12-22-1969 - Regular Meeting - MinutesMINUTES..OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL
CITY,OF WEST COVINA, CALIFORNIA
DECEMBER 22, 1969
The regular meeting of the City Council was called to order by
Mayor Leonard.S-e_Gleckman.at 7:31 P.M., in the West Covina City Halle
The Pledge of Allegiance was led by C.o.uncilman Russ Nichols, The
afvo,aton was given by the Reverend Edgar Doering of the Shepherd of
The- 'Val -ley Lutheran Church,
ROLL* .CALL
Present., Mayor Gleckman; Councilmen Gillum, Nichols, Chappell,
Lloyd. -
Also Present-: George Aiassa; City Manager
George Wakefield., City Attorney
Lela Preston, City Clerk
Ho R. Fast, Public Service Director
Richard Munsell,_ Planning Director
Louis Winters, Civil Engineering Associate
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
December 8., 1969 -.Motion by Councilman Lloyd, seconded by
Councilman Chappell, and carried, approving
minutes as submitted,
AWARD OF BIDS
PROJECT NO. 7003 (MP-70008) LOCATION: Civic Center
CIVIC..CENTER-HELIPORT
Mayor Gleckman.: Bids were. received on this Project in the'
office of the City Clerk at 10:00 A.M., on
December 3, 1969"and it was held over from
December 81 1969, to this date, We now have a request to hold.it-
over to January. 1241 1970.
So moved by Councilman Gillum, seconded by
Councilman Chappell, and carried.
LOCATION: West side of Grand
Avenue between the San Bernardino
Freeway and the proposed extension
of Fairway Lane.
Motion by Councilman Gillum., seconded by Councilman Chappell, and
carried, accepting sidewalk,..driveway and street improvements and
authorizing release of Agricultural Insurance Company Faithful
Performance Bond. -No 245158 in the amount of $13,000.
PROJECT NO. S,-.59007 LOCATION:.Azusa Avenue between
the City boundary north of
Francisauito Avenue and Cortez
Street.
(Council reviewed_.Engineer's Report)
Motion by Councilman_Gillum, seconded .by Councilman Chappell, and
carried; authorizing -staff to investigate alternatives for obtaining
needed right-of-way and return recommendation to City,Council,
,•
REG. C.C. 12-22-69
PROJECT NO. SP-6900.7 Cont.'d.
Page Two
Motion by Councilman.Gillum, seconded by Councilman Chappell, and carried
authorizing. -the transfer of Gas Tax monies from Project No. SP-69006 in
the amount of $154.,400 for this..project.
Motion by Councilman Gillum, seconded by Councilman Chappell, and
carried,_that.Council..-approve the plans and specifications and
authorize the City Engineer to call for bids..
PROJECT NO. SP-70007
LARK ELLEN AVENUE EXTENSION
FUND TRANSFER
(Council reviewed Engineers Report)
LOCATION: Lark.Ellen Avenue
between Harvest Moon Street and
Pass and Covina Road.
Motion` -.by Councilman Gillum, seconded by Councilman Chappell, and
carried, authorizing the transfer of funds from Accounts 133-68014
and 125-70010 to Project SP 70007 for surveying and plan preparation
for the Lark Ellen Avenue extension.
PROJECT NO. SP-70010
MERCED AVENUE STREET IMPROVEMENTS
(Council reviewed Engineer's Report)
LOCATION: South side of Merced
Avenue between Shadydale and
Evanwood Avenues.
Motion by Councilman Gillum, seconded by Councilman Chappell, and
carried, authorizing exchange of right-of-way for street improvements
and approving..expenditur-e of $1,100.
LOS ANGELES COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL
PROPOSED 1970_BOND ISSUE PROJECTS
(Council reviewed Engineer's Report) z
Motion by Councilman Gillum,. seconded by Councilman Chappell, and
carried,- approving storm drains to be constructed with the local por-
tion of -the ... _proposed.19.70 bond issue and authorizing City Engineer to
forward list of projects to.the Los Angeles County Flood Control
District and to the State Division of Highways.:..
Councilman Gillum.: A question of Mr. Aiassa. On these areas listed
in the report what are we talking about in time?
Is there a backlog with the County:on the last
Bond issue and we will get allocated funds immediately and go to bid
or must this be approved by a bond issue first, which the voters will
have to vote on?
Mr. Aiassa: It will have to go to vote first.
RESOLUTION NO. 4080. The City Clerk presented:
ADOPTED "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE:CITY OF WEST COVINA,
• DECLARING ITS:I'NTENT.ION'.TO VACATE A
CERTAIN PORTION OF FAIRWAY LANE."
Mayor Gleckman: Hearing no objections, waive further reading of
the body of said Resolution.
Motion by Councilman Gillum, seconded by Councilman Chappell, to adopt
said Resolution.
Mayor Gleckman: Mr. Wakefield,is it normally the,procedure of
the Council to give up that amount of land?
- 2 -
REG. C.C. 12-22-69
Page Three
RESOLUTION NO. 4080
- Cont'.d.
Mr. Wakefield:
If the street is actually vacated and the City
only owns the right-of-way then the entire
property reverts to the adjoining land owners
regardless of the amount
of land involved. If it'is no longerrequir-
ed for public street.purposes,it
should revert.
•
Motion carried on roll call vote as follows:
AYES: Councilmen
Gillum, Nichols, Chappell, Lloyd, Mayor Gleckman
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
NO. 4081.
The City Clerk presented:
. .,RESOLUTI.ON.
. ......... . . .. .
"A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCI
ADOPTED
OF THE CITY OF WEST COVINA,
ACCEPTING A CERTAIN WRITTEN
INSTRUMENT AND DIRECTING THE RECORDATION THEREOF."
Mayor Gleckman:
Hearing .no objections., waive further reading
of the body of .said. Resolution.
Motion by Councilman Gillum, seconded by Councilman Chappell, to adopt
said Resolution. Motion carried on roll call vote as follows:
AYES: Councilmen Gillum, Nichols, Chappell, Lloyd, Mayor Gleckman
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
.PLANNING COMMISSION
Council reviewed action of the Planning Commission meeting of
December 171 1969.
Mayor Gleckman: Mr. Munsell, do you have a time schedule with
regard to the Freeway Oriented -Signs study?
Mr. Munsell: We hope to have preliminary information for the
Council at your next regular meeting on both
the Freeway Oriented Signs and Freeway zone.
Motion by Councilman Gillum, seconded by Councilman Chappell, and
• carried, to accept the Planning Commission action at its meeting of
December 171 1969.
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS
a)-Request.from Richard N. Scott re. Street 'Improvement Bond
Agreement s Caravan Inn
Motion by Councilman Chappell, seconded by Conncilman Gillum, and
carried, to -refer to staff.
b)- Letter from City of San Fernando requesting
Council's support of AB 1618
Motion by Councilman Chappell, seconded by Councilman Gillum, and
carried, to receive and file. -
c)-League ofCaliforniaCities letter
re League Committee Appointments
Motion by Councilman Chappell, seconded by Councilman Gillum, and
carried, to receive and file.
d)-.Letter.from Theta Cable of California
re Franchise enabling Ordinance
3 -
.,REG. C.C.
12®22-69
Page Four
Written
Communications (Item
d) Cont'do
Motion by
Councilman
Chappell,
seconded by Councilman
Gillum, and
carried-,
to:". -refer - to
staff.
e) Notice
from LAFC re
City of
Covina
proposed
-Westerly
Annexation No. 51
iMotion by
Councilman
Chappell,-
seconded. by Councilman
Gillum, and
carried,
to" -refer - to
staff,
f.) Letter from National Committee of Responsible Patriotism, Inc.
