11-24-1969 - Regular Meeting - MinutesMINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL
CITY OF WEST COVINA, CALIFORNIA
NOVEMBER 24, 1969.
The regular meeting of the City Council was called to order_ by
Mayor Leonard S. Gleckman at 7:30 p.m., in the West Covina City Hall.
40 The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Councilman Thomas Gillum., The
invocation was given by Reverend John L. Reid, Jr., of the Community
Presbyterian Church of West Covina.
ROLL CALL
Present: Mayor Gleckman; Councilmen Gillum, Nichols, Lloyd
Chappell (arrived at 8:10 p.m.)
Also Present: George Aiassa, City Manager
George Wakefield, City Attorney
Richard Munsell, Planning Director
Herman R. Fast, Public Services Director
Leonard Eliot,.Controller
Louis Winters, Civil Engineering Associate
Chief Police Allen Sill
Deputy Chief of Police Jim Shade
Ken Winter, Planning Associate
Jim Butler, President - W.C.C.E.A.
Lela W. Preston, City Clerk,
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
November 10, 1969 - Approved as corrected:
Councilman Nichols: I have two corrections. On Page 4, about
the middle of the page, my comments, fifth
line the word.procedural should be
"procedure." Page 14, the third line from the bottom,the word buffer
I would like changed to read "those levels are not within the concern
of this Council for our community."
Mr. Wakefield: One correction in my statement on page 18,
top,paragraph, second from the last line,
the word "changed" should read "prepared".
Motion by Councilman Nichols, seconded by Councilman Gillum, and
carried, approving the minutes of November 10,.1969, as corrected.
Mayor Gleckman requested staff to send.a letter of thanks to
Mario Del Fante Florists for the very beautiful flowers sent to
Council to 'commemorate Thanksgiving feminding us that there is a lot
of beauty in the world.
PRESENTATION OF SAFETY TOWN AWARD
Stan Smith I thank you.for allowing me
Coast.Federal Savings & Loan Asso. to make the,presentation this
Eastland Shopping Center evening. The presentation
tonight is to the West Covina
Police Department in recognition of all the work and hours they
donated to Safety Town) which was held in the Eastland Shopping Center
,� in West Covina. I am indeed happy to.present this plaque. (Deputy
Chief Shade asked to step forward; Mr. Smith.read plaque; and along
with plaque presented a check for $150.00 from Coast Federal 'Savings
to the West Covina Police Athletic Club.)
Deputy Chief Jim Shade: On --behalf . o'f� 'Chief Sill, the
police officers, police cadets,
and the Police Explorers Post -
our thanks.
- 1 -
REG. C.C. 11-24-69
AWARD OF BIDS
Page Two
PROJECT NO. MP-69018-6 LOCATION: Galster Wilderness Park
UNDERGROUND UTILITIES
APPROVED Engineer's report reviewed by
Council. City Clerk advised two
bids were received in the office
of the City Clerk at 10:00 A.M. on November 19, 1'969, as follows:
ACE PIPELINE, Pomona $25,114.00
LOWE-HYDRO, La Habra $29,310.80
Bids were checked for error and.found to be valid bids.
Motion by Councilman Nichols, seconded by Councilman Lloyd, and
carried, accepting the bid of Ace. Pipeline Construction Company,
Incorporated of Pomona, as presented at the bid opening on
November 19, 1969, for Project MP 69018-6 and that the Mayor and
City Clerk be authorized to execute an agreement with the said
Ace Pipeline Construction, Inc.,:for the work to be done.
PROJECT NO. MP-69023 LOCATION: 819 South Sunset Avenue
ADDITION TO FIRE STATION NO. 1-
BIDS REJECTED City Clerk advised 5 bids were
received in the office of the City
1969, as follows•• Clerk at 10:00 A.M. on November 19,
Deduct -Deduct' Deduct #1 Ad������ #2
Item #1 Item #2 Item #3 Item #4 Item #5 Item #6
C & R Constr. $36;423. $ 60.00 $ 450.00 $ 550.00 $ - $ 520.00
Fraada Homes $291485. $100.00 $ 50.00 $ 100.00 $300.00 $ 840.00
Al R. Gray $31,000.. $ 60.00 $-601.00 $1033.00 $178.00 $ 762.00
Hassett ,Constr.$32; 745. $ 53.00 $ 507.00 $ 636.00 $ - $ 685.00
Lyle Parks, Jr.$37,586. $ 56.00 $1820.00 $2194.00 $ - $ 475.00
Mayor Gleckman: I notice by the staff report the amount budgeted for
this item was $20,000 and the lowest bid was $29,485.
Motion by Councilman Nichols, seconded by Councilman Lloyd, that City
Council reject all bids and declare that the project - Fire Station
No. 1 Addition, be performed more economically by day labor and the
materials and supplies furnished at a lower price in the open market,
and that the staff be instructed to proceed on such a basis in a
manner satisfactory to the City Attorney.
RESOLUTION NO. 4066 The City Attorney presented:
ADOPTED "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF WEST COVINA,
REJECTING BID.SiFOR THE CONSTRUCTION
OF A FIRE STATION AND DECLARING THE CONSTRUCTION CAN BE PERFORMED MORE
ECONOMICALLY BY DAY LABOR."
Mayor Gleckman: Hearing no objections, waive furtherreading of the
body of said Resolution.
Motion by Councilman.Gillum, seconded by Councilman Lloyd, adopting
said Resolution. Motion carried on roll call vote as follows:
AYES: Councilmen Gillum, Nichols, Lloyd, Mayor Gleckman
NOES: None
ABSENT: Councilman Chappell
Motio
n by Councilman Gillum, seconded by Councilman Nichols, and
carried, setting the budgetary limitation for Project MP-69023 at
$20,000.00 unless further amended by City Council.,
PUBLIC WORKS ITEMS
kOJECT NO. SP-68007 LOCATION: Glendora Avenue, south
StREET & STORM DRAIN City limits to Service Avenue.
IMPROVEMENTS
RUSH ENGINEERING
- 2 -
REG. C.C. 11-24-69 Page Three
PUBLIC WORKS ITEMS (Project No. SP-68007) Cont'd.
Motion by Councilman Gillum, seconded by Councilman Nichols, and
carried, that City Council accept street and storm drain improve-
ments and authorize release of the Aetna Casualty & Surety Company
faithful performance bond No. 33570050BC in the amount of $393,896.15.
:.. ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. AD 1-68 LOCATION: Cameron Avenue between
^-"- Lark Ellen and Azusa Avenues.
Bids were received in the office
of the City Clerk on Wednesday, November 5,.1969. Engineer's report
reviewed .by Council.
RESOLUTION NO. 4067 The City Attorney presented:
ADOPTED "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF WEST COVINA,
AWARDING CONTRACT TO IMPROVE
CAMERON AVENUE AND AZUSA AVENUE AND RIGHTS -OF -WAY IN THE CITY, IN
ACCORDANCE WITH RESOLUTION OF INTENTION NO. 3956 AS CHANGED BY
RESOLUTION NO. 3995."
Mayor Gleckman: Hearing no objections, waive further reading of the
body of said Resolution.
Motion by Councilman Gillum, seconded by Councilman Nichols, adopting
said Resolution. Motion carried on roll call vote as follows:
AYES: Councilmen. Gillum, Nichols, Lloyd, Mayor Gleckman
NOES: None
ABSENT: Councilman Chappell
PLANNING COMMISSION
1. Review Action of November 19 1969
(Council considered items of action individually.)
Mayor Gleckman: If Council members have no objections, I would like
to call up Unclassified Use Permit #147
(Council had no objections.)
Also,.I would like to call up Variance #646, if
Council members have no objection. (Council had
no objections.)
Motion by Councilman Lloyd, seconded by Councilman Gillum, and
carried, to accept and file the actirn of the Planning Commission
on November 19, 1969, with the exceptions so noted.
2. Request to attend American Institute of Planners Meeting
December 5 & 6. 1969
Mayor Gleckman: We have a staff report on this item and this
evening I was advised by Mr. .Adams and Mr. Browne
that they will be unable to attend. I don't know
if Mr. Jackson will still wish to attend.
Councilman Nichols: Perhaps I should wait until a later time to
express my feeling, but this is an item that
was not budgeted and the City is moving into
a period of increasing stringency on its budget. A number of items
presented here rather make that obvious and although every conference
attended in itself is�not a large amount, cumulatively they can
become a great deal, and I have come to the feeling that the Council
should perhaps take a position of restricting out of town convention
trips to those items that are budgeted. In light of that feeling I
would not personally favor a transfer of funds to enable these
additional trips to be undertaken.
Councilman Gillum: Apparently there is a need or at least it was
felt by the Commission that this was worth-
while for someone to attend. Although you
3 -
REG. C.C. 11-24-69 Page Four
PLANNING COMMISSION (Item 2) Cont'd. '
stated two Commissioners are unable to attend, I.am wondering if
in a case such as this if possibly the Commission would consider
just one person attending and reporting back to the Commission. I
really can't justify three going on such a trip, and as Mr. Nichols
stated we do not have the funds'.budgeted for the trip. I think one
person attending and reporting back to Council would serve just as
well.
Councilman Lloyd: Mr. Aiassa I presumeY ou have the money to do
this and that is the reason the recommendation
was made?
Mr. Aiassa: No, I have not. This was not processed through
the City Manager, it was directly to Council.
Councilman Lloyd: Then I would have to agree with the remarks made.
Motion by Councilman Nichols, seconded by Councilman Lloyd, and
carried, denying the request for extra funds to attend the AIP
meeting for the reasons stated.
RECREATION & PARK COMMISSION
Special Meeting of November 12, 1969
Motion by Councilman Nichols, seconded by Mayor Gleckman, and carried,
to accept and file. .
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS
a) Letter & List of Members of the Interim TOPICS Advisory
Committee from the Department of Public Works, Sacramento
Motion by Councilman Nichols, seconded by Councilman Lloyd, and
carried, referring this letter to staff.
b) Letter from Mr. & Mrs. Norman K. Gates commending the
City Council for requiring the Vietnam Protest Marchers
to post a $5,000 bond.
Motion by Councilman Gillum, seconded by Councilman Lloyd, and carried,
that Council receive and file.
c) Letter from Rodney Oaks, Chairman of Valley for Peace
Organization criticizing the City Council for requiring
.the -Vietnam Moratorium marchers to post a $5,000 bond
Councilman Nichols: I would only comment that the letter from
Mr. Rodney Oakes seems to me to be largely
illustrative because of its.ignorance and
I would move that we receive and file.
Seconded by Councilman Gillum, and carried.
d) Letter from West Covina Beautiful requesting suggestions for
formulating a long-term Beautification Action Program
Motion by Councilman Nichols, seconded by Councilman Gillum, and
carried, that this letter be referred to staff.
HEARINGS
ZONE CHANGE NO. 427
PRECISE PLAN NO. 578
ART PIZZO & VINCENT MANNO
LOCATION: Southeast corner of
Azusa Avenue and Danes Drive
REQUEST approval of a zone change
from O--P to S-C ; and ( 2 ) approval
�of .a precise plan of design for a
-.4 ..:
REG. C.C. 11-24-69
HEARINGS (Item 1)�::Cbnt°d,e ..'_:',_.
Page Five
6,696 square foot commercial building on a .43 acre parcel.
Recommended by Planning Commission Resolutions No. 2196 and 2197.
(Mr. Munsell read Planning Commission Resolutions Nos. 2196 and 2197;
slides shown and explained.)
THIS IS THE TIME AND PLACE FOR THE.PUBLIC HEARING ON ZONE CHANGE NO.
427 and PRECISE PLAN NO. 578.
