10-27-1969 - Regular Meeting - MinutesMINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL
CITY OF WEST COVINA, CALIFORNIA
OCTOBER 27, 19..69.
The regular meeting of the City Council was called to order at 7:30 P.M.,
by Mayor Leonard Gleckman, in the West Covina City Hall. The Pledge of
Allegiance was led by Councilman Jim Lloyd. Reverend David D. Meyer of
the United Methodist Church of West Covina gave the invocation.
ROLL CALL
Present: Mayor Gleckman;
Lloyd
Councilmen Gillum, Nicholas, Chappell,
Also Present: George Aiassa, City Manager
.Lela Preston, :City Clerk
George Wakefield, City Attorney
Richard Munsell, Planning Director
George Zimmerman, City Engineer
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
October 14, 1969 - Approved as submitted.
Motion by'CouncilmanChappell,, seconded by Councilman Lloyd, and carried,
approving the City Council minutes of October 14,,1969.
PUBLIC WORKS ITEMS
PRECISE1PLAN NO. 560 LOCATION: North side of Vine Avenue,
STREET IMPROVEMENTS east of Glendora Avenue.
BRANDT CONSTRUCTION
Motion by Councilman Chappell, seconded by Mayor.Gleckman, and carried,
accepting street, sidewalk and driveway improvements under Precise Plan
No. 560, and authorizing release of Maryland Casualty Company faithful
performance bond #187013 in the amount of $575.
PROJECT NO. MP-69018-3
GALSTER PARK WATER LINE
LOCATION: Galster Wilderness Park
Motion by Councilman Chappell; seconded by Councilman Nichols, and
carried, approving the -plans and specifications for. Galster Park water
line, Project No. MP-69018-3;•and authorizing the City Engineer to call
for bids.
PROJECTS NO. TS-69011 LOCATION: Valley Boulevard.and
TRAFFIC SIGNAL MODIFICATION Nogales Street (TS-68014, Traffic
& TRAFFIC SIGNAL INSTALLATION Signal modification) and Grand Avenue
STEINY & MITCHELL, INC. and Holt Avenue (TS-69011, Traffic
Signal installation).
Motion by Councilman Chappell, seconded by Mayor Gleckman, and carried,
accepting traffic signal modification and traffic signal installation;
and authorizing the release of General Insurance Company of America
faithful performance bond No. 622622 in the amount of $26,700.
ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. ADI-68
CAMERON AVENUE RIGHT-OF-WAY
ACQUISITION
LOCATION: Cameron Avenue between
Lark Elln and Azusa Avenues,: and
Azusa Avenue.
- 1 -
REG. C.C. 10/27/69
Public Works Items - Contd.
RESOLUTION NO. 4058
ADOPTED
..Mayor Gleckman:
0
Page Two
The City Clerk presented:
"A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF WEST COVINA, ACCEPTING A
,CERTAIN WRITTEN INSTRUMENT AND
RECOMMENDING THE RECORDATION THEREOF.
(Charles W.. Moncrieff, Jr. and
Dorothy D. Moncrieff.)
Hearing no objections, waive further.reading of
the body of said Resolution.
Motion by Councilman Chappell, seconded by Councilman Lloyd, approving
the adoption of said Resolution. Motion carried on roll call vote as
follows: -
AYES: Councilmen Gillum, Nichols, Chappell,'Lloyd, Mayor Gleckman
' NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ANNUAL REPORT ON STATUS OF
SEWER REIMBURSEMENT AGREEMENTS - 1969
Motion by Councilman Chappell, seconded by Councilman Lloyd, accepting
the annual. .report on the status of sewer reimbursement agreements, and
that the funds available at this time be reimbursed in accordance with
the agreements. Motion carried on roll call vote as follows:
AYES: Councilmen Gillum, Nichols, Chappell, Lloyd, Mayor Gleckman
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
PRESENTATION OF CERTIFICATE OF APPRECIATION TO MARC ZOLA.
Mayor Gleckman read a letter dated October 17, 19.69., 'thanking Marc Zola,
1.3 years of age, and commending him for his observations and testimony
resulting in the apprehension of a felony suspect and the return of
fur coats stolen from the Royal Coachmen Restaurant. Certificate of
Appreciation from the West.Covina Police Department,, signed by the
Chief of Police, Allen Sill; the City Manager, George Aiassa; and
Mayor Gleckman, read and presented to Marc Zola by .Mayor Gleckman.
PLANNING COMMISSION
Review Action of October 15, 1969
- Council reviewed each item.
Motion by Councilman Chappell, seconded by Councilman Lloyd; and carried,
to accept and file Planning Commission meeting action of October 15, 1969.
HUMAN RELATIONS COMMISSION
Nolandale Street Status Report
WRITTEN COMMUNCATIONS
- Report received by Council. No
comments.
a<) Letter from Jewish War Veterans requesting permission
to sell Poppies for their annual Poppy Sale, November 7-8. 1969.
Motion by Councilman Chappell, seconded by Councilman Lloyd, and carried,
granting permission to the Jewish War Veterans to sell Poppies on
November 7-8, 1969.
- 2 -
•
REG. C.C. 10/27/69
Written Communications - Cont'd.
Page Three
b) Letter from Unitarian Youth Group requesting permission to
trick or treat for United Nations International Children's
Education Fund (UNICEF) in West Covina -on October 31. 1969.
Motion by Councilman Lloyd, seconded by Councilman Nichols, and carried,
that permission be granted to UNICEF as requested.
c) Memorandum from Planned Parenthood -World Population
Motion by Councilman Chappell, seconded by Councilman Lloyd, and carried,
that this informational item be received and filed.
d) Letter from Spanish Trails Girl Scout Council requesting
permission to sell Girl Scout Calendards, November 21 -
December 15, 1969.
Motion by Councilman Chappell, seconded by Councilman Nichols,.and
carried, granting permission as requested to the Spanish Trails Girl
Scout Council.
e) Letter from West Covina Chamber of Commerce re steps that have
been taken in connection with request of Goodwill Industries
for placement of collection booths. -
Motion by Councilman Chappell, seconded by Councilman Lloyd,'and carried,
that this item.be received and referred to the City Mznager's Item #12.
f) Letter from Seventh -day Adventist Church of Baldwin Park
requesting permission to use -sound car with Christmas music
in caroling program
Motion by Councilman Chappell, seconded by. Councilman.Llo;yd, and carried,
.referring this item to!staff.
g) Goals & objectives of Santa Ana Centennial 'Committee with invitation
to their Centennial October 25, 1969, at 8 P.M.. Santa Ana Bowl.
Motion by Councilman Chappell, seconded by Councilman Lloyd, and carried,
to receive and file.
CITY ATTORNEY
ORDINANCE NO,' 110;0 The City ' Attorney'' resented-.
ADOPTED "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF WEST COVINA, REPEAL-
ING SECTIONS 4305, 4305.1 &4305.2
OF, & ADDING SECTIONS 9228.2 & 9228.2.1 TO THE WEST COVINA MUNICIPAL CODE
RELATING TO HOBBY KENNELS & THE KEEPING OF HOUSEHOLD PETS. (Amendment No.99)
Motion by Cou ncilman:Chappell,'.seconded by Councilman Lloyd, and 'carried,
waiving further, reading of the body of said Ordinance:}.
Motion by Councilman Chappell, seconded by Councilman Lloyd, adopting
said Ordinance. Motion carried on roll call vote as follows:
AYES: Councilmen Gillum, Nichols, Chappell, Lloyd, Mayor Gleckman
NOES: None
..ABSENT;. None
3 -
REG. C.C. 10/27/69 Page Four
-City Attorney - Contad.
RESOLLUTION NO. 4059 The City Attorney presented:
ADOPTED "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF WEST COVINA, AMEND-
ING CERTAIN PROVISIONS OF
RESOLUTION NO. 1277 RELATING TO AUTHORIZED POSITIONS AND SALARIES
(Regular Full-time Classifications)."
Mayor Gleckman: Hearing no objections, waive further reading of
the body of said Resolution.
Motion by Councilman Chappell, seconded by Councilman Lloyd, adopting
said Resolution. Motion carried on roll call vote as ,follows:
AYES: Councilmen Gillum, Nichols, Chappell, Lloyd, Mayor Gleckman
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
RESOLUTION NO. 4060 The City Attorney presented:
ADOPTED "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF WEST COVINA, AMEND-
ING CERTAIN PROVISIONS OF RESOLUTION
NO. 1277 RELATING TO AUTHORIZED POSITIONS AND SALARIES (Limited Service
Employees')."
Mayor Gleckman: Hearing noobjections, waive further reading of
the body of said Resolution.
Motion by Councilman Chappell, seconded.by Councilman Lloyd, and carried,
adopting said Resolution. Motion carried on roll call vote as follows:
AYES: Councilmen Gillum, Nichols, Chappell, Lloyd, Mayor Gleckman
NOES: None
ABSENT None
Motion by Coiinci'lman Chappell, seconded by Councilman Lloyd, and carried,
that Item 4 pertaining to salaries and authorized positions of Police
Department Clerk -stenographers be held over to the next regular meeting
of Council.
Mr. Aiassa: Mr.' Mayor, I Would like to have this held over
beyond the next regular meeting because it will
take staff 30 to 60.,days to complete this report.
I would like it held over to December 8, 1969.
Amendment to motion made-by.7.Councilman Chappell,
accepted by Councilman Lloyd, and carried, that this item be held over
to the Council meeting of December 8, 1969.
RESOLUTION NO. 4061
ADOPTED
Mayor Gleckman:
The City Attorney presented:
"A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF NEST COVINA, COMMEND-.
ING FRED SHRADER FOR HIS SERVICES TO
THE CITY."
Hearing no objections, waive further reading of
the bodyy of said Resolution.
Motion by Councilman Chappell, seconded by'Councilman Lloyd, adopting
said Resolution.. Mottion carried on roll call vote as follows:
AYES: Councilmen Gillum, Nichols, Chappell, Lloyd, 'Mayor Gleckman
NOES: None'
ABSENT: None
- 4 -
REG. C.C. 1.0/27/69 Page Five
City Attorney _. Cont' d,
Merced/Orange Avenue. Horse Ranch Problem
Mr. Wakefield: .: _We_...madb a motion for :a preliminary injunction,
to enjoin the:.keeping of any horses on the Merced
Avenue property, that motion is set for.hearing. a
week from next Thursday at 9 a.m., in the Pomona branch of the Superior
Court. The health officer has visited the property on two occasions
recently and has found conditions to be unsatisfactory and has issued
citations to the individuals occupying the property. I think it just
adds up to.the-fact that we ,have a bad situation that needs to be corrected.
(Mayor Gleckman asked Mr. Aiassa to have staff notify the people that
called this item to Council's attention.)
City of West Covina vs. Ahmanson Bank & Trust Company
Mr. Wakefield: I don't know why this was on the agenda exactly
other th; in an effort to call your attention
to the fact that we finally precluded all of'the
proceedings relating.to the Barranca Street improvements and this is'the
last. .item and the City Attorney` -is presenting his, closing bill for the
cost involved.in the condemnation action required ;to acquire the rights -of -
way necessary. The matter has all been closed now, there are two or three
actions still pending involving the bond posted by:the.Surety forthe
contractor:, and some of the subcontractors, but the Surety Company is
handling that litigation on behalf of the City and the City is not involved
in it.
Motion by Councilman Chappell, seconded by Councilman Lloyd, approving the
payment of $1927.50 to Burke, Williams & Sorenson, for services rendered, as
®per statement rendered dated October 20, 1969. Motion carried on roll call
vote as follows:
AYES: Councilmen Gillum, Nichols, Chappell, Lloyd, Mayor Gleckman
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
CITY MANAGER
1)Int.er-City Public Works Equipment Rental Agreement
Mr., Aiassa: Mr. Wakefield has.some changes to make to this
contract and we didn't have time to make copies
for the Council.
Mr. Wakefield: In discussing the draft of the. contract with the
City of Covina representatives it was apparent
that a little more flexibility was necessary to
provide for changes in the kinds. of,equipment available for rental. We
propose to change .in:Sections:2 and 3 the wording to permiteach City to
file with the City Clerk of the other City, a list of the equipment.it
has available for rental and the rent applicable to'it. This will avoid
the necessity of amending the contract every time items are 'added or
subtracted from the list.
