonassessable agency, and there may be some legal debate whether
or not it is assessable or nonassessable, depending ultimately on how.
this Act is construed, but if the West Covina School District, which
logically has no reason to be included on the same basis as the homes
in Executive 1 Subdivision are excluded because neither derives more
or less benefit there from, it is only the people whose children attend
West Covina High School. who derive the benefit, not the government
corporation itself, then either the assessment boundary should include
Executive 1 and following the boundaries of the high, school district,
the apartments behind Executive 2 or else the.West Covina High School
District should be excluded, and if it is excluded then obviously my
client controls more than one half of the area.
Gentlemen, I know- as"�we x .a you do, the need
for the widening and improvement of that street,. -and I think it does
need improving and it does need widening, but I don't think it needs a
sidewalk along there. My client is already paying for capital
improvements for a lighting district where he has no lights. You are
holding his cash deposit and he is paying annual lighting maintenance
charges for energy not furnished to him, and now you propose to give him
a set of sidewalks - which along Cameron will bypass his lot but along
Azusa Avenue will lead to nowhere. In logic and in sense th.is.improve-
men.t should not go through. The West Covina High School property should
be excluded and when it is excluded a reassessment of the area involved
should be computed and it will be found Mr. ,Handler's property controls
the area of the lots included,particul.arly,the last lot at Lark Ellen and
Cameron and the entire improvement at this time should be defeated.
My client is not against improvemEnt of the
property or -of West Covina areas. He has been improving areas. for„ many.
years. At the present time under your proposed new General Plan that
property is in the state of flux and if a 5' sidewalk were to be put in
there,subsequently,under the proposed regulations,you would tell him to
. put in more sidewalk because 5' is not a commercial sidewalk. The other
individual properties along the line already have driveways so con-
sequently you are providing for entryways and aprons, part of which is part
the total assessment which does not benefit my client because he does
not 'bend to drive his automobile into the driveways of the other
applicants along there which would 'be a most incidental benefit to him.
But you propose to put solid curbs along his property because no one
can see where entrances will eventually have to be cut, therefore you
are in the future imposing upon him the cost and responsibility of pro-
viding aprons. If this is equality of assessment, then I don't under-
stand the meaning of the word "equality."
-11.-
REG. C.C. 6-23-69
Page Twelve
HEARINGS - Forming 1911 ACT Assessment District - Continued
On behalf of my client I request the Council to
eliminate from the boundaries of the District the properties baelonging
to the West Covina Unified School. District on the grounds the high
school is not directly benefited; that the parents who live throughout
the area are benefited; and that the grammar school will receive the same
indirect benefit _,that the high school would receive and it is not included;
that the high school already has in the identical improvements which are
to be placed on the other side; that the adjacent residential homes
which have identical improvements adjacent to the high school are
excluded from this; and then having excluded the West Covina High School
District from the present District boundaries I request on behalf of my
client that the area be recomputed with respect to the area of protests
and when it is found the two protests in writing which are in,
represent a majority of the protests, that this improvement be abandoned
at this time.
.Mayor Gleckmana Is there anyone in the audience that would wish
to speak on behalf of,a written protest? (None)
ORAL PROTESTS.,-
G. Asmus I wholeheartedly approve of what Mr. Garvey
1434 E. Camerona has presented, and I further request that you
give careful consideration to the boundaries
and exclude the high school district.
I would like to 'bring up the fact that none -of
the twelve original property -owners living on Cameron Avenue,;to my
knowledge, have requested the improvements you contemplate. Namely, qn.d
an particular,the sidewalks. If anyone has asked for the inclusion of
the sidewalks it is the high school district. The present school traffic
is sufficiently taken, care of by the present sidewalks on the north side
of Cameron. It is more than sufficient., it is hardly used. I would like
to suggest to you the only reason the highschool district is seeking
sidewalks is to accommodate the football. games and the traffic generated
'by the football games. This is a non -mandated educational activity.
Revenue is generated by admission charged by the high school district
to pay for these games and it seems if there- is a need of a sidewalk
on the south side of Cameron Avenue to accommodate, the traffic generated
by the football games, it should be paid for by the school district
receipts for admission charged to the games. There is no other
justification..for sidewalks other than for the football games.
Mr,, Garvey mentioned the grammar school on
Azusa Avenue. There is a Teen Canteen on the west side of Cameron
A.enue and you don't propose to build a sidewalk on the south side of
Cameron going west on Lark Ellen to accommodate the traffic going to the
Teen Canteen and to the other grammar school where younger children have
to walk too. You basically propose to build a sidewalk for the teen agers
and adults who are knowledgeable to traffic conditions and know how to
protect themselves and basically you are asking -the property owners
who reside on. the south side of Cameron Avenue to pay the lion's share
of the construction improvement. This just is not fair - what you are
actually proposing is that a very small number of people should pay for
all the improvements the whole community will enjoy and which will benefit
the whole community. I just don't see the justification for it.
FurthermoreI don't see the justification, in how th s.-DistricV.s .boundaries
are gerrymanded to make it possible for the property owners to reasonably
protest the improvements. You are using the 1911 Act to improve property
by sidewalks, and the 1911 Act is to be used to,make improvements on
property that is publicly owned, not to make improvements on privately
owned property which you have no jurisdiction over. If you want to acquire
property that you later on want to improve you would have to condemn this
property and show that it is needed for public use and you have made no
effort to do this.
- 12
REG. C.C. 6-23-69 Page Thirteen
HEARINGS - Forming 1911 Act Assessment District - Continued
As I said before I have protested the present
boundaries and the scope of work basically on the reasons that the fair
cost for the proposed improvements is not being borne by the people who
will directly benefit from these improvements. Thank you.
Motion 'by Councilman Chappell., seconded by Councilman Nichols, and
• carried, that the hearing be closed.
Mayor Gleckman. What is your pleasure gentlemen? We have two
choices, overrule and deny the protest and adopt
and deny the resolution. a resolution, or to rule in favor of the protests
Councilman Gillum. I would like to bring some facts to the attention
of my fellow councilmen. Mr. Rossetti, the
assessment is based on square footage, is this
correct?
Mr. Rossetti. No, on front footage. The protest is on an
area basis and has nothing to do with the
amount of money lodged against the property.
The assessment is based on assessable frontage. We measure the benefits
according to the improvements being installed by the project.
Councilman Gillum. I misunderstood you, I understood it was on
square footage. I based my figures on square
footage and I am only using this as an example.
The School District is approximately 1,500,000 square feet and they are
making a contribution of $3500. and it breaks down to .025 per square foot.
The corner property is 396,000 square feet and breaks down to approximately
•0.54 per square foot. Some of the residential lots are getting two
driveways, approximately 29,000 square feet and it breaks down to .025
per square foot. The point I am trying to make, whether it be on square
footage or front footage, it appears to me the vacant properties on the
corner of Azusa and Cameron, are carrying the larger part of the assessment
and this is one of the reasons I am objecting to going down Azusa Avenue.
I think if it would be computed on. front footage you would find the
residential lots are actually paying less per foot than the vacant property
on. Cameron and Azusa.
I do believe we need to improve Cameron Avenue and
I think we all agree on. this, but again. I feel it is a misuse of the 1911
Act. I am inclined to agree with. Mr. Garvey, that the papers would make
great hay out of this if it were the other way around:. I disagree wi�h
the boundary lines, I cannot accept them, but I believe that Cameron venue
should be improved. I feel one point should be made clear, the sidewalks
are coming out of the General. Fund monies, and not "being assessed to the
property owners. This is a program the City has had for a. number of years,
the improvement of sidewalks in. our City. So it is not being assessed to
the individual property owner, as far as sidewalks are concerned.
Gentlemen, if we do go ahead and improve this District, I am wondering
what we can. do in the future if we decide we want some additional
property in the future, just include it in a boundary and call it a
District? And this is what I feel we are doing by going ahead in a
southerly direction on Azusa Avenue.
• Councilman Nichols. I think Councilman Gillum'.s figures when he
attempts to apply his original thesis based
upon. square footage cost to the front footage
cost is no longer valid, and he is making some suppositions that I think
would not factually hold up, but I will not take any further issue with
that point.
I have on.e area of concern because I am playing
a role here tonight and share a responsibility and exercising a degree of
authority, and so I take exception to those implications that have been.
left in the air here, that somehow the Council is engaging in an activity
1.3 -.