IN FAVOR (Sworn in by City Clerk)
Art Pizzo I would like to point out that as far as the
1586 Hill Drive Zone Change I don't see any better use for
Los Angeles that particular property than service -commercial
as the Master Plan shows. With regard to the
setback required by the City we would like to have it reduced by 51
because of the alley that will be required probably later on. We
have gone to a great expense in the designing of an'extra fine
building for the purpose of keeping the neighbors happy and a better
investment for ourselves. This will be a beautiful Spanish type
building with tile roof and tile columns. We also carefully picked
the tenants - a Finance Company, Jewelry Store and Optical Company.
There is one space left to. rent.
One of the neighbors came out and said they
wanted to be sure we were going to build the building and not get a
zone change for the purpose of selling later on.- We have no intention
of doing that. We are not getting the zoning for any other purpose
than to build the building as per the Precise Plan. We have a loan
commitment. and we are ready to go as soon as we,receive approval from
the City.
(COUNCILMAN CHAPPELL ARRIVED AT 8:10 P.M.)
IN OPPOSITION
Clinton Holland The only thing I have to say against this is
1814 Danes Drive with regard to the building actually being built.
West Covina As far as the building is concerned - fine.
If this is.the building he intends to build I
would like some assurance from Council that this will be what goes in
and not a year from now,or-two years from now, that this building will
be changed into something else. I can't see, if this kind of a
building is going up, why it has to be changed to a S-C zoning.
Also there was no mention at all showing that this street would be
blocked and cul de saced:, This was talked at the Planning
Commission hearing and it isn't even on record. As far as the build-
ing itself, I have no objections, if it meets City standards; I do
object to the zone change. The City Attorney can. -tell you that when
it is changed to S-C then anything of that usage can go in. I would
like to be assured that this type of building is going in.
REBUTTAL
Art Pizzo As far. as the cul de sacifg- most of the
neighbors,do not want it. As far as'the building
going in, I don't know what assurance I can give
other than my word, or he can go and look at the plans, if he would
like.
THERE BEING NO FURTHER PUBLIC TESTIMONY, PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED.
COUNCIL DISCUSSION. -
Councilman Gillum: Mr. Munsell, as I remember our North Azusa Avenue
Plan indicated as these. lots were developed
cul de sacing. would go in to separate the
commercial from the residential. Would you tell Council actually what
is involved in cul de sac.ing. and what responsibility Council has to
the R-1 residents on Danes Drive.
- 5 -
REG. C.C. 11-24-69 Page Six
HEARINGS (Item 1) Cont°d.
Mr. Munsell: The North Azusa Avenue study did indicate
that as the property in:.this vicinity was
developed that the residential streets imme-
diately adjacent should be cul de sac,ing in an effort to maintain a
better use of the commercial property and give the residents
additional privacy and cut down noise factors from traffic and also
the traffic that might otherwise ensue on the residential streets.
It was also stated in the report that this should.be done in each
instance with the7.acceptance of the residents. The particular pro-
cedure here is that the applicant is required under the Precise Plan
to acquire the signatures and approval of all the property owners
involved and submit to the Engineering Staff, who then go through the
normal procedure of closing a street and constructing the cul de
sac. This particular cul de sac would have to come back to Council
again for final approval before work would be done.
Councilman Gillum: And staff has nothad indications from Danes
Drive that they would like to have the street
cul de sac ed?
Mr. Munsell: I have no information in the file indicating one
way or the other.
Councilman Gillum: Mr. Wakefield -say the majority of our residents
on Danes Drive do not want it cul de sac ed. at
this time, but found at a later date that it
was best to cul de sac because of increased traffic, etc., where
does the responsibility lie - with the developer or the City?
Mr. Wakefield: So far as the developer is concerned he has a
continuing obligation to pay for that portion
of the cul de sac ing cost that fronts his
property to the center line of the street. However, as a practical
matter the cul de sacing- cannot be accomplished without the
consent of be residents along Danes Drive. If. Mr. Pizzo is correct
in his statement that a majority of the residents would not desire
the cul de sacing, then it would not be necessary to go ahead with
it until there is such a request by the majority of the residents on
Danes Drive.
Councilman Gillum:. Say it isn't decided until two years from now?
Mr. Wakefield: This is a continuing obligation and one of the
c6nditions of the Precise Plan and may be
enforced,li::e any other condition of the Precise
Plan. (Explained in further detail) The obliga-
tion runs with the land and the use of the property.
Councilman Nichols: The only comment I would make would be with regard
to the building and that is that it is a matter
that rests on the integrity of the applicant.
This applicant has stated that if this use is granted he will in fact
build the building that was part of the Precise Plan discussed at the
Planning Commission hearing.. I think the Council can add nothing
more to the word of the applicant.
Mayor Gleckman: I might comment that the last time this piece of
property came before Council it was recommended
by five to nothing a:t.Planhing-.Coinmission level
that a brake shop go in on this property and Council felt at that time
that we should protect the residents in the area with the type of
usage that goes with the property and it was turned down by Council.
Subsequently he has come in with a new Precise Plan, same zoning, and
Council had no objections to the plan: -but felt S-C zoning requiring
the accompaniment of the Precise Plan would be the best, because then
only the Precise Plan presented can be built on,that particular piece
of property.
6 -
REG. C.C. 11-24-69 Page Seven
HEARINGS (Item 1) Cont'd.
We have testimony this evening by the applicant
under oath, that this is what he intends to build. There is nothing
more this City Council can give as:.assurance'.-.other-.•.than:-:the testimony
given here this evening and other than the.guarantee that if the
applicant decided to change the building he would have to go back
through the Planning Commission and Council with a new Precise Plan.
And at that time the people of the area could stand up and say to
this Council or any future Council that the reason the S-C zoning
was granted was primarily because of the Precise Plan. We proved
our point by denying the last one because of the Precise Plan. This
is as good assurance as anybody can get on any piece of property
any place or any time.
I would further like to call the attention of the
City Council to the request of the applicant, which I think is
justifiable and maybe I am just feeling guilty because I was the
leader for turning down the brake shop on this property. If the man
had been granted permission to put the brake shop in some 3 or 4
months ago the man would have been required to set it back 15' from
the street as every other development in the last year or year and a
half that we have had the S-C zoning, but because'we denied the
Precise Plan - not because of the zoning being bad but we didn't
want the brake shop - now the man isbeing penalized not only by
having to dedicate an additional 5' which he didn't have to before
but having to setback 15' which is a total of 201, whereas before in
the S-.0 zone he was only required to setback 151,. There is a waiver
in the.S-C zoning of this requirement primarily put in for certain
given situations. For example if this were going in next to the Sleep
Shop, built some'.:short-time ago it would have to be setback 5' further
than that particular building, and that doesn't make any sense to me.
And that is'the reason for the waiver. We are also looking for the
access in the rear of the property which was a primary reason of the
S-C zone and I think we would be fair if we did require the 5' dedi-
cation but waived the 15' setback which would then be 10' and in
effect give us 15' and then if, and when, we took that 5' - Mr. Fast,
when are we planning to widen Azusa Avenue north?
Mr. Fast: Dedication for additional width on Azusa Avenue
ties into the traffic circulation element of
the General Plan, which has been completed and
approved by City Council, and is based upon a 1975-1990 traffic load.
So until the traffic load approaches that, the extra 5' will not be
needed. At this time the 5 year plan does not call for the widening
of Azusa Avenue North.
Mayor Gleckman: So by us getting the dedication of 51 it assures
the City that we are not having to go out and
buy something at a future date which we would
have had to do if we had approved this S-C zoning three or four months
ago. So by getting the additional 5' dedication I think would be a
consideration that this Council should show, and it still gives us
the necessary room in the back. So speaking for myself I think this
is a good plan and I would go along with the zone°change and the
Precise Plan since we have whatever assurance we could ever hppe to
get with regard to the building being built, I would like to have
Council omsider the 5' waiver.
Councilman Nichols: Is there another S-.0 development of recency
along Azusa Avenue that we might compare in
terms of the required setback?
Mayor Gleckman: 61eep Shop 15' setback-=fr66'the 'curb'' hd�'iio
dedication. . -- - I
Councilman Nichols: I would agree with the chair''s position.
Mayor Gleckman: I appreciate that Councilman Nichols; and I
think we are being what we should be as an
- 7 -
REG. C.C. 11-24-69 Page Eight
HEARINGS (Item 1) Cont'd.
elective body - considerate of the applicant, and because we are
not going to take this 5' for at least ten to fifteen years.
Motion by Councilman Gillum, seconded by Councilman Nichols, and
carried, that Zone Change No. 427 be approved.
Motion by Councilman Gillum, seconded by Councilman Nichols, and
carried, that Precise Plan No. 578 be approved with the exception
of the waiver of 5' being allowed and included in the Precise Plan.
AMENDMENT NO. 106 A proposed revision to the zoning
CITY INITIATED ordinance to amend Section No. 9216
APPROVED (Unclassified Use Permit) of the
West Covina Municipal Code to
include certain drive-in, drive -through uses in appropriate zones
after the approval of an unclassified use permit and to amend
Sections 9211 (N-C), 9212 (C-2), 9212.5 (C-C), 9213 (C-3), 9213.5
(R-C), and 9227 (S-C) by 'removing drive-in, drive -through uses from
these sections. Recommended by Planning Commission Resolution No. 2207.
(Planning Commission Resolution No. 2207 read by Mr. Munsell, and
advising that staff has prepared an Ordinance for Council introduction
if Council approves.)
Mayor Gleckman: One question - 9216.2 drive-in, drive -through -..
the Fotomat, would not that be considered a drive-
in, drive-through?�
Mr. Munsell: Any type of drive-in, drive -through such as Foto-
mat would be in that category.
is THIS IS THE TIME AND PLACE FOR THE PUBLIC HEARING ON AMENDMENT NO. 106.
NO PUBLIC TESTIMONY, PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED® COUNCIL DISCUSSION.
Councilman Nichols: I would like to suggest a correction in the word-
ing of the section 9216.2 (read section). I
believe it should read "Unclassified Use Permit.
Said, uses- to be.'.prohibited....:a .:".
Mr. Wa;cefield: That will be taken care of at the time the
Ordinance is drawn up.
Motion by Councilman Chappell, seconded by Councilman Gillum, and
carried, approving Amendment #106.
THE CHAIR DECLARED A RECESS AT 8:45 P.M. COUNCIL RECONVENED AT 8:50
P.M.
REVISED SOUTH GLENDORA LOCATION: Both sides of Glendora
AVENUE PLAN, AREA I Avenue from Walnut Creek Parkway
CITY INITIATEb south to Cameron Avenue.
REQUEST: Consideration of a plan
which has analyzed the existing
land use, circulation, and zoning
pattern and makes recommendations regarding the future patterns of
this area. Referred back to the Planning Commission for review on
November 18, 1968. Hearing on July 28, 1969, to consider recommenda-
tions in Planning Commission Resolution No. 2160. Hearing held open
and continued to October 14, 1969, to allow Planning Consultants and
new Planning Director to review and subsequently continued to this;
date.
(Mr. Munsell verbally summarized the South Glendora Avenue Plan
Area I; slides shown and area explained.)
- 8 -
REG. C.C., 11-24-69 Page Nine
HEARINGS (Item 3) Cont°d.
THIS IS THE TIME.AND PLACE FOR THE CONTINUATION::OF THE:PUBLIC..HEARING .
ON THE.REVISED.SOUTH GLENDORA AVENUE PLAN, AREA I�
R. J. Hauser I object to this on the basis of inconsisten-
528 Truman Place cies on the planning of the Master Plan.
West Covina Having been involved in municipal government
for quite a few years, a history has shown that
when you have a heavy manufacturing area then you have a light
manufacturing area adjacent to it 'and then a commercial area and
then a multiple and then single family. Here you come to a heavy
traffic area -ypu)m inconsistent on your single family coming right
up into the heavy and he says it can be changed without rezoning,
etc. So your service commercial is coming directly up to your single
residences and in my opinion with this as a Master Plan for the
City of West Covina I think we are in a lot of trouble. I am
opposing it on the basis of its inconsistencies.