•Motion by Councilman Nichols, seconded by Councilman Lloyd, 'recommending
that City Council approve the Equipment Rental Agieei«e,,t Detween the cities
of Covina aiid West Covina: as amended; and Authorize.that, it be signed.by
the Mayor and the City Clerk.
Councilman Nichols::_ I think .this is an outstanding progressive step.
I don't know how many communities in our area
have such agreements. I would like to direct that
question to the City ,Manager..
5 -:
REG. C.C. 10/27/69 Page Six
City Manager - Item 1 - Cont°d.
Mr. Aiassa: I believe we are the first to start this in our
area and there will be many more to follow.
This -follows the Mutual Aid Agreement with the
Police Departments and the Fire Departments, and now we are doing it
with the Public Works and Engineering services.
Councilman Nichols: Mr. Mayor, sometime ago the.two City Councils,
Covina and West Covina, held a.joint meeting,
and at this meeting urged that such cooperation
between our staffs be taken, and. I think this is a fine example of the
follow through which occurred and will result in a savings of money for
both cities. I am very much pleased to see this occur.
Motion carried.
2) West Covina Parkway - Street Name Change Notification.
Mr. Aiassa: 'This is an informational memo regarding the pro-
posed name change and the manner staff will handle
notification to the concerned persons, along with
a letter to be signed by the Mayor giving notification.
Mayor Gleckman: Can you give us some idea as to when the freeway
widening.will begin?
Mr..A.iassa: Our schedule is for 1970-71-72. 'They are now
starting to obtain rights -of -way.
Motion by Councilman Nichols, seconded by Councilman Chappell, and
carried, to receive and file.
3. Undergrounding of Utilities
League Resolution
Mayor Gleckman: Wehave a report dated October 22nd relating to
the underground utilities along.with a
recommendation by:staff that Council authorize
the Mayor to 'express ' the City of West Covina °'s approval of ` the Proposed
Report, and our concurrence in the need for utility companies to budget
additional funds with which to undertake local conversion projects at
the forthcoming League of California Cities Convention in San Francisco -
which I believe has already taken place. Any:,discussion, if not I would
entertain a motion.
So moved by Councilman Chappell, seconded by
Councilman Lloyd.
Councilman. Lloyd: Mr.' Aiassa does this mean'that'th.is will be
retroactive? The acceptance by this Council',
does that mean action will have to be taken
by the public utility companies?
Mr. Zimmerman: I think the utilities, are now budgeting sums of
money and we are only asking them in the future
to increase their budgeting so that:the under -
grounding occurs faster.
Councilman Lloyd: I understand that, but the question is - is
this retroactive? In other words those
utilities that are currently on poles are we
going back on any sort of a planned program to put all utilities under-
ground?
Mr. Zimmerman: Yes. This is a long range program and this is
specifically aimed at those now existing above
ground. Our ordinance requires all new ones be
underground.
6 _
REG. C.C. 10/27/69 Page Seven
City Manager - Item 3 - Cont Id.
Councilman .Lloyd: In accepting this, do they have to do something
now?
Mr. Zimmerman: Yes. This is a program underwhich the electric
companies, specifically Edison Company will pro-
ceed to establish districts in cooperation with
the City. These districts may or may not include assessments on private
property owners. Can orders.of priority as money becomes available from
the utility companies, and as Council sets up these districts and
assessments, the existing utilities - light and telephone - will go
underground.
Councilman Lloyd: In other words there is a possibility that the
private property owner may have to expend funds
to put these things underground.
Mr. Zimmerman: That is true. It is occurring in some cities.
Councilman Lloyd:
In your meetings have you received a concurrence
or agreement with regards to the Edison Company?
Mr., Zimmerman:
Yes. Under the chairmanship of Mr. Fast, we have
had a number .of meetings with the Edison Company,
and have made a recommendation. However, we wish
to come back to you
in the near future with a further recommendation.
Councilman Lloyd:
As I understand it - and I don't want something
to come as a shock to the people, that suddenly
they have to put their utilities underground and
pay $1500. or whatever
it might be. I don't know what it would cost, but
with today"s market
prices it could be considerable. Is that true?
Mr„ Zimmerman:
Yes, excepting that the Edison Company normally
.in these districts, as they are set up in other
cities but not necessarily, pays for the work
within the public
rights -of -way, which are the most expensive ones and the
private properties
normally work on their own properties only, which is a
smaller portion,
Councilman Lloyd:
'If a private property owner has an easement on his
property by Southern California Edison he has to
bury -the cable - is that correct?
Mr. Zimmerman:
If it is a main line, they might pay for it. If
it is just serving his own property,.then that
would be true.
Mr. Wakefield: As I understand it - Councilman Lloyd, in most
instances the property owner only pays for the
cost of relocating the wiring on his own house or.
property to a point where he receives it underground. If he has a
connection on the top of his garage it would be necessary to bring that
connection to the ground, so the wiring could be changed and there is some
expense involved.
Councilman Lloyd: If the average homeowner has to pay for this I
. would say we are talking three to five hundred
dollars. I am very favorably disposed to this,
I consider this in the area of obstruction to the esthetics of our City,
and it certainly has to be done, but I think it is incumbent ,upon this
body, and I would like to hear comment from,the rest;, of, 'the'.�ouncil, as
to our .responsibilities to the'citize'ns on this type of thing. I think
it merits our attention a good deal more than just waiting'and &Fll of a
sudden we find people down here who hadn't anticipated that they are
going to get hit with a bill.
It
- 7 -
REG. C.C. 10/27/69 Page Eight
City Manager - Item 3 - Cont°d.
Mayor Gleckman: First of all we are talking about new 'con-
struction and conversion and service connections.
I thi'l-nh,"someplace in the United States it has.
already happened and I would like to see it happen in the City of West
Covina, where people have to start thinking about taking down these ugly
telephone poles and other things that commonly destroy what is known as
city beauty, and the easiest and cheapest way for the Cities to do this
is the manner in which the League of California Cities is trying to do it.
Naturally the people who are going to receive the benefit of this have
to pay for it: You are not going to get something for nothing, but
without this type of legislation the Utility Companies are putting in
right at the present time, by law, a very small consideration for
getting the job done, and if this is the only extent in which they are
going to participate without this type of legislation being instituted,
you may get.the job done in about seven or eight hundred years. I
think this is what this is really trying to dois bring about the
elimination of overhead utilities and put them underground and until
someone comes up with ,a better method this is a.step in the right
direction in my opinion.
Motion carried.,
:HEARINGS
STREET VACATION OF A CERTAIN PORTION LOCATION: California Avenue and
—OF CALIFORNIA AVENUE - PROTEST HEARING San Bernardino Freeway.
Hearing of protests or objections set for .August 11, 1969, by Resolution
No. 4014 adopted on July 9, 1.969,.held over to October 14, 1969, and
continued to this date.
Mayor Gleckman: We have a request to hold this over to our
meeting of November 10, 1969, with the public
hearing held open.
So moved by Councilman Nichols, seconded,by
Councilman Lloyd, and carried.
2) UNCLASSIFIED USE PERMIT NO. 142 LOCATION: Westerly portion
PRECISE PLAN.NO. 500 - CITY INITIATED of the Civic Center site.
REQUEST approval of an unclassified use permit for a heliport and
approval of an amendment to an existing precise plan of design to permit
a heliport. Recommended by Planning Commission Resolutions Nos. 2185 &
2186. Held over from September 22, 1969, to this date..
(.Mayor Gleckman advised that Unclassified Use Permit No. 142 and Precise
Plan :No. 500 would be heard concurrently.)
Mr. M.unsell, Planning Director, presented verbally the staff report
along with the showing of slides, and read the list of conditions set
forth by the Planning Commission, and advised that the Resolution
contains essentially the same conditions.
MAYOR GLECKMAN OPENED.THE PUBLIC HEARING.
August. Jamroz I am against the Heliport being in this particu-
101.6 W. Greendale St. lar location. Living about a mile away from the
West Covina site, I noticed a few weeks ago at my home a
horrible noise outside of the house, I rushed
out and saw a helicopter and it sounded more like two or three trucks.
The questions I would like to raise are: Has the flight plan and minimum
altitudes been settled? Does the City have control over these items?
. In view of the fact that there is a Heliport in
Azusa. which I think is about 15 minutes away, there is a. question in my
- 8 -
REG, C,,C. 10/27/.69
HEARINGS - Item 2-.Cont'd.
Page Nine
mind whether such close proximity to this other heliport is really
necessary.
Carl
Klein
I am not particularly for or
against and I have
1318
E. Workman
just -a couple of -questions.
This is supposed
West
Covina
to be a temporary site and I
am wondering when
it will be vacated and where
the other site
will
be? And at
whose expense is building the temporary site and how
will
it affect the City, particularly as to taxes?
George Sarachem I.would like to report an action just taken on
Manager this matter. The Chamber has had two or three
Chamber of Commerce different committees studying this .in some depth
and at the Board of Directors meeting held this
past Thursday,,this was brought to their attention and action taken.
The action was that they firmly and completely wanted to endorse and
support the move to locate this on the temporary site and at the same
time find a.'permanent site for location of this facility, but they do
support this action that is being taken now.
Harry Kallum I would like to say that I do think the heliport
611 So. St„Marlowe St, is a good thing coming to West Covina. I didn't
West Covina know Azusa had one; I did know El M®7iterecently
initiated this quick flight taxi to the airport
and it has .increased their business. What I thin. is wrong about this
particular heliport and I don't know whether the Planning Commission
has gone into this or not, but the wind direction.in the City of West
Covina is generally from the southwest, You might say a -helicopter
doesn't pay any attention to the wind, and maybe you wouldn't but the
pilot does. He is;going to come down straight into the wind, if possible.
When the Planning Commission was talking about this and approved it. I
wondered if they took into consideration the fact that the freeway.work
• i.s going to start soon.. From the slides shown a lot of work -is going
to be done and I thought the City had a policy that when you bring
something of that size and. nature that you like to get your money's
worth out of it and I don't think you are going to get.your money out
of i t in a year or two. And as you stated they are going to start on the
freeway in 19`�0 and that is only a couple of months away. I also think
of the proximity of the freeway and the possible hazard. of accidents with
the heliport so near to the freeway. We are talking .in a matter of feet
from the freeway.
'As an example, I bring to your attention the
statue at the .Forest Lawn Memorial Park, some part of the statue broke
and caused it to tilt so when they reproduced this statue they made an
exact replica'of the original and caused it to tilt also. The manager
at Forest Lawn wi.l,l tell you people have come to him and asked him why
the statue was tilting and if he couldn't do something about it because
it almost causes accidents, what with people looking at it and talking
about it while driving down the freeway. So .if that one little statue
can do that you can imagine what a heliport will do to people driving
down the freeway and not know.ing'we have a airport.
Roger Cable I think my main assistance at this time
590.1 W. Imperial Highway would be to.answer any questions you'may have.
-- Los Angeles Several questions were raised which I will
relate to at this time, if I might. I
represent the Los Angeles Airways„ I am a Vice -President, and we are
the proposed user of the site. We are the only certificated operator
that can provide helicopter service to the City of West Covina. We
have surveyed this site and feel it is economically feasible to provide
service at a profit from this point. I might state that we are
projecting during the period .from December of this year through October
of 1971, at which time we would proposally have to vacate the site, that
we would carry over 150,000 passengers from the site and this is a very
conservative estimate..
The first question ;raised.- has the flight
9
REG, CoC. 10/27/69 Page Ten
HEARING S -�.tem -2 -- `,GoriV d�.
path and minimum altitudes which the helicopter would fly been approved?
I would say that the City is in receipt of a letter from the Federal
Aviation Administration which has conducted an air space survey for this
particular airport and the flight pass for the altitudes which would be
flown by our commercially certificated helicopters have been approved.
We must maintain sufficient altitude at all times when flying our
helicopters so in case of an emergency we can affect a landing without
the use of the engines. That is the failure of both engines. In taking
off and .landing we must be able to land the helicopter with the failure
of one engine at any critical time. All of these things have been taken
into consideration in a survey of this site by the .Federal Aviation
Administration.