Councilman Nichols: I note this letter is referred directly to the
City Manager and is not.addressed to Council
and.I would not therefore assume that.Council
would be expected to take any action on its
Councilman Lloyd: Mr. Mayor., I think the City Manager probably
referred it to Council because I think this is
to be a policy -decision. Is that correct
Mr. Aiassa? (Answered "Yes".) So I believe
it falls back into the hands of those.people.who set policy.
Motion by Councilman Chappell., seconded.. by Councilman Lloyd, and.
carried, to receive and files
Motion by Councilman Chappell, seconded by Councilman Lloyd, and
carried, proclaiming the month of January to be "Support Our
- Captured Servicemen" month.
a) Letter -from Aerojet General on_Loan.of Truck
Motion.by Councilman Chappell, seconded by Councilman Lloyd, and
carried-; to'refer to staff,
h) Postcard. from F. M. Nea re bond for Parade Permits
Motion by Councilman Chappell, seconded by Councilman Lloyd, and
carried., to receive and._file
i) PostcardfromI. B. Grav re bond for Parade Per.R7-ts
Motion by Councilman Chappell, seconded by Councilman Lloyd, and
carried-, to receive and file.
PRESENTATION OF CERTIFICATES TO
CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT COMMITTEE
Mayor Gleckman: This Committee was one appointed by this Council
and those that served on this Committee not only
served well but.put in an awful lot of time.
Council felt that anyone that accepted this assignment regardless of the
time'they put in should receive a certificate, in that they did
® something by loaning their name. We, the Council, appreciate the
citizens participation in this Committee and we hope we will be able to
bear fruit from their suggestions in the coming months. We are at
present engaged in an action program with regards to the suggestions
in the Committee'.s report. And I might add that we may be calling on
some of the Committee members for further help. (Presented certificates.)
CITY ATTORNEY m
;-ORDINANCE The City Attorney presented:
INTRODUCTION "AN O RDINANCE,OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF WEST COVINA.. ADDING SECTION 6226.5 TO THE.
WEST COVINA MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO THE
® 4
REG.- C.C. 12-22-69
CITY ATTORNEY (Item 1) Cont°d.
Page Five
GRANTING OF CERTAIN BUSINESS LICENSES WITHOUT
FEE."
Motion by Councilman Gillum-, seconded by. Councilman Chappell, and
carried, to:`.waive further reading of the body of said Ordinance.
• Motion by Councilman Chappell, seconded by Councilman Gillum, and
carried, ao, iiif-roduce said' ord inanc,+e .
ORDINANCE NO. 1110 The City Attorney presented:
ADOPTED "AN ORDINANCE OF.THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
(Zone Change-.No:.427)..OF WEST COVINA, AMENDING THE WEST COVINA
MUN-ICIPAL CODE SO AS TO REZONE CERTAIN PREMISES
(Zone Change No. 427 e Art Pizzo & Vincent Manno.)"
Motion by Councilman Gillum.,seconded by Councilman Chappell, and
carried,to wa.i.ve further reading of the -body of said Ordinance.
.Motion by Councilman Gillum, seconded by Councilman Chappell, to adopt
said Ordinance. Motion carried on roll call vote as follows:
AYES: Councilmen Gillum, Nichols, Chappell, Lloyd, Mayor Gleckman
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ORDINANCE N.O. 1111 The City Attorney.presented:
ADOPTED "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
(Amendment No.106) OF WEST COVINA, AMENDING SECTIONS 92121 9212.91
9216..2 AND 9227.3'OF THE WEST COVINA MUNICIPAL
CODE RELATING TO DRIVE --IN AND DRIVE -THROUGH
USES OF PROPERTY (Amendment No. 106)."
Motion by Councilman Gillum, seconded by Councilman Chappell, and
carried,to waive further reading of -he body of said.Ordinance.
Motion by Councilman Gillum,_. seconded by Councilman Chappell, to adopt
said Ordinance. Motion carried on roll call vote as follows:
AYES: Councilmen Gillum, Nichols, Chappell, Lloyd, Mayor Gleckman
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ORDINANCEINO. 1112 The City Attorney presented:.
"AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
ADOPTED OF WEST COVINA, ADDING PART 3 TO CHAPTER 9 OF
THE WEST COVINA MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO THE
ACCEPTANCE OF NEGOTIABLE PAPER IN PAYMENT OF
OBLIGATIONS DUE TO THE CITY."
Motion by Councilman Gillum, seconded by Councilman Chappell, and
carried,to waive further reading of the body.of said Ordinance.
Motion by Councilman Gillum,_ seconded by Councilman Chappell, to ad:o.pt
said Ordinance. ..Motion carried on roll call vote as follows:
.AYES: Councilmen. Gillum, Nichols, Chappell, Lloyd, Mayor Gleckman
NOES: None
• ABSENT: None A
RESOLUTION NO. 4082 The City Attorney presented:
ADOPTED "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
(Zone Change No.432 OF WEST COVINA, DENYING A REQUEST FOR A CHANGE
Precise Plan No.147) OF ZONE AND DENYING A REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF
AN UNCLASSIFIED USE PERMIT (Zone Change No.
432 and Unclassified Use Permit No. 147
Donald Mellman)."
Mayor Gleckman: Hearing no objections, waive further reading of
the body of said Resolution.
5
REG. C.C. 12-22-69 Page Six
City Attorney (Item 5) Cont'd.
Motion by Councilman Gillum, seconded by Councilman Chappell, to adopt
said Resolution. Motion carried on roll call vote as follows:
AYES: Councilmen Gillum, Nichols, Chappell, Lloyd, Mayor Gleckman
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
• HEARINGS
STREET VACATION OF A CERTAIN PORTION LOCATION: California Avenue
OF CALIFORNIA AVENUE and San Bernardino Freeway
PROTEST HEARING. (CONTINUED)
Hearing of protests or objections set for August 111 19691 by
Resolution No. 4014,..ado.pted on July 9, 1969.' Held over with hearing
held open to October 14, 1969; to October 27, 1969; to November 10, 1969;
to November 241 1969; to December 8,.1969, and continued to this date.
Engineer's report reviewed-.
Motion by Councilman Gillum, seconded by Councilman Lloyd, and carried,
to continue vacatiorr.hearing"_ for "California Avenue until meeting of
City Council of January 121 1970.
UNCLASSIFIED USE PERMIT NO. 148 LOCATION: 1530 W. Cameron Avenue
.MAXIMUM DEVELOPMENT CORP. _ adjacent to the Walnut Creek
APPROVED Channel.
REQUE5T.approval of an Unclassified
Use Permit to construct a 150-bed board and care center and a 165-bed
convalescent home on a 4.4 acre parcel. Recommended by Planning
Commission Resolution No. 2215.
Planning Commission Reso.lution.No.. 2215 briefly summarized by
Mr. Munsell, Planning Director, along with the showing of slides.
THIS IS THE TIME AND PLACE FOR THE PUBLIC HEARING ON UNCLASSIFIED USE
PERMIT NO. 148.