REG. C.0 6-23-69 Page Fourteen
HEARINGS - Forming 1911 Act Assessment District - Continued
on the
that is unethical and borderlines/illegal, and if only the press were
present that this would all come out and then we would get our come-
uppance. Now this Council had deliberated on this matter for some
weeks, as it has on. every other Assessment District, and every word,
•every action, said tonight is on the record and I would certainly invite
the papers to take comment if they see fit._ I would like to comment on
a couple of things raised because they have been raised erroneously
and if not corrected stand to leave the record in a distorted fashion.
Mr. Garvey, 'in testifying,,stated that only the
families of children attending the school would benefit and not necessarily
the District as an agency, and then goes to great length regarding the
logic and illogic of this.! How in heaven's name we can divorce a public
agency, which is people, from the people who are part of the agency is
absolutely incredible tome in terms of logic. Secondly, when that
agency votes to participate; its elected representatives are electing,
we hope, the will of'the people and the.taxpayers who support that agency
are in fact then sharing ,the' cost and so are all the 'par.ents of all of the
children who use the school throughout the entire city. So it is the
taxpayers, the citizens of this City that will be participating in the
creation of this improvement. The ' great bulk of the funds being used in
this District will come from the general funds of this City. And in
fact, the improvements going in on properties in this District, can be
shown to being provided at a dollar figure far less than any individual
property owner could provide for himself. Final.l.y,, I would like to
Collaborate Councilman Gillum°s statement that irhen objections are made
about the costs of sidewalks as if the owners are being assessed for this,
that we must let the record reflect again that all of the taxpayers of
West Covina are paying for the sidewalks. These sidewalks are not even
• in this District, they are not a part of this District in terms of
assessment.
When we come to these matters of whether or not
a School District should or should not participate, or the homeowners up
the street who have already paid for curbs and gutters should be paying
again we are in philosphical areas and each of us have to weigh these
things in our own conscience and make a determination based on whether
we feel the need for the improvements. And then finally decide if this
is a good.Distri.ct or not, or if this group should be in or that group.
Each person here must make the decision. I have been hearing these
matters for many weeks now and I am prepared to'make my position known
and make my vote clear and that is that these improvements are greatly
needed and that the property owners abutting are paying.the very
smallest proportion of the total cost, that the general taxpayers of
West Covina are paying by far the great share, and that is as it should
be, and for that reason I will vote to overrule the protest.
Councilman Gillum: A couple of questions of Mr. Rossetti. Do you
have the breakdown of what the cost is as far
as.driveways are concerned?
Mr. Rossetti: I believe in the change of plans we moved the
sidewalk closer to the:curb so therefore it
will become a depressed sidewalk and become a
part of the driveway approach so the costs'for the driveways have been
deleted.
Councilman Gillum: One thing I want to make clear , and .Mr..Nichols
.rightfully questioned me - my figures. If you
figure it on a front footage the individual
property owner pays approximately 450 per front foot. Is that correct?
'Mr. Rossetti: I broke it down in a different manner.
Mayor Gleckman.: Mr. Rossetti, do you'have the net figure each
property owner is going to pay and what the
14 -
REG. C.C. 6-23-69
Page Fifteen
HEARINGS - Forming 1911 Act Assessment District - Continued
total project is?
Mr. Rossetti: Parcel, No. 1 on the corner of Lark Ellen and
Cameron, the total assessment is $1864.69 and
• he would receive back about $1450.; No. 2
approximately $1434. receiving back about $1150.; and that goes all the
way through #11. Handler's assessment about $25,900 and of that he will
get back about $1.6,000, his assessment running around $10,000.
Councilman.Gillum: Mr. Rossetti, dial I misunderstand you earlier
when you said $18,600 and it would leave a
balance of about $7300. ?
Mr. Rossetti: I recalculated my figures. (Explained)
Mayor Gleckman: You said Parcel No. l would be approximately
$400.,out of pocket; Parcel No. 2 through #11
ala.au ' $250.
Mr. Rossetti: Yes, but I can give it to you in a different
way. "If there is no acquisition costs, the
property owners are just paying for the curb
and gutter, if the property were dedicated. No. 1 would pay $352.66;
No. 2 through No. 11 would pay $271.28. The corner property, Mr. Handler!'s,
on Cameron $3458.82; on Azusa $691,76.
Mayor Gleckman: These are the figures if all of the property were
dedicated?
Mr. Rossetti: Yes.
Mayor Gleckman: In other words the first property owner is
affected by $50.00 by not dedicating, the
second througn the eleventh by about $30.00.
But then why are they paying the difference? If they dedicated or
didn't dedicate, is it the cost of doing business of going into the
1911. Act?
Mr. Rossetti:
r
Right.
.Mayor Gleckman:
So by not dedicating they are actually raising
the price approximately from $7,000 to about
$149000.
Mr. Rossetti.:
Yes. The total cost for the project is about
$95,000. The City is contributing about
$44,000 for the Cameron Avenue street improve-
ment.
Mayor Gleckman:
You say $95,000. Parcel No. 12 is about
$10,000 and the .rest about $4,000 which totals
$14,000 and the City is paying about $45,000
which is $59,000 and
the total project is $95,000. Who is paying
for the rest of it?
Mr. Rossetti:
That is the acquisition costs.
Mayor Gleckman:
Who pays for that?
Mr. Rossetti:
Under the present plans that we have here, the
people themselves.
Mayor Gleckman: Is that over and above the figures you just
gave me?
'Mr. Rossetti: Yes. Acquisition will. run about $27,000 and we
- 15 -
REG. C.C. 6-23-69
Page Sixteen.
L�
•
•
HEARINGS - ForminE-1911 Act Assessment District - Continued
have to add another $10,000 to that for legal fees, condemnation costs,
etc.
Mayor Gleckman: So it is costing us an additional $41,000 to
go for the 1911 Act and we are not getting
anymore for our money, is that right?
Mr. Rossetti: Yes.
Councilman Nichols: The cost is not really an additional $27,000
because the people are being assessed by this
figure and it is being given right back to them
for payment of the land. It is a paper figure
with some faring a little 'better than others. We are not talking in
terms of someone spending a large sum of money that existed independently.
Mayor Gleckman: My point is if everybody dedicated what would
be the total cost of putting in the improve-
ments not using the 1911 Act at all?
Mr. Sorensen.: The mere voidance of the dedication would not
void the 1911 Act. The 1911 Act would be
needed for the improvements.
Mayor Gleckman: I understand that, but I am taking into con-
sideration that there was no need of the 1911
Act if everybody dedicated. Then what would
the total cost of putting in this project be?
Mr. Rossetti.: About $54,000.
Mayor Gleckman: That is my point.
Councilman. Lloyd: And with ded°_..ation the way it stands now - it
costs $95,000, or $40,000 difference?
Mr. Rossetti: Yes, that is the acquisition. costs. Not only
are you 'buying the land, paying the people for
it, 'but adding $1.0 , 000 in costs.
Mayor Gleckman- In. other words the City right now out of the
General Fund is going to spend approximately
$45,000 with the 191.1 Act?
Mr. Rossetti- Right. Without the 1911. Act, with the dedi.ca-
t .on and with the City spending._$45,,000L.there woulc
only be about $8,000 or $9,000 to pick up.
Councilman Lloyd.- Mr. Mayor, I have some thoughts on the matter and
I do appreciate the subject we are dealing with,
I :recognize the emotionalism going into this
parcel of land and the achieving of this improvement and I wish I had a
solution., but I frankly don't. I have some things I think are very
important and should be reviewed. I don't really feel. the sidewalk is
an issue, it is involved in it, but it is not the major thrust of what
we are trying to achieve. I think we are trying to achieve the
accomplishment of a street, which as Mr. Garvey pointed out, truly does
provide an east -west flow in. West Covina.. I am, without question,
wholeheartedly in support of the widening of this street as quickly as
possible simply because we are faced with a very real possibility and
that is with all. of the legalities and all of the presentations made
here tonight and pTevi.ously, the one problem we face is if any person,
particularly a childgis injured, killed or in anyway distressed because
of a result of this we would have to face the burden of that act,
whether we were involved in it or not. And this is the real burden, as
far as I am concerned, in discharging my duties as a Councilman.
- 16 -
REG. C.C. 6-23-69 Page Seventeen
HEARINGS - Forming 1911 Act Assessment District - Continued
Another question comes in here and that is one called a reasonable
doubt. I think the first question we have to look at at this point, and
I am not always swayed by the arguments of the very prominent and
capable attorney - Mr. Garvey, but I suddenly find myself with a
• reasonable doubt regarding the construction of this zone. I 4on't choose
to use the term used, I think it was the making of the District so we
could achieve this street, I think this is in reality what the people
who made this up in the first place tried to do, they tried to achieve
something. There does seem to be a double jeopardy and .I do concur with
the remarks made that in the final analysis the elected officials have
the right to make this type of commitment of monies belonging to the
people of the District. However, we must go one step beyond and that
is those people who�.have been committed by,one elected body are now
about to be committed by another elected body and are in reality being
taxed twice for the same piece of property and in the case of some of
the other people here they have the possibility of a third tax charge.