As far as the Azusa heliport is concerned, there
is presently no airport except in the City of Pomona in this vicinity
which can be used by the commercially operated helicopters. I stated what
we feel will generate during the period of time that we will be able to
have this site. I think one of the primary things that needs to be brought
out at this time is the fact as to why should we move into a temporary site
atthis time instead of waiting until we find a permanent site. The
Department. of Transportation, which presently is taking a new look at the
total transportation needs of the entire country, has embarked on a
major plan to develop a balanced transportation system including all modes
of transportation -.surf ace, high-speed, fixed, rail and air transportation
from one facility best assimilating the flow of traffic in major populated
areas. However to qualify for funds available for these type of
facilities you first must demonstrate the need for the facility. It is
good to make a bunch of market studies, but until you prove the need it is
hard to justify the attainment of federal funds and that .is the biggest
reason for moving forward to obtain a temporary site. A site we know
we must vacate within a specific period of time, one which does not
•cause undue concern to a great number of people and one which in this
period of time we should be able to determine if it is feasible to have
such a facility in the City of West Covina. If at the end of this
temporary period it is felt that it causes more disruption than service
to the community-, the ;n that isa good time to get rid of it. We feel
that .it. will not be anything of the sort and will definitely prove there;
is in fact a big need for this type of facility in West Covina.
The other gentleman brought up two very fine
points„ one- wind direction. True, the wind does come from the
southwest and the airport as shown is so designed that the largest
portion, the area 150 x 170 will be utilized for the landing of the
helicopter. The elongated portions shown in blue are merely for the
take off of the helicopter and the area in which it can land back on
in case of.an'engine failure. It .is only extra land and one of the
technicalities we must live with in the helicopter business. The size
of the path we will be using 90% of the time is 150 x 150, but to meet
the requirements of the State of California and the Federal Aviation
Administration we must have the additional asphalt for the possibility
of a'land back. There is some slight amendment to the plan shown as
finally approved by the State of California and that is an extension
of the pavement-, approximately 121 south and the relocation of the
Administration Building. So it does-not__conflict with the clear zones.
As far .as the freeway disruption, there was an
•opposition filed by the Highway Commission to this site, because they
felt there may be some disruption. After meeting with them and having
them survey the sites which we presently service adjacent to freeways,
one in Glendale and one in Riverside, they have withdrawn'thei.r
objection atthis time and will utilize this facility to better evaluate
what distraction, if any, there will be ata freeway. Again, it is the
policy of the Department of Transportation to utilize the air spaces of
all modes of transportation to the best avail. In fact there is a plan
in Paaadena that has been evaluated by their City Council for putting a
heliport over the'top of the freeway in conjunction with the post office.
I will be glad to answer any questions that Council may have.
10
REG,, C.C. 10/27/69 Page Eleven
BEARINGS _ Item 2 - Cont°do
.PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED. COUNCIL DISCUSSION°
Mayor Gleckman: The three questions not yet.answered are:
the expense, the taxes, and city control.
Mr. Aiassa, regarding city control, to what
extent does the City have control over the minimum altitude, flight
plan or any future disposition of this, once we sign the contract?
Mr. Aiassa: I believe the actual physical operation will be
controlled by the.State and Federal Aviation
Adm.in.istrati.on,the only control we have is the
actual ground usages,' such as parking areas, etc. Is that true,
Mr. Wakefield?
Mr. Wakefield: Yes.
Mayor Gleckman: What are we talking about as far as cost?
Mr, Aiassa. I have a breakdown in my report, but this has
nothing to do with the zoning or land use.
Councilman Gillum: The question was asked by someone during the
public hearing and I think we should answer it
as far as possible in regard to cost to the City.
Although I do agree it doesn't have anything to do with the zoning.
Mr. Aiassa: There are several ways of financing; one, is the
use of public funds; two, the installatiai by
the L. A. Airways itself and reimbursementpay
back by the City; and the third is a private plan where a private group
of citizens get together and lease the facility and are reimbursed by
the heliport.
Mayor Gleckman: Are you going to make a recommendation during
your report? (Mr. Aiassa: Yes) How about
the dollars and cents figure?
Mr., Aiassa: I am going.to ask tonight for authorization to
do the final plans and specifications. All I
have tonight with reference to cost is an
approximate figure,'somewhere between $40,000 and $50,000.
Mayor Gleckman:
If the City of West Covina bore the entire cost
with no return for their investment, we are
talking about a 5C tax, if you want to relate it
to taxes, the actual
money that would be used from the General Fund.
Councilman Chappell:
One gentleman referred to the "horrible noise".
Unfortunately we have two things going on at
one time .in the City, the Police testing plus the
airways testing. I
think this should be explained.'
Mayor Gleckman:
On different Fridays we have been testing ;-.the
City of Covina and the City of West Covina - have
been engaged in a sample operation.of a•police
helicopter. So .if you
hear this noise on a Friday afternoon or evening
it is the testing of
different types of helicopters that we are looking
70 at as far as police
protection.
Councilman Nichols: I had the opportunity to travel with two members
of the City Engineering Department a couple of
weeks ago to Riverside where we were able to
observe the coming and going of the large helicopters of the L. A. Air-
ways. The machine made a landing approach similar to the kind I was .
told would be made on this site; also that: site in Riverside is very
close to the freeway just as this one would be and for the benefit of
the Council;, it was my experience that the helicopter was virtually
undetectable until it!wa-s almostready to 1,and. When .it 1anded as it
REG.-C.C. 10/27/69 Page Twelve
HEARINGS - Item 2 - Cont' d.
came in,, perhaps a 100 -,feet away from the landing site then it did
become quite loud for a.brief period of time, and it seemed to me
to be somewhat louder than a truck passing on the freeway. But it was
my reaction at the time that .if I had been three or four hundred feet
away instead of 50 to a 100, it would not have been any louder than the
noises from vehicles moving along the freeway. I was very pleasantly
surprised at that fact. My conclusions based on the trip and the
observation of the flight in and out was that the noise factor for
West Covina would be minimal.
Councilman Lloyd: I would like to ask Mr. Cable. a couple of
questions. In your experience what kind of
monies can be generated? Let's assume the fee
for building this is indeed the $50,000 total. And let's assume the
City puts up the money at the present moment. What kind of revenue.
would accrue, first by the way of landing fees from L. A. .Airways?
Mr. Cable:, We have made a proposal to. the City of West
Covina in the form of a proposed lease of the
facility:._ Under the terms of that lease, from
December 1 through October of 1971 or 72, whichever year it is that we
have to get out, there.,would-be approximately $13,000 generated for
carrying the 150,000 passenge.r's.
Councilman Lloyd: So now we are down to $37,000 cost.
Mr. Cable: In addition it has been our experience from
heliports wherein there has been control of the
rental, car agencies and other surface transporta-
tion from the heliport site, that approximately at this time and it is
growing every year, 10% of the passengers utilize the rental car or other
concessions from the facility. For .instance at our Downey Airport, which
.s one of two where we have complete control within the facility or the
City of Downey does of all of the associated transportation and other
income, the average rental, car invoice is $33.00. I. might relate this
to one other thing. . At the Downey airport and hopefully at this one,
the rental car is of such a reduction that it makes the helicopter
fare virtually free. Our proposed fare out of the West Covina .Heliport
is $9.05 and when travelling in•conjunction with a major airl.ige ti.cl�et
of $50.00 or more, the major airlines absorb 50% so the cost is $4.52;
the rental car agencies reduce their daily rate by $2.00 and their
mileage rate by 2c1 a mile. Just taking .into consideration driving to
the International Airport in Los.Angeles and back, that is a saving of
$2.00 in mileage and $2.00 on the car rental or a total of $.4.00, so it
would cost the passenger '52G to'dr.ive. This is how they can attain this
great of a percentage .and .it .is increasing and they expect to catch
20% of the passengers. Downey, which .is closer to Los Angeles than we:
are here in West Covina, the average rental..invoice is $32.00, the City
gets 10% or $3.20. If we had 15,000 passengers utilize rental cars at
$3.50 ,that is well. in excess of the total cost of the airport .itself..
Councilman Lloyd: Mr. Aiassa, would we run the rentals - is that up
to us? I don't know.
Mr. Aiassa: We have not finalized the draft agreement between
L. A. Airways and the,C.ity.
Councilman Lloyd., Does L, A. Airways intend to ask'for this con_,
cession or would that be the City's?
Mr. Cable: Our proposed lease to the City of West Covina
reserves the right to the City for all con-
cessions except for those revenues derived .from
our insurance machine, which actually costs us more to operate than the
revenues out of .it. By .law we mast have someone. there to watch it at all
times. One of the terms of our proposed lease to the City is that they
retain al.l.rights to the income .from concessions at the heliport - car
rentals, vending machines, etc.
12
REG. CSC. 10/27/69
-HEARINGS - Item 2 - Cont' d.
Page Thirteen
Councilman Lloyd: In other words, if your operation is as
successful as you have painted it this evening
it is very possible the City scould come out
well above the $50,000 investment?
Mr. Cable: I certainly would thin}: it could be a profit-
able investment for the City.
• Mr.. Wakefield: Mr. Mayor - there is one question I think should
be answered by Mr. Cable with reference to the
Precise Plan. It is my recollection, Mr. Cable,
that the approval of the State Division of Aeronautics was conditioned
upon the construction of a Class 3 heliport. Is the plan shown that of
a Class 3 Heliport?
Mr. Cable: Yes, it is.
Councilman Gillum: There was some question raised as to the
advisability of the City.becoming involved with
a heliport and the responsibility the City had
regarding the property and the time limit put on it. I would like to
remind my fellow councilmen that directly to the south of us they are
developing probably one of the 1'argest industrial areas in the San Gabriel
Valley areas, the City of Industry. The City of West Covina will never
have the opportunity to enjoy any type of light manufacturing because of
the make up of our community and I feel very strongly if we do not take
the opportunity presented to us to establish a transportation center
within our community and provide the services which are essential to a
manufacturing area, such as the City of Industry, that the City of
Industry will see the opportunity and establish such a transportation
center. It has been my experience in the.15 years I have lived. -in this
community that unfortunately on some very large and profitable and:. nice
projects, we have always been a dollar short and a day late, and I can
cite those that are now in other areas than West.Covina. I think it is
imperative to this community that we do establish a transportation
center and I think the heliport is the .first step in that direction. I.
know this Council realizes and I am sure future Councils will realize,
that we have to establish a permanent site for it.* I can assure the
gentleman that brought up the question that this project is being worked
on daily by the Chamber of Commerce with other developers and property
owners in the community and .isn't something we are trying to establish.
now and then wait.the two years before finding a permanent site. Whether
we want to accept .it, or in some cases even like it, West Covina is a
City and it is going to be a very large City, and I think an important
aspect to the future development of this City is a transportation center.
I would strongly recommend to Counci.l'that we proceed with this in all
haste and don't drop the ball on this as .it has been done on'some
projects in the -past years in this community.
Councilman Nichols: We are actually considering an Unclassified Use
Permit and a Precise Plan. -here. We.are actually
not considering any of the financing, although
perhaps it has properly been brought before us; but I don't want .it to
cloud my own judgment here. I reserve for myself the right to react
negatively or positively to whatever proposals might be made. in the terms
of the ultimate financing of such a facility and the participation or
lack of participation of the*City directly in connection with that
financing. The financing proposal has not been made to us tonight.
Relative to what is before the Council I lend my wl-sole.hearted support
and I am prepared to vote strongly in favor of the Unclassified Use
Permit and the Precise Plan, and wish to express total agreement with
the comments made by Councilman Gillum and ask him to allow.me to use
those words as my own to save further additional talk. I support and will
vote in'favor of both items.
Motion by Councilman Chappell, seconded by Councilman Lloyd, and carried,
approving the City initiated.Unclassified Use Permit No. 142.
- 1.3 -
REG. C.C. 10/27/69 Page Fourteen
'-HEARINGS - Item 2 - Cont Id®'
Mot..i.on by Councilman Chappell, seconded by Councilman Lloyd, and carried,,
approving Precise Plan No. 500, City initiated, with certain modifications
in the Precise Plan substantially in.accord with Study Plan A.
THE CHAIR DECLARED A RECESS AT 8:50 P-M.m- COUNCIL RECONVENED AT 9:05 P.M.