THERE BEING NO FURTHER PUBLIC TESTIMONY, PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED.
COUNCIL DISCUSSION.
Councilman Nichols: The matter of the South Glendora Avenue Plan,
Area I, came before the Planning Commission and
then to the Council and the Council referred the
matter back to staff after one or more councilmen raised points of
concern.This was prior- to. the':time'. Mr_ Munsel.T: was .employed by the
City;. then: when Mre.. Mansell was':hired there was -a request. for `a .
further delay so that Mr.: Munsell could:famili-arize himself .with all
that had gone before. In its earlier appearance before Council two
points raised by myself were the following: the possibility that the
staff might desire to look into. the matter of Christopher Street, as
to whether it should or should not be cul de saced;; and secondly,the
matter of the proposed extension of the higher density property to
the east of the alleyway westerly of Craig Drive. In respect to the*
first matter, Sandy Hook Street and Blue Ash Road particularly on
Saturdays and Sundays has already become a major avenue carrying
people to St. Christopher°s Church, and it was my feeling when the
extensive commercial areas immediately adjacent to Christopher Street
on the north developed that the flow of traffic down Sandy Hook would
grow to the point where it would destroy the validity of that remain-
ing narrow strip of homes. My thought was that staff look at all
the implications of the possibility of cul de sacing Christopher
Street in order that the commercial and church traffic would enter
and leave from Glendora Avenue. There may be good and valid reasons
why this cannot be done, however we have never received a staff
report back on this matter after the request was made. Now the
matter is back before Council with no recommendation or response as
to why there was no recommendation.
The other point - all of the present studies
and all studies made by experts in the area of housing indicate that
West Covina°s better single family neighborhoods are increasingly to
become treasures in the housing market of Southern California,
because competent people feel we are now leaving the area of
individually constructed single family homes. Many people feel within
5 years well over half of all the homes built in California will be
of the mobile type. Now in this area we are speaking of the homes
on Craig Drive, these are all well maintained homes. Nice homes, good
yards, good landscaping and they face another very fine residential
neighborhood and I have nbt felt at any time it would be appropriate
to extend the high density zoning southeasterly.across the alleyway.
I have always felt that alleyway should be the line of resistance
and that those.houses fronting Glendora as owners could package them
together to get enough north -south frontage that those people indeed
should be given relief and that frontage could be used functionally
as multiple family housing with easy and good access to garaging near
the alley. I see no functional reason to show multiple zoning
extending further than that into the residential area which at present
consists of all very fine homes.
- 9 -
REG. C.C. 11-24-69
HEARINGS (Item 3) Cont'd.
Page Ten
In respect to point one, I have no.fundamental
objection as to non-cul de sac.ing,-,':or.;.cul de sacCing, but,I
certainly wanted a response to that. And with regard to the other
part, my feeling is the zoning should not be allowed to transgress
into that area. Other than that I have no criticisms and accept in
its entirety.
Councilman Gillum: I would say that I could support Mr. Nichols
in his concern regarding the cul de sacirig .
I have noticed this same condition today, even
without the commercial. I am in disagreement with Mr. Nichols as far
as the multiple in this area for one reason. I think I would be more
concerned if we used an alleyway as a buffer than to use a residential
street. I think we are going to create more problems by abutting
multiple dwellings to the rear of single family, especially on an area
with the narrow type lots facing Glendora. I think it would be a
better development to use the residential street as a buffer and in
most cases in the past we have always tried to draw the line down
a residential street. As you probably remember on our Industrial
Park the first concept was to divide the lots and gocbwn the property
line instead of using the residential street and the final program
accepted by Council was to align these areas by streets in areas .
abutting single family. In this area I would have to go along with
staffs recommendation of using the street itself as a divider between
single family and multiple. As stated by Mr. Munsell this is a
proposed program, we are not talking about next week or 5 years from
now, this is just proposed and in order to develop into a multiple
family it would have to be by the consent or sale of these properties
now in R-I. I think we have to project the use of multiple family
dwellings. I realize we are the'City of Beautiful Homes and single
family, but I also realize in order to have a balanced community
we must have a balancing between single family and multiple. I could
accept the plan as shown with the exception of the possible cul de
sacing. of the Street north of the church.
Councilman Chappell: When we originally had this before us I
objected very strongly to the additional
multiple zoning, and I think that was one
of the reasons why we sent it back to be.restudied. Those houses
on the other side of the area still should be residential and the
rest of the area could go into multiple homes, but to have the whole
area multiple zoning, I think we are again getting carried away with
this type of zoning and we have a lot now in town that'is not being
built. I would be in agreement with Councilman Nichols on that area.
Councilman Lloyd: It seems that we are down to the point of making
a decision as to whether or not we should have
multiple on Craig.Drivey. and I would have to at this point in my
opinion r concurt.with- the -,feeling ,that this should be multiple. The
traffic flow as I recall on Glendora today is about 18,000 and the:
alley being about 275' away I think that'preximity to that flow of
traffic would indicate the necessity of some sort of a buffer
situation and multiple housing usually has a stronger sound -proofing
construction. So I would tend to go along with ,the Planning
Departments recommendation and beyond that I would tend to agree that
multiple is the best zoning for that area. As far as the cul de
sacirig I would go along with Councilman Nichols' recommendation,
it would seem to be the logical way for it to go.
Councilman Nichols: On the cul de sac.ing I wanted to say I don't
have a strong feeling on it, but I only wanted
to get a response from staff.
Mr. Fast: Staff did look: at the various suggestions made
by Council at that hearing last year and in
regards to the cul de sacing staff is interest-
ed in separating multiple from rommdreiall i�.Sfaff IdidldbserVe:i_tfiat
l0
REG. C.C. 11-24-69
HEARINGS (Item 3) Cont'd.
Page Eleven
the length of the cul de sac in this case would be extremely long
and we felt from the standpoint of safety and the general traffic
of the neighborhood itself that the single source access would
perhaps not be quite as _appropriate from the standpoint of a cul de
sac, however this is very close balancing.
Mayor Gleckman: When this matter first came before Council I
had the same concerns -as Councilman Nichols
and then some. I don't believe the idea of
making the alleyway to Craig Drive for multiple will in anyway
enhance the multiple on Glendora where you would not prefer to
have an alleyway between single family and multiple. I sure wouldn't
want an alleyway between multiple and multiple because I think most
of our problems in multiple zones, if we have any, would be the access
in and out and the high density. I could see all of that going R-3
or multiple if the alley were done away with and the people from
Craig Drive were to come over and make one big apartment development,
but to leave the alleyway there and then project for the homes
on Craig Drive multiple— - I really don't even see Glendora, except
limited, being built to multiple with that shallow depth, and I think
with or without the alleyway it is going to be a problem. I think if
the people on Craig Drive would sometime in the future desire multiple
that then they could come in and show the hardship of being related
so close to multiple that they should have it too.. Everytime we show
multiple on our General Plan the statistics come back to haunt us when
somebody comes in that really wants to build multiple. So I just as
soon leave off the additional multiple with the idea of reducing
that statistic within our community so it isn't continually brought
up on every zoning case.
As far as the cul de sac, I think it is one
that would have to go to the people around there and the church. I
feel it would have .to be initiated by them and not the City. The
other thought I had and it is unfortunate, but it is there - that is the
S-C zone that extends all the way back to the single family homes
adjoining the church. At the time that came in I consulted with
as many people as I could and the answers I got. was that there was
no objection, so there again we left it up to the people and there
was .no objection to it and it was formally zoned. If wewere de-
signing the map, liked'.£o see the S-C follow a certain
straight line down rather than adjacent to the church but that is
there. So my only thought would be I can't see putting the R-3
in at this time between the alley and eraig Drive, unless it is
requested at some later date and some grounds shown. With regard
to the cul de sac I would not show it on there but would be receptive
to it if requested by the church and people surrounding.
Councilman Nichols: A comment Mr. Mayor. The chair would perhaps
be interested in knowing that the General Plan
recently adopted by the City shows the multiple
zoning in the area between Glendora and the alley -as the chair is
recommending and I naturally concur because it concurs with my
position also.
Councilman Gillum: Well we could probably debate the pros... and
cons of that all evening, but I think.if we
accept this as a proposal and not a firm zoning
and if people leaving here tonight remember that - that it is
something staff recommends as good planning practice for the future
and if this is what Council is going to accept, I will keep,quiet
about the apartment house on the other side of the area rind continue
about our business.
Mayor Gleckman: We have
motion
Plan be
SoUth'.Glendora Plan; Area I,
R=3 betwU"eii1 the alleyway and
then two offers before us either a
that the Revision of the South Glendora
accepted as presented or the Revised
be approved with the elimination of the
Craig Drive.
REG. C.C. 11-24-69 Page Twelve
HEARINGS (ITEM 3) Cont°d.
Motion by Councilman Chappell, seconded: by Councilman Nichols,. to approve
the:South:.Glend:ora:.Avenue Plan, Area I with the elimination of the R-3
between alleyway and Craig ,Drive.,- =,Carrded.' ..
SOUTH GLENDORA AVENUE PLAN, AREA II LOCATION: Cameron Avenue
south to the City limits on
both sides of Glendora Avenue.
This plan analyzes the exist-
ing land use and zoning pattern and makes recommendations regarding the
future patterns of this area. Recommended by Planning Commission
Resolution No. 2164. Set for Public Hearing on August 11, 1969, held
over to November 10., 1969, with hearing held open and continued to
this date.
(Mr. Munsell verbally summarized Planning Commission Resolution
No. 2164; slides shown and explained.)
THIS IS THE TIME AND PLACE FOR THE :CON.T:INUAT.I.ON : OF..:THE. PUBLI:C :HEARING
ON..SOUTH.GLENDORA AVENUE PLAN, AREA II.
M. G. Davis I was here in August and at that time I thought
848 W. Herald St. there would be some changes in the plan because
West Covina it seemed to be unanimous in the Council
Chambers that it would be revised, and I am now
surprised to find out they are giving.out the same booklet with no
changes. My main objection is Herald Street. I own the south �16t-
at the end of the street and you can see me right up against a 3 or
4 story building with that type of zoning. They talk about strip
zoning - how did that little piece get up there - they have a service
station at the corner and a convalescent hospital at the upper corner
and that leaves just a little splatter of R-3 facing my property
and I can't see the justification of calling that multiple zoning.
NO FURTHER PUBLIC TESTIMONY, PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED.' COUNCIL DIS-
CUSSION.
Councilman Nichols: Again and again as these various plans come
before Council one of the salient features is
the recommendation for additional multiple
family zoning in the City. There are two aspects to this; one -
where should multiple zoning go in the City and the other if it
should go in at all. I make no apologies for my own position and
that is we already have an excess of land zoned for multiple housing
in the City. So my basic philosophy , with rare exception, stands in
opposition to additional land of any sort zoned for multiple housing
in the City. Those who favor it, do so on very sincere and legitimate
grounds, so it is an honest debate we have in these matters. I
suspect that before too long this will become a major issue in an
election and probably the citizens will have to decide it. In the
interim it is left to the Councilmen to battle, as gentlemen, and
try and decide.
I have with me the General Plan dated 1990, supposed to be effective
to last the City to the'year of 1990. It was studied and under-
studied, and during the period of study it was done concurrently
with the Glendora Avenue Plan. There are some clear conflicts between
the two:.that I would like to call to the'attention of Council.
(Asked that someone point out the areas.on the map displayed).