So we come up to the critical question which is what is the need?
I.think we need it and I favor it and I have tried very hard to seek
a compromise to the achievement of this street, however I find in the
weighing of these things, first against the prospect of an injury to a
child, versus the homeowner and .reasonable taxation, versus the
comment of reasonable doubt, I would honestly have to say that I would
have to vote against this at the moment although I want it going through.
Unfortunately I have to agree with the arguments that have been presented
and I find myself in terrible contradiction at the present' moment
because I want this thing, I think it is a real necessity and if we don't
get it done quickly we will go through the summer and another school
.session amd face!the possibility of a child being injured. But I would
• have to say, because of a reasonable doubt and the.fact that I cannot
justify at this point going into the involvement of the School District
that I would have to be by a percentage factor against it.
Councilman Chappell: I think we have lost sight of a few things
here. Counci.-man Lloyd has just pointed some
things out and I would like to say the reason
the School District boundaries were included, as I remember and under-
stand it, it was a secondary benefit. We have a narrow street now in
front of the high school and it'is a definite traffic hazard when
school starts and finishes, and because of this they are definitely
involved in. the widening of the street. Most every homeowner in West
Covina, either directly or indirectly has purchased his own curbs and
gutters, whether they were put' in by the builder or the homeowner, and
I don't see any reason why the homes along Cameron should not follow in
this past history of our Council. I think the School District has a
secondary provision here and will achieve benefits when Cameron is
widened and therefore I go on record as being for the 1911 Act on
Cameron Avenue.
Councilman Gillum: I think good points have been brought up by all
as far as the need and requirement of what we
are trying to do, but again it disturbs me - it
has been stated that the School District would directly or indirectly
benefit in the widening because of the possibility of some child being
injured, etc., and all of these things are things to give good thought
to. My original concept and my original complaint is that I don't think
the District is fair, I don't think the assessment is fair.
Mr. Nichols earlier questioned my figures -
I figured on front footage and on the School District on Cameron Avenue
there is approximately 1629''and on Lark Ellen, it is approximately 1000'
and breaking it down to contribution it comes out to approximately
13.50 per lineal foot for the School District and for the homeowners
it is about 45.47,� a lineal foot. I think the School District is getting
a tremendous bargain. Councilman Lloyd mentioned this one group voting
to commit funds of the taxpayers and we are retaxing them again, well I
am not :sure how the:assessment is spread over the District. Mr. Rossetti,
- 17 -
REG. C.C. 6-23-69
Page Eighteen
HEARINGS - Forming 1911 Act Assessment District - Continued
could you clarify the difference between an assessment and a contribution?
Mr. Rossetti: I think that might need legal explanation. From
my point of view a contribution is something that
is made by whatever the body can afford, the'
City or the County, or what they think should be set by policy; an
assessment is something the Assessment Engineer has to set after reviewing
the facts and the past history, etc.
Councilman Gillum: The point I am trying to make is the School
District is in the 1911 Act District that we
are trying to form and the residents and all the
property owners on the south side are in the District but we assess one
group and accept a contribution from the other..
Mr. Sorensen:. As I read the Act, the charge against the School
District property, is not a contribution but
actually is an assessment, the same as it'is
an a ssessment,against the other property owners included in the District.
The. amount paid by the City of West Covina towards the construction is a
contribution`"being made by the City towards the cost of the project.
Mr. Rossetti: The Mayor asked me about the total cost of
$54,000 and I may have misled with my answer.
I would like to clarify this. The cost of the
project for the City is $44,000 - this is what the City is contributing.
The total cost of the project to the property owners is about $12,000.
The total construction costs are $54,000 of which the City is contributing
about $44,000.
Mayor Gleckman: I am asking you again, Mr. Rossetti - you gave
me a figure of $95,000 previously, what does
that include?
'Mr. Rossetti: That includes all the costs of acquisition,
legal fees, engineering fees, etc., plus the
total construction costs.
Mayor Gleckman: Out of the $95,000 how much is construction
costs?
Mr. Rossetti:
$54,000. ;
Mayor Gleckman:
Again I ask you if each property owner dedicated
and there were no acquisition costs, what would
be the cost of the project?
Mr. Rossetti:
The project as a whole and not just the cost to
the property owners?
Mayor-Gleckman:
That's right. If there were no acquisition
costs, if everybody dedicated, what would be the
total cost of the project?
Mr. Rossetti:
$54,000.
Mayor Gleckman:
Of that $.54,000 would the contribution by the
City change?
Mr. Rossetti:
No, I believe that is set by the Resolution.
Mayor Gleckman:
How much would the City pay towards the con-
struction?
Mr. Rossetti:
Approximately $441000.
- 18 -
REG. C.C. 6-23-69
Page Nineteen
HEARINGS - Forming 1911 Act Assessment District —Continued
Mayor Gleckman- Leaving a balance of about $11,000?
Mr. Rossetti- Yes.
Mayor Gleckman- So what you are saying is that the total cost
of the project is $95,000 by the time you
acquire the property and paid back to those
owning the property approximately some $40,000 leaving $54,000 for the -
actual construction?
Mr. Rossetti:
Mayor Gleckman:
'Mr. Rossetti:
.Mayor Gleckman:
Councilman Chappell:
they have been asked to do
Right.
So what are we actually talking about with
regard to the cost of the 1911 Act, assess-
ments, legal fees, etc., compared to if they
dedicated?
We are talking about the incidental costs,cthe
acquisition costs and legal costs.
Is it too late to seek the acquisition
voluntarily of all the property owners and
save that additional cost?
Mr. Mayor, we have done that about three times
and that is the problem - - that's why we are
where we are now. They have not dedicated and
so two or three times.
• Mr. Sorensen: Assuming the City Council approves the
Assessment District boundaries and the
condemnation act is used for the purpose of
acquiring property, any property given to the City would be.deducted
from the total cost of the project. H._wever, if one gave without all
giving, I think there would be some ineTaities.
Mayor Gleckman: My reason for stating what I stated is that
we have been hassling over this street for
about five years and I think we are right now
getting down to th.e nitty gritty of dollars and cents and by a
majority vote of this Council it will determine what it is going to cost
the property owners for these particular improvements. We have never
broken down the cost to;my knowledge and gone to the property owners
and said this matter comes up before the City Council in two weeks
would you dedicate in order to save this amount of money?
Mr. Sorensen-
Mr. Mayor, all I was trying to make clear to
you is that dedication can be made really at
any time prior to the time the assessment
is confirmed.
Mayor Gleckman-
Thank you, that's my point. If we deny the
protests and.go ahead and adopt the resolution
and tomorrow all these people come in and
dedicate their land,
is it too late?
•
Mr. Sorensen-
:No, you would simply reduce the total cost of
the project by that amount.
Mayor Gleckman-
In other words they would and could save money?
Mr. Sorensen-
Yes.
May I ask a further question? My question is
what is the assessment for the School District
versus Mr. Handler's property, and what is the
_ 19 _
REG.., C`o C. =- "623-69
Page Twenty
HEARINGS - Forming 1911 Act Assessment District —Continued
area of each in determining the benefit to it?
Mayor Gleckman:,, I think you are entitled to that answer.
Mr. Rossetti?
• Mr. Rossetti: I think Mr. Handler's property represents
about 390,000 square feet and the School
property is 1,600,000. The assessment net
cost is $4149. for Mr. Handler, and $3500. for the School. That is just
the curb and gutter costs.
Mayor Gle:ckman: So we are saying the School District is con-
tributing $3500. to the District and
Mr. Handler's property is actually paying
about $10,000 but if he dedicated and everyone else did it would volt
him about $4100. or $4200.
Councilman Gillum: If this Council approves this District you
are going to create a monster. The monster
is going to be 360' south of the intersection
of Cameron and Azusa because we are going to have 'a portion of property
unimproved and then 360' south you will have curbs and gutters and then,
as I understand it, the first of August you will come along and
completely widen the street and put in storm drains down Azusa and end
up with 360' not in the District thereby causing a traffic problem.
I cannot buy the 360'. around the corner. We have to find some way to
bring that property into the proper position to widen and improve that
street completely. Otherwise we are just delaying the problem until a
later date.