3) AMENDMENT NO. 98 A proposed amendment regarding various
CITY INITIATED modifications to Article IX,
Chapter 11, Parts 10, 11, 12.5, 13.5,
171 22 and 27 of the West Covina
Municipal Code.. Held over from September 22, 1969, to this date.
Recommended by Planning Commission Resolution No. 2187.
(Mr. Munsel.l, Planning Director, verbally presented staff report',. briefly
summarized the items of modification pertaining to landscaping, off street
parking, yards, etc., reading from Planning Commission Resolution No. 2187.)
MAYOR GLECKMAN OPENED THE PUBLIC HEARING. THERE BEING NO PUBLIC TESTIMONY
EITHER IN FAVOR OR IN OPPOSITION, PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED. COUNCIL
DISCUSSION. i -
Mayor Gleckman: Mr. Wakefield, we seem to be having a police
problem .in the City of West Covina,as in other
places, such as at the Plaza and Eastland with
the hippies sitting around and saying things to people as they pass. I
am curious - is it because it is private property that we can't enforce
some of ,the things we would like to in order to eliminate this problem,
and'i.f so, is there any criteria setforth that we are not preempted by
the State so that law enforcement could get involved at the time a
commercial center is built. or a,center exists, so that they can go in
on the property in order to get rid of this problem?
Mr,. Wakefield: The Supreme Court of the United States. in a series
of decisions, decisions growing out primarily of
.picket.ing.and loitering upon public property have
in effect decided an individual has a right to peacefully use private
property which is open generally to public use. The same statutory
prohibitions apply to that :use of private property for public purposes
that applies to any other public.property and the same laws are applicable
and can be enforced by the Police Department, both State laws and local
ordinances. There is no need, as I see it, for any additional
ordinance amendments or any changes .in existing State law to permit the
enforcement of the loitering statutes or other statutes applicable in
such situations. The private property owner can post his property and
can'cl.ose it to public use after certain hours in the evening.
Mayor Gleckman:
No:, I was thinking of the situation we had in the
past - a Black Muslin situation of selling
newspapers at the Plaza and if I remember correctly
at that time we had
to seek permission from the property owner to get some
type of .injunction against that being done, and I am wondering whether the
public body can take
action without having to seek out the private owner
who may be in Europe
or some other place.
Mr. Wakefield:
The public body has a right to take action
insofar as those portions of the property which are
open to public use.
Mayor Gleckman:
Is'it necessary for the private owner to sign
in order to go to court for an injunction to stop
this type of selling, shall I say of a newspaper,
on private property?
Mr. Wakefield:
No. The same statutory provisions apply to private
property when open to public use. What I am saying
is that I think the private -property owner neither
- 14 -
REG. C.C. 10/27/69 Page Fifteen
Hearings - .-Amendment No. 98 - Cont'd.
has any greater right to prohibitor any greater power to prohibit than
does the City itself.
Mayor Gleckman: Thank you. Any further questions by Council?.
Mr. Munsell, how about the newstands in the N-C
zone and the auction houses and mail order
houses in the S-C zones? In the N-C regarding newstands, I hope they
have to be fully enclosed in a building and not of the type I see on
Hollywood Boulevard.
Mr. Munsell: Yes sir, under Item 1, it states all such uses
shall be in an enclosed building unless stated
otherwise.
.Mayor Gleckman: You mean by us - the City?
Mr. Munsell: Yes. For example you might state that a vending
machine at a service station could be on an
exterior use basis and it would state so in the
permit. (Explained in further detail.) Generally speaking we are
requiring within an enclosed building and any modification would require
a variance.
Mayor Gleckman: How about the mail order house? We had a dis-
cussion a couple of months ago regarding whether
we could control the mail order house. The thing
I am concerned with is in the S-C zone, they must come in with a Precise
Plan but not specifically as to the use?
Mr. Munsell: That is correct and I am not familiar as to what
legal ramifications we have with mail. order houses.
• Mr,, Wakefield: You will remember we amended the provisions of the
Business License Ordinance to require the specific
approval of the City Council before a business
license could be issued to a mail order house.
Mayor Gleckman: Thank you. Any further discussion by Council?
:Motion by Councilman Chappell, seconded by Councilman Lloyd, :and carried,
approving Amendment No. 98, City initiated, as stated in Planning
Commission Resolution No. 2187.
4) AMENDMENT NO. 100 A proposed amendment to Section
CITY INITIATED No. 9206 of the Zoning Ordinance of
the West Covina Municipal Code to
modify the R-3 Zone (MF-25). Recommended by Planning Commission
Resolution No. 2193.
Councilman Nichols: Mr. Mayor, would the chair entertain a motion
to combine for hearing purposes Amendment No. 100
and 102, both of which are of similar subject
matter?
No objections by Council.
6) AMENDMENT NO. 102 A proposed revision to the zoning
CITY INITIATED ordinance to amend Section No,. 9209
of the West Covina'Municipal Code to
modify the R-4 Zone (MF-45). Recommended by Planning Commission
Resolution No. 2195.
'(Mr. Munsell.' summarized the :changes.• as recommended And atated:. in the
Planning Commission Resolutions Nos. 2193 and 2195.)
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED. THERE BEING NO PUBLIC TESTIMONY IN FAVOR OR IN
OPPOSITION, CHAIR CLOSED PUBLIC HEARING. COUNCIL DISCUSSION.
15 -
.s
REG. C.C. 10/27/69
HEARINGS - Amendments No. 1.00 & 102 - Cont'd.
Councilman Chappell: On the setbacks, several
discussion with regard to
the multiple family could
back yard? How much less of a setback does this
Page Sixteen
times I have heard
a R-3 zone, where
look down into the neighbors
now provide?
Mr. Munsell: In terms of adjacent residential property we
have a better situation than in the past.
In single family areas you can have a two story
• building 51 from the property line looking into the next door single
family structure with no problems at all. What we have done, if it is
a single story,structure it has -the same requirement as the single
family dwelling - 58; if a multiple story dwelling then'there is an
additional 51 for each story over one that the.whole building must
setback. (Explained in further detail.)
Councilman Nichols:, I have a couple of areas of concern that I would
like Council. to consider in respect to this. It
has been my observation in the smaller lot sizes
the Ci.ty'has been able to control the type of development by other type
requirements with regard to setbacks. We have quite a few properties
in the City' at the present time that the City staff itself has
recommended for possible multiple family zoning where the lots involved
couldn't meet the requirements as far as setbacks.as set forth here.
In the 'large area recently rezoned in our community, the area north-
westerly of Merced Avenue, we have many many lots that are very deep lots.
That run 200 to 2501 in depth but do not meet the minimum width of 1001.
The people in that area have for 10 years asked for some sort of answer to
the zoning matter in their section of the City and the Council provided
that answer to them and now by this acti.on.what we are really saying in
effect,, and I am sure we will hear about .it later, is,`that virtually
none of the single family owners who live in the area will be privileged
to develop their property under the zoning we granted. What we have said
iin effect, if we;adopt .this, is that the only way they could develop their
property is if.they would sell it or combine their parcel with someone else
to make a larger parcel. I concur with staff ° s feeling that we do not
want a lot of small jammed up inadequate type of developments, but to
completely foreclose the vast bulk of individuals who now own their pro-
perties, from the opportunity to develop their properties, I believe is a
mistake. There should be some provisions for those people who may desire
to develop their property,short of forcing them to sell out to a larger
type of organization. I think that the reasons for maintaining a minimum
in the MF-45 of a one-half acre and a minimum of 1001 frontage does not
totally apply in the MF-25 zone, and I would like to see some considera-
tion given to allowing some degree of greater flexibility in the minimums
of the MF-25.zone. Other than that, I concur with the recommendations
with the exception of one moderate reservation. Nothing has-been said so
far about the.R-4 zone and I notice it provides for Bachelor units of
3.50 sq. ft. and I could only say to the Planning Director if I lived .in
a unit.of that size I would soon marry.
Mayor Gleckman: I would like. to hear from staff as to why you came
to the 12,000.1 of, usable land in relationship to
the question asked by Councilman Nichols.
Mr. Munsell: In all area districts except area district No. 3,
the usable lot size is considerable less than
12,000 sq. ft., running from 9,000 sq. ft. in 2A
to 9400 in Area'2:,. and 7500 sq. ft. in Area 1. The Planning Commission
and the staff indicated that the type of development that was hoped for
in terms of multiple family residential to have a quality nature for this
community, should have a large enough parcel that we could get in all the
amenities necessary to attract the young executives as the General Plan
is aiming at,in terms of 'a headquarters city. We did run into a number of
problems and the Planning Commission expressed great concern in one of the
items the Council had indicated a moment ago, in terms of what happens
whenyouu build a multiple family structure next to the single family
dwelling. And frankly if you take 151 away from each side of the property
- 16 -
REG. C.C. 10/27/69 Page Seventeen
HEARINGS ._ Amendments Nos. 100 & 102 - Cont'd.
that is only 601 wide you only have a 301 building, and if you have a
751 lot a 451 building. It just is not conducive to good design in
terms of how do you get the parking on, how do you get the usable living
outdoor space,.etc. How do you place a swimming pool so it is not next to
the neighbor's bedroom window? Just considering the practical design
standards that we are looking at in terms of a liberal setback: to protect
the single .family resident from the multiple family dwelling. One of the
•concerns the'Planning Commission had was with regard to the lending
institutions, and staff checked.and at the current time with this tight
money situation the lending institutions are not interested in developing
smaller development's. Frankly it is going to take more than one lot.
The Planning Commission worked the staff a little bit actually in trying
to come up with a solution and very frankly it just comes down to how you
design the structure on the lot. Are ,you going to get a long narrow
building, a barrack type structure? It is going to take more than one of
those long narrow lots to put up a quality type building. As a
consequence -the staff came up with the 100' minimum requirements and that
would give us the design flexibility required to come up with the type
of units that would rent at a sum which would give us the better situation.
The prime concern was are we going to have a
number of'these narrow lots, what percentage of the R-3 property are we
talking about? And the best we could determine we are talking about
less than 10% of the R-3 property. A good percentage of it is in large
parcels. So I think we also have to look at it from the staffs point of
view'e"..:i.f we can cover 90% of the problems under our Ordinance we can keep
it a :Lot less complicated 'and handle the smaller percentage on a variance
where a.hardship may be created.
Councilman Nichols: Again the only feeling I have is that we as a
Council have granted zoning in recent months to a
very large number of lots and it may represent
less than 10% but it was granted on the basis of the ordinances and the
laws of the City as they existed at that time and I think there will be a
great.many people upset when they find the Council has created a
situation where they have been shut out on the ability to develop.
One other final comment, it seems to me the
answer would'be to impose these types of restrictions on the minimum
frontages and lot sizes where there is any part of the lot abutting a
residential -area, but where there may be a considerable number of lots
all of multiple nature and abutting one another and already have the
zoning, I,would be rather reticent of imposing upon them a provision that
would prevent them from individually utilizing the zoning that has been
granted.
Councilman Gillum: As'I'conveyed to the Council when.we'.discussed"
this before this one area the Planning Commission
spent considerable time discussing. The point
was made and Mr. Munsell brought it out again, that lending institutions
are shying away from small developments and it may be that this area you
are speaking of from sheer necessity that they will have to combine lots
because of the financing. The smallest units lending institutions are
interested in, I believe was 26 units. A lot of time and consideration
was spent on this one aspect of the zone.
Councilman Nichols: It is.a good point, but I just don't want to be
the one to impose it upon them.
Motion by Councilman Gillum, seconded by Councilman Chappell, that Council
approve the City Initiated Amendment No. 100, Multiple Family (MF-25) zone
as recommended by the Planning Commission Resolution No. 2193. Motion
carried on roll call vote as follows:
AYES: Councilmen Gillum, Chappell, Lloyd, Mayor Gleckman
NOES: Councilman Nichols
ABSENT: None
- 17 -
REG. C.C. 10/27/69 Page Eighteen
HEARINGS - Amendment No. 102 - Cont'd.
Motion by Councilman Gillum, seconded by Councilman Chappell, -and
carried, _that Council approve City Initiated Amendment No. 102 per-
taining to,.Multiple dwelling (MF-45) Zone.