First, I would like to mention that Area,#k3 on my
map, which is the area on the large map there at the northerly end
of St. Malo Street extension, shows in this plan a further north
extension than it shows on the General Plan adopted in August. The
northerly two hundred feet do not appear on the General Plan as
recommended for multiple housing and this extension exceeds the
General Planes recommendations.. Area 3 (a), which shows as a
transitional use on my map, the area facing on California Avenue
westerly of St. Malo, staff recommends that as a transitional area
- 12 -
REG. C.C. 11-24-69
HEARINGS (ITEM 4) Cont'd.
Page Thirteen
and the General Plan shows it to be presently as R-3 land. So the
transition recommended is a departure from the General Plan. Area 4
on my map, designated in the picture a;s the corner of Cameron and
Glendora, shows on the' General Plan a narrow service area belt,
basically encompassing • the large home presently located on that corner
of Cameron, and it shows no further commercial of any kind, whereas
on this plan it shows service -commercial clear to Holly Oak Place,
which is well into the residential area. A significant change. I
stand corrected.- the General Plan shows service -commercial along
Glendora Avenue which might also be multiple and this plan shows
multiple housing all the way over to Holly Oak Place, so that is at
odds with the recommendations of the General Plan. On my map, Area 5,
Merced Avenue easterly is designated as transitional. The General
Plan clear to 1990 shows no transitional use there. My Area 6, on
the map - Glendora and Merced down towards Merced Place, it shows
medium density on this plan, but on the General Plan it shows single
family residential. Again a variance with the General Plan.
These areas are so significantly in variance with
the General Plan which has just been studied by all of the agencies
of this government, adopted by the Planning Commission and Council,
that I find myself so bewildered that a recommendation would then
come through,within weeks after adopted by the Planning Commission,
from staff recommending incorporating these changes. It may be that
these changes are valid after.staff investigation, it may be the
changes shown in the General Plan were not as carefully done as they
might have been, but I think we should have a further explanation as
to why such significant changes would occur in this short period.
Some of these changes I•would not ;oppose on the face of them. I
am only confused by the recommendations. One or two I would
definitely feel are detrimental. The one on Cameron Avenue north-
easterly from Glendora moving the heavy density area over to Holly
Oak Place I think is excessive for this age, or any reasonable
projection into the future. That would be my primary objection.
And also I would like much further consideration be given to the use
of the parcel at Merced Place and Merced Avenue before showing it as
a designation for heavy duty multiple. Again my bias shows with
respect to further multiple, but I feel these points were worthy of
mention to the Council as a whole.
Mayor Gleckman: Would staff like sometime to respond to
Councilman Nichols' inquiries?
Mr, Munsell: Yes Mr. Mayor. Initially the line of multiple
housing having the most deviation, as pointed
.out by Councilman Nichols, on Cameron Avenue
east of Glendora, was basically extended to meet Craig Drive on
Glendora Avenue Plan Area I. Since that has been deleted some of
the justification for the extension of multiple family has lost its
validity. However, it was an attempt to create a general area of
multiple, and again perhaps it is important for the staff to
emphasize that the General Plan is just that; .and the lot map
which fortunately or unfortunately is laid on to the General Plan is
for reference and is not intended to be precise zoning or density.
It is intended to be a general location, so a deviation to some
extent is considered permiss.ible•in this type of situation.
The transitional area alongCameron Avenue,
.r
north of Vine, I believe the General Plan does call for that to be
multiple family - it indicates transition to multiple family 10 to
15 years. And, of course,' the General Plan is a 1990 Plan and
frankly I am not sure that would be at odds. It would indicate it
is within the 10 year plane The extension of St. Malo Street - again
I must fall back on the fact that the General Plan is for reference
only and plus or minus of a couple hundred feet is not considered a
deviation. And that is what this precise plan is for, an attempt to
bring this thing down a.bit in terms of where it is going to be in
actual property. The transitional property attached on Merced Avenue,
13 -
REG. C.C. 11-24-69
HEARINGS (Item 4) C'ont'd.
Page Fourteen
frankly the staff feels this is long term and far enough away that
staff wouldhave no objection or no problem if Council felt it
should not be shown as transitional at this time.
Councilman Lloyd: I would have to generally concur with the
remarks of Councilman Nichols, in that while I
recognize that the General Plan as adopted by
Oki. this body is not a function of ordinance or precise planning for
each lot, nevertheless I think there is a requirement upon this
body to at least move down in a general speaking -area. We can
deviate in certain areas, but at this point for the Planning
Department to bring this in,while it certainly doesn't violate
anything, the only point I make is that we are not up to the point
where we have to make these decisions over and above that of the
General Plan at this time. In other words, no one is knocking on
the door for this precise plan at this time. While I concur,I
think unfortunately we must all accept the fact that Mr. Munsell
is indeed the professional and that is why he was hired and he is
presenting his professional opinion and we as a Council must be
responsive to the wishes and desires of the total community. I
would say that I don't see the necessity of this plan over and above
the General Plan at this time, and I think this'is what Councilman
Nichols is saying, and unless someone needs the zoning at this
point I think really we have the cart before the horse.
Mayor Gleckman: I would like to make a few comments.
Mr. Munsell what is the zoning on a rest home?
Mr. Munsell: Rest homes and convalescent hospitals are
allowed in any zone by an unclassified use
permit, if approved. There is no specific zoning
for that use.
Mayor Gleckman: The R-3 adjoining Cameron Avenue (pointed out
on map) the commercial existing there, does that
exist right now?
Mr. Munsell: I believe the unclassified use permit was approv-
ed sometime ago and it is not yet under: con-
struction. We have had an indication recently
that the applicant intends to move on the convalescent home.
Mayor Gleckman: The reason I ask that, is because this is a
land use proposal we are putting up and if it
can go into any zone - my question is, since
you have that area in brown for multiple family is it presently
zoned multiple family with a convalescent home going on there?
Mr. Munsell:. It is presently zoned partially commercial and
partially residential -agricultural::..
Mayor Gleckman: In your basic difference;in what you -are pro- .
posing, really you eliminated the agricultural'
and eliminated half of the commercial and you
included multiple dwelling?
Mr. Munsell: That is correct. Actually eliminated two-thirds
of the commercial in favor of.multiple-f amil .
Y
Mayor Gleckman: I agree with what was brought up, although I
understand why you extended as far east to
Craig.Drive, but I would like to see Craig Drive
moved down to the alleyway to agree with Glendora Avenue Plan Area I.
I would concur with Councilman Nichols' remarks that it probably is
;politically expedient for !someone to sit up here and campaign on the
basis that he doesn't want, any apartments in the City and it is
very, very popular with the single family residents,,and I can
appreciate his -feeling '
is feeling, having sat with him for some three and a half
years, but I also feel you have to be honest with the future
- 14 -
REG. C.C. 11-24-69 Page Fifteen
HEARINGS (Item 4) Cont'd.)
development of any community and recognize certain needs. You
may not like them and you may not advocate them but you have to
respect them with the idea of planning a future balanced community.
Any politician that gets up and says I want only residential homes
and some commercial but no multiple family zoning, they are kidding
themselves and the citizens, although the citizens would probably
get up and vote for him.., So I think this is an honest plan rather
than a political venture.
I agree that every time we get into planning
for the future that requires the showing of change to the existing
zoning for 10 years, 15 years or 20 years, we give the indication
that is the type of zoning that should go on it right now and it is
most unfortunate that most''of us think that way rather than think
this is the way it should be now and in 5 years, and in 10 years, etc.
I think if we could show that condition of transition, it would
probably be better accepted by the _people living in the areas.
First of all anything that would graduate into multiple zoning would
be in the 10 year period and the guy living next door to it would say
"heck I am not going to live here anyway so why worry" but if he
sees it there tomorrow the first thing he thinks about is a lot of
apartment houses are going up right next to his home and I don't
blame him - but the intent of this plan is projection.
I also question the idea of raising the
antagonism of the single family dweller, the person who refuses to
accept the idea this may come in 20 years. I have to question the
idea of St. Malo Street curving - are you curving around somebody's
swimming pool? I have never seen a street looking so much like a
worm. What is the reason for that? And then I!am going to ask why
IS you didn't recommend Robindale all the way into St. Malo for
.circulation;
Mr. Munsell: (Explained with the use of the map) It bends
because of the lot cuts and current develop-
ments and to get adequate depth where you are
bringing the street on the line portion of those lots.
Mayor Gleckman: It appears just the opposite to me - - I can't
understand why that street can't go straight,
I don't care if it cuts off somebody's back or
front piece. I think that is the trouble with many of the streets
in the City now. Why can't it be made straight?
Mr. Munsell: It can be made straight, however the develop-
ment which we show as.transitional on California
Avenue would then have two entrances (explained.)
We don't anticipate that development to go for 20 years, so we tried
to give the depth on both sides so it would be buildable and would
have street frontage.
Mayor Gleckman: Why didn't you cut Robindale through?
Mr. Munsell: There was no particular need to cut all the way
through in terms of a commercial development and
a particular land locked parcel, and it would
have been wasteful to some of the existing properties.
Mayor Gleckman: If you are cul de sac%ing,� Robindale, looking at
the land use proposal, are you proposing
multiple development from Robindale to Duff,
back up to the single family homes?
Mr. Munsell: We are proposing that area could be multiple
development, however the ownerships are such
(explained areas and showed them on the map)
that happens to be one ownership and it is large enough to get a
sizable development of its own and it is currently nearly land
locked except for the undersized Robindale abutinen.t.: at this time.
15 -
REG. C.C. 11-24-69 Page Sixteen
HEARINGS (Item 4) Cont'd.
Mayor Gleckman: Well I don't look at it as the City's obliga-
tion to free land locked property that was
probably created in a sell-off of land. He
can get right-of-way if he buys it. I don't feel the City should
provide a particular street to get into a piece of property for the
development of a single ownership.
Mr. Munsell: The staff does agree that it provides two other
benefits, both to the community and the property
owners. One to the property to the immediate
north - the State Employment has a need of access.to the south in
terms of better circulation for its customers....
Mayor Gleckman: Well they sure wouldn't have it if they built
the way you are planning it, they could run
their commercial all the way down the cul de
sac, etc. The point I am making, the reasons behind the'setting
Qut of the Glendora Avenue Plan Area II does ,not in my estimation
conform in the reasons given for Glendora Avenue Plan Area I. I
don't see any consistency, I don't see any real land use pattern
that makes sense, other than what might presently exist on the
existing property. I think when you have to plan for the future
I would rather see a nonconforming use and if sometime in the future
they would like to develop along the lines permissive it sure would
be more suggestive to them to put it in some type of alignment•that
would make sense and also protect the single family. I think we
are asking for trouble here without being able to come up with the
right answers when someone asks us why did you do it?
Mr. Munsell: We would have no objection to. placing the
streets through if that was the desire of the
Council, or people in the area. We were
.attempting to maintain as much land as possible intact, so there
would be greater flexibility in that development.
"Mayor Gleckman: When you are talking about a plan of 1990 did
you take into consideration that some of the
construction in that area is going to be in 10,
15 and 20 years that much older and probably in a redevelopment
"phase, and if you would set out a plan -as to how we -would like to see
it developed, regardless..of what is there now, that would give some
incentive to the particular area, if and when the area becomes -
again, downtrodden - enough, where the land is worth more than the
particular uses on there presently. I think if we follow the plan
laid out now, exclusive .of the single family homes, what we are
saying to these particular developments.- - actually the thing that
is developed there now is not being redeveloped.to the standards
which we would like to see in West Covina say in 10, 15 or 20 years
from now,.and if we don't show the leadership in our particular
planning - that this is what we desire and would go along with - then
I think you are going to give the mama -papa commercials and the
small.type apartments the availability of just getting a zoning
to get the maximum buck out of the land. I think we are doing an
injustice to the City of West Covina, in its future planning and
that is why I would like to see this whole plan design redeveloped,
and restudied, with the idea of thinking of the future of West
Covina, and not what we presently have or what we have to live with
in the future.