• Councilman Nichols:
I think in the last discussion we had we
recognized that. The reason we deleted this
was because there was a question in some of
our minds whether legitimately
we coul(9 include that. I think we
recognized then that we
would have to come in with general funds
and condemn it and purchase the necessary right of way. It was my
understanding that this
was a more legitimate ethical approach to go
and therefore we would be
avoiding any monster. I am totally in
favor of the limitation
on Azusa.
Councilman Gillum-.
Mr. Rossetti, say- the future we go.ahead
and accept this 360' south on Azusa, is it
possible for this City to come along at a
future date and form a new
district and include the 360' that is already
curbed and guttered and
going down and getting the lot .at the back end
of this property that is
approximately one hundred and some feet and
adding it to the 360' and forming a District and improving this
property?
Mr. Rossetti:
Everything is possible. We have assessments
with one man.
.Mayor Gleckman:
If these Resolutions were adopted this evening
and the protests were denied and we ordered the
• back to this Council fora
work to be done on Cameron Avenue, does it come
second reading?,
'Mr. Sorensen:
No, this is the final reading tonight.
Mayor Gleckman:
When would the work be put out for bid?
Mr. Zimmerman:
The work would start probably some time
around the end of September or the first of
October.
-20-
REG. C.C. 6-23-69 Page Twenty-one
HEARINGS - Forming 1911 District - ContLnued
Mayor Gleckman: Wouldn't we get an opportunity to review the
bids?
Mr. Zimmerman: Yes, you would.
• Mayor Gleckman: Are the bids sealed?
Mr. Zimmerman: Yes.
Mayor Gleckman: Do you advertise for bids?
Mr. Zimmerman: Yeses
Mayor Gleckman: When would be the approximate time we would
get the bids back for review?
Mr. Zimmerman: About the middle of August, however the critical
item timewise is actually the acquisition of
right-of-way. It takes longer to acquire right-
of-way then approve plans and get the bids out.
Mayor Gleckman:
When would construction start on the street?
'Mr. Zimmerman:
About the first of October.
Mayor Gleckman:
In talking about this particular street -
Mr. Aiassa, and for the record, would you
please relate to us who:made up these
boundaries that
we are talking about this evening?
•
Mr. Aiassa:
I believe that was already answered at our
last testimony.
Mayor Gleckman:
The Council, other than changing the boundaries
tonight, actually did not sit down and make up
the particular boundaries?
Mr. Aiassa:
The 'boundaries were developed by the Assessment
Engineer with our staff reviewing and then
presented to Council for acceptance.
,Mayor Gleckman:
:Mr. Rossetti, the question) was asked ,by
Mr. Garvey and never answered, could you
explain to us why the.,School.District with its
curb and gutters
already in on the northside.of the street were
included in this
District, and the northside,homes with its curbs and
gutters already
in were not included in this District? Is it your
personal opinion
that the. houses to the north will.not receive any
benefit from this
improvement?
'Mr. Rossetti:
I believe that question was answered at the
last meeting. We felt the benefits.accruing
to that property across the street were
marginal and so
small we wouldn't be able to come up�with a reasonable
assessment on it.
•
Mayor Gleckman:
In other words it would cost us more to come
up,with an assessment value against those
homes for what we would recover.
Mr. Rossetti:
That is right.
Mayor,Gleckman:,
But there is no doubt in your mind that there
would be some benefit to those houses on the
northside of the street?
'Mr. Rossetti:
A very marginal benefit.
- 21 -
REG. C.C. 6-23-69 Page Twenty-two
HEARINGS - Forming 1911 District Assessment - Continued
Mayor Gleckman. Thank you. What is your pleasure, gentlemen?
Motion by Councilman Nichols, seconded by Councilman Chappell, that City'
Council overrule protests on record.
RESOLUTION NO. 3997 The City Clerk presented*.
"A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
ADOPTED OF THE CITY OF WEST COVINA, OVER-
RULING PROTESTS."
MayorGleckmane Hearing no objections, waive further reading
of the body of said Resolution.
Motion by Councilman. Nichols, seconded by Councilman Chappell, that said
Resolution be adopted. Motion carried on. roll call vote as follows. -
AYE Councilmen Nichols, Chappell, Mayor Gleckman
NOES Councilmen Gillum, Lloyd
ABSEN . None
I
Mayor Gleckman. For the record I would like to state that the
only reason I voted "aye" even though there
was some doubt in my mind, was because of the
need of this particular street and because of the time element involved
in construction. In other words it would not come back to us until some
time in September and construction would not start until October, and by
that time I would hope that dedication would be given by all the property
owners in order to save them the additional money.
• RESOLUTION NO. 3998 The City Clerk presented.
"A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
ADOPTED; „ OF WEST COVINA, ORDERING WORK TO BE DONE ON
CAMERON AVENUE IN ACCORDANCE WITH RESOLUTION
OF INTENTION NO. 3956 AND RESOLUTION NO. 3995•"
Mayor Gleckman: Hearing no -objections, waive further reading
of the body of said Resolution.
Motion 'by Councilman. Nichols, seconded by Councilman Chappell, that said
Resolution be adopted..Motion carried on roll call vote as follows.
Mayor Gleckman.. Again let me say I am going to vote for the
work to be done hoping the property owners
can get together for dedication. because of
the importance of widening this particular street, even though I would
again. go on .record in saying there is some doubt in my mind as to the
lack of benefit to those property owners to the north and the idea of
going around the corner to the south, but I still feel. we need that street
badly and if it were denied at this time we would then have to come out
and go through this whole program again and cost the citizens additional
money.
Councilman Lloyd. Mr. Aiassa - what is this Resolution you are
now presenting?
Mr. Aiassa. This is ordering the work to be done in
accordance with the Resolution of Intention.
Mayor Gleckman. That means it is going to bid before there is
any construction and that bid has to be approv-
ed by this Council. Is that right -
Mr. Sorensen?
Mr. Sorensen. Yes.
MayorGl.eckmano And that bid can be denied by Council and
delayed?
22 -
REG. C.C; 6-23-69 Page Twenty-three
RESOLUTION NO. 3998 Continued
Mr. Sorensen: If Council chooses it can be abandoned.
Councilman, Gillum: It is very clear to the citizens of this
community that I am deeply concerned about
the widening and improving of this street, but
under the present boundary lines, and I am sorry I have to use the word
again, but I think it :is gerrymandering, and I cannot support any part of
this project whether it is dedicated or a time limit, I think the
boundary lines are wrong and will therefore vote against the total project.
AYES: Councilmen Nichols, Chappell., Lloyd, Mayor Gleckman
NOES: Councilman Gillum
ABSENT: None
(Mr. Sorensen at 9:45 p.m., asked to be excused, advising that
Mr. Carl Newton, City Attorney, would act for him for the balance of the
meeting.)
THE CHAIR DECLARED A RECESS AT 9:45 P.M. COUNCIL RECONVENED AT 10:02 P.M.
AUTHORIZE FIRM OF HARRISON BAKER TO PROVIDE
PROPERTY CONDEMNATION APPRAISALS
Motion by Councilman Chappell, seconded by Councilman Nichols, and
carried, authorizing the firm of Harrison Baker to provide property
condemnation appraisals for the 191.1 Act.
• ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
Crosswalk on Citrus near Cortez Park
Mrs. Bonnie Easley
2653 Vanderhoof Drive
West Covina
Mayor Gleckman: Mrs. Easley you sent a letter to the City
Council requesting when you might appear
before the Council .regarding a crosswalk on
Citrus near Cortez Park, and I might state any citizen is welcome at
any time to appear at a Council. meeting under Oral Communications.
Mrs. Easley: It has been established here tonight that
you gentlemen are aware of the need for
traffic safety involving children. This
particular problem is personal. to me because it was my nephew that was
struck on Citrus between. the Maverick Ball. Park and Cortez Park next to
the Lutheran Church. There is a natural cross walk for the children
between the two parks and there is also a driveway to the Little League
and the Ridge Riders Show Grounds. Also a driveway back of the
Vanderhoof property there is a right of way. To make it short you have
already denied any type of traffic safety precautions for the area.
(Explained what was denied.) It often takes an accident before any
type of safety precautions can go into effect. I do know that you are
in the process of buying the rights of way along Citrus to widen the
street, I also know that you have the Parkway that will be coming through
south of the freeway north of the position I am speaking of and the only
safety precautions are crosswalks which are 500' in either direction and
the, -children will not go to those areas because it is out of their realm.
Plus the fact in walking uphill towards Cortez they are walking on a
narrow dirt shoulder. Once the street is widened to four lanes they
will have even less of a chance to cross at that point. You can tell
children whereto cross but they will. take their chances. I know because
I am a teacher and I deal. with children. Therefore I think it is the
City's responsibility to provide some safe crossing there for the children.