5. AMENDMENT NO. 101 A proposed revision to the Zoning
CITY INITIATED Ordinance to amend Section No. 9216
of the West Covina Municipal Code
to include an ambulance service within appropriate zones for this use.
Recommended by Planning Commission Resolution No..2194.
(Mr. Munsell, Planning Director, summarized verbally the Planning
Commission Resolution No. 2194 relating to ambulance services.)
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED ON AMENDMENT NO. 101. THERE BEING NO PUBLIC
TESTIMONY IN FAVOR OR IN OPPOSITION,PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED. COUNCIL DIS-
CUSSION.
Motion by Councilman Gillum, seconded by Councilman Chappell, and carried,
that City Initiated Amendment. No. 101 be approved as recommended by the
Planning Commission Resolutirn No. 2194.
(Mayor Gleckman asked Councils permission to go to Item J.2. No objections.)
CITY CLERK
J. 2 Referendum Petition
City Clerk:
(Presented to Mayor Gleckman the petition.)
.This is my petition certifying
that the
petition is sufficient.
There
are more than
• 10% checked and there
are more to be checked.
This is
well over 3100
and 2679 was the
1.0% needed.
Mayor Gleckman:
For the record I would
like to
spread into the
minutes the City Clerk's
certificate,
unless
Council, has objections?
(None)
Mr. Wakefield,
would you like to
explain the procedure we take
at this
particular time?
Mr. Wakefield: The Election Code provisions with respect to a
referendum provide in substance that when a
referendum has qualified against a particular
ordinance that the Council has three alternatives. Council may repeal
the Ordinance, or submit it to a vote of the people at a Special
Election, or at the next regular municipal election. If a Special
Election .is to be called it must be called within 75 days and not less
than 60 days ' prior .to the date of the, action on which the petition is
filed and received by you. The net effect of the situation then as it
pends before you now is that you may take action to repeal the
Ordinance, you may call a Special Election and specify a date therefor,
or you may continue the matter and submit to the people at the next
regular election in 'April,: or you may just receive and file the petition
until there is an opportunity for you to consider what should be done
under the circumstances.
Councilman Gillum: Mr. Wakefield when you say take it under .
• advisement, is there a time limit on this?
Mr. Wakefield: No,, you may simply.receive and file the petition
and then when you make your determination as
to whether you desire to repeal the ordinance
or submit to an election and what kind of an election, you may take
action at that time.
Councilman Nichols: You mean it may be taken under advisement and
be continued indefinitely?
REG, C.C. 10/.27/69 Page Nineteen
City Clerk (Item J.2)_ - Cont°d.
Mr. Wakefield: No. If no action is taken then .it would be
automatically submitted to the people at the
next regular election. If Council desires to
call a Special Election then at your next regular meeting you should fix
the date of that election so the Clerk may take the necessary steps to
implement it.
Mayor Gleckman: Any further discussion?
Councilman Gillum: I think that the procedure that has been present-
ed to us this evening with a petition of
approximately 5000 names on it is one of the
methods we have under our form of government for the citizens to be
able to express their feelings in this area. As I said when I
supported this request for a zone change I said I felt it was in the
best interests of a City of 70,000 people, and so therefore I would
propose to stick with what I voted that evening, and since statements
have been made that this may have an outcome on the general election I
would propose that this issue be put on the general election ballot in
April. I hope that. the Council sees fit to accept this recommendation
and that this referendum be on the ballot in April. I am making this
in the .form of a motion.
Seconded by Councilman Lloyd.
Mayor Gluckman: Further discussion?
Councilman Chappell: Justa question. If I vote to have this on the
general. election that doesn't change my feeling
regarding the issue?
Mr. Wakefield: No.
Mayor Gleckman: The motion as stated is that the referendum be
put on the general election in April. Is there
any further discussion?
Motion carried on roll call vote as follows:
AYES: Councilmen Gillum, Nichols, Chappell, Lloyd, Mayor Gleckman
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
Robert Wi.tlock I am a petitioner here for the Goodwill Industries.
342 San Fernando Rd. We have had no communication from the City in
Los Angeles anyway with reference to our petition. If I
might be granted an additional couple of minutes
at a later time I can combine my observations.
(Council had no objections.)
CITY MANAGER (Cont°d.)
4. San Gabriel Valley Humane Society
Mr. A.iassa: Mr. Mayor on the previous item, I would like to
make it known that a letter was addressed: to
Mr. Witlock and inadvertently it got filed in the
Humane Society file - we do apologize.
We had a meeting with the Humane Society and after
due consideration we came up with this suggestion of a pilot program as
outlined in our report to you dated October 24, 1969.
- 19 -
REG. C.C. 10/27/69 Page Twenty
City Manager (Item 4) - Cont'd.
Motion by Councilman Chappell, seconded by Councilman Gillum,
approving the conducting of a short term pilot program with the
San Gabriel valley Humane Society as stated in report dated
October 24; 1969, and authorizing the City Manager to expend a sum
not to exceed $60.00 to conduct this program. Motion carried on roll
call vote as follows:
AXES: Councilmen Gillum, Nichols, Chappell, .Lloyd, Mayor Gleckman
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
Mr. Ai.assa: We would---a-lso like to have permission to use
the official city letterhead.
,Moti.on.by Councilman Chappell., seconded by Councilman.hloyd,...granting.
permission for use of the official..ci.ty.letterhead in connection with
notification by the Humane Society.
Councilman Nichols: I would like to have quite a bit of informa-
tion about this proposal before I would support
it. It sounds pretty rough. I think it might
cause more fireworks in the community than it might catch dogs. It
really doesn't tell us under what conditions this would be used. It just
indicates that they believe there are dogs hiding when they come to the
house and then they state they are going to send the letter out - but.on
what basis? I would like to know a lot more about the letter portion of
Item B be`f.ore approving the sending out. -
Mr. Aiassa: If we try the pilot program commencing on
November 3rd we will probably have completed on
December 3rd and at that time it might be
advisable to bring up the question of using the city letterhead and the
sending out of this letter.
Mayor Gleckman: I am inclined to agree with Councilman Nichols.
If this is a copy of the letter they would send
---under our letterhead I would not go for it. I
feel there is a better form letter that could go out that wouldn't be
as drastic as this.
Councilman Lloyd: I concur. I agree it is a very harsh letter.
In reality we actually want to make an appeal
to the people who are dog owners. This is not
a punitive ordinance in nature but administrative; in nature, and as
citizens of our City their.partic.ipation is not only encouraged but
will help .in the control of animals throughout the City so it will be
a more enjoyable process for the people who reside in the City. I
think this is really what Councilman Nichols was talking about, and I
know it i.s what I am saying and what the Mayor is saying. I think this
type of thing really begs a very irritated citizenry and once.again
it looks like City Hall is stuffing something down their throats,
when .in reality it isn't meant at all that way. Actually the people
who will respond to this far more than those people who really deserve
the receipt of this type of letter, is the average guy who has a dog
and fulfills his commitments to the City and he is offended and feels
he is being singled out even though he never receives one of the letters
he just hears about it. I would be prepared to vote "no" on the motion.
Mayor Gleckman: All those in .favor signify by saying "aye"? None.
All those against signify by saying "Nayl"?
NOES: Councilmen Gillum, Nichols, Chappell, Lloyd, Mayor Gleckman
c) County Pound Dept. Publication
Motion by Councilman Gillum, seconded by Councilman Lloyd,
that this informational publication be received and filed.
- 20 -
REG. C.C. 10/27/69 Page Twenty -.:one
City Manager (Item 4.c) Cont'd.
Mr. Aiassa: Mr. Mayor, the reason I put this on the agenda,
I would like to have the Council's thinking on
it in that we might have the San Gabriel Valley
Humane Society do likewise.
Councilman Chappell: It does have some good ideas.
Mayor Gleckman: Mr. Aiassa, why don't you come back with a
10 report and a recommendation on this.
Motion carried.
5. Water Problem - City of Covina
Mr. Aiassa.: I was in communication today with the City
Manager of Covina, and he felt if Council feels
favorably disposed to the letter - although
there are some legal complications - but at least to give some type of
relief to these people, if Council did look favorably upon the letter
that some type of immediate relief might be considered by their
Council., but it would have to be in the form of a proposal from our
City, showing our intent to resolve the problem on a permanent basis.
Councilman Gillum: I have some comments I would like to make. I.
received a copy of the letter, as we all did,
on Friday and went over the different proposals
recommended by the City of;Covina. I would like to bring to the atten-
tion of Council some of the facts that I have been able to come up with.
One of the proposals was that the City of Covina would sell water to us
at a wholesale rate and the letter states "Normally, a single master
meter would be used for this purpose, but this area is served from four
separate lines. Two 8" meters and two 6" meters would be required at a
cost of $16,000. This additional cost obviously is";not going to affect
water rates favorably, unloss'West Covina desires to absorb such a cost,
which we are inclined to doubt." I would like you to keep the figure of
$16,000 in your mind. Then they go on and make other proposals on Page
2, listing three methods of possible solution to the problem. First ore
is to continue the present set up, which is not desirable to the citi.-
zens of West Covina; the second is sell the system to Suburban, and it
states .in the letter the second alternative is not acceptable to them.
I don't believe at this time I want to put anybody in a position as to
why it is not acceptable, but I don't believe this Council should
become a part of this type of action. "The third alternate - sell to
the City of West Covina, is less attractive to us from the standpoint
it would not cleanup the Suburban Water problems, etc." I checked
on the rates surrounding this area. There are 246 meter users and this
is excluding the area of Eastland which .I would like'to get into at a
later date. I'found that the average user in thi's area uses 2200 cubic
feet of water a month; Suburbans rate is $6.26 and the City of Covina
charges $8..34 or 35/ more. If you project the figures you get an
approximate monthly return of $1539.00 or $18,400 a year. Suburban
feels that a 10/ return on_$18„480 a year is all they would realize
out of the area at their. --present rates.
Now Covina is suggesting we go into a purchase
agreement at the cost of $16,000 for two meters. This would then take
. us approximately 10 years to pay off. Let's assume we took the system
and kept Covina.'s rate which would not give any relief to the citizens,
although we would end up with being in the water business. The rate of
$8.44 x the number of users x 12 is about $24,900 a year. 10% return is
$2400. a year, which still does not pay for the meters in a short period
of time.
Each of us as stated in the past, has a certain
area in our daily lives that .makes a living for us, mine happens to be
- 21 -
REG. C.C. 10/27/69 Page Twenty-two
City Manager (Item 5) Cont'd.
in the area of pipes, valves and fittings. . The system we are talking
about is 16 years old and mainly made of steel and cast iron. The
industry will tell you the life expectancy of this type of system is
25 years when you have to start replacing the mains and some of the
piping. So if we were to enter into anyone of these agreements they
would compel:. the City to expend funds. We would have a system that
approximately within 9 years we would have to replace and at $1848. a
year it is going to take a long time to pay off the price they quoted
to Suburban. Water - $94,000.
What I am trying to convey to you gentlemen
and I didn't want to get to this point, but I think we have played a
game long enough with the 246 people. As far as I am concerned there
is not a solution in this letter. If we buy the system we are going
to have to subsidize it with additional tax funds to bring those rates
down comparable to the people serviced by Suburban. And if we buy we
are buying a system that is very close to being replaced. I went back
through some old correspondence and a few years ago there were 197
units and it.was offered for. sale 9 years ago at $.57,000 to Suburban
and now it is 9 years older and it is up to $94,000. I don't feel this
City can become a part of what is inferred in this letter, as far as
the City of Covina and Suburban Water are concerned, we shouldn't be
used as a wedge. I, do think we have reached the point cif. decision with this
problem and"because we aren't getting any pressure from the people
because it is winter time and.the usage is down, but if we don't resolve
this before summer we will have the problem again. Right: now water
coming from.the Colorado River is $26.00 an acre foot. When the,
Feather River goes into this area it goes to $56.00 an acre foot and
later on to $72.00 an acre foot, so the cost of water is going up
no matter who owns the system or who supplies it to the customers.
I would like to see someone from this Council
and the Council of Covina and the City Managers sit down and -try and
solve this problem without trying to push and shove trying to get
leverage on one party or�the other. I don't believe that what is being
proposed here is economically sound or feasible as far as the City of
West Covina is concerned. I will submit my figures if you would like
to study them, and decide which direction you want to go.