IN FAVOR
(Sworn in by City Clerk) (In Summary)
Max ;Medvin., President We -are in agreement with the City
Maximum 'Development Corp. Planners that it is a proper use
9170 Wilshire Blvd.. for the property. It is close to
a.major hospital and adds credence
to the fact that West Covina will be sought for as having a fine
and complete medical center, just as people from adjacent areas look to
this City for their major shopping. There will be over two million
dollars expended. -for land -and - the improvements on this.property. The
decision to build.szch a facility comes only -after a thorough study has
been made of the area projected on a long term period of 25 years. Our
first step was to..meet with the officials of Health and Planning
in Los Angeles. Mr. Green, Regional -Representative, showed a map of
the area showing the occupancy projection, which included the area of
West Covina,. andalthough it was stamped as of November 1969 the records
shown.are only as of December 1968. I believe Council has a copy of this
report. It showed West .Covina at only 90% of occupancy. However in
addition to the high occupancy rate disclosed -the Regional Representa-
tive was alsoof...the.opinion_that the future .growth of the area would
also require boar-d.-.-and- care- beds -differentiated.. from convalescent care
beds. Their repo.rt_submi.tted_does not separate the two types of
bed mare. So the information of 90% occupancy rate -does not make this
an overbuilt area. We proceeded.to .follo_w the -agencies advice in
planning our 315 beds based -on 50% board .and care -.and 50% of convalescent
and also stated in this report we find the following: 1967 long term
care beds of 1307 the average occupancy was 80.91%; 1968 the total beds
increased to 1451 and the average occupancy was increased to 87.27%;
1969 the average occupancy increased to 90%. We may .note that in 1968-69
although the bed rate increased so did the occupancy. There is a moral
here that statistics do not show - that there is a continuing increasing
6
REG.. -C..C. 12-22-69 Page Seven
HEARINGS (UUP No. 148 ) Cont'.d-.
need for such type of careandmore of the people in the area are
satisfying their needsintheir ownbackyards-rather than going to
Los Angeles, etc.- We could be ready -,to open by January or February
1971 if this were grantedbyCo-uncil. We.show a need for these beds
in 1971 and an increasing -..need -thereafter. if the aged are to be cared
. for in the next decade. Since we meet the requirements,it would seem
proper that City Council approve the recommendations of the Planning
Commission and it will .then be our duty to see that this project will
be built as set forth by the.Planning Commission and it will be not
only an outstanding facility from an aesthetic and architecturally
sense but also outstanding...to the hospital health and care profession
as a whole and be a credit to the City. Thank you.
THERE BEING NO FURTHER PUBLIC TESTIMONY, PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED.
COUNCIL DISCUSSION.
Councilman Lloyd: I don't fully understand the difference between
a care center and.a convalescent home. Would
the applicants care to explain?
Arnold Freed (Sworn in by -City Clerk)
15620 Ventura Blvd. The basic..di,fference is that board and care
Encino usually refers strictly to ambulatory older
citizens with a very minimum amount of medical
attention. Convalescent care on the other hand refers to the
post operative convalescent case, the need for some medical care
in a hospital bed..
Councilman Lloyd: The convalescent bed is -not normally restricted
to the area of geriatics?
Mr. Freed: In the common usage it would be true, however,
in today's growing field post operative care is
needed by all ages"...
Councilman Gillum-:- _I have a few questions of staff. Along with the
report on the Resolution from the Planning
Commission we have a memo dated December 17
listing among other .things.the .cities of Azusa., Baldwin Park and West
Covina. Mr..Munsell, I notice you list a number of figures after
West Covina totalling..689. Is this actual or- proposed or what has been
approved.?
Mr. Munsell: These.fig.ures.include'the 315 which is the
permit you are talking about tonight, aiid
units the Planning Commission have approved.
The 315 is the only... one not completely approved until concluded at
this hearing. Some have started foundations, others are waiting
something to get underway. In addition there are 35 beds which were
appr-oved in the Orange..Avenue area which are•not the same type of
hospital but similar..
Councilman•Gillum: Discussion at. the Planning. Commission level
this..past week, which.I think bears some
importance_ on- this type of application,. and I
am not sure I canexplainit correctly, -but as I understand there is a
law which .goes into -.effect in the State on January l which will have a
definite effect on this type of.installation - is'this right?
Mr.,Munsell: Yes.. I believe it is.,called the Duffy Bill and
sets a standard -as of January 2, 197Q,for all
convalescent facilities in the State and they
will all have to be approved -.by the Health Planning Association and all
facilities licensed -prior to that time are in a sense grandfathered in.
The Health Planning Association will be the authority for the State
Master Plan of Hospitals after January 2, 1970.
7
REG.-C..C.. 12-22-69 Page Eight
HEARINGS (UUP No. 148) Cont'd-.
Councilman Gillum:. I thinkthesetypes of installations are fine,
but I amconcernedwith one thing and this
was.bro_ught..out..in the conversation of the
Planning Commission,_ and I.don:t want it to be intended to be critical
of this type of operation within our community,- but are we creating a
situation with convalescent hospitals of over saturation? And from
• what I have been able tofind outthroughoutthe County there is a
rush at the present time to receive approval prior to the January 2
deadline, so they wi.11.be.g-r.andfathered in and do not thereby fall
completely under the new.law. I thinkreference was made to the fact)
and.as you can see from this reportowe will.probably have an excess
of beds in the area up to 1973.,..and.I am wondering -.if we'.are creating.
the same problem here that was created with .service stations in the
past. And a facility of this type - if .they d6..:'make it into a
convalescent hospital there isn't much more that can be done with it,
because of State requirements. I am concerned that we may be over-
built with this type of function in our City..
Councilman Nichols: I don't seem to have a copy of the memo
Councilman Gillum -refers too. I would only
comment I tend to concur with the observation
this is an area that we should -get concerned with in the future.
This application meets all the requirements necessary to grant
approval and I would be in favor,- but I am -pleased to see that the
Planning Commission has..showed concern. I don't think the time to
become alarmed is when you have too many or too much, but in the very
early stages when you anticipate you might have. I would favor this
adoption and alsothe staff's further study, giving us a better
perspective on where we are going in this area.
Councilman Lloyd: Mr. Munsell, in your recommendations to the
Council coming up from the Planning Commission
and through staff, had you taken into account
the action of the assembly-?
Mr. Munsell: No,. Mr, Lloyd, the staff attempts to contact
the Health Planning Association whenever we
have this type of application because they are
the experts in this field...
Councilman Lloyd: You have. answer.ed...the.question, I understand.
My next.question -.in your recommendation to us
do you feel that under the legislative action
that we would then be preempted in the decision whether -or not this
would be put in? (Answer: No .sir) What would.be true?
Mr<.Munsell: The legislative -action means that the license
on this facility could not be done without it
being approved by this authority - the Health
Planning Association,_ but the City Council or Planning Commission
might still grant -an Unclassified Use Permit'and.the applicant might
be unable to obtain -a -...license from. the State,
Councilman Lloyd:
We are literally preempted in
that these people
would
have to go to the State
but if the State
granted.
the license then they
would still have to
get
approval fromtheCity-?
Mr,
Munsell:
That
-is correct. And -if such
were denied here/
it would
. not --be granted_ .
Councilman Gillum:
Yo-u-r.application.states
that
there will be a 150
bed -board
and care unit and a
165.bed convalescent
unit
and if I understand your
definition, they are
two
different operations..
Is it possible..to'convert
it to a complete
315
bed convalescent
home?
Mr.
Freed:
No.
I think it may clarify if
I told you I
•
REG --C ._C o-- .- -12- 2 2- 69
HEARINGS (UUP NO. 148) Cont'd.
Page Nine
represent.a.f.irm called --the American Nursing. Home Management Company.'
We are consultants in.the field.-of.ger.iatics and -.all phases of
management. When we develop..a 15.0 bedunit which has to do with board
and care, we.are limited.by.the Building Code to certain specifications
which means we donot become licensed -.under the State's Duffy Bill.
So in a sense this jurisdiction of.the Duffy Bill has nothing to do
with the 150 bed board and care. They are two,s.eparate types of
procedures. The second thing I might state,.. my background originally
goes to the fact that. I was on the'liai.son Committee(. between the
Los Angeles Nurses Association and -Hospital Planning, which is the
forerunner of Health Care Planning-... At that time I sat on the
Committee that.was trying .to...develop standards and also trying to
determine just what the need --for. hospital beds. in Southern California was.
To this day Health Care Planning cannot establish.a basis of bed need,,
and it is for this reason that the Duffy -Bill was created to determine
some sort of future understanding onprojectionof need. The areas
which show the greatest influence in the San.. -Gabriel Valley planning
area in the census on the UCF units are running in the neighborhood of
90%, so that the action of the City Council -here in granting this permit
means we may not .get licensing because of certain standards they, may
insist on, but we have to..go first to first things and we have to get
the permit use on the land first. I canonly tell you the need is
there, according to our survey...We have no information that even on
the beds being -projected for the area that they -will ever be done,
and we cannot even show through the Health Care Plan, even though I am
in favor of it.,.but we can't actually show it is related according to
their figures to the area of filling the beds. That -is a very moot
question because of -.area growth.