- 23 -
REG,I C.C, 6-23-69
Page Twenty-four
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - Continued
I realize that what I proposed in the
Tribune ° s Voice of the Valley - some type of an apparatus for the
overhead crossing (explained) that this would probably be out of the
question, it is a several thousand dollar structure. But perhaps a
"slow" sign or some other caution sign could be placed on, either
side of the street. There are probably children of 500 families'
involved in. the two parks at this time of the year and then we go into
the: football. season and also the Ridge Riders use it which I believe
contribute a great deal to the community. I don't know what the
answer is but I hope you will, do someth.ing�
Councilman. Nichols° Would it be inappropriate to discuss this item
at this time?
Mayor Gleckman.:� No, I think we should because it was put on the
agenda as an agenda .item under Oral Communica-
tions. I think it would be proper for us to
discuss.
Councilman Nichols,- I react to the fact that Mrs. Easley has a
legitimate point. She has taken a reasonable
approach. to it and to just respond and say
well nothing can be done is less than we could do. I would like to
suggest that the Council direct the staff to install in that area
pending the widening of the street, appropriate signs in each direction,
some type of sign advising that this is a recreation area, children
crossing, etc. This wouldn't require anything except the matter of
trying to make the public aware of this.
. This would be my motion to direct staff to
prepare appropriate signs directing this is a recreation area.
Seconded by Mayor Gleckman.
Councilman Chappell, This is really a, dangerous area and having
-been deeply involved in both the Youth
Baseball and Football programs, I have
watched on numerous occasions the danger at this point. I even, went so
far as to suggest having a volunteer stand there and direct children
across the street. So I think the idea of this sign. would at least
alert those cautious type drivers and most people are that way, to be
alert and watch for young children in the area. I think primarily a lot
of our problems come from people not familiar with.th.e location and
using it as they would Cameron Avenue or some of our other streets. I
would be in, favor of a sign. calling attention to the driver that there -
are children. ahead.
Mayor Gleckmano In. this particular area,.when is the
widening of the street scheduled?
Mr. Zimmerman,, Mr. Mayor, it would be sometime next Spring,
after the right of way is secured and bids
awarded.
Motion carried.
Mrs. Bergman Gentlemen, personally I would like to thank
426 South Leaf Avenue the Council for passing the act to improve
West Covina Cameron Avenue. But for the record, although
some of the individuals that made the
statements are not here to hear, I would like to say I personally as a
citizen taking a part in both West Covina City and West Covina School
District activities resent deeply the implication that was left on the
record that our public properties may be making "deals" to see that the
School District has a better break than the individual projerty owner.
- 24 -
REG. C.C. 6-23-69
Page Twenty-five
is
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - Continued
For the benefit of the individual councilmen who felt it necessary
and obligated to vote against the proposal I would like to offer these
facts. If the West Covina High School and its area had not been
included with that Assessment District then I would say that the
Council specifically had made a deal to see to it that the Act would
not pass because looking at the activity in the general area in the
past you will find the West Covina School District paid for the
improvements on Cameron and Lark'Ellen and that later for the
development of Lark Ellen itself the West Covina School District
included the area of the West Covina High School for that assessment
district. So for the benefit of the individual representing
Mr. Handler, I say that statistics can be made to say whatever.,you.
wish them to say but to take a logical, and very fair apportionment
in his area request of the two properties then properly should be
included the evaluation of the total amount of money already paid
by the School District and then let him see if that is a fairer amount
because I don't believe Mr.` Handler has paid any portion of any
improvements in that area.
Councilman Gillum- May 1 ask Mrs. Bergman a question?
(Permission granted) Mrs. Bergman in your
statement referring to someone representing
Mr. Handler, were you referring to the attorney or a Councilman?
Mrs. Bergman:
The attorney.
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS
1. Letter from "Operation Clean-Up"Co-Chairman.
Motion by Councilman Gillum, seconded by Councilma.n�Chappell, and carried,
to receive and file.
2. Letter & Copy of Senate Resolution No. 49
re. California Freeway and Expressway 'S,ystem
Motion by Councilman Gillum, seconded by Councilman Chappell, and carried,
to refer to staff.
3. Resolution No. 4075 - City of Arcadia urging support of
Flag Day and condemning the improper and disrespectful use of Flaa
Motion. by Councilman Lloyd, seconded by Councilman Chappell, and carried,
to receive and .file„
4. Resolution No. 69-6-1488 from City of Signal Hill Supporting
Enactment of Legislation to allow 1970�Census Questionnaire
Replies to be on, Voluntary Basis
Motion by Councilman Chappell, seconded by Councilman Lloyd, and carried,
that this item be referred to staff.
5. Letter from Town of Emeryville re. San Francisco Bay Conservation
and Development Commission
Motion by Councilman'Lloyd, seconded by Councilman Chappell, and carried,
to receive and file.
6. Resolution No. 69-136 from City of Torrance Endorsing SB No. 941
re. Enlarging Function of State's Environmental Quality Study
Council to place more emphasis on Noise Control
Motion by Councilman Lloyd, seconded by Councilman Chappell, and carried,
to receive and file. - 25 -
REG. C.C. 6-23-69
Page Twenty -Six
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS - Continued
7. Letter from West Covina Disposal Company re. their Activities
during Operation Clean -Up
1
Motion by Councilman Lloyd, seconded by Councilman Chappell, and carried,
to refer to staff. ----
CITY ATTORNEY
'RESOLUTION NO. 3999 The City Attorney presented:
"A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
ADOPTED OF WEST COVINA, DENYING ZONE CHANGE NO. 420 -
BIG BRAKE, INC."
Mayor Gleckman: Hearing no objections, waive further reading
of the body of said Resolution.
Motion'by Councilman Gillum, seconded by Councilman Chappell, that said
Resolution be adopted. Motion carried on roll call vote as follows:
AYES: Councilmen Gillum, Nichols, Chappell, Lloyd, Mayor Gleckman
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
RESOLUTION NO. 4000
ADOPTED
Mayor Gleckman:
The City Attorney presented:;
"A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF WEST COVINA, DENYING PRECISE' PIAN__NO. 569 -
BIG BRAKE, INC."
Hearing no objections, waive further reading
of the body of said Resolution.
Motion by Councilman Gillum, seconded by Councilman Chappell, that said
Resolution be adopted. Motion carried on .roll call vote as follows:.
AYES: Councilmen Gillum, Nichols, Chappell, Lloyd, Mayor Gleckman
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
RESOLUTION NO. 4001
ADOPTED
Mayor Gleckman:
The City Attorney presented:
"A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF WEST COVINA, AUTHORIZING CONDEMNATION PRO-
CEEDINGS FOR RIGHT OF WAY CAMERON AVENUE -
AD 1-68."
Hearing no objections, waive further reading
of the body of said Resolution.
Motion by Councilman Nichols, seconded by Councilman Lloyd, that said
Resolution be adopted. Motion carried on roll call vote as follows:
AYES: Councilmen Nichols, Chappell, Lloyd, Mayor Gleckman
NOES: Councilman Gillum
ABSENT: None
ORDINANCE INTRODUCTION The City Attorney presented:
"AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF WEST COVINA, ADDING SECTIONS 8112.2 and
8112.3 TO THE MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO THE
INSTALLATION OF STREET LIGHTS IN CONNECTION
WITH THE DEVELOPMENT OF PROPERTY."
Motion by Councilman Gillum, seconded by Councilman Chappell, and carried,
waiving further reading of the body of said Ordinance.,
- 26 -
REG. C.C. 6-23-69
Page Twenty-seven
0
ORDINANCE INTRODUCTION - Continued
Motion by Councilman Gillum, seconded by Councilman Chappell, that said
Ordinance be introduced. Motion carried on roll call vote as follows:
AYES; Councilmen Gillum, Nichols, Chappell, Lloyd, Mayor Gleckman
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
RECOMMENDED SETTLEMENT OF CLAIM OF RADCO CONSTRUCTION, INC.
GALSTER PARK
Motion by Councilman Gillum, seconded by Councilman Chappell, that Council
approve payment of $2,958.,50 for services rendered by Radco Construction
Company, Inc., as the settlement of the now pending dispute between the
contractor and the City as pursuant to the City Attorney's recommendation.
Motion carried on roll call vote as follows:
AYES: Councilmen Gillum,Nichols, Chappell, Lloyd, Mayor Gleckman
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
CLAIM OF SVERRE FOSSHEIM
(Council agreed to the addition of this item to the agenda)
Mr. Newton, City Attorney: This is a claim of Sverre Fossheim for
personal injuries alleged to have occurred on
or about March 8, 1969. It would be the
recommendation of the City Attorney that this claim be denied and referred
• to the insurance carrier.'