Councilman Nichols: My only comment is I would not for myself want
to see the entire plan purely and simply thrown
away. I think there is a lot of good in it.
I am not prepared to support some of the aspects of it, but I would
hesitate to direct that all the months of work be just thrown out.
I would like to see the matter referred back to staff for review.
Mayor Gleckman: This is really what I had in mind. I thought
we could use this as a base and go on from
the comments made here tonight. I would like
16
REG. C.C. 11-24-69 Page Seventeen
HEARINGS (Item 4) Cont'd.
to send it back to the Planning Commission with a copy of the
minutes and some direction as to a further Study Session, and use
this as the base and go on from there. Mr. Aiassa, is there any
time element involved in this plan? (Answer: No.) Is there anyone
.on Council that feels it is that important or is willing to accept
it without referring back to a Study Session? If not, a motion
would be in order to hold over for a Study Session and the matter
brought back to Council at fin adjourned: regular meptiiig.to. be..held
bn'.February 16, 1970.
So moved by Councilman.Chappell, seconded by
Councilman Lloyd, and carried.
STREET VACATION OF A CERTAIN LOCATION: California Avenue and
PORTION OF CALIFORNIA AVENUE San Bernardino Freeway.
PROTEST HEARING Hearing of protests or objections
set for August il, 1969, by
Resolution No. 4014, adopted on
July 91 1969. Held over with hearing held open to October 14, 1969;
to October 27, 1969; to November 10, 1969; and continued to this
date.
Mayor Gleckman: We do have the staff report with a request for
continuing to December 8, 1969.
So moved by Councilman Chappell, seconded by
Councilman Lloyd, and carried.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
Charles Hubbard I wish to call a matter to Council's
323 Walnuthaven Drive attention which happenedlocally of which
West Covina I am concerned as to the community's safety.
There was anincident on Tuesday night at
Edgewood High School which could,have developed into a very serious
consultation between some minority groups. Realizing that the
Council has no jurisdiction over the Schools and it is not a beef I
am bringing up with the School, but merely a matter that under those
circumstances that great physical harm could be imposed on a lot of
innocent people and damage to school and surrounding community, that
I approach the Council on this matter. I thin; some of the school
officials did not act in the best interests of the community,' and
I would urge that the City Council advise these people as to the
circumstances as they exist and the potential that would exist should
such a consultation take place. I personally was involved in it,
but I don't care to bring my beef before Council, it is not that, it
is that I feel it is a serious situation and one�that has not been
solved and that the parties involved are merely watching and waiting
and it still could explode into a serious situation.
Mayor Gleckman: Thank you, Mr. Hubbard. I would relate to you
that I had been informed, not.only by you,but
also Mr. Smith and Reverend John Gunn, President
of the Board,of Education - all were in touch with me making me
aware of the facts of the situation. And through the help of all of
you and some other people in the area, we hope to take care of the
situation very quickly. I will bring the Council up-to-date in
written form.
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS - Cont'd.
.e) Notice of Hearing before the Local Agency Formatim Commission re
Southerly Annexation No. 212
Motion by Councilman Nichols, seconded by Councilman Lloyd,, and
carried, to receive and file.
-,17 -
REG. C.C. 11-24-69 Page Eighteen
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS - Cont°d.
f) Letter from Dr. Norman Snyder, Chairman of the. Hot -Line
Committee volunteering his services as official repre-
sentative to the Board of Directors and requesting
financial support of $50 per month for six months
Motion)by Councilman Chappell; seconded by Councilman Nichols, and.
carried, that Council receive and file.
g) Resolution; from..City1bf..D.uarte cbmmending" the...Board'. of
Rege:nts of the University of California for their effort
in discharging a self -acknowledged communist from teaching
at a tax supported state universitv
Motion by Councilman Chappell, seconded by Councilman Lloyd, and
carded, that Council receive and file.
h) Resolutions re Reduction in Housing Costs; Competitive
Bidding; and Arbitration in Public Works from the Building
Industry Association of California
Motion by Councilman Chappell, seconded by Councilman Lloyd, and
carried, that Council receive and file.
i) Notice of Special Meeting of Stockholders
December 18, 1969 from Suburban Water Systems
Moticn by Councilman Chappell, seconded by Mayor Gleckman, and
carried, referring to staff.
j) Memo from George Wakefield, City Attorney re City of West
Covina vs Charles F. Nichols, et al (Merced'Avenue Horse
Ranch) stating that a preliminary.injunction had been filed
Motion by Councilman Chappell, seconded by Councilman Lloyd, and
carried,.that Council receive and file.
(Council asked Mr. Wakefield if the residents in the area were being
kept advised and he said"yes, they were being notified.)
k) Opinions and Order after.further hearing from PUC re all
Electric and Communication Public Utilities in California
Motion by Councilman Chappell, seconded by Councilman Lloyd, and
carried,. referring to staff.
1) Request from American Cancer Society for permission to
conduct their annual solicitation for funds
Motion by Councilman Chappell, seconded by Mayor, Gleckman, and
carried, granting permission to the request.
CITY ATTORNEY
ORDINANCE The City Attorney presented:
INTRODUCTION "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF WEST COVINA, AMENDING CERTAIN
SECTIONS OF THE -WEST CO.VINA MUNICIPAL CODE
RELATING TO ZONING AND THE USE OF PROPERTY
(Amendment No. 98)."
Motion by Councilman,Chappell, seconded by Councilman Lloyd, and
carried, waiving further reading of the body of said Ordinance.
Motion by Councilman Chappell, seconded by Councilman Lloyd, and
carried, that said Ordinance be introduced.
- 18 -
REG. C.C. 11-24-69 Page Nineteen
CITY ATTORNEY - Cont'd.
ORDINANCE The City Attorney presented:
INTRODUCTION "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF WEST COVINA, AMENDING SECTIONS 2709
AND 2710 OF THE WEST COVINA MUNICIPAL CODE
RELATING TO THE PURCHASING OF SUPPLIES,
SERVICES AND EQUIPMENT.
a. Motion by Councilman Chappell, seconded by Councilman Lloyd, and
carried, Vaiwing:'.further reading.'. of :the. body of said Ordinance.
Motion by Councilman Chappell, seconded by Councilman Nichols, and
carried, introducing said Ordinance.
ORDINANCE The City Attorney presented:
INTRODUCTION "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY, OF WEST COVINA, AMENDING THE WEST
COVINA MUNICIPAL CODE SO AS TO REZONE
CERTAIN PREMISES (Zone Change No. 428 -
Ray M. Coley)."
Motion by Councilman Chappell, seconded by Councilman Nichols, and
carried, waiving further reading of the body of said Ordinance.
Motion by Councilman Chappell, seconded by Councilman Nichols, and
carried, introducing said Ordinance.
ORDINANCE The City Attorney presented:
INTRODUCTION; "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF WEST COVINA, ADDING CHAPTER 4.6
TO ARTICLE II OF THE WEST COVINA MUNICIPAL
CODE PROVIDING FOR REIMBURSEMENT FOR DAMAGE
TO PROPERTY OF EMPLOYEES."
..Mr. Wakefield: Perhaps a word of explanation is in order with
reference to this matter. Several years ago
the government code of the State of California
was amended to authorize cities and counties to reimburse an
employee for personal property damaged in the course of the per-
formance of his duties without fault on their part. This Ordinance
is imposed simply for the means of implementing that provision of
the government code.
Motion by Councilman Lloyd, seconded by Councilman,Chappell; to
waive.further reading of the body of said Ordinance. Motion carried.
Motion by Councilman Lloyd, seconded by Councilman Chappell, intro-
ducing said Ordinance.
Councilman Lloyd: Mr. Wakefield, is there a maximum limitation on
this - $100? What's to prevent someone from
charging a$1,000 watch loss?
Mr. Wakefield: There is nothing in the Ordinance to set a
limit on the value of the property for which
reimbursement could be made; the Ordinance
does provide however that the Department Head must approve the claim
and it must then be referred to the City Manager. If the amount of
the value of its replacement value exceeds $200. then the matter
must be referred to the City Council.
Councilman Nichols: Mr. City Attorney, what would be the scope of
this in terms of the definition of property of
the employee? If I were an individual wearing
eyeglasses and obviously I need to wear them no matter what I am
doing at any time I am on the job and I bend over and my glasses
fall to the pavement and break - would this come in the area of re-
imbursement by the City?
- 19 -
REG. C.C. 11-24-69
CIT.Y::ATTORNEY - Cont' d.
Page Twenty
Mr. Wakefield: No sir. The area of reimbursement would be
limited to those instances in which the
property was actually damaged in the course of
the employee's duties. For example, a police officer who might be
struck in attempting to apprehend a person and his glasses were
knocked off and broke,�he would be entitled to reimbursement, but
if he were to have them fall off while washing his hands in the
washroom,,that would not apply.
Motion carried.
ORDINANCE NO. 1102 The City Attorney presented:
ADOPTED "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF WEST COVINA, REPEALING PART 6 OF
CHAPTER 2 OF ARTICLE IX OF THE WEST COVINA
MUNICIPAL CODE, AMENDING SECTION 9201
THEREOF AND ADDING PART 6 OF CHAPTER 2 OF ARTICLE IX THERETO, RELATING
TO THE MEDIUM DENSITY MULTIPLE FAMILY ZONE (MF-25) (Amendment No. 100)"
Motion by Councilman.Chappell, seconded by Mayor Gleckman, and
carried, waiving further reading of the body of said Ordinance.
Motion by Councilman Chappell, seconded by Mayor Gleckman, adopting
said Ordinance. Motion carried on roll call vote as follows:
AYES: Councilmen Gillum, Chappell, Lloyd, Mayor Gleckman
NOES: Councilman Nichols
ABSENT: None
ORDINANCE NO. 1103 The City Attorney presented:
"AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
ADOPTED CITY OF WEST COVINA, AMENDING SECTION 9216.2
OF THE WEST COVINA MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING
TO THE ESTABLISHMENT OF AMBULANCE SERVICE
(Amendment No. 101)."
Motion by Councilman.Chappell, seconded by Councilman Nichols, and
carried, waiving further reading of the body of said Ordinance.
Motion by Councilman Lloyd, seconded by Councilman Chappell, adopting
said Ordinance. Motion carried on roll call vote as follows:
AYES: Councilmen Gillum, Nichols, Chappell, Lloyd, Mayor Gleckman
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
.ORDINANCE NO. 1104 The City Attorney presented:
"AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
ADOPTED CITY OF WEST COVINA, REPEALING PART 9 OF
CHAPTER 2.OF ARTICLE IX OF THE WEST COVINA
MUNICIPAL CODE, AND ADDING PART 9 OF
CHAPTER 2 OF ARTICLE IX.THERETO, RELATING
TO THE HIGH DENSITY MULTIPLE FAMILY ZONE
(Amendment No. 102)."
ILMotion by Councilman Chappell, seconded by Councilman Lloyd, and
carried, waiving further reading of the body of said Ordinance.
``J 1 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
RESOLUTION NO. 4068 The City Attorney presented:
"A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
ADOPTED CITY OF WEST COVINA, DESCRIBING A CERTAIN
20 -
REG. C.C. 11.-24-69 Page Twenty-one
CITY ATTORNEY - Cont"d.
'PORTION OF THE CONSOLIDATED COUNTY FIRE
PROTECTION DISTRICT WHICH HAS BEEN INCLUDED
WITHIN THE CITY OF WEST COVINA AND DECLARING
THE SAME WITHDRAWN FROM SAID DISTRICT (East-
erly Annexation No. 211)."
Mayor Gleckman: Hearing no objection, 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
(Mr.•Wakefield'asked permission of Council to add two resolutions to
the City Attorney's agenda items. No objection.)