Councilman Gillum: My main concern.- as your application states
there will be.a 150 bed board and care unit and
a 165 bed convalescent unit and what I am
concerned with is say in a year after completion it is found that one
is not a profitable dperation m and we end upwith a 315 bed
convalescent unit?
Mr.. Freed: No, the 150 bed unit will be licensed by the
Department of Social Welfare, which has nothing
to do with the..Duffy .Bill.
Motion by Councilman Lloyd, seconded by Councilman Chappell, and
carried., that Unclassified Use Permit No, 148 be approved with all of
the provisos as stated in Planning Commission Resoldion No. 2215.
:..AMENDMENT --NO., 103 A proposedamendmentto the .Zoning
CITY INITIATED. Ordinance creating.a new section
APPROVED to provide for (Planned Residential
'Developmeh- is icnr-- he" =reCMidentia1
zones. Recommended by Planning, Commis'sion'-:Resolution'. Nb e 2209, ' .Heald
over. from December 8,-_. 19-G9= with hearing .held -open.
Mr% Munsell,. Planning'Director, presented Planning Commission Resolution
No. 2209, along with the showing of slides, followed by a detailed
explanation of what a Planned Residential Development Overlay District
comprised.
THIS IS THE TIME AND PLACE FOR THE PUBLIC HEARING ON AMENDMENT NO. 103,
CITY INIT.IATED..
Joanne Wilner (Sworn in by City Clerk)
2108..Cas.a.Linda. Drive The purpose, it seems, of this zone is to
West Covina create a better environment in which we are
hoping to live/ and one of the elements that
seems to -be missing.from it is some concern for noise pollution.
Where you are stacking them side by side] I.wo.uld think there would be
some type of building requirement.for extra floor, wall, ceiling
construction of sound protection in order to' help eliminate the
excessive noises that would be occurring as they are gaining the
REG. CoC. 12-22-69 Page Ten
HEARINGS (Amendment No. 103) Cont'do
.,.-...,greenery .they look out . into
Ronan-d-._Gru,zinski (Sworn in -by City Clerk)
Donald---..L, Breen Co., . * I wanted . to take this 'opportunity to inform you
15233 Ventura Blvd. that the staff -has contacted.members of the
Sherman -Oaks. de.velopment.indus.try so to speak, and request-
ed their inp.ut..during...th.e..preparation of this
Or.d.inance andwe just wanted to•take.this.opportunity to commend the
staff in the preparation of the Ordinance; stating quite openly that we
find nothing to propose or offer for change to the City Council, at this
time. I would concludeby urging -your _swift concurrence with the
Ordinance as written,. Thank you.
..,.THERE BEING NO FURTHER -PUBLIC TESTIMONY, PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED.
COUNCIL DISCUSSION.
Councilman Nichols-: Mr. Munsell -.why was it deemed desirable to
present these amendments-in..the fashion they
hadbeenpresented and that is.to separate the
content a.rea.in.to Amendments 103 m 104 and 105. I perhaps think_ I
know the reason and the logic for separating 103 and 104, but I don't quite
understand the reason and logic for separating 103 from 105. Could you
elaborate on that?
Mr_ Munsell: The basic approach here is that the Planned
Community Development ordinance is for a larger
scalecommunity in terms of 100 acres or more.
We were tryingto carry both along at the same time but keeping them -
separate in terms -of allowing -use to have the Ordinances in a better.
manageable form.. -.for handing out theinformation to people interested.
.The Planned.. Community Development requires considerably more in terms
of building planning and in.terms of hearings. The Planned Residential
Development is a simplifiedversion and we felt we would perhaps be .
able to get a better response for the Planned Residential ordinance from
the people .interested if we didn't get it buried in to the Planned
Community Development Ordinance, which is so -vast in terms of its
requirements this would then look as an -addendum or a portion.
Councilman Nichols: It doesn't represent a philosphical departure
something hasn't escaped us - it is a package
.device?
Mr..Munsell: It is an administrative device because we felt
it wouldbe easier to handle in explaining
before.Public hearings.
Councilman_Nicho.l.s: Thank.yo.u-o. The other question -alludes to
the comments..made_by Mrs.....Wilner,.. which I think
were very well put. What considerations.have
been.gi.ven -in this area of.planning, either specifically or generally in
terms.o.f...noise.abatement.and .noise control.,.when we are moving -from
the single family residential concept with atmospheric buffer to common
walls, and. -what -has been done -in our community -in that regard as we
..-have attempted_. to,. -begin --.moving into these areas?
Mr,,Munsell: There is nothing -in the zoning ordinance which
would take this into consideration. I think
the two things I could indicate are: 1- the
current practice in -terms of this type of .development is to have a
double-wa-ll--which is insulated and in all the._,developments we have
.investigated there has been very fine..construction in the way of sound
.-..pr-oofing-o Also,, generally speaking-, we are talking. about .salable
units and not rental, and.the.developer in order to sell is developing
in this manner. The other thing. is we havecontrol in the Precise Plano
We require they.bring in floor plans; etc., and they are at that point
exposing -..-to us whattype of dividing walls they are proposing. There
is nothing in the zoning ordinance which would require a specific type
of walla
10 -.
REG. C.C. 12-22-69 Page Eleven
HEARINGS - Amendment No. 103) Cont'do
Councilman Nichols: Do... o ther cities have such requ-irements as
.part of theirdevelopment requirements?
Mr....Munsel.l: There .are no. other cities.that I know of. There
are -some .cities .that.-have..requested Federal grants
• and.c.ur.r.ently are.initiating studies with regard
to noise control, not just between walls but all phases. But there is
nothing -that has. -.been., set out in the zoning --ordinance and it is a
quest.ionab-le.situation as to. -where it mi.ght.go
Councilman. -Nichols., Do you feel this might be a meritorious area for
consideration for an amendment at a later date?
Or do -.you feel the .matter .of noise control
should -be one not of concern to the Council at this stage?
Mr..Munsell: Staff is happy to explore further, but I have no
strong feelings as to whether it is actually
appropriate in the zoning ordinance.
Mayor.G.leckmano Is there any particular area in the City of West
Covina that you would suggest that this would even
be. -permitted? The reason.I ask the question is
because it seems like 5 or 6 years ago when this very same project was
presented to the C.i.ty of West Covina and in its southernmost end of the
City, .surrounded. by County and ;La.Puente and 6000 sq. foot lots, there
.was a.petitio:n by the citizens that they didn't want this type of pro•-
ject .in the City of West Covina,. So if we are looking to put an
Ordinance on the books I wouldn't want to -put one that is subject to
a..peti.tion referendum... When you.put this in mind, I am sure someone
in the Planning Department wasaware of the experience of the City
regarding Home Savings & Loan Associat.ion,'so I am just kind of curious
.that if this does go on the books is it the staff°s intent that this
type of.ordi.nance is applied to anyplace in the City -or just certain
sections -of the City? Then .I would .like to have the City Attorney
answer if this -does not go to Council is it subject to referendum or
_._peti.tion? My -point being,.I think it is ridiculous for a City Council
-to take action on an Ordinance of any type, or discuss any type of
planningdevelopment unless it .is applicable to the -boundaries within
the-.Ci.-ty.and--.not just be put on the book
Mro_.Munsel.l: 1 the staff feels thi.s.Ordinance is applicable
to the entire city. 2 - it is set up in an
overlay zone which comes before the Planning
Commission to be-applied.._to .any particular
-property and notice is given to everyone within 3001. This Ordinance
once. -adopted , there is no particular reason for it to come back before
Council unless Council calls it up,or a particular overlay zone is
appea-led- to your body-
.Mro Wakefield: Mro Munsell has answered the question, but to
emphasize i.t, the.pro.cedure that is provided for
in this Ordinance .is essentially that provided
..for -in the -.granting or denial of an Unclassified Use Permit, This is
,,an over -lay -zone - it overlays the residential zones and once approved
by. the Planning Commission it would not come to Council except on
appeal or -call. -up. by the Council. o It would not be subject to a
• referendum as applied to a particular parcel or parcels of .property,
simply because .it is an admin.istrat.ivejrather than a legislative act
that makes the.over.lay zone:.applica.ble to that property.