So moved by Councilman Lloyd, seconded by
Councilman Chappell, and carried.
CITY MANAGER
1. Approve Release of Funds in Amount of $88.64 to cover
"Operation Clean-Up"Defici.t
Motion by Councilman Chappell, seconded by Councilman Lloyd, that this
bill of $88.64 covering deficit of "Operation Clean -Up" for phone bill
and incidentals be paid. Motion carried on roll call vote as follows:
AYES: Councilmen Gillum, Nichols, Chappell, Lloyd, Mayor Gleckman
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
PENDING LEGISLATION
Councilman Gillum: On this item we could get into a long debate.
My own comment is I think Sacramento has a lot
of housekeeping to do before passing
legislation to cover everyone in an elective office. I think this is
kind of a grandstand play and I don't think Council should take a stand
at this time.
Councilman Chappell: I don't think we should take a stand but they
are including all candidates for public office.
Councilman Nichols: I think it is a.little broad but I could
support it personally in that it doesn't apply
to me.
Mayor Gleckman: I would support it even though it does apply to
me.
=27-
REG. C.C. 6-23-69 Page Twenty-eight
PENDING LEGISLATION --Continued
Councilman Chappell:, Well it sounds like we should go on record in
support of it.
Mayor Gleckmane I really feel that the closer we get to all these
• questionable situations the more you are really
going .to discourage a lot of people to .run, not
only on the..basis of the fact that they have nothing to hide but on what
they have to do,in order to run. I think a particular businessmen involved
maybe not in the idea of running for city councilman but a higher office,
who.has all kinds of investments all over, that this is gongto discourage
him from seeking out such an office, actually this is a service a man is
rendering to his community, his State and his Nation�,. and not one
necessarily he seeks out for personal gain.
•
:Ep_�
REG. C.C. 6-23-69 Page Twenty-nine
CITY MANAGER -:PENDING LEGISLATION - Continued
I think this is the basis on which our entire elective offices are set
up. This bill primarily stops a lot of people from wanting to run for
a personal gain. I think we will let Sacramento handle this and if they
want our opinion we will let them ask us for it.
• Councilman.Lloyd: I appreciate the comments made and certainly
that represents the attitudes of each of the
Councilmen and I know that every person up
here is motivated properly and has fulfilled his moral and ethical
obligation to the City'and to the job he fulfills in the highest respect,
so there is no concern whatsoever.' Unfortunately we have had in our
political life individuals that have used their office for personal gain
and this is -what this bill purports to do is preclude an individual from
doing precisely that, using,the office for gain. The .question arises
what must a man. do in the way of description of his personal affairs in
order to serve either his community, his State, or the Nation, and the
answer..:is I".don't think there are very simple solutions such as this bill
is trying to do. I would agree a little bit with Councilman Gillum and
also with the Mayor in that there is merit but that this path is fraught
with danger and I would commend to this Council and the people here,because
they have a deep and abiding interest in the area of governmental affairs,
that"we walk very carefully less we throw the baby out with the bath water."
That is one of the things we have to face. I would suggest that we not do
anything at this time.
Councilman Gillum: Item 5 - a question. Under the different gas
taxes we receive from the County and the State
is Diesel fuel separated from the gas tax?
0Mr. Eliot, Controller: Yes, they are separated. Diesel Fuel is on a
statewide distribution, based on sales tax
and not population.
Mayo4* Gleckman: I would entertain a motion that the City
Mager take into consideration the recommenda-
forward them accordingly® tioanns that were made on Agenda Item 1.(2) and
Mayor Gleckman, and carried.
So ' moved by Councilman Gillum, seconded by
3. SISTER CITY FOUNDATION
Motion. by Councilman Lloyd, seconded by Councilman Gillum, approving
release of funds in amount of $263.50 to cover expenditures of Sister City
Foundation. Motion carried on, roll call vote as follows:
AYES: Councilmen:Gillum, Nichols, Chappell, Lloyd, Mayor Gleckman
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
4. CITY MANAGER REQUEST TO ATTEND ONE -DAY LEAGUE MANAGERS' CONFERENCE
*Motion by Councilman. Nichols, seconded by Councilman Lloyd, that permission
be granted. Motion carried.:c
5_1 TRAFFIC COMMITTEE 'MINUTES
(Items considered individually by Council)
Mr. Aiassa: Mr. Mayor, we have a request from .the City
Attorney -"Mr. Sorensen, to hold Item 3 over
to July 7, 1969.
- 29 -
REG. C.C. 6-23-69
Page Thirty
CITY MANAGER — Traffic Committee -Minutes - Continued
So moved by Councilman Chappell, seconded by
Councilman Lloyd, and carried.
Councilman. Nichols: I would like to know why our City Attorney is
making a recommendation to hold over when I
don't see the involvement of the attorney at
this point?
Mr. Aiassa:
I
believe therein a question that came up through
the staff and Mr.
Wakefield made one ruling
about the signing
of certain streets if we so
designated and the staff
felt
if we authorized
this limited parking
throughout the City
you would
not have to post
a sign except at the entrance
to the City, and.Mr.
Sorensen
wants to make a
little further study legally.
Councilman Nichols: In other words it is having the subject matter
coming to Council clarified.
Mr. Aiassa: That is right.
Mayor Gleckman: This item of a request by an "unidentified
citizen." In cases such as this if the
request does not have the merit of identifica-
tion of the person asking for it, I don't think that staff should waste
their time considering it unless they want to, but an "unidentified
citizen" is ridiculous.
•Mr. Aiassa: We might make this interpretation, if a person
does come in making a request but he feels it
doesn't affect him that much and if staff still
feels the request needs correction trafficwise, then the staff might
recommend it to,Council as a staff recommendation.
Council agreed that would be fine, but "unidentified citizen" requests
makes it look ridiculous and staff should not waste their time or that of
Council on such requests.
Motion by Councilman Chappell, seconded by Councilman Lloyd, and carried,
to accept and file the Traffic Committee minutes of June 19, 1969, with
the exception of Item 3.
6. SCHOOL DISTRICT REQUEST FOR CROSSING GUARD AT ORANGEWOOD SCHOOL
Motion by Councilman Gillum, seconded by Councilman Chappell, and carried,
to receive and file.
7. POLICE MUTUAL AID AGREEMENT
Motion by Councilman Gillum, seconded by Councilman Chappell and carried,
that Council authorize the:Mayor and City Clerk to sign an agreement with
the City of San Marino for police mutual aid.
0
8.
RENEWAL OF AGREEMENT WITH COOPERATIVE PERSONNEL SERVICES
Motion by Councilman Lloyd, seconded by Councilman Chappell, and carried,
authorizing the:Mayor and City Clerk to execute the agreement with
Cooperative -Personnel Services.
- 30 -
REG. C.C. 6-23-69 Page Thirty-one
CITY MANAGER - Continued
9. VENDING MACHINES CONTRACTS
Mr. Newton, City Attorney.- These contracts have been prepared by the
City Attorney, Mr. Wakefield, and if they
meet with the approval of Council there are
two contracts for convenient services covering City Hall and the Police
*Facility, and are ready for signature.
Mr. Aiassa: Mr. Mayor, we havevthe.' sign.e,d- agreements '.to
these contracts of both Ben Bateman, President
of the Employees' Association, and the President
of the Peace Officers' Association.
Motion by Councilman Chappell, seconded by Councilman Gillum, approving
the executing of the Vending Machine contracts.
Councilman Nichols: I wonder how many of our rank and file
employees in the City are aware that this
constitutes a Fringe Benefit of a sort. In a
sense it is something that is helping their whole organization and there-
fore serving their interests. Does the average employee of the City become
aware of these actions of the City Council?
Mr. Aiassa: This is the reason why we had these agreements
signed through the records of the City.
Councilman Lloyd: I would suggest to the City Manager and with the
concurrence of Council, that perhaps a letter
from his office be put out to indicate to the
employees that this is in effect.
•Councilman Chappell: D.o we have a similar arrangement with. the
Fire Department personnel?
Mr. Aiassa: The Fire Dep-.°tment, as you know, live on the
station grounds 24 hours and they have their
own kitchen facilities. They do receive a
benefit from this through. the Employees' Association.
Motion carried.
10. CONTRACT FOR MINUTES CLERK SERVICES
Mr. Aiassa: I would like to hold this over for 30 days
after our review and discussion at the budget
session.
So moved 'by Councilman Lloyd, seconded by
Councilman Chappell, and carried.