Councilman Chappell: Councilman Gillum is asking that we have a
Councilman and our City Manager form a
Committee - we have already done that in the
past and we haven't accomplished anything, have we?
Councilman Gillum: Well all I am saying is that we have been
playing games and I think we have reached the
point where we should stop.
Councilman Nichols: Well whose been playing the games?
Councilman Gillum: On page 2, second paragraph of their letter,
I believe that will pin it down. (Read para-
graph.) What they are asking is for us to sit.
here and say to Suburban you need this. They don't need it and they
aren't going to make anything off of it on the revenue they will get.
And what this letter says to me is that Covina would like us to lean
on Suburban and say you make agreements with Covina and give them the
• right to annex and buy the systems, etc. :..ley own personal,..feeling
is.that we have the key to their whole problem because if they make
the move in our direction everyone around them that is served by the
City of.Covina is going to demand the same relief. I think that is
the whole key to the problem. The county people are going to go up
in arms.
Mayor Gleckma.n: That wouldn't bother me a bit.
Councilman Lloyd: I think'Councilman Gillum has really put his
22 -
REGJ C.C. 10/27/69 Page Twenty-three
City Manager - (Item 5) Cont'd.
finger on the problem and that is -what are we going to do for the 246
people. I would like to go on record that I really don't care about the
County. We have been told by many people involved in our annexation
projects they don't care much about us, so that solves that problem.
I have been approached by people in that area saying the question" is
"what are you going to do about .it?" I think we have arrived at a point
that if we aren't going to do anything but just sit here and twiddle
our thumbs that we should tell those people we are not going to do
• anything for you. But.if we are then we should get going and see what
we can come up with. In`this case,.I do think 'there has been an awful
lot of discussion. I don't know what the productivity has been, it
doesn't seem to have.been very productive. I know there is an inequity
for the monies people are paying for water and I don't know whose fault
it .is.. It could be,Covina's, it could be West Covina's, I do know it
is not the fault of this Council. We have all expressed a very strong
desire that these people be somehow given relief so at this point I am
more than willing to listen to you - you are the expert on it. You
know infinitely more about it than I do. The only thing.is when the
guy pays his bill it doesn't matter who knows about it, it is how much
money is being paid. So what do you propose that will give relief to
the 246 families that are citizens of West Covina and the rest of the
people I could care less about.
Councilman Gillum: Mr. Lloyd, the attitude of this Council is that
we want to do something for the 246 people
except we have no jurisdiction except possibly
in one area, which I would like to ask Mr. Wakefield about. We do charge
a franchise tax to all water purveyors within this City?
Mr. Wakefield- Yes.
Councilman. Gillum: Is it possible to(:charge this same .franchise
• tax to the City of Covina?
Mr. Wakefield: No, the City of West Covina has no right to
franchise the operation of the City of Covina
within the City of West Covina. The reason for
that is the State constitution grants to cities the right to provide
certain type's of utility services of which water is one. The
constitution provides the City may provide service in an adjoining City
so long as the adjoining ;_City,, itself does not provide the same service.
If the City of West Covina were in the water business the City of West
Covina could say to the City of Covina - I am sorry but we will provide
service for our own citizens, you'take your facilities elsewhere. Until
the City of 'West Covina is in the water business the City has no right
to say to Covina - you can't co,nti.nue to service your customers within
our City.
Councilman Gillum: All I can say to you gentlemen is I am afraid
and I don't know if it is intentional or un-
intentional but-cthe City is being put in the
position of being a wedge and I will not be a part of that. I am not
supporting Suburban and in fact they told me that if.they bought 'that
system at the present rate of return it would take them a long time
to pay off. So really as they said to us - who needs it? And then
we come from the City of Covina with the same comment - if Suburban
would negotiate on future annexations theft would be glad:: to talk with
them on Suburban buying the system. I don't think that is the proper
way for them to approach the problem. As they stated they have the
right of condemnation at any future date on the property they:..have
jurisdiction over.
Councilman Nichols:. I want to get a recommendation so we can take
some action tonight. Are you saying
Councilman Gillum, in light of all that has
been said a.nd.done that it is apparent.that there is no device open
to the City to bring relief? And we have to notify them that we have
explored this area and can not give them any relief? Is that your
final recommendation? - 23 -
REG. C.C. 10/27/69 Page `;Twenty-four
City Manager (Item 5) Cont'd.
Councilman Gillum: My final recommendation to this Council, and it
may be a little strong, but that is the way I
feels:....'. I think it is time that this Council
inform the City of Covina that we feel they should start to negotiate.
in good faith and help us with a problem that now exists in our community.
Councilman Lloyd: I don't feel that is totally the solution and
I don't really qualify myself in the area that
• Mr. Gillum is talking about. All I know is we
have a problem and that I think there is something better than telling
the City of Covina that you must'try harder. I think what I am prepared
to say is that we have to try harder to find.a.solution. I haven't
gotten involved in this thing but I am getting calls on it and I have
more interest in it than I had before. What I would like to see is
somehow get the rate lowered. Is the avenue with regards to communica-
tion with the City of Covina -,is there any possibility that they will
declare a moratorium reducing the rate to an average or something like
that - has that been totally explored?
Mr. Aiassa: No, but I think it is ::feasible and possible.
Councilman Lloyd: Then why don',t we authorize Mr. Gillum, if he
wishes to continue, to go to the City of Covina
along with someone from staff and offer this.
In the final analysis I am fully prepared to take over the meters and
go forward on the thing. I don°t care how I get there, I just want a
solution.
Councilman Gillum: I agree with you and I want a solutirn, but if
we do go this one round that you are referring to,
it would. .not be fair to the other citizens in the
community, because we would end up subsidizing and rebuilding the system
in a short time. I would be more than happy to do anything the Council
directs me too if they feel they still want me to work in this area.
All I am saying is that I;feel we have reached the point - and excuse
the expression, but "get their heads knocked together" to,get this
straightened out.
Mayor Gleckman: I don't wholeheartedly agree with Mr. Gillum"s
analogy here. I met with Suburban and Covina and
it was expressed by both that this is not an easy
thing to look into, to come up with any type of solution. They gave us
a time table that they would have an answer and they have complied with
everything they said they would do. I don't really feel you are right
and just,in saying that somebody is playing games here. I have talked
to the City Manager and the Council of Covina on many occasions and
they, have told me continuously they are working on the time schedule they
gave us at the time we met. I think they did comply. If you are saying
the statements made by the City .Manager of Covina are untrue and are
prepared to back .it up with truth - fine. But as far as I am concerned
I feel the City of Covina does not have a problem here, I feel that
Suburban Water does not have a problem here, the City of West Covina
has the problem. The City of West Covina either by annexation or some
method took these people into the City of West Covina knowing these
people were using the Covina Water. They have paid the high rate for
years and to my knowledge they have never come before us, only by our
own initiative have we tried to get some relief. I really feel that if
Suburban is not interested in what Covina is proposing and Covina .is not
• interested in what Suburban is proposing that this Council has to have
the guts of its conviction to go in the water business or tell those
people that we can't help them and that is the only thing we can do..
You talk about playing games, well Let's not play games. Make up your
mind, we are either going in the water business or not, and that is the
only way you are going to do it. If you have any other answers I will
be glad to entertain them and look into it, but if this Council feels
they want to waste their time and I really mean waste their time.
Covina is coming back to us saying the only way they would be interested
would be to negotiate with Suburban on their particular terms.
- 24 -
REG. C.C. 10/27/69 Page Twenty-five
City Manager (Item 5) Cont'd.
Councilman Gillum: On their terms!
Mayor Gleckman: It is their water line and their water company.
Councilman Gillum: But it is our citizens.
Mayor Gleckman: That is exactly right and if you are saying
we won't go into the water business because it
is unfair to the rest of the citizens and these
citizens have to pay that high rate, etc., whether Covina comes to the,
party or not,,then say it. But don't sit here and expect a miracle or
a knight on a white horse to come charging in and find a way out.
If .we help these people we go into the water business. If we don't
help them we tell them. Now you brought it up and that is the thing
that this Council should decide on.
Councilman Gillum: I am not expecting anyone to come charging
through here on a white horse, but I will say it
again so you completely understand it. There is
a game being played and we are being used to push the wedge in. When
they state in a letter and stated it at a meeting, that they wouldn't
even consider, in fact they said "we don't want to sell to Suburban
unless we got concessions on future annexations in future areas".
I can show you, if you want to take the -time, what they are aspiring
too in future annexations and it is completely unfeasible because of
the lines running through the area. What I am saying to you is that
there is no reason why',the City of Covina and City of West Covina and
Suburban can't sit down and discuss one point - that of 246 meters,
without -getting involved in the County area surrounding the City of
Covina.
Mayor Gleckman: Again Mr. Gillum, I am not going to try and
tell the City of Covina how to run"the City
of Covina. They don't have the problem and
Suburban doesn't have the problem, the City of West Covina has the
problem. What does '.the City of _West Covina want to do? What is your
pleasure gentlemen? That is both sides of the story. Covina is
sitting there and they own the meters, the water and they charge the
rate's, and they say "oh you have a problem West Covina?"
Councilman Chappell: What is the.. price they are going to charge
us for these meters?
Councilman Gillum: First of all it will cost"us $1500.00 for an
appraisal.
Mayor Gleckman: And if we don't like the price .I think
legally -we can go in and have a third party
appraise it. We don't have to accept their
price just because they price it.
Motion by Councilman Chappell and Seconded by Councilman Lloyd, that
our City Manager, our Mayor, and Tom Gillum, meet one more time with
like members of the City of Covina, within 30 days)and see if they
can work out something and if not then, get the cost to see':wh&t. it. .would
cost us to go into the water business.
Councilman Gillum: I could support the motion Mr. Chappell with
the one exception in your motion of stating
"we will go into the water business." I am
a little cautious with regard to the wording of the motion.
Councilman Chappell: I said "see what it would cost us to go into
the water business."
Councilman Lloyd: Mr. Mayor - call for the question.
- 25 -
Page Twenty-six
REG. C.C. 10/27/69
City Manager (Item 5) Cont'd.
Motion carried on roll call vote as follows:
AYES: Councilmen Gillum, Nichols, Chappell, Lloyd, Mayor Gleckman
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
(.Mayor Gleckman asked Mr. Aissa to arrange the meeting.)
• 6. CBD Consultant Agreement
(Councilman Lloyd questioned°.Mr. Aiassa if this had been discussed
with the Central Business District people. Mr.. Aiassa advised the
contract is actually with the.City of West Covina and the consultant,
but it had been discussed with the CBD people and they made their
recommendation and these are the people they recommended. This is
Phase one and that is the only step the CBD has recommended.)
Mayor Gleckman: What are we talking about in the action we took
last week with the County doing a study for
$5, 000?
Mr. Aiassa: That action will be supplemented into this
study.
Mayor Gleckman: In other words the action they take will be
added to this, so then the entire program is
about $25, 000?
Mr. Aiassa: .Approximately. Whatever the County will
contribute. The consultant still has to make
the analysis.
• Mayor Gleckman: I thought that was going to come off this con-
tract.
Mr� Aiassa: I felt so too and we had a nice long discussion
on it. The CBD study would only incur a small
part of the Walnut Creel; Parkway whereas the
County is going to do a detailed study on a long term analysis.
Councilman Gillum:. In our General Plan we had a traffic study -
is that correct?
Mr. Aiassa.:
Yes. The General Plan required a traffic study
and Peat, Maverick & Livingston, did the study
and also a study of traffic circulation and
those studies were put into the General Plan.
Councilman Gillum:
What I am trying to get at Mr. Aiassa - and I am
referring to Item 8 - it does disturb me that
every time we go to a study we go back over the
same things and every time I go to Bob's I can't get across the street
without being caught
by the red light.
Mr. Aiassa:
We have asked Mr. Williams to really detail the
specific time lags on these various aspects so
we do have something to guide us.
Councilman
Gillum:
Then,in your professional opinion in the City
Manager's field when we are finished with this
study of the Central Business District we will
then have recommendations so we will be able to take definite action
in order to cure our
intolerable traffic problem in this City?