..Councilman Ni.cho.l.s: I would .like to explore that a little further.
I would not, myself, want to be.going out of
here tonight with the misconception of the role
of the Council.. Are you saying -by the Council adopting the use of the
overlay -zone} -the Council is,su.rrendering its authority in this area to
determine..whether or not these acts shall be -.permitted, or are you say-
ing that the Council is authenticating the public capability to audit
the Council°s action?
11 -
REG. C.C. 12-22-69 Page Twelve
HEARINGS (Amendment -No. . 103) Cont.°.d.o
Mr, Wakefield: No sir, -what I am saying is that the procedure
that is applicable to the determination as to
whether or not a planned unit development over-
lay district shal.l.apply.to a given parcel of -property is the same
procedure that is applicable to the gr.anting'of an Unclassified Use
• Permit. The granting -of an Unclassified. Use Permit. -is -essentially an
administrative act�and the only legislative act involved in that
-proceeding�as in.this pro.po_sed..proceeding)is the adoption of the zoning
applicable to the basic -property at the time the initial action is taken.
For .example 1.a piece of property may -be zoned.C-2 yet the owner of that
property would_.be required to come in and applyfor an Unclassified Use
Permit to establish a service station on that.propertye The same is
true here,._ the .underlying..zone.®.R 1, Rm2 or whatever it tight be- the
owner would come in and ask that it be included in this residential
development overlay district andthat determination would bemade on the
basis of the initial...application of the Planning Commission.
Councilman Nichols: Isn't that a decision of the City Council?
Isn't dny decision that the Council makes a
legislative rather than an administrative?
Mr. Wakefield: No sir,there are two kinds of decisions which
Council makes with reference to motions involving
zoning and --land use. The first type is a purely
legislative act.which is the zoning.of property or the changing of
zones app,ldcable to individual.parcelso The adoption of the Ordinance
pla.cxng a,given.parcel.of...prop.erty, is a legislative act. The granting
of variances the -granting --of an -unconditional use .permit and if this
Ordinance is -adopted,,. the.placing of property in a residential develop-
ment overlay ..distr-ict,are-administrative acts granted by the City
Council on evidence presented before it and that determination is not a
legislative act in the sense it is subject to. referendum. For example)
in connection with the granting of the Unclassified Use Permit on the
.item just concluded-, that use was provided for in the basic zone that is
applicable to the -particular parcel of property in question, but before
it could be established the Unclassified Use Permit was required and
in that event the individual was required to come before the Planning
Commission )and.it came before Council in this case, simply because it
.was called up by -Councils
Motion by Councilman Gillum,. seconded by Councilman Lloyd, that
Amendment No. 103, City. Initiated zoning ordinance for Planned
Residential .Development .be approved. Motion carried on roll call vote
as follows:
AYES: Councilmen Gillum, Nichols, Chappell, Lloyd, Mayor Gleckman
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
AMENDMENT -NU- 104 A -proposed amendment to the Zoning
C_.IT.Y INITIATED Ordinance creating a new section
APPROVED µ`
to provide.for.develo.pment in
hillside areas. Recommended by
Planning Commission Resolution
No. 22.13
. Planning.-:.Commi.ss.ion Resolution No. 2213 summarized by Mr. Munsell,
Planning-Di-recto.ro
THIS.IS THE TIME AND PLACE FOR.THE PUBLIC HEARING .ON AMENDMENT NO. 104?
CITY INITIATED. THERE.BEING NO PUBLIC TESTIMONY, PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED.
COUNCIL- DISCUSSION.
Councilman Gillum.:. Mro.Munsell� a question.° In most hillside areas
there is a natural runo.ff .during a storm - what
would this fall under? In similar plans that I
have seen,the.State-provides for an easier way for these waters to run-
off and I have looked through here and don't see how we are taking care
of 7that problem - if .it is a problem?
12 G
REG. C.C.. 12-22-69
HEARINGS (Amendment No. 104) Cont'd.
Page Thirteen
Mr. Munsell: The approach we are using is on Page 2, section
9229.3 called Development Plan Review. (Explained)
Councilman Gillum: Is it spelled out in here that a soil test has to
• be performed to see that it is capable of holding
a development, so in 6 or 7 years we don't have
the whole thing sliding down the hill after a heavy rainfall?
Mr..Munsell: That is under the Uniform ..Building Code which
is -.part of the overall coordination that this
Ordinance is setting up. The Building Code
has the standards in terms of what happens when you place the
structure on the land.
Councilman Gillum: This is the County Building code?
Mr. Munsell: No, it is the Uniform. Building Code, which
is the standards used by the building industry
and is a portion of the West Covina Municipal
Code.
Councilman Gillum: My main concern.is what has happened in Los
Angeles County in the last few years --"when
houses have been developed in hillside areas
and then after a time after a heavy rain the"houses go down the hill.
Mr. Fast: Chapter 7 of the Uniform.. Building Code has
been modified and is.being.pushed forward by
jurisdictions who have to investigate these
things and the L.A. County and the officials who developed Uniform
Building Codes,have established within the Uniform Building Codes,
Chapter 7 which are the requirements regarding geology tests,
slides, etc., and it is merely a matter of the local jurisdictions
requiring that such investigations be made in such areas. Conse-
quently at this time we do have the benefits of such requirements
under our Code.
Mr. Wakefield: I'm.ight inform Council the Planning Commission
has approved some recommended changes in the
basic city Grading Ordinance and those changes
.have been prepared by the Engineering Department and will be coming
before Council for consideration. They are not,a part of this
Ordinance, but will become a part of the Building Code procedures of
the Zoning Ordinance.
Councilman Gillum: Mr. Wakefield, if this Ordinance is accepted
and put into effect�is the City liable under
circumstances where the Code does not provide
adequate protection for the homeowner if his house slips off .into a
ravine?
Mr. Wakefield: No. The Public Liability Statute, which was
adopted by the legislature in 1964-65jessentially
provides a specific exemption from liability to
public agencies for damages that arisein connection with the adoption
of Ordinances, the inspection of construction, the issuance of permits
for grading and the like, so long as the City Council uses and the
staff uses reasonable care in the inspection and approval of the
permit, there is no liability on the City beyond that for damage that
may occur.
Mayor Gleckman:. I have two comments. I would like to change
the name of the zone - rather than the "H"
zone. The other thing is if you can pronounce
the names _of. the plants you have listed.here thWn you should be the
one to approve this as to the approval of their use.
13
REG. C.C. 12-22-69 Page Fourteen
HEARINGS (Amendment No. 104) Cont°do
..Motion by Councilman Gillum, seconded by Councilman Lloyd, that
Amendment No. 104 -.City Initiated for the creation of a hillside
ordinance be approved. .Motion carried on roll call vote as follows:
AYES: Councilmen Gillum,Nichols, Chappell, Lloyd, Mayor Gleckman
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
THE CHAIR CALLED FOR A RECESS AT 9:06 P.M. COUNCIL RECONVENED AT 9:15 P.M.
AMENDMENT NO. 105.
CITY INITIATED
Recommended by Planning Commission
A proposed amendment to the
Zoning Ordinance creating a new
section to provide for Planned
Community Development (PCD) of
one hundred or more acres,
Resolution No. 2214,,,:-,
Mr. Munsell, Planning Director, verbally summarized Planning Commission
Reso-lution No. 2214.