11. ADOPT 1969-70 FISCAL YEAR OPERATING BUDGET
Motion by Councilman Lloyd, seconded by Councilman Chappell, and carried,
•that Council adopt by Resolution. the 1969-1970 operating budget.
RESOLUTION NO® 4002
ADOPTED
COMMENCING DULY 1, 1969,
Mayor Gleckman:
The City Manager presented:
"A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF WEST COVINA, ADOPTING THE BUDGET AND
APPROVING APPROPRIATIONS FOR THE FISCAL YEAR
AND ENDING JUNE 30, 1970."
Hearing no objections, waive further reading
of the body of said Resolution.
- 31 -
REG. C.C. 6-23-69 Page Thirty-two
CITY MANAGER —RESOLUTION NO. 4002 - Continued
Motion by Councilman Gillum, seconded by Councilman Lloyd, that said
Resolution be adopted.
Councilman Gillum:
Mr. Aiassa, what was the total budget?
*Mayor Gleckman: While.Mr. Aiassa is looking for the figure, I
would like to compliment: staff on behalf of
Council, for the manner in which this budget'
was received. I have never sat in a budget session that was so orderly
conducted.an.d;so well received by the Council, and who have probably the
toughest.;budget problems when it comes to a progressive city with a new
Police.:Fadility, a new City Hall, a new Swimming pool, and the use of 1911
Act for the widening of streets, and as one Councilman remarked, at the
same<t'ime living in the highest inflationary period of our time, that the
City of West Covina could hold the line again taxwise, as it has done in
the past 12 years, with the exception of a 100 park tax which went for the
specific purposes of Galster Park and security lightingeof our parks.
I think the staff and all of its employees should be complimented on the
job they have done and the job we hope them to do in the future in order
to help the citizens of our community to make this a better place for all of
us to live in.
Mr. Aiassa: The expenditure of this budget will be
$5,196,152.01.
Motion carried on roll call vote as follows:
AYES: Councilmen. -Gillum, Nichols, Chappell, Lloyd, Mayor Gleckman
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
12. FIRE ALARM BOX SYSTEM CONTRACT
Motion by Councilman Gillum that Council _authorize the Mayor and City Clerk
to enter a lease agreement with the Eagle Picture Industries, Inc.,
in accordance with provisions presented in this report dated June 20, 1969,
referring to the municipal radio fire control alarm system A. Seconded by
Councilman Chappell.
Councilman Gillum: I might add to -Mayor Gleckman's previous
comments regarding staff, again this is another
area that staff has found a way to help the
citizens of this community save money because when this system is put in
it will be beneficial to homeowners in connection with their fire insurance
rates. Staff has put in. a considerable amount of time and study in
recommending this.
Mayor Gleckman: Thank you. Mr. Aiassa, does this help the
Fire Department in anyway?
Mr. Aiassa: Yes it does, but we may also get a few more
false alarms.
Motion carried.
• 13. ACCEPTANCE OF MUNICIPAL SWIMMING POOL
Mr. Aiassa: Mr. Mayor - this is a great event in our time.
As you noticed we built this pool sometime
in September and the staff report outlines
some of the things that should be done and staff assures me we have during
the lien period of 35 days the right to accept the pool or see that these
items are done. I don't want Council to be alarmed because the pool must
be emptied again in order to take care of some of the minor things on the
bottom of the pool along with the plastic steps. It will require not more
than 3 days.I am advised by staff for the repairs.
_32-
• 'REG. C.C�.``6-23-69
Page
Thirty-three
CITY MANAGER - SWIMMING
POOL REPAIRS - Continued
Mayor Glee.kman:•
When does this work have to be
done
and how
much notice do we have to give
them
before the
closing of the pool?
Mr. Aiassa:
•
I believe Mr. Fast has talked
What is the time Mr.
to the
Fast?
architect.
schedule,
Mr. Fast:'.'.We have not yet been assured that the contractor
will chose to cause these .repairs to be done
himself, we hope he will in the next 35 days.
If he. will,,we hope he will give us at least 5 days notice so we can get the
word out to the community that the pool will be closed. We could not wait
until this•_winter for the repairs because the steps as they are now
constitute'.a'hazard to the swimmer's feet, so it must be. done as soon as
possible."The repairs to the bottom of the pool could perhaps wait, but we
felt they should all be done at one time. (Explained in detail.)
Mayor Gleckman: Is there not something that can be put over the
steps so it doesn't have to be done in the
particular manner you described?
Mr. Fast: I would guess that we would rather totally
deactivate the steps and not use them rather
than try and arrange something else until they
were properly repaired.
Mayor Gleckman: How long does it require to drain the pool?
Mr. Fast:
*Mayor Gleckman.
Mr. Fast:
Mayor Gleckman:
7 days, or whatever,
saying 3 days?
As I recall it is a day and a half operation.
If it takes a day and a half to drain and a
day to refill - do you mean the work is so
incidental that it can be bompleted in 3 days?
Practically, yes, The steps can 'be repaired
before the pool is completely emptied. (Explained)
What I would like to know is if we decide to,
close down the pool and we state it will be for
3 days and then you are closed down 5 days, or
then. we are compounding the problem. Are we safe in
Mr. Fast: I can't at this time tell you factually that
it will be 3 or 5 days or what time. I am
estimating it is going to take one and a half
days to empty, one day to fill and about 2 days to repair, and the repair
of the steps can 'be started prior to the emptying of the pool.
Councilman Nichols: I would like to state my opinion and that is that
we should do everything possible not to drain the
pool this summer. If it is a matter of
immobilizing'the stairs as they have been for the last several weeks, I feel
this should be done. It is the first summer season we have operated the pool,
the people are waiting to use it, and I think it is psychologically a bad
Wome
ime to close it down.We are dependent upon the whims of other people to
in and do the work and it conceivably could run a week, two weeks or
10 days or.even longer, which would be very bad community relations. It
seems to me we, ought to wait until September 1 and then do the repairs
and then,go into the winter program. I am very much opposed to seeing the
pool drained at this time.
Mayor Gleckman- What effect would that have - Mr. Fast, if we
did not proceed with these particular improve-
ments at this time?
_33_
REG. C.C. '6-23-69 Page Thirty-four
CITY MANAGER - SWIMMING POOL - Continued
Mr. Fast. If Council did not desire the cool to be
emptied we would either do everything we
could to attempt to find something else to serve
as a temporary make shift for the operation of the stairs, and in which
case we would relieve the contractor from his obligation to do these two
points, and instead agree to an. amount of money required to fix it, and
then we would fix the pool probably the first week of school. We could
make do.
Councilman Gillum. I am inclined to agree with Mr. Nichols.
Councilman Nichols. I think we should make every effort to keep the
pool open during the summer months.
Mr. Aiassa: I just want to advise Council that what I think
,our staff is saying is that the bulk of the work
which we were mostly concerned with has been
done. The items listed here will make the pool "A - okay "
If we can.determine the amount of money needed for the repairs we can
carry on now and then actually not use the plastic steps.
Motion by Councilman Nichols that Council accept and adopt the recommenda-
tions of staff A and B except that the staff make every effort to avoid
actual close down of the swimming pool, if possible through adjustment of
funds from the contractor; in the event this cannot be done then it would
be a matter of the staff merely informing Council that it is an impossibility.
Motion seconded by Councilman Chappell, and carried.
• Motion by Councilman Chappell, seconded by.Councilman Lloyd, and carried,
that Council concur with the recommendation of Kisner, Wright & Wright,
for accepting the Municipal Swimming Pool subject to the completion of the
two punch list items previously discussed by Council.
14. .LETTER FROM STATE SENATOR ALAN SHORT
RE. MASTER TRANSPORTATION PLAN REPORT
Motion by Councilman Chappell, seconded by Councilman Gillum, and carried,
that this be referred to staff.
1.5. COMPLAINT RE. RUBBISH SERVICE - William Barnett
16. STATE DEVELOPMENT. PLAN CONFERENCE
17. SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA AVIATION COUNCIL CONFERENCE
Mayor Gleckmane These three items are informational only.
Councilman Chappell: Item 17- Mr. Mayor. I would like to make a
motion that Council request Councilman. Lloyd
Council Conference. to attend the Southern. California Aviation
•
Seconded by Mayor Gleckman, and carried.
Mr. Aiassa: Mr.Mayor - with reference to Item 16. I have a
letter from the Assistant Director of the
League - (read letter.) I would like to go
at least one day.
- 34 -
1.