Mr. Wakefield: It has been brought to my attention that in the
Resolution I prepared with reference to the
lighting of the Maverick Ball Field I did not
follow specifically the instructions of Council in the preparation of
the Resolution. The Resolution adopted provided that portion of the
Unclassified Use Permit which related to the lights was denied and a
review of the minutes of the action of the Council indicates it was
Council's intention to refer that portion of the Unclassified Use
.Permit application back to staff for further recommendation to the
City Council. I have prepared a Resolution amending the original
Resolution to clarify that matter and I have it ready if Council
desires to consider it at this time. (No objections)
RESOLUTION NO. 4069 The City Attorney presented:
"A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
ADOPTED CITY OF WEST COVINA, AMENDING RESOLUTION
NO. 4056 RELATING TO AN APPLICATION FOR AN
UNCLASSIFIED USE PERMIT. NO. 24 REVISION 2
OF THE CITY OF WEST COVINA."
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. 4070 The City Attorney presented:
"A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
ADOPTED CITY OF WEST COVINA, APPOINTING
RUSSELL T. TEALL TO THE HUMAN RELATIONS
.COMMISSION."
Mayor Gleckman: Hearing no objections, waive further reading of
the body of said Resolution.
Motion by Councilman Nichols, 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
AB NO. 325 -CONFLICTS OF INTEREST
Mr. Wakefield: I am sure, those of you who attended the last
21 -
REG. C.C. 11-24-69 Page Twenty-two
CITY ATTORNEY-.Cont°d.
annual meeting of the League of California Cities will remember a
considerable amount of discussion about Assembly Bill 325, which is
denominated the Conflict of Interest Bill, but really it is not that
at all, it is a disclosure of assets bill. It was signed by the
Governor on the loth of November. It has various implications
for those of you who may seek to run for reelection to the City
Council or for candidates to the election of City Council. There
are two important parts of the bill that I would like to call to
your attention. There has been much criticism on the legislation
on the basis that it is conflicting in some parts and ambiguous
and difficult to interpret but if you strip away the verbiage of the
statute, I think it boils down simply to two kinds of basic disclosures
that must be made.
Every public officer of a City, whether he is
elected, a City Manager, City Attorney, Department Heads .of City
government:; are required on or before the 15th day of April, 1970,
to file,a'statement with the County Clerk, in which certain kinds of
disclosures are made. The disclosures required are those relating
to the ownership of real property held for the purpose of investment
in which the investment exceeds $10,000.
The second part of the disclosure is the owner-
ship of stock in any corporation which the total amount of -investment
exceeds $10,000. The statute refers to the fact that it is a
corporation regulated by the State or any local agency government,
apparently intending to exclude nonregulated corporations; but
technically every corporation in the State of California receives a
charter from the State at the time of its incorporation. Whether or
not this is sufficient regulation to bring every corporation within
the purview of the statute is uncertain. Perhaps this will be
clarified by amendment at the next session of the legislature.
The only safe advice I can give you is if you own stack in a
corporation exceeding $10,000 in value and I take that is the amount
of your investment rather than its current worth, that stoc,c owner-
ship must be disclosed.
The other phase of the legislation relates to
the reporting of campaign contributions. If any member of Council
or any candidate for election to Council receives a contribution of
$500.00 or more, or any committee supporting the candidacy for election
to Council receives a contribution of more than $500.00' that fact must
be reported on two occasions. It must be reported within 35 days
after the primary election and within 35 days after the general
election if the candid"ate must run for election at the general election.
I referred originally to an April 15th date so far as city officials
are concerned with respect to the requirements for disclosure, however
if you are a candidate for election to a City Office. that statement
of disclosure must be filed within 10 days after you have filed your
Declaration of Candidacy. So anyone running for reelection or a new
candidate for office/ would need to file the statement within that time
limit rather than wait tb-April 15, 1970.
Those are the essential features of the
legislation. I am sure there will be efforts made to clarify it and
perhaps limit its
application. Actually because it is not a conflict
of interests bit
of legislation I think it has been generally mis-
understood and the
basic need for the legislation has to be re-
examined in light
of the effect it may have on individuals who are
willing to serve
in local government.
Mayor Gleckman:
Thank you Mr. Wakefield. I think that is an
excellent report. Any questions by Council?
Councilman Chappell: Will we.get'a form to fill out?
Mr. Wakefield:
Yes, I am sure forms will be prepared, they are
not yet available.
- 22 -
r
(a
REG. C.C. 11-24-69
CITY ATTORNEY-.Cont°d.
Councilman Chappell:
Mr. Wakefield:
Councilman Nichols:
Mr. Wakefield:
Councilman Nichols:
required to file?
Mr. Wakefield:
Page Twenty-three
And that $500 is a single contribution?
Yes.
As I understand the law the figure of
$10,000 is not a cumulative figure, it
is for each investment?
Correct.
So theoretically a person could have nine
investments of $1,000 each and not be
required to file and one of $10,000 and be
That is correct.
Councilman Lloyd: I do think the intent and spirit of the
law is very valid. I think in the democratic
process of election we are going to have to
face things of this haturej wherein there is a limitation of the amount
of money received from any one source to any one individual. Un-
fortunately in our society, the elections, even at city level, continue,
to climb. So in all fairness to the intent and spirit of the law we
have to start somewhere and that is what this is proposing to do.
There are tremendous inequities in it, but it is extremely good food
for thought, not only by the people that sit up here, but fogy` those
who sit out there and exercise their right to vote.
Motion by Councilman Lloyd, seconded by Councilman Chappell, and
carried, to receive and file.
THE CHAIR DECLARED A RECESS AT 10:45 P.M. COUNCIL RECONVENED AT
10:155 P.M.
CITY MANAGER
1. Traffic Committee Minutes
(Council considered each item of Traffic Committee minutes.)
Councilman Gillum: Item 5. Mr: Aiassa, because of the redesign
of Glendora Avenue I find myself using
Michelle Street more than ever before, and
I am wondering if the Committee gave it due consideration, what
with the median in the Center of Glendora Avenue.
Mr. Aiassa: We can put a double check on it and bring it
back in 3 months.
Councilman Gillum: I would like that to be done.
Mayor Gleckman: According to the.Traffic Committee recommenda-
tions you will either have to double your
police force or put up signs, and signs are
cheaper.
Mr. Aiassa: Well what they normally do is put that
particular street on special detail and it is
watched.
Councilman Nichols: You may recall a couple of months ago I
raised the problem of a couple of streets that
went into Michelle at that location. At that
time my concern on that street was very heavy traffic and the con-
cern remains - it is a real race track.
- 23 -
REG. C.C. 11-24-69 Page Twenty-four
CITY MANAGER (Item 1) Cont°d.
Mayor Gleckman: All .right., Mr. Aiassa, let's see what the Police
Department can do with the area with regards to
stricter enforcement.
Motion by Councilman Chappell, seconded by Councilman Nichols, and
carried, to receive and file Traffic Committee minutes of November 18th.
2. Sign Advisory Committee Minutes
,Mr. Aiassa suggested to Council that these be held over as
Mr. Zimmerman is on vacation and he is the Chairman of the Committee..
Motion by Councilman Lloyd, seconded by Councilman Chappell, and
carried, to hold over the Sign Advisory Committee Minutes to the next
regular meeting of Council.
3. Use of Conference Rooms for Commission Meetings
Motion by Councilman.Nichols, seconded by Councilman Chappell, and
carried, that based on the information enumerated in the staff report
dated November 21, 1969, the City Council take no action to change
the present scheduling of West Covina°s Board and Commission meetings.
4. Freeway I.D. Signs for Civic Center
Motion by Councilman Nichols, seconded by Councilman Gillum, and
carried, to receive and file this informational report.
5. Mrs. Stone's letter regarding Street Repairs
Motion by Councilman Gillum, seconded by Councilman Chappell, and
carried, that Council authorize the.staff to proceed on a coopera-
tive basis with Union Oil Company :on street construction and report
back to Council if a.cooperative project cannot be accomplished.
6. Holiday Lines Sightseeing Tours
Motion by Councilman Chappell, seconded by Councilman Lloyd, and
carried, that this informational report be received and filed.
7. Report on Shadydale Situation
Mayor Gleckman advised that City Council had not received the
Police follow-up report in their mail. Mr. Aiassa suggested that
this matter be carried over.:
Motion by Councilman Gillum, seconded by Councilman Chappell, and
carried, that this item be carried over to the City Council meeting
of December 8, 1969, pending receipt of police report.
8. Car Lease Agreement
Motd.on by Councilman Chappell, seconded by Councilman Lloyd, that
City Council enter into a lease agreement with Haefner Leasing
Corporation for thirteen patrol vehicles (Fury III, 4-barrel
carburetors), plus four Valiant executive cars at a cost of $217.00
per month per car.
Councilman Gillum: Mr. Mayor, I discussed with Mt. Aiassa today the
possibility of looking into three items, which I
feel are imperative in the operation of police
cars. And that is the additional expense for all patrol cars to have
Disc brakes, heavy duty shocks and a sway bar. I wonder if it would
be possible before entering into a signed lease agreement to find out
the charges.
Mr. Aiassa: We are going to find out the charges and we- can
�Zw
REG. C.C. 11-24-69 Page Twenty -.five
CITY MANAGER - Cont'd.
enter into a supplemental agreement.
Mayor Gleckman: Also Mr. Aiassa, I understand we have one
police vehicle at the present time, a
detectives car - if it was floored it wouldn't
break the 15 mile speed limit in the parking lot. (Advised this was
being looked into)
Motion carried_--
9. Capital Outlay Budget
Mr. Aiassa: Each year we adopt the budget and this year we
have to adopt the Capital Outlay Budget which
has to be done by Resolution.
Mayor Gleckman: I took a look at Friendship Park in the Galaxie
Tract, and I understand how bad off they are, but the
one thing they are really hurting for are rest -
rooms. After discussing with City Manager and staff and finding out
that the City is putting out money to build restrooms. in all our
other parks - - well if there ever was the need for a piece of
equipment in our parks, they do need restrooms at Friendship Par;:.
Somewhere along the line I think we have to find money quickly to
put in the restrooms. I hate to have it come in as a criticism
that because it is the Galaxie Tract. they have to build their own
restrooms.
Councilman Nichols: I agree with you Mr. Mayor, particularly on the
point there seems to be an inequity if we request
more of citizens in one area than another, but
the problem of raising some $18,000 is quite a problem at -this time.
• Are you.suggesting that the City Manager research and come back with
a recommendation?
Mayor Gleckman: I am suggesting that the staff look into the
matter. with Mr. Duffy, a plumber in the Galaxie
Tract,.who is offering help, etc., to build these
things and says that he would get together his crew if instead of
promising him $2500.00 we call him and say we have $2500. now for you
to get started and we will look for the additional money. I think
we could give this back to staff and maybe not see it for another
90 days and run the chance of being able to get started now on the
restrooms for $2500. So I am saying let's get him the $2500. and then
ask staff to look into it to see where we can raise the additional
money.
Councilman Gillum: Mr. Mayor - I went over this Capital Outlay
Budget with Mr. Aiassa today, and I was very
happy with it, but now what you are saying here -
well I don't agree with it. I agree with what you are trying to do
but the report seems to say in a sense we have ignored those people
and now we --say if you do this we will give you $2500. I think we
ought to find the money for it. I know it is a little late for it
in this budget.
Mayor Gleckman: On the Fire Station Number 6 - when do you plan
to acquire that?
Mr. Aiassa: This year.
Mayor Gleckman: Before the next budget? (Answer: Yes)
Councilman Gillum: On the tennis courts - this is where we charge
,the 25(,' fee?__
Mr. Aiassa: Yes. We had it in this year's current budget
but took it out subject to capital outlay.
Councilman Gillum: I know, I went over all this with you. Mr. Aiassa,
is it imperative that we adopt this tonight?
25 -
REG. C.C. 11-24-69
CITY MANAGER - Cont'd.