Mr. Aiassa:
In those phases that we have found the analysis,
,the answers 'and the economics - very true.
- 26 -
0
•
REG. C.C. , 10/27/69
City Manager -.(Item 6 ) Cont' d.
Page Twenty-seven
Motion by Councilman Gillum, seconded by Councilman Lloyd, approving
the attached contract with -".:Williams & Mocine for the consulting
service for the West Covina Central Business District study.
Motion carried on roll call vote as follows:
AYES: Councilmen Gillum, Nichols, Chappell, Lloyd, Mayor Gleckman
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
7. Civic Center Heliport
Mr. ,Aiassa: You 'have a report by staff and since it went
out on Friday I do have some further input.
Page 1, Item 2, I would like to add the
following: Remove the word "construction" and add "authorize the
staff to prepare final plans and specifications and be ready to call
for bids on 11-10-69." And after Item 7, I would like to add.Item 8
"authorize the City Manager and city staff to meet with interested
private groups or agencies or individuals, who are extremely interested
in finding financing for this project under a lease back or a private
lease so to be able to raise the funds for construction."
Councilman Gillum: A question. Your final statementin the report
reads "approximately 10 weeks required to
complete the work." What was the date that was
proposed for the first operation?
Mr. Aiassa: If we go the public route where the City of
West Covina puts the entire project in, you are
talking about April, because by the time we get
out the public notices, call for public bids, etc._
Councilman Nichols: What.date was it the State wanted this?
Councilman Gillum: 'Is there a possibility that we go so long that
we can lose the right to the franchise?
Mr. Aiassa: That's right.
Councilman Gillum: Is there a time limit on the certificate?
Councilman Lloyd: I believe I can answer that, Mr. Mayor. There
is no time limit on the certificate, the thing
is the willingness of L.A. Airways to, continue
to stand around and wait. What Mr. Aiassa is proposing is a result of
some talks that I had with some'of the local businessmen and said that
we as a necessity being a governmental -agency if we are going to
involve public funds assuming this Council is willing.to approach this,
we still have to go out for the bids, etc., and this -is where the time
comes .in. The final product would be no different than if a group of
private citizens decided they wanted to have it and they could be
underway in 30 days. The hold-up for us is because we are -a govern-
mental agency.
Councilman Chappell: Is the Airways aware of this?
Councilman Lloyd: Yes. Mr. Cable can answer that.
Mr. Cable: It isn't anyone's fault to this point, it is
just a matter of technicalities and naturally
it must'be kept moving.
Councilman Lloyd: What it really amounts to is if we stand around
any longer we aren't going to have it. If you
want it, say so. If you don't want it, say so.
We have arrived at that point. Right now if you want,it we go forward
this evening saying yes, we are going to do it; and we are going to
27 -
REG. C.C. 10/27/69
-City Manager ( Item C7) Cont' d.
Page Twenty-eight
commit the funds and. in the meantime Mr. Aiassa is going to try and
find private funds, and there are people that have expressed a desire
to do it. At which point I am sure we would all be willing to turn it
over to them. The City would still have to sign the contracts even on
an interim basis. I think personally it will be less than $50,000
and for that what you are doing is committing the City to go forward on
it and you are taking a gamble.
M.r. .Aiiassa: I would like to have Council accept my report
with the modifications, and we will then proceed
with it:.
So moved by Councilman Gillum, seconded.by
Councilman Lloyd.
Councilman Nichols: Each step of the way we advance closer and
closer to that point of saying I just appropriated
$50,000. This is really the moment of truth
because we are directing the staff to prepare the specifications and
prepare to go to bid and they are going to come back to us and either
have a private group that has the $50,000 or it will be this public
group. So I guess this is the moment of truth. I have consistently
taken the position that this was a sound thing for the community and
a wise investment and if the City Manager comes back to us and says
we have the $50,000 and there is no other way of financing, then I am
prepared to go that way.
Motion carried on roll call vote as follows:
AYES: Councilmen Gillum, Nichols, Chappell, Lloyd, Mayor Gleckman
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
• Mr. Ai.assa: Mr. Mayor, I have received two communications
from Mr. Cable. One is from the Department of
Aeronautics and the other is from the Division
of Highways pertaining to this matter. I would like these two letters
spread in the minutes.
(No objections. by Council.)
Letter from Department of Aeronautics, signed by Keiffer E. Parker,
Deputy Director, dated October 27, 1969: "Please be advised that the
proposed site for the West Covina Heliport is -capable of meeting the
State of California Department of Aeronautics criteria for a large
public heliport. Site Approval can be expected to be issued subject to
the following conditions:
1. Resolution of conflict between.operation of helicopters
in the flight pattern and traffic on the San Bernardino
Freeway. ( State Division of Highways)
2. Resolution of problems associated with the relocation
of Southern California Edison powers lines and city
electroliers bordering this site.
3. Subject to Federal Aviation Administration airspace
approval.
4. Relocation o.f•the Los Angeles Airways ticket trailer out
of the side slope clear zone area, and construction of the
site to Large Public Category III standards as adopted by
the'Department of Aeronautics."
Letter from Division of Highways, State of California, signed by
A.A. Smith, Ass"t. District Engineer - Design I'D", dated October. 27, 1969:
"Referring to our memorandum of October 1, 1969, concerning the West
Covina Heliport temporary location application, we have contacted the
applicant, Los Angeles Airways. We have reconsidered the applicatim
and are withdrawing our objection since this heliport will be in
operation at this location for only about two years. We propose
studying their heliport operation to see if it will interfere with
freeway traffic. We have no definite information, now, that heliport
operation will increase accident frequeng.- This will allow us to judge
•
•
. 0
REG. C.C. 10/27/69 Page Twenty-nine
_City Manager (Item ?) Cont'd.
applications in the future."
8. Urban Associates
Motion by Councilman Gillum, seconded by Councilman.Lloyd, approving a
final payment of $3,400 to Urban Associates covering the Classification
and Limited Service Employees'Reports as submitted by the Consultant.
9. Southerly Annexation District No. 212
Motion by Councilman Gillum, seconded by Councilman Lloyd, and carried,
to receive and file�informatio nal report on the Southerly Annexation
District No. 212.
10. West Covina Parade Committee
Motion by Councilman Nichols, seconded by Councilman Gillum, and
carried, that Councildirect a letter to the West Covina Parade
Committee advising the acceptance'of their request subject to
the provisions 1.- 2 - 3 as enumerated in City Manager's memorandum of
October 24, 1969.
11. RESOLUTION NO. 4062 The City Clerk presented;
"A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
ADOPTED OF THE CITY OF WEST COVINA,
AMENDING SALARY RESOLUTION NO. 1277
RE VACATION PAY."
Mayor Gleckman: Hearing no objections, waive further reading of
the body of said Resolution.
Motion by Councilman Chappell, seconded by ,Mayor.Gleckinan, that said
Resolution be adopted.
DISCUSSION.
Councilman Lloyd:
I am willing to be
Mr. Aiassa:'
Personnally I am against the idea of paying
people ahead of time. I know of no other
agencies that do this. It is a nice thing to do,
however I don't know of others that do, however
enlightened.
We have never had a policy on this matter.
Mr. Wakefield might elaborate.
Mr. Wakefield: This problem came to light some months ago and
I was asked for advice with reference to what
was apparently then an informal practice. I
advised that if the City desired to continue this practice then we should
put something in the Salary Resolution and this Resolution was the
outgrowth of that he
,which would authorize what apparently had
been a past practice.
(Further objection voiced by Councilman Lloyd,` saying his original
question had-not`been answered as to other governmental agencies employing
this practice.
Councilman Nichols: If this were a matter of paying someone for work
that had not yet been performed, I would subscribe
to your thesis Councilman Lloyd. Although in the
School District they do in fact under certain conditions pay individuals
in advance of their actually performing the work when taking a vacation
because it is for the convenience of the employer. In this instance, as
I understand it, it is not really an instance for paying someone for
time they have not earned because the vacation time is time earned in the
- 29 -
REG,, C.C. 10/27/69 Page Thirty
City Manager (Item 1.1), Cont'd.
past and they are going to be out of town when the pay is given to
the ot.he.r employees and for that reason it is given to them in
advance. They,have already earned this money:.and therefore it is a
courtesy by the City to advance the date it is. presented to them.
(Further explanation by the City Manager with a final comment "I would
say up to this time we have not had a great deal of abuse of this system.
I feel we may have if we don't have a written formula.")
Mayor Gleck.man: I think the objection has merit but I can
appreciate from.the*employeeas point of view,
where this would cause a furor. If it were
something we were just starting then I would feel "why?" But we have
been doing this all the time and if the Finance Department can live
with it and the City Manager can live with it, then I would have no
objections.
Motion carried., on....roll:.:.call:.vote as follows
AYES: Councilmen Gillum, Nichols, Chappell, Lloyd, Mayor Gleckman
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
-12. Goodwill Industries Booth Request
Mayor Gleckman: Mr.; Ad assa, does the gentlemen who is from the
Goodwill Industries have a copy of this
recommendation?
Mr. Aiassa: No it: -was addressed directly to Council because
their request was to Council.
(No objections by Council, copy of report given to Mr. Witlock of
• Goodwill Industries.
Robert Witlock On July 22nd, weoby letter petitioned this
Goodwill Industries honorable body to recognize Goodwill Industries
.for a pilot program of our booth program and
we have not received a response,to my knowledge from the City. On
September 26th we again addressed a letter to the West Covina City
Council and called the matter to your attention and asked that we be
advised as to what,action had taken place. It was strictly by accident
that Wednesday afternoon I stopped in the City Manager's office and
was informed our petition would be heard tonight. I went to the Chamber
of Commerce and talked to Mr. Strachem, and he advised that this was
correct and the Chamber of Commerce Committee had made an adverse report
in reference to our request. I did not ask(.,.Mr. Strachem for a copy of
his .report as it was addressed to the City Council. I call this matter
to your attention as to why we didn't get a response to our communcati.on
to the City of West Covina and .if in advance you might have been trying
to tell, us something it would have been nice to know, so we might have
withdrawn our application if it was causing too much confusion.
(,Mr. Witlock then explained what their petition
request was: to put in a pilot program in the City of West Covina
starting with 12 booths to be used for collection purposes of items that
would be refurbished and sold by Goodwill Industries.)
COUNCIL DISCUSSION.
Councilman Gillum: I realize what service the Goodwill Industries
provide. As a family living in this community
for 15 years we have availed ourselves of their
service and pickup. But unless things have changed tremendously in the
last 2 or 3 years with the booth pickups, I personally as a homeowner,
would be opposed to allowing this type of operation in our community.
Unfortunately .it'.is a hard type of program to control and many people
take advantage of this service, and I think we have all seen these booths
with mattresses, chairs and old refrigerators and I don't -honestly believe
it would lend or blend itself to what we are trying to build in this
�, 30
REG. C.C. 10/27/69 Page Thirty-one
City Manager (Item 12) Cont'd.
community. I don't believe this type of operation would be in the
best interests of the City of West Covina. So as far as booths - even
on a trial program - I would have to oppose the request.
Councilman Chappell: I have a little different opinion. At our
Lion's Club we had the Goodwill people come out
and give us a program and seeing what they do
with all the cast off items I thought perhaps there might be some areas
that we could establish booths. ;They may not be prominent areas,
but I thought maybe church areas where they have -full time activities
going on and where there would be somebody there all the time to check
and pick up the phone and.say "this place is a mess you better come
over and clean:it today. I thought we might try putting some of the
booths around, not 12 but probably a half dozen. In my mind there is a
need for picking up these items and they do provide this need and they
certainly do some fine things with the merchandise given them-. If
there is anyway at all we can have staff look at it along the lines I
have approached for our further consideration, it might be worth while.
Councilman Nichols: Councilman Chappell has a very generous attitude
about this matter and I am sure that everything
he says is correct, however I would be inclined
to side in viewpoint more with Councilman Gillum's remarks. We are
beginning to get increasing numbers of requests of this type. We have
one presently involving news stands. So from a policy making stand-
po.intjif we begin allowing organizations to place booths and stands
in the City it is pretty hard to turn it off and the results have not
been too conducive to order and neatness in public places and I think
;in this instance I would rather accept the Planning Commissions
recommendation and the recommendation from the Chamber of Commerce.