THIS IS THE TIME AND PLACE FOR THE PUBLIC HEARING ON AMENDMENT -NO. 105.
Ron Gruzinski (Sworn in by City Clerk)
Donald L. Breen Co. Gentlemen, thank you for the opportunity to
15233 Ventura Blvd. speak on this Ordinance. Of the three Ordinances
Sherman Oaks before you this evening., this particular item is
of more concern to us than the previous two,,
because we will probably be the first to utilize such an Ordinance. We
have utilized such Ordinances in other -cities and to make the statement
short and sweet - I think conclusively that this Ordinance represents
about the best package we have seen so faro We have had the opportunity
to work with your staff and yoir Commission in developing this Ordinance
and we hope we have been able to offer some constructive comments. We
think :the product is worthy of your adoption and urge you to do so as
quickly as possible. Thank you.
THERE BEING NO FURTHER PUBLIC TESTIMONY, PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED. COUNCIL
DISCUSSION.
Councilman Nichols: Mr. Munsell, what happens if someone comes in
under the Ordinance all set to go on and they
have one thousand acres of land involved and they
get approval, etc., and then they go broke and begin selling off
..property in one acre parcels to the small developer?
Mr. Munsell: In such an instance the.original zoning would
take precedence. This is a Master Plan and it
does not change the zoning until the development
isreadyto go in and you have an approved Precise Plano The total
project would be considered_.- if R-l..density - it reverts back to that.
If the individual developer wishes to .do .something.differently�he must
come in and apply. If.a'number of developers take oveJ they have to
comply with the Master Plan and that would be a matter of,submitting
their Precise. Plan which shows it would comply with the overall Master
• Plan and.go on from that point.
Councilman Nichols: Should there be anything in the Ordinance to
nullify any previous action of approval in the
event any portion is taken away from the whole?
If a large parcel of one thousand acres is involved and then something
occurs financially and the major developer decides he only wants to
.develop -six hundred acres,. is he to be allowed to continue under the
original concept o;r.do the other four hundred acres come back under
the orig.inal'zone, or does he have to come back again under a new
Master Plan and a new overlay?
- 14 -
•
REG. C.C. 12-22-69 Page Fifteen
HEARINGS -(Amendment No. 105) Cont'do
Mro Munsell: The intent of this Ordinance is that the
development....plans that come in which may be a
portion of the total Master Plan would
essentially be a neighborhood unit in itself and it could be
developed-.incrementay over a.period-of time without destroying the
concept of the Master Plano So, if for example the developer had a
thousand or two thousand acres and he was only able to develop six
hundred acres.,it would be, .ho.pefully,- based on the.development plan
in review o a total community in itself and would stand alone under
this Master Plan and thedeveloper would have .to-do nothing more than
come in -with his increment plans as the economic market allowed him to
develop as originally proposed..' .Only in such a case as the developer
wished to substantially change the Master Plan would he be required
to come back in and request additional hearings. The development plans
may deviate in minor ways with the Master Plan, This is a determina-
tion that will have to be made at each incremental step.
Councilman Gillum: Mr. Wakefield -_.under this proposed plan under
the development standards it calls out three
different methods of providing a common area.
My question suppose the developer would choose to use the third method
listed and then in some future date they find it is too much of a
burden or it is too expensive, is there anyway the City can provide so
we don't endup taking care of the development other than the 200' area
that the individual is responsible for?
Mr. Wakefield: The probabilities are that in most developments
of this sort the original 'land owner would not
continue to own the common open�spacee He .
would probably see that it was maintained by.a.community association
or a nonprofit corporation. The retention of ownership and control
of the common open space occurs generally only in those instances
where the developer continues an.interest in"the individual lots
or units,, developed. So I doubt that this would be one of the accept-
able methods for the control of common open space. Probably the second
alternative referred to is the one that would be most commonly used.
Basically there is no way that the City can guard against the ultimate
eventuality that the open space is reservedby the original developer
and it .will be maintained,except that the plan contemplates it shall
be maintained and requires .that it will be maintained, but how it will
be enforced .is the.difficult question. If the developer would go into
bankruptcy or some such thing -and just stop maintaining the common open
space) there would be some successor of interest to pick up that
development and maintain it. And in any event the City would have to
accept the dedication before the City would have the responsibility for
it.
Motion by Councilman Gillum-, seconded by Councilman Lloyd, that
Amendment No.. 105 City Initiated for Planned. Community Development
be approved as recommended by Planning .Commission Resolution No. 2214.
Motion carried on roll call vote as follows:
AYES: Councilmen Gillum, Nichols, Chappell, Lloyd, Mayor Gleckman
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
1970 SUPPLEMENTAL WEED & .
RUBBISH ABATEMENT PROGRAM
PROTEST HEARING
ADOPTED
parties by Resolution of Intention No.
--Council reviewed.Engineer's Report.
LOCATION: Various throughout the
City.
Set for hearing on this date of
protests or objections from pro-
perty owners and other interested
4072 adopted December 8, 1969.
THIS IS THE TIME AND PLACE FOR THE PUBLIC HEARING, Mayor Gleckman
inquired and the City Clerk verified that she had. the Affidavit of
mailing.
15
REG. C.C. 12-22-69 Page Sixteen
HEARINGS (Weed & Rubbish Abatement Program) Cont'd.
Motion by Councilman Gillum, seconded by Councilman Chappell, and
carried-, to -.receive.' and file the -af.fidaVit .of Mail'ing."
Mayor Gleckman inquired of the City Clerk if .she had received any
. written protests or objections against the performing of this work,
she replied she had not.
THERE BEING NO PUBLIC TESTIMONY, PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED. COUNCIL
DISCUSSION.
Motion by Councilman Gillum, seconded -by Councilman Chappell, and
carried, authorizing -the City Engineer to proceed with the abatement
of weeds and rubbish on those properties described in Resolution of
Intention No. 4072.
CITY ATTORNEY ( Cont' d. )
RESOLUTTON NO. 4083 The City Attorney presented:
ADOPTED "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE=CITY OF WEST COVINA,
DENYING A REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE"
(Variance Application No. 646 - Guarantee Savings & Loan Association of
Whittier).,
Mayor Gleckman: Hearing no objections., waive further reading of
the body of said Resolution.
Motion by Councilman Gillum, seconded by Councilman Chappell, to adopt
said Resolution of denial. Motion carried on roll call vote as follows:
AYES: Councilmen Gillum, Nichols, Chappell
NOES: Councilman Lloyd, Mayor Gleckman
ABSENT: None
RESOLUTTON NO. 4084 The City Attorney presented:
ADOPTED "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
(Precise Plan No. 574) OF THE CITY OF WEST COVINA,
APPROVING PRECISE PLAN OF DESIGN
No. 574 (Fotomat Corporation)."
.Mayor Gleckman: Hearing no objections., waive further reading of
the body of said Resolution.
Motion by Councilman Gillum, seconded by Councilman Chappell, to adopt
said Resolution... Motion carried on roll call vote as follows:
AYES: Councilmen Gillum, Nichols, Chappell
NOES: Councilman Lloyd, Mayor Gleckman
ABSENT: None
RESOLUTION NO. 4085 The City Attorney presented:
"A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
ADOPTED OF THE CITY OF WEST COVINA,
APPROVING MASTER PLAN OF STREETS
• (City Initiated)."
Mayor Gleckman: Hearing no objections, waive further reading of
the body of said Resolution.