Page Twenty-six
Mr. Aiassa: Yes. There are certain fixed items that the City
must move on.
Councilman Gillum: Well I am just trying to place myself in the
place of those people in the Galaxie Tract -
the City comes along and says if you do the work
z we will raise $2500 for it - and we are going to put lights around a
tennis court and we do have a lot of them lighted already.
Mr. Aiassa:
Well the schools are participating.
Councilman Gillum: I know that, but we have somewhat ignored that
area and it didn't come to mind today when I
talked to you; but I would rather say to them
"no, we .are not going to give you the $2500." than approach it in
this manner. But I don't know what else we can do because we are
strapped for funds as it is, but I just don't like this approach to
it.
Mayor Gleckman: Mr. Aiassa - is there anyway?
Mr. Aiassa: No, we peeled everything down, there is no
more.
Councilman Gillum: I went -over this today with Mr. Aiassa and he
has cut everything down to where there isn't
anything further to cut into. I wish there
was some other way'of handling it.
Councilman Nichols: I recognize there has been a great many
additional expenditures and some of a very
41 significant sum that we have asked Mr. Aiassa
to come up with. I for one, do not feel that I could ask for the
miracle of another $20,000 from somewhere. I am.sure the City
Manager has done all he can do. My feeling though is it would not
be a satisfactory way of having restrooms built,, having a contractor
build to his own plans and specifications and having the City
contribute $2500 for some partially completed facility with the hope
that we could complete it someway. I would like to see whatever
possible can be done with the funds that are available.
Councilman Gillum: We all realize the need there and I am
wondering if staff and some of these people in
the area could get together and work out a
program for the total cost and then we.put it in next year's budget.
I am sure after they sit down with us and realize we are faced with
the same problem as any business and then if we could possibly make
a commitment. for next year. I just don't believe in this piecemeal
way of doing it. We haven't done it that way in any other par]:.
Mr. Aiassa:
Mr. Mayor - I would like
to make the suggestion
that this item be turned
over to the Recreation
& Park Commission and let
them set up a
priority and meet.with
the property owners in
that area and see what
can be worked out.
It�
Councilman Chappell:
Are we going to spend all
of the Galster Park money
this year?
Mr. Aiassa:
Yes it will all be spent.
The Mayor might report
that I think Mr. Galster
will make a new
commitment- for this year
of $22,000 matching
funds for Galster
Wilderness .Park.
Mayor Gleckman: I think Mr. Aiassa did an excellent PR job as
well as building confidence in Mr. Galster and
in securing additional funds from him. I think
a public letter of "than];s" should go to Mr. Galster - he made a
tremendous contribution.
- 26 -
REG. C.C. 11-24-69
CITY MANAGER-.Cont'd.
Page Twenty-seven
Councilman Gillum: In this program approved for security lighting
was Friendship Park included?
Mr. Aiassa: No,staff is working on Friendship Park.
Councilman Gillum: Gentlemen, I would again have to say that I
prefer we do something other than saying here
is $2500. and you people round up the rest of
it. We have never done that before and I think it is a very poor
move. I am sure they would understand the City's present position
if we would meet with them.
Motion by Conncilman Lloyd that this $2500.00 be approved as indicated
here and that this'be referred to the Recreation & Parks Commission
for further study as to the implementation of restroom facilities
at Friendship Park. Seconded by Councilman Chappell.
Councilman Gillum: What are you trying to get at, Councilman Lloyd?
C uncilman Lloyd: Well we have $2500. now and as the City Manager
suggested, we turn it over to the Recreation &
Park Commission and let them handle the community
relations part of it, which is to tell these people "we are right
sorry but there is no more money left in the sock but we really know
you are there and you come first next time and will be included in
the Recreation & Parks, etc. etc."
Motion carried.
RESOLUTION NO. 4071 The City Attorney presented:
"A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
• ADOPTED OF THE CITY OF WEST COVINA,
ADOPTING THE CAPITAL OUTLAY BUDGET
FOR THE FISCAL YEAR 1969-70."
Mayor Gleckman: Hearing no objections, waive further reading
of the body of said Resolution.
Motion by Councilman Gillum, 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
10. ASPA Meeting - January 8, 9, & 10, 1970 Palm Springs
Mr. Aiassa: I would like permission to attend this meeting.
I have not gone to any meetings this year and
this is the City Manager's meeting. I need
authorization to attend and funds.
Motion by Councilman Lloyd, seconded by Councilman Gillum, authorizing
the City Manager to attend the ASPA Meeting in .Palm Springs on
January 8, 9, & 10, 1970, with an expenditure not to exceed $150.00.
Motion carried on roll call vote as..follows:
_AYES,,, .Cou_nc] men; Gillum, P Nichols; ;Chappell, Lloyd, Mayor Gleckman
-NOES: .Done ..............
J _ABSENT : None
11. Christmas & New Years' Holiday,-Recommendatizon;-
Mr� Aiassa: As Council knows, each year the day before
Christmas and New Year's we keep the City Hall
open on a half staff basis, thus allowing half
the employees to be off the day before Christmas and the other half
the day before New Year's. We need Council authorization.
Motion by Councilman Nichols, seconded by Councilman Gillum, and
carried, granting permission for City Manager to direct staff to work
27 -
REG. C.C. 11-24-69 Page Twenty-eight
CITY MANAGER - Cont°d.
on a half-staff basis the day before Christmas and the day before
New Year's, as per the practice for the past three years.
12.. Department Head Christmas Part
Motion by Councilman Chappell, seconded by Councilman Lloyd, authoriz-
ing the Department Head Christmas Party with an expenditure not to
exceed $60.00. Motion carried on roll call vote as follows:
AYES: Councilmen Gillum, Nichols, Chappell, Lloyd, Mayor Gleckman
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
13. Vocal Alarm Radio System
Motion by Councilman Gillum, seconded by Councilman Chappell, and
carried, that City Council award a contract to Varius Electronics
in the sum of $4,952.16 for installation of a vocal alarm system in
accordance with bid specification #70-43.
14. Helicopter Landina Permit re Temporary Use Permit No. 674
Mr. Aiassa: We have the request from the local merchants
for permission to land Santa Claus by helicopter
at the West Covina Plaza.
Motion by Councilman'Nichols, seconded by Councilman,Chappell, and
carried, approving the issuance of a permit to the West Covina Plaza
Merchants Association to land a helicopter at the Plaza parking lot;
and further directing that the applicants be instructed to follow the
specific safety requirements set forth in the municipal code and by
• the departments involved with the safety aspects of this request. Such
requirements can be worked out prior to the scheduled landing by staff.
15. Ruppert Property Status Report
Mayor Gleckman: We have the staff report. Mr. Munsell has a
citation been directed for these violations?
Mr. Munsell: The staff has not directed a citation as yet, we
were waiting for Council comment.
Councilman Lloyd: I think there are some other factors which
apparently have come into play. Mr. Peterson
who is head of the Homeowners Association of
that area, spoke to me this evening before he had to leave) and
apparently there is some question at the present moment and I
suggested that he contact our police department on it as to the
circumstances surrounding the.death of the young girl who was taken
from this property# which occurred about 2 weeks ago. In addition
to that, I would strongly urge this body to suggest we move on this.
This is one of those things where assuming an individual has all the
good intentions I am not really sure the -intentions of the individual
are still doing good. And in addition to that we have a situation
where the neighbors living there are very fearful of a constant
problem being generated. This isn't something that they assume might
happen, but that they know .has happened. For your information
Mr. Munsell we had a strong outbreak of alcoholic consumption by
teenagers, narcotic users hanging out there, etc. This property
has been a constant source of problems to this City and the
neighbors over a long period of time. They are really quite con-
cerned and I feel they deserve relief. As a matter of fact I can't
really see why the use that this gentleman puts it to is justified.
This is not the first time thing, and I think we should go to the
full extent and protection of the people living in that area.
Mayor Gleckman: I have been very_close to this situation for
the last 3 years and as far as I am concerned
we have to enforce the law and if you need
- 28 -
r
0
REG. C.C. 11-24-69
CITY MANAGER - Cont'd.
Page Twenty-nine
direction from this Council I would say"Mr. Wakefield, sock it to
them."
Mr. Munsell: My primary concern at this time was two -fold.
One, the adjacent property apparently has been
used openly for a chgt1ch type use and we will
have to move against that property. The reason we hadn't moved up
to this time was because we had no problem and it was a low priority
item with us, there were other things the staff was tied up,on,.�but,.now
since this particular Ruppert property becomes a problem, things have
changed. I wanted to be sure that this was a priority item before I
pulled.staff off of other projects to get at this problem.
Mayor Gleckman: Mr. Wakefield - would we be in order directing
that the violations be issued and to take
whatever action is necessary?
Mr. Wakefield: Yes, it is within your perogative.
So moved by Councilman Lloyd, seconded by
Councilman Chappell, and carried.
CITY CLERK
1—Parade Permit Application by West Covina Jaycees
Mayor Gleckman: I would like to remind the Council that we have
now set a precedent - if it is not city spons.pred
we ask for a $5,000 bond.
Councilman Chappell: Mr. Mayor - I would like to hear from the
representative -
Don Gilmer We.will gladly comply with the West Covina
West Covina Jaycees request in regard to the $5,000 bond. In
addition I would like to comment as to the
Galaxie Tract park and say that the West Covina
Jaycees are going to help in instigating the monies and manpower
necessary for this project. We will investigate it in the next few'
weeks and give whatever help we possibly can.
Councilman Nichols: Very commendable.
Mayor Gleckman: I agree.and I only regret the need for the
bond requirement.
Mr. Wakefield: Mr. Mayor - the only comment I would like to make
is that I prepared a draft of an Ordinance to
amend the provisions of our Parade Permit
standards so that a $5,000 bond would be required of every applicant
subject to the right on the part of the City Council at the request
of applicant to waive the requirement on findings that the size of
the parade, its purpose, and manner in which it is to be conducted is
not reasonably likely to cause injury to property, so this requirement
can be waived by the City Council. The Ordinance is ready and it is,
an urgency ordinance.
(Council asked to have.Ordinance heading read.)
ORDINANCE NO.'1105 The City Attorney presented:
"AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
ADOPTED. CITY OF WEST COVINA, AMENDING SECTION
3195.4 OF THE WEST COVINA MUNICIPAL CODE
RELATING TO PARADE PERMITS AND DECLARING
THE URGENCY THEREOF TO TAKE EFFECT IMME-
DIATELY.""
Mayor_GI.eckman hear.ing'no objections, waive further readipg of the body
of the Ordinance..
Motion by Councilman -Gillum, seconded.. by Councilman Lloyd & carried, to
introduce said Ordinance. 29
REG. C.C. 11-24-69 Page Thirty
CITY ;CLERK,__ - Cont' d.
Mr. Wakefield: Mr. Mayor -.the Ordinance may be adopted tonight
if Council so desires, it has an urgency clause
and can become effective immediately.
Motion by Councilman Gillum,. seconded by Councilman Lloyd, that
said Ordinance be adopted. Motion carried on roll call vote as
follows:
AYES: Councilmen Gillum, Nichols, Chappell, Lloyd, Mayor Gleckman
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
Mayor Gleckman: Mr. Wakefield, did you say that within this
urgency ordinance that if Council sees fit they
may waive the requirement for the $5,000 bond
and the permit fee. (Answer: Yes)
Motion by Councilman Gillum that City Council waive the $5,000
requirement and the permit fee for the West Covina Jaycees
Christmas Parade.
Councilman Nichols: I will second that on the basis that it is a
nonprofit local service organization head-
quartered within the City.
Councilman Gilliam: I accept the amended motion.
Councilman Lloyd: I certainly agree with the thrust of the
conversation and will go along with the vote,
but I think in all fairness to the situation
we are asking for criticism and which we will receive.