Motion by Councilman Gillum,;seconded by Councilman Nichols, that the
request by Goodwill Industries to establish booth locations on a trial
program in'our community be denied.
Mayor Gleckman: I would only comment to Mr. Witlock that
originally when this came to the'Council it
went to .the Planning Commission for a
recommendation and from there it went to the Chamber of Commerce for a
recommendation. It is unfortunate but public agencies are not too
quick in the manner in which they schedule their meetings for action
and we have many hundreds of items that come before this Council. So
where you might feel it has taken a long time in communcation it
really hasn't taken a long time from our point of view and.it was
similar to many items that come before Council. The unfortunate part
is that you weren't notified and you should have as to it coming up
by Council at this particular time, and for that I apologize.
Mr. Aiassa: Mr. Mayor - one comment. Mr. Witlock came into
our office on Wednesday and the agenda isn't
made until Thursday and we didn't know at that
time if the Chamber of Commerce was going to have their letter in, so
it could appear on the agenda.
Motion carried, denying.
THE CHAIR DECLARED A RECESS AT 11:10 P.M. COUNCIL RECONVENED AT 11:20 P.M.
13. Sign Advisory Committee
(Mr. Zimmerman, City Engineer, briefly summarized the Sign Advis.ory
Committee's written report to Council.) .,
- 31 -
REG. C.C. 10/27/69 Page Thirty-two
City Mana er'(Item 13) Cont°d.
Councilman Gillum: Mr. 'Zimmerman what section of this map are
you now in? Which have you conducted hearings
on?
Mr. Zimmerman: All of the minor signs are now past the dead-
line and we have contacted all except Area F
and we haven't had a widespread reaction from
the people;: however we have had a full meeting each time.
Mayor Gleckman: I hope that this committee might come up with
some additional recommendations - either
changes or deletions of our sign ordinance
rather than in effect give the idea that "I am sorry, but this is it."
Mr. Zimmerman: Yes, we will. The members of the Committee
felt we wanted to go through as many of these
in our meetings to.get the reaction of the
business people before recommending changes that appear to be in order.
(Councilman Gillum,said he had heard from two loan company merchants
today .that a man was going around and promoting his sign business by
suggesting to the business people methods of using the sign ordinance
to benefit their particular signs, and if this is true he felt.it
should be halted. Council did not agree, feeling there was nothing
wrong with that. Councilman Gillum said he would discuss it with the
City Manager later.)
Mayor Gleckman: Are; there any further questions or comments?
If not, we have a recommendation." .froiii ,the ,Sign
Advisory Committee asking Council to authorize
the City Attorney to prepare an urgency ordinance as indicated in their
report dated October 24, 19694, to be presented at the next Council
meeting.
So moved by Councilman Nichols, seconded by
Councilman Chappell, and carried.
Motion by Councilman Gillum, seconded by Councilman Chappell, and
carried, that Council receive and file the Sign Advisory Committee
report.
14. Regional Park
Mr. Aiassa: I would like to have permission from Council to
meet with the representatives of Home Savings
and Loan with regard to acquiring additional
acreage in the Galster Park area. As you know we do have 10 to 15
acres now being used as a dumpsite, which will eventually be a part of
Galster Park. In reviewing the records there are approximately 600
acres not committed to the -sale to Union Tank Company,and I would like
to have permission to meet with the Homes Savings & Loan people and
see if I can bring forth a recommendation to the Council.
Mayor Gleckman:
What are
you going to do'with all that acreage?
Mr. Aiassa:
Not all,
but I would like .a nice sizeable
portion
to add to the Wilderness Park.
Mayor-Gleckman:
In order
for the Council to go along with your
thinking
can you give us some idea of. where you
plan to get the money to.buy all this?
Mr. Aiassa:
There are two possible alternatives. One is a
joint powers agreement with the County, and the
other is
there are possibly some State funds and
- 32 _
•
•
REG. C.C. 10/27/69 Page Thirty-three
City Manager (Item 14) Cont'd.
I will mace a trip to Sacramento, -with Council permission, to find out.
I would like to negotiate for possibly 260 to 275 acres.
Motion by Councilman Nichols, seconded by Councilman Chappell, and
carried, that the City Manager be given authorization to conduct
such preliminary meetings and report back to the Council.
15. Check Acceptance Policy of Recreation & Park Department
Motion by Councilman Gillum, seconded by Councilman Chappell, and
carried,,'to receive and file informational report on acceptance policy
of Recreation,& Park Department regarding checks.
16. Traffic Committee Minute's of October 21, 1969.
(Counci.l considered each item separately)
Mayor Gleckman: On Item 6. I am surprised that the people on
Virginia Avenue do not get an opportunity to
discuss this.prior to the change. I don't
think we should do this unless they have been notified that it came up
before the Traffic Committee and they have had a chance to testify.
Councilman Nichols: I agree.
Councilman Gillum: I have had some.comments from people on
Virginia Avenue since the improve'ment.was put.
in, that it has become a drag strip because of
the long straight street. I agree with Mayor Gleckman that we should
first contact'the people.
Mayor Gleckman: On Item 6 I would entertain.a motion that the
people on Virginia Avenue be notified that this
matter will be taken up at the next regular
Council meeting.
So moved by Councilman Gillum, seconded by
Councilman Chappell, and carried.
Motion by Councilman Nichols, seconded by Councilman .Gillum, and
carried, that Council receive and file the Traffic Committee meeting
minutes with the exception of Item 6.
CITY CLERK
1) ABC Application
Motion by Councilman Chappell, seconded by Councilman Nichols, and
carried, that there be no protest filed on the ABC application of
William M. & Marjorie M. Petras, dba "Bon Vie" 340 N. Azusa.Avenue.
CITY TREASURER'S REPORT
Motion by Councilman Nichols, seconded by Councilman Chappell, and
carried, that the City Treasurer's report for the month of September,
1969, be received and filed.
(Councilman Gillum inquired if it was true that .the City Treasurer
Mable Ho.ffland was in the hospital and Mr. Aiassa advised it was so
and that she was under intensive care. Council discussed.)
Motion by Councilman Lloyd, seconded by Councilman Chappell, and
3.3 -
•
e
REG. C.C. 10/27/69
Citv Treasurer - Cont'd.
carried, authorizing City Manager
the City Treasurer, not to exceed
on roll call vote as follows:
AYES: Councilmen
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
MAYOR'S REPORTS
Page Thirty -'four
to arrange to have flowers sent to
the sum of $15.00. Motion carried
Gillum, Nichols, Chappell, Lloyd, Mayor Gleckman
(Mayor Gleckman asked for the "hold over of Item 1 and 2 due to the
late• hour, ")
Motion by Councilman Gillum, seconded by Councilman Chappell, and
carried, that the Executive Session regarding appointmentof
Human Relations Commissioner beheld over to the Council meeting on
October 28, 1969.
Motion by'Councilman Gillum, seconded by Councilman Chappell, and
carried, that the letter from the National District Attorneys'
Association regarding'Narcotics Committee report be held over to the
meeting of Council on October 28, 1969.
3. Support of Hot, -line Committee
Mayor Gleckman: The Hot-line,Committee is operating right now
and they are doing some extensive work. What
the Committee is asking is for the various
cities and school districts in the East San Gabriel Valley area to
specifically appoint someone from each jurisdiction to act as a Board
of Director on the Committee and to support the Hot-line operation.
I have two recommendations to make to Council.
First, -if Council would see fit J would like to appoint Dr. Snyder
as our official. representative to the Hot-line Committee Board of
Directors', and the second recommendation would be to authorize `.a sum
not to exceed $50.00 per month towards the operation of the Hot-line
and be the first City in the area towards taking this definite approach.
Motion by Councilman Gillum, seconded by Councilman Nichols, and
carried, approving the appointment of Dr. Snyder as a Board of Director
to the Hot-line Committee.'
Motion by Councilman Gillum, seconded by Councilman Chappell,
authorizing the expenditure of not more than $50.00 per month fos.the
operation of the Hot-line.
Councilman Nichols:.:'.:'_:..: Mr:.'M.ayor, .'I am not:'prep.ared. tovote. on this.
matter because I don't want to vote "no."
Mayor Gleckman: As a substitute motion I would entertain it
be held over to tomorrow night.
So moved by Councilman Gillum, seconded by
Councilman Chappell, and carried.
COUNCIL COMMITTEE REPORTS
Councilman Gillum: I made a request to Council regarding the
actuary pertaining to the Retirement Committee,
and we had a letter from the Employees'
Association stating their willingness to contribute $1200.00 towards
the cost of approximately $2400.00 to get the information needed.
I think we directed Mr. Aiassa to report to us this week with a
recommendation if we could afford to proceed with the program.
Mr. Aiassa: We checked our various accounts and,I think the
34 -
"REG. C.C. 10/27/69 Page Thirty -=five
f
.Council Committee Reports - Cont'd.
City could raise $1200.00 if the employees put up the other $1200.00.
Motion by Councilman Gillum that the City Council approve the
expenditure of $1200.00 along with the.$1200.00 by the Employees'
Association to have the actuarial survey made as discussed by the
Retirement Committee. Seconded by Councilman Chappell. Motion
carried on roll call vote as follows:
AYES: Councilmen Gillum, Nichols, Chappell, Lloyd, Mayor Gleckman
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
Councilman Nichols:; Some work was done on Merced between Glendora
and California sometime ago and the street has
never been restrip.-Do you know why -
Mr.. Aiassa?
Mr. Aiassa: Yes we ordered the new stripi .. and it has not
been received. Mr. Fast will make a note of it
and if it is critical we will try and use the old
machine one more time.
Councilman Nichols: Some people are still trying to use it as the two
lanes because they got used to it that way, and
others don't understand it and it leads to a lot
of confusion.
Also the traffic signal light at Lark Ellen and
Cameron is just the same as it was before when we expressed concern about
it. If you don't shift quickly you go through on a red light. I timed it
at,12 to 15 seconds which is not enough time -for a proper movement of a
car.
(Mr. Aiassa advised this'would be checked again.)
Councilman Nichols: The last thing I have is I received a copy of
the letter addressed to Chief Sill implying all
kinds of upheavals in'the community, and I
wondered if there was something in progress in,the City.
Mayor Gleckman: I turned -the letter over to Mr. Aiassa and he
promised to have a report for me by tomorrow
night.
Councilman Lloyd: I have a report with.regards to the Independent
Cities meeting in.San Diego. I was particularly
impressed by a presentation by our editor of the
San Gabriel Valley Tribune and I think it has a tremendous amount of
food for thought. 1 felt strongly enough about the words presented
simply because he pointed out some of the things I. didn't know regarding
the Ralph M. Brown Act, and I asked Mr-. Tracy `forthe written portion
of his speech and he kindly provided it for,.me, and I would like to ask
the indulgence of the Council to have this reproduced and delivered to
the Council and all our Commissions. I think the words are worthy of
consideration although I don't know that I agree. (Discussed in
• further detail.)
Motion by Councilman Lloyd, seconded by Councilman Gillum, and carried,
that the speech referred to be reproduced and presented to the Council
and Commissions for .what it is: worth.
101:48M ILYDRE
Motion by Councilman Chappell, seconded by Councilman Lloyd, that City
35
n
LJ
REG. C.C. 10/27/69
Demands - Cont'd.
Page Thirty-six
Council approve payment of demands totalling $326,632.99 as listed on
Demand Sheets B656 through B658 and payroll reimbursement sheet.
Motion carried on roll call vote as follows:,
AYES: Councilmen Gillum, Nichols, Chappell, Lloyd, Mayor Gleckman
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
Mayor Gleckman: Mr. Aiassa, one further comment. I have been
advised that there is an inadequacy someplace
regarding a particular ordinance having to do
with contractors and subcontractors, and I would.lik e to have your
staff report back to Council as to the manner in which it is written.
Motion by Councilman,Chappell, seconded by Councilman Lloyd, and
carried at 11:50 p.m. this meeting adjourn to 7:30 P.M. on October 28,.
1969, for a joint meeting with the Narcotics Committee.
ATTEST:
CITY CLERK
APPROVED:
MAYOR
- 3 6 -