REG. C.C. 6-23-69
Page Thirty •five
CITY MANAGER - State Development Plan Conference - Continued
Mayor Gleckman: Does Council have any objection to Mr. Aiassa
attending the State Development Plan Conference
in Sacramento for one day, representing the
City at the League Conference?
Motion by Councilman Gillum, seconded by Councilman Lloyd, granting
permission and authorizing up to $75.00 for expenses to attend the one day
conference in Sacramento. Motion carried on roll call vote as follows:
AYES Councilmen Gillum,Nichols, Chappell, Lloyd, Mayor Gleckman
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
CITY CLERK
4TH OF JULY PARADE PERMIT
Motion by Councilman Nichols, seconded by Councilman Chappell, and carried,
granting permission for the 4th of July Parade.
Motion by Councilman Gillum,seconded by Councilman Lloyd, and carried, that
Council waive the $25.00 fee for the Parade permit.
CITY TREASUREW;S REPORT
Motion by Councilman Nichols, seconded by Councilman Lloyd, and carried,
that the City Treasurer's report for the month of May, 1969, be received
and filed.
• ----
MAYOR'S REPORTS
Sister City Program
Motion by Counciman Gillum,seconded by Councilman Lloyd, and carried,
authorizing the Mayor to meet with the Sister City Foundation to discuss
their program.
RESOLUTION NO. 4003 The City Clerk presented:
" A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF
ADOPTED THE CITY OF WEST COVINA, COMMENDING
RAWLSTON E. PONTOW FOR HIS SERVICES
TO THE CITY."
RESOLUTION NO. 4004 The City Clerk presented:
"A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF
ADOPTED THE CITY OF WEST COVINA COMMENDING
HARRY J. KAELIN, JR. FOR HIS SERVICES
TO THE CITY."
RESOLUTION NO. 4005 The City Clerk presented:
• "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF
ADOPTED THE CITY OF WEST COVINA COMMENDING
ROBERT E. NORDSTROM FOR HIS SERVICES
TO THE CITY."
RESOLUTION NO. 4006 The City Clerk presented:
"A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF WEST COVINA COMMENDING
VERNON MOTTINGER FOR HIS SERVICES
TO THE CITY.
- 35 -
REG. Ce C. 6-23-69 Page thirty-f ive-A
MAYOR'S REPORTS (continued)
Mayor_-Gleckman•r. Hearing no objections, waive further reading
of the body of the Resolutions.
Motion by Councilman Chappell, seconded by Councilman Lloyd, to adopt said
resolutions. Motion carried on roll call vote as follows:
AYES: Councilmen Gillum, Nichols, Chappell, Lloyd, Mayor Gleckman
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
Motion by Councilman Chappell, seconded by Councilman Lloyd, that said
resolutions be perma-plaqued. Motion carried on roll call vote as follows:
AYES: Councilmen Gillum, Nichols, Chappell, Lloyd, Mayor Gleckman
NOES:
ABSENT:
COMMISSION APPOINTMENTS
Mayor Gleckman: This is the time for reappointments and
appointments to our Commissions. We have had
the pleasure of having excellent participation
on our Commissions and this is the time for reappointment of our men and
the appointment of some that we are replacing from the standpoint of
giving someone else an opportunity to serve on the Commissions, or because
they have requested replacement. The men who have served in the past have
done an excellent .job and that was the reason for the Resolutions commending
them..-,At.this time it gives me great pleasure to appoint to the Recreation
and Park Commission 'Doc' Sooter and Buz Bemoll; Planning Commission -
Verne Cox and the reappointment of John Adams; Personnel
- 3 5-A -
REG. C.C. 6-23-69 Page Thirty-six
COMMISSION APPOINTMENTS - Continued
Board - reappointment of Francis Zoel.le. At our next meeting we will
either reappoint or appoint the two Commissioners coming up on the Human
Relations Commission. We will go into Executive Session on that at our
next meeting,
COUNCIL COMMITTEE REPORTS -
Councilman Gillum: I would like to commend the City people who
It was a well planned event,
conducted the City Employees` picnic Sunday.
With regard to the water situation, we have
progressed to the _point that I am not satisfied with the answers I am
getting from either side and with the concurrence of the Council I would
like to have City Manager set up a meeting with the City of Covina and
the Water Company, so we can get together and get some idea of where they
are goi.nm, and. I would like this in the form of a motion.
My motion would be that the City Manager
invite the City of
Covina, Suburban Water Company, and myself, to sit down
in one of our conference
rooms and discuss the matter of the water
situation to find
out where we stand at this time.
Councilman Lloyd:
I understand the involvement of the City of
Covina but why -the involvement of Suburban
Water?
Mayor Gleckman:
The City of Covina has offered to sell to
Suburban Water the meters in West Covina that
Suburban Water may
the City of Covina are servicing in order that
service the residents in the City of West Covina.
Councilman Lloyd:
Have we been approached by those who are the
injured parties to do exactly this?
CouncilmanGillum: They have not made a formal appeal to Council.
It personally started out at a protest meeting
that I was invited to attend. And it now
seems that they are lagging in coming to final conclusions and we are
getting into the summer months and I feel I am not getting enough
answers to feel confident that this matter will come to a definite con-
clusion, so I would like to sit down. with all parties concerned and
find out where we now stand,
Councilman Lloyd: What you are really referring to is the legal
term "good and one of the require-
ments is that one or both, parties make a direct
request. And I have seen no request. I am for the doing, but I want
someone to put it in writing so someone doesn't come back and say "what
are you sticking your nose in. it for?"
Councilman Gillum: Well we are sticking our nose in it because
of the 248 citizens of this City that have
complained loudly in the papers and at different
• meetings, that they are being charged a considerable amount more for their
water. 'What I am trying to do is use the offices of the City and the Mayor
to get the parties together and make headway and if not then I think the
City has an obligation to take an active role in it.
Councilman Lloyd: Mr. Aiassa, what is the stand of the
administration with regards to this?
Mr. Aiassa: We have only arranged the one or two meetings
with the representatives of Suburban Water and
the City of Covina.
- 36 -
• REG. C.C. 6-23-69
Page Thirty-seven
COUNCIL COMMITTEE REPORTS - Continued
Councilman Lloyd: What is our obligation from a City point of
view? Is the answer none? We may have a
moral obligation but this was not presented to Council previously, as I
understand it, was it?
•+ Mayor Gleckman: This was discussed by the City Council
previously and Mr. Gillum was appointed by
Council to meet with the City of Covina and
Suburban water to act as the coordinator and what he is now asking is
a showdown and that this Council authorize Mr. Gillum, and myself, to
meet through the auspices of the City Manager.....
Councilman Lloyd: Okay. I will second the motion.
Motion carried.
Councilman Nichols: The only thing I wanted to mention this
evening was the considerable pleasure I found
in picking up todays issue of the Tribune and
reading a very excellent article on the West Covina Chamber of Comm.erce's
goals anc programs for the coming year. I thought it was one of the most
timely and precise articles, particularly at this time with the new: -budget
being adopted. I want to commend them for this and urge them to continue
along that course which I feel is very excellent.,commu.nity relations. I
hope they keep it up.
Councilman Lloyd: I have a report on the meeting that the City
Manager and I had with the City of Covina on
helicopters. We have had the meetings and
are formulating plans, and as soon as they are formulated I will make the
presentation through this body.
Councilman Chappell: I want to call the Council's attention to
Mr. Pontow's luncheon tomorrow at the Huddle. I
hope that we can all get there to honor a man
who has spent a tremendous amount of time working for our community.
Mayor Gleckman: I would like to call for a motion postponing
our June 30, 1969, council meeting to July 7,
1969.
So moved by Councilman Gillum, seconded by
Councilman Lloyd.
Mayor Gleckman: The purpose of postponement is to meet with
the two consultants and discuss with them the
widening of West Covina Parkway.
Motion carried.
Mayor Gleckman: I might also remind everyone about the 4th of
July Parade. We are to meet at City Hall at
8:30 A.R.
DEMANDS
Motion by Councilman,Chappell, seconded by Councilman Lloyd, authorizing
payment of demands totalling $244,431.16 as listed on Demand sheets B437
and C626 through C628, and payroll reimbursement sheet. Motion carried
- 37 -
REG. C.C. 6-23-69
Page Thirty-eight
on roll call vote as follows:
AYES: Councilmen Gillum, Nichols, Chappell, Lloyd, Mayor Gleckman
., NOES:. None
ABSENT: None
Motion by Councilman Chappell, seconded by Councilman Lloyd, and carried,
that at 11:30 p.m. this meeting adjourn to July 7, 1969, at 7:30 p.m.
APPROVED:
MAYOR
ATTEST-
0
CITY CLERK
nb - 38 -