Mayor Gleckman: I think we will probably receive the criticism
but I feel the reason stated in the motion
that it is a nonprofit organization headquarter-
ed in the City of West Covina, is sufficient to waive the requirement.
Mr. Wakefield: Mr Mayor - just to clear up the record, I would
point out that the Ordinance provides that the
City Council.may authorize the waiver if it
finds that the size of the parade, its purpose and manner in which
it is to be conducted would not be provoking disorderly conduct, or
reasonably likely to cause injury by provoking disorderly conduct
or creating a disturbance.
Councilman Nichols: I think that qualification is ample for the
Councils' motion. The difference between 50
people parading and 1000 is so much that I am
willing to take the action.
Motion carried.
2. Municipal Election.
Motion by Councilman Lloyd, seconded by Councilman Chappell, and
carried, authorizing the use of paper ballots at the Municipal
Election.
CITY TREASURER'S REPORT
Motion by Councilman Chappell, seconded by Councilman Lloyd, and
carried, receive and file City Treasurer's report of October, 1969.
MAYOR'S REPORTS
Resolution re Yuletide Traffic Accidents
Mayor Gleckman: We have a Resolution regarding Yuletide
Traffic Accidents, if there is no objection we
30 -
REG. C.C. 11-24-69 Page Thirty-one
MAYOR'S REPORTS - Cont°d.
will adopt.
Councilman Lloyd: No objection:
Bill of Rights Week, 1969
Mayor Gleckman: Bill of Rights Week, December 14th through
December 20th, 1969, commemorating the 178th
anniversary of the Bill of Rights - if there is
no objection, it will be so proclaimed.
No objections, so proclaimed.
Mayor Gleckman: I would like to suggest to Council that we send
a letter of commendation to the Junior Football
Teams in West Covina.
Councilman Chappell: Yes, they have wore the San Gabriel Champion-
ships and are now going on to the Federation,
which is as far as they have ever gone in our
history. We have two teams participating and I would like to invite
Council to come out and watch them play this coming Saturday in
South Torrance.
Mayor Gleckman: I would like to have Council recognize the
achievement of these groups and not wait until
the end of the line, but do it now.
Motion by Councilman Lloyd, seconded by Councilman Chappell, and
carried, that a letter of commendation be issued to the West Covina
Junior Football Conference Teams commending them on their.spirit and
urging them on to better efforts.
Mayor Gleckman: Councilman Gillum and myself met with the
Mayor's Narcotic Advisory Committee. We are
now going to disband that Advisory Committee
as it was made up to serve. It has served its purpose in providing
us with recommendations;' they as individuals have volunteered their
service to the City whenever needed and I would suggest that at the
next regular Council meeting of December 8, we award them their
Certificates of...Commendation for their services. I would also like
to request of Council, primarily at the direction of the City Attorney
whether we could and would,develop an Ordinance adding to our
Municipal Codeoto put it intn law that they must dispose of all
syringes, needles and equipment that would be of attractive nuisance
in the area of narcotics® I understand from members of the Committee
that there is at present no such requirement..
Councilman Nichols: Several years ago I had personal involvement
with school children picking up some of the
disposable type syringes from several of the
medical centers in'the area of the school I was working at and as I
recall through the ;School Districts the indication received, as far
as the County at that point, was that there were County Health
regulations that regulated the area and were supposedly sufficient
to control them, but it was our experience in the Schools that in
fact the County Ordinances did not regulate them, but we ran into
a blind end because of the inability to look any closer. I think we
''started with the County Health office in West Covina and were told
it was regulated by the County Health Code.
Mayor Gleckman: To the knowledge of the members of the Narcotics
Advisory Committee there is no such thing as
to the immediate destruction of those things. I
think we could adopt an Ordinance into our. Municipal Code calling for
that - Mr. Wakefield?
- 31 -
REG. C.C. 11-24-69
MAYOR'S REPORTS - Conted.
Page Thirty-two
Mr. Wakefield: I will be glad to check into it.
Councilman Gillum: Dr. Snyder and Dr. Myers also stated they would
be glad to work with .Mr. Wakefield.
Mayor Glec}cman: So if Council has no objection we will so direct
Mr. Wakefield.., (No objections, so directed.)
Mayor Gleckman: Also Mr. Aiassa, the Narcotics Advisory Committee
would appreciate it very much if staff would
review and set up the proposal as to the cost
for the type of equipment necessary and the labor needed to set up a
lab in the Police Facility to be used by all cities, so in effect if
the County does not come through and decentralize their organization
we may want to investigate setting up the lab to serve all the cities
within the immediate area that do not have this type of service now.
We need costs in order to present to other cities.
The other thing aside from the Hot -Line that
would be a decision of this Council and which I hope to get some
additional information on and action, at least conversation wise
after they meet with the School District, and that would be a
narcotics coordinator for the City of West Covina and the School
Districts of our City. Someone hired jointly by both organizations
to work at the schools. He would be a professional narcotics
coordinator spelled out by the Personnel Board and the School Districts
makeup of job qualifications. Those are things we hope to bring to
Council shortly for action. This has also been forwarded to the
School District and the Narcotics Advisory Committee is going to meet
• with the school superintendent and the assistant superintendent to
discuss. There are many things in the report we could implement
from suggestion, and some we havelby sending to our State and Federal
legislators.. We have sent the report to all of these people and
Council is now getting comments back- We also sent copies of pages
26 to 28 to the churches in regards to how they can help in our
recommendations. What Councilman Gillum and I tried to bring back
to Council was something realistically that we could do right now
and not wait 5 or 10 years from now. These were the priority items
they asked of Council.
Councilman Gillum: Mr. Mayor - a further comment. Believe me
gentlemen, it was a very long hard serious
consideration given to these proposals. There
are many other things in there that can come into play in time but
I would have to say to you kom this Committee it was a very
difficult thing for bem to pick out three things and then put in
priority order. But they felt these were the most important items
for immediate action and the others would follow and mostly of their
own accord.
COUNCIL COMMITTEE REPORTS
Councilman Lloyd: I spoke to the Gas_ Company today with regard
to the use of the gas vehicles and I also
\_J
understand they spoke to Mr. Fast.
Mr. Fast: At the Councils direction after the presenta-
tion by the Aerojet General Corporation, the
staff is preparing a report regarding possible
conversion to all or part of,the city fleet to natural gas. We
are quite heartened by what the Gas Company said to us. Aerojet has
not yet met with us. We had a meeting setup which was cancelled at
the last minute so I have nothing further to report until our dis-
cussion is complete.
Councilman Lloyd: I would like to add further, that in my talk
with Mr. Corvell he made an outright offer of
32 -
REG. C.C. 11-24-69 Page Thirty-three
CITY COUNCIL REPORTS - Cont'd.
providing 6 kits free of charge to the City of West Covina on
the compressed natural gas, and if we wish to accept them they
would provide the direction for the conversion of 6 vehicles of
our choosing and we would have to put in about 6 to 8 man hours
for each conversion kit and thereafter, of course, you pay for the
gas you use, which is a minimal thing. They would rent us the
r i equipment in the earlier phases or interim basis so you can
charge these tanks up. However, I would point out with the
compressed natural gas and with these kits you are talking about
a total mileage usage of about 150 miles per day. Beyond that I
don't know what their cost would be in a months time. Mr. Aiassa
gave the impression that for use in the 6 cars it would run about
$100 per month.
Mr. 1�,iassa: This would be the 6 city fleet cars, if we
were to put them in the patrol vehicles then
the consumption would be great - because we
are guaranteeing 30,000 miles.
Councilman Lloyd: With regards to liquid natural gas you are
farther away then I anticipated because
Aerojet has just delivered 10 units to
Southern Counties Gas and in addition those cyrogenic tanks are
all that is available at present and the only liquid natural gas
available is in San Diego. So at this phase Aerojet has offered
the use of its vehicle but it would only be on about a 3 day basis
and then they would take it back and refuel. If you wanted to try
the liquid natural gas on that basis - that's fine. I would point
out that in the final analysis the gas burned in the engine is no
different in performance or efficiency, the only difference is in
• the form in which it is put in - whether it is compressed down to
liquid chilled form or into a denser mixture.
Councilman Gillum: This unit you are speaking of is that the same
one they had out in Pomona on the pickup truck?
Councilman Lloyd: Yes, and you may run it either way - regular
gasoline or the natural gas. You are going to
have to recharge it at night. It lends itself
to some of our maintenance vehicles but not police.
Councilman Chappell: I believe you received;a copy of the
West Covina Disposal request. In looking
it over I think part of it was left out as
my memory comes back to me. In consideration for the required
mandatory trash charges we: -were to receive free pick up all during
the year for washers and dryers so we would'not have that big hassle
during clean-up, pick-up week. And I didn't see that in here.
Also I wanted to call Council's attentionythere was a problemr;�ith
the large heavy containers for storing trash that people use to put
trash in. Also some talk in hereabout BI4K dumpsite and the
charging of the disposal by the truck, and I recommend Mr. Mayor
that we have a meeting with BKK, Mr. Thorsen, City Manager and
myself.
Mayor Gleckman: How about the first week in December, Mr. Aiassa?
Mr. Aiassa: We will try.
Councilman Nichols: A comment - the only thought I had was this
matter of vending a charge by ordinance
against all citizens is really dynamite and
you should consider it very thoroughly.
Councilman Chappell: It probably would be dynamite but the good
we would get out of it would offset the hassle
- 33 -
REG. C.C. 11-24-69
CITY COUNCIL REPORTS - Cont'd.
we are always going through now.
Page Thirty-four
Councilman Nichols: The implication is charging someone for a
service they neither requested or wanted.
Councilman•Chappell: This is a problem we will want to discuss before
putting it into effect, but it is needed. People
are dumping trash in vacant lots, along road-
sides and in neighborhood lots.
Councilman Chappell: I have another item - Councilman Lloyd and I
met with the Chamber of Commerce on the
quarterly report as to what you were doing -
and you were supposed to have received a copy of the report. We
did receive one alarming piece of information and that.was the
sales tax revenue and where we stand in the San Gabriel Valley. I
am asking that it be printed and given to you. We are one of the
few cities in the Valley that have had a decrease in sales tax,
whereas most of the cities have had an increase. So it is something
we should be aware of and concerned with.
Councilman Chappell: Also the head coach of West Covina High
School - Mal Eaton, is being given a
Testimonial Dinner on February 28,E and I
am requesting the City Council to provide a resolution and it be
perma plaqued and that the Mayor present it on that occasion. This
dinner is being given by a large number of citizens in the community
who,have felt after 10 years of service in the community he was
• worthy.of some recognition. It is no set group but a wide scope of
citizens and groups all getting together. I hope Council will plan
to attend. It is going to be a fun evening and the first of its
kind in the City. Mr. Fast and myself are on the Committee. I feel
Mr. Eaton is well deserving of this recognition.
Councilman Gillum: I think it is a great idea.
Motion by Councilman Lloyd, seconded by Councilman Chappell, that
Council direct a Resolution be drawn up commending Mel Eaton for
his years of service to the community and further that it be
perma plaqued and presented.by the Mayor to Mr. Eaton at his
testimonial dinner on February 28th. Motion carried on roll call
vote as follows:
AYES: Councilmen Gillum, Nichols, Chappell, Lloyd, Mayor Gleckman
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
DEMANDS
Motion by Councilman Chappell, seconded by. Councilman Lloyd, approving
demands totalling $249,808.94 as listed on demand sheets C663 through
C665 and payroll reimbursement sheet. Motion carried on roll call vote
as follows:
AYES: Councilmen Gillum, Nichols, Chappell, Lloyd, Mayor Gleckman
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
Motion by Councilman Chappell, seconded by Councilman Gillum, and
carried, that this meeting adjourn at 12 p.m. Next regular meeting
December 8, 1969.
APPROVED:
ATTEST:
CITY CLERK
MAYOR
- 34 -
nb