Motion by Councilman Gillum, seconded by Councilman Chappell, to adopt
said Resolution. Motion carried on roll call vote as follows:
AYES: Councilmen Gillum, Nichols, Chappell, Lloyd, Mayor Gleckman
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
- 16
REG. C.C. 12-22-69 Page Seventeen
CITY ATTORNEY ,:Item 9
MERCED AVENUE HORSE RANCH REPORT
Mr. Wakefield: I received an annonymous gift the nature of
the gift was such to lead me to believe it
hadsomethingto do with the .Merced Avenue
Horse Ranch; however because of its .intrinsic value it seems to me it
would.. bec inappropriate for me to keep the. gift, I would like to turn
it over to you - Mr - Mayor, with the request that you deliver it to the
City Manager and authorize himtospread it around the City .where it
will do the most good-.
Mayor .G,leckma.n-: Without even looking.at--the gfft I will accept...
your suggestion and give it to the City Manager.
Mr.. Aiassa: I think it is wonderful of Mr. Wakefield and we
w.ill.7 I suggest, put up a plaque in honor of the
City Attorney.
Motion by Councilman Gillum, seconded by Councilman Chappell, and
carried, to receive and file the report..
FIRE STATION #5 TAX STATUS
Mr. Wakefield: This has to do with.a problem which goes back a
few years. You will remember that in 1966 the
City received a. Deed of Gift from a
Mr. Pickering for what :is now referred to as Fire Station #5o It was
a Grant Deed granted subject to outstanding encumbrances of record. At
the time the deed -was executed there was outstanding on the entire sub-
div.ision, an original development rule, secured by a Trust Deed which
covered a.11 of the lots in the subdivision. As they were sold,
individual parcels were released from the Trust Deed and the
encumbrance. At the present time there are five remaining lots subject
to this encumbrance- one of which is the lot owned by the City on the
Fare Station site. The present encumbrance is owned by Allstate Savings
& :Loan Association and the other four are owned by a man named
Loy!4'Meissenburgo Until recently)the interest and principle due upon
the loan obligation was paid, but no payments have been made recently.
The payment.due December 15 wa.s.not paid and the Savings & Loan
Association undertook to notify Mr.. Meissenburg if the payment was not
made that the Savings &_.Lo.a.n Association .intended.to foreclose on the
properties including the lot owned.by the City. In a series of
meetings with the representatives of the Savings & Loan Association
and Mr. Meissenburg, the problem has been resolved to this extent.
The Savings & :Goan Association ha.s indicated a willingness to write
individual -loans on each of the five separate parcels. Mr, Meissenburg
has indicated a willingness to pay the interest. and- .pr1ncipal payments
due on the lot which the City owns 'up until July 1, 19700 if the City
.is willing -.to enter .into an agreement now to pay off the indebtedness
.outstanding -against the lot as of that date, It is estimated that the
total amount due on the City°s lot .is approximately $13,450. The
interest and....o-thercharges that will be incurred- in the writing of
the loan and.. -.in itsdischarge will approximate - we think o about one
thousand dollars.. Under the circumstances, it seems to me, that the
value of the.pro.perty.is such that the City really has no alternative
• but to protect .its. .interest in that property and I would, therefore,
recommend that you authorize the City Attorney and the City Manager
to negotiate an .agreement to purchase with Mr ..Meissenburg, the
agreement purchase to be .signed by the Mayor when completed, indicating
the City°s willingness to acquire the outstanding interest in the
.property effective July 1, 1970,' at the amounts I have indicated.
Mr. Aiassa-o Mr. Mayor - I would like to add one other item
and t.ha.t is we would also like to have the
option to waiving possible Station 6 funds for
Station 1, to pay off this indebtedness a. -little sooner than Jul)(.1,
17 0
•
•
REG. C.C. 12-22-69
CITY ATTORNEY ( Item. .1.0 ) Contd.
Page Eighteen
1970,-and.possibly-.save $1.,000 in interest, We would like to
explore that possibilityalso. Station 6 is the new proposed
Station at the Home Savings-& .Loan property and. Station 1 is the
new remodeling we are undertaking at present.
Councilman Gillum: In your judgment e by taking this action
it will not hinder us in the development of
Fire Station 6?
Mr, Aiassa: No, I will rebudget these items in the
19 70-71 budget..
Motion by Councilman Lloyd,seconded- by Councilman Chappell, and
carried-o that.the City Manager and City..Atto.rney be authorized to
negotiate a contract of Purchase for Fire Station #5 site with
Mr. Loyd Meissenburgs the purchase price to be approximately $13,500
plus interest and other costs.to and including. July .1, 1970.
Mr.. Wakefield: Mr. Mayor-, there should be a second motion
to authorize the City Manager to reconsider
the possibility of transferring funds from the
appropriation made for Fire Station #6 to finance the acquisition
before.July .1, 1970, or the modification of Fire Station #1.
So moved by Councilman Lloyd, seconded by
Councilman Chappell, and carried.
{.:
L.A. AIRWAYS Held over'It®'° January 12, 1970.
'T' 'l HYPODERMIC NEEDLES
Motion by Councilman Chappell, seconded by Councilman Gillum,
authorizing the City Attorney to prepare a draft of an Ordinance
covering the disposal of hypodermic needles, etc., and that the draft
be reviewed by the Narcotics Advisory Committee before being presented
to Council.
Councilman Gillum: A, comment. Theother evening a syringe was
brought in to the Police Department by a
mother4 and she advised it is used to oil, the
slot race units. I am wondering if, when this Ordinance is written,
it can encompass this.type of thing? Or are we limitingourselves
and not covering the complete field?
Mayor Gleck-man: I think the enforcement procedure will be
written in -.am I correct Mr. Wakefield?
Mr. Wakefield: Yes,. Mr. Mayor. The.problem that Councilman
Gillum brings.up reminds me .somewhat of the
problem -we ha.d.with glue sniffing. When it
was outlawed then we discovered that gasoline and certain other
volatile- .hydro- -carbons . prod-uced- the :same effect and we had to extend
the prohibition- The _The problem Mr. Gillum brings up is similar but is
a mor_e.._difficu.lt kind of problem in a sense that there really is .no
way to control the sale of these hobby kits that contain the equipment
to maintain them, except to get at the manufacturer and get developed
some different kind of device for lubricating this equipment.
Motion carried.
RESOLUTION NO, 4086 The City Attorney presented:
ADOPTED-_ "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF WEST COVINA,
RE FORECAST OF ASSESSED VALUATION."
Mayor Gleckman: Hearing no objections, waive further reading of
the body of said Resolution.
Reg. C. C. 12-22-69 Page Nineteen
CITY ATTORNEY (Resolution No-4086) Cont°d.
Motion by Councilman Gillum, seconded by Councilman Chappell, to adopt
said resolution. Motion carried on roll call vote as.follows:
AYES: Councilmen Gillum, Nichols, Chappell, Lloyd, Gleckman
.NOES:. None
ABSENT: None
• ORAL COMMUNICATIONS ® None
CITY MANAGER
Ruppert Property ® Progress Report
Mr. Wakefield: Mr. Mayor and members of the City Council, the
latest report of the investigations that.have
been made indicate the occupants of the' -property
are in compliance with zoning ordinances of the City, so at this time
I think we have gone as far as we can.
Councilman Lloyd: Mr. Wakefield, is there any possibility of a
commission of some violation of not only a felony
but whatabout a tort or something of that nature?
Mr. Wakefield: The violation of the City's Zoning Ordinance,
like the violation of any other ordinance�is a
misdemeanor, Normally, we would proceed .in a
case like this,where there was a claimedviolation, to refer the matter
to the District Attorney's Office for investigation and issuance of a
complaint if he determined there actually was a violation of our Ordinances
We would do that normally through the City's Service Officer, but it
seems,to me that weave gone as far as we can go within the limits of
our own investigative -facilities and apparently the present use of the
property is consistent with the zoning.ordinance and, in my opinion,
at Least, there is currently no violation occurring.
Councilman Lloyd: Apparently there is a very strong feeling on the
part of the people who live in the immediate
vicinity that these people, if not violating
the intent or written connotation of the law,that certainly the spirit
is being violated, in that they are conducting activities which are
not normal to a family or to a home dwelling and, as such, I recognize
the probability that we are preempted. However, if this type of
activity continues and it is indeed offensive to the neighboring home-
owners, may we suggest that they appeal to the Courts? I understand
the City's position' there is no further action that can be taken.
And yet I know very well .that these people are again going to appeal
to this body or somebody to do something about the fact that these
people are doing more than just normal living 'in a residence and that
is what I am trying to prevent, but I am powerless at this point to do
anything. I am convinced in my own mind that these people are not
conducting their affairs in a.manner I would"personally want them
conducted.
Mr. Wakefield: I think part of the answer may lie in a review
of our existing Ordinance provisions applicable
to the zone in which this property is located.
It -may very well be that we need to tighten up on the number of so-
called servants ubich may be.ma ntained on the premises in a residential
zone. And if that is so, then perhaps that should be the first action
that should be taken and if that is not effective.then.we will have
to take other steps.
Councilman,Lloyd: 1 recognize the limitations currently imposed,
I would then like to ask the City Manager to
review with our Police Department a good tight
surveillance over these people, because I honestly don't feel these
people are conducting themselves in a manner which is acceptable
within the normal bounds of neighborliness in that vicinity, and I am
sure,there Will.be some problems again. So, if you will ask our
19 m ,
REG. C.C. 12®22-69 Page Twenty
CITY MANAGER_ ( Item 1) Contd.
Police Department to _pay close attention and in the meantime I
bring thisupto the Council .as a coalition action here that I
think we do have a -problem, 'I am not really sure that we have the
.night of legislative action in this area, the laws of the State may
....preempt the .laws which involve activity -which i.s.perhaps not
.criminal but is offensive to the sensibilities -of the neighborhood.
The .people say 'one thing in -the report ..and yet we. get conflicting
reports from the.peo.ple.living in the immediate heighbothood� and
these people as citizens of this community feel they are being- imposed
_.upon.. and they have a fearful situationathey are concerned about
their children in the association; they are concerned about the care
and -treatment oftheyoungsters who .live in this immediate area; and.
while. we -get the _assurances .of these people," nevertheless there .seems
to be a vastdifference between performance and what is stated. So
as a result I think this is a potential problem before the City Council.
I am -sorry there is nothing else we can dos I accept what the City
Attorney has .presented
Motion by Councilman Lloyd, seconded by Councilman Chappell, and
carried, to receive and file,.the progress report on the Ruppert property.
Sunday Closing of Barber Shops
Mr, Aiassae Mr, Mayor, Item 2 is an informational report
but.I think Council -should direct the City
Attorney toamend our city code so the closing
of Barber Shops on 'Sunday°;is".not valid and which the City of West
Covina can now. -require under. the West Covina Municipal Code.
Mayor Gleckman With the City Attorney°s.permission I would
request that this matter be held over to our
next-r-eg.ular meeting-o I have'taken the liberty
to write the State -of .California.regarding.Barber Shops as far as.
unions' etc. are concerned and I would like to get the additional
informati(n before instructing the City Attorney to start -proceedings
changing the City_Ordinanceo
Councilman Nichols:. I agree, Mr. Mayor.
Councilman Gillum-: I agree.
Councilman Lloyd I don°t agree because the cities surrounding
us are operating. 7 days a .week and I feel it is
unfair to the businessman in this City who is
,.performing this service and --is required to close his shop when people
can go to an immediate vicinity for this service, and once established
going to a shop, whether it is .in Covina or LaPeunte or where ever it
may be, people tend to go bask, and I would -ask you to.reconsider on
that basis.
Councilman Nichols: Councilman Lloyd - peace! I didn't mean to
infer that I would be in ultimate disagreement
with you. I think there are matters in process
here and I am not prepared tonight to vote to -direct the City Attorney
to act, but I may well be prepared in a week or two weeks or sometime
in the future.. Jam not prepared tonight to take that.actiono.
Mayor Gleckman®- Since I was the one that brought it up, I
think `you are probably .right
,., Councilman Lloyd,
except it would be kind of ridiculous for me
to takeparticularaction at this time with a situation that existed
for quite a long time without getting back the information that I sent
to. Sacramento for. So, II myself, would then have confirmed my own
opinion.
Motion by Councilman Gillum, seconded
matter of Ordinance #103.4. be held over
January, 1970. 20
by Councilman Nichols, that this
to the first regular meeting in
Reg. C.C. 12-22-69 Page twenty-one
CITY MANAGER (Cont)
SUNDAY."CLOSING=OF BARBER Motion carried on roll call vote as
SHOPS (Cont ) follows:
AYES: Councilmen Gillum, Nichols, Chappell, Gleckman
• NOES: Councilman Lloyd
ABSENT: None
ASSEMBLYMAN BARNES' Motion by Councilman Gillum, seconded by
RE GAS TAX FORMULA Councilman Chappell, and carried, directing
the Engineering Staff to prepare a letter
of acknowledgement to Assemblyman Barnes`
letter re gas tax formula.
LOS ANGELES COUNTY
LETTER RE ABANDONMENT
OF PASS & COVINA ROAD
CALIFORNIA COUNCIL ON
INTERGOVERNMENTAL
RELATIONSHIPS LETTER
PLANNED -PARENTHOOD
LETTER
Motion by Councilman Chappell, seconded by
Councilman Lloyd, and carried,to receive
and file report.
Motion by Councilman Chappell, seconded by
Councilman Gillum, and carried,to receive
and file report.
Motion by Councilman Chappell, seconded by
Councilman Gillum, and carried, to receive
and file report.
ESTABLISHMENT OF CENTRAL Motion by Councilman Gillum, seconded by
INFORMATION SERVICE Councilman Lloyd, and carried, to receive
and file report.
PUC OPINIONS & ORDER Motion by Councilman Chappell, seconded
OF HEARING ON ALL by Councilman Gillum, and carried, to
ELECTRIC & COMMUNICATION• receive and file report.
UTILITIES
SUBURBAN WATER COMPANY
ELECTION REPORT
Councilman Gillum:
Mayor Gleckman:
Councilman Gillum:
Motion by Councilman Cha.ppell;,.seconded." by
Councilman Lloyd, and carried, to receive
and file.
May we back up one moment, .sir?
If Council has no objections, we will
back up for one moment.
Item I-4. Did we take the recommended
action for the abandonment of Pass and
Covina Road?
- 21 -
Reg. C. C, 12/22-69 Page twenty -one -A
CITY MANAGER (Cont.)
PASS & COVINA ROAD (Cont.)
Mayor'Gl.eckman: No, we received and filed.
Councilman Lloyd: Would you like an action, George?
George Aiassa: Well, we can take an action if you want,
but why don't we bring it back up on
the 12th.
Mayor Gleckman: I have some questions, too. Anything
else?
-EMIL GALSTER REQUEST Motion by Councilman Chappell, seconded
FOR REFUND OF PARKWAY by Councilman Gillum, that Council
TREES DEPOSIT authorize the refund of $235.00 to the
developer of Tract No.18205 in that
Parkway trees have not been installed
due to the request of the property
owners. Motion carried on roll call
vote as follows:
AYES: Councilmen Gillum, Nichols, Chappell, Lloyd, Gleckman
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
CITRUS BAR ASSOCIATION
REQUEST FOR USE OF COUNCIL
CHAMBERS
Mr. Aiassa: You have a report on this item. I
talked to their representative and due
to the fact that we have not adopted
a policy on the use of the Council R6om facility, I would recommend
that we charge them a fee of $25.00.
Motion by.Councilman Lloyd, seconded
by Councilman Chappell, that this being
an administrative item that the City
Manager be authorized to charge a fee
of up to $25.05 for the use of the
Council Chambers for the continuing
41 education of the Bar Association.
- 21.-A -
Councilman Nichols: In one breath we say we don't have a policy
yet, so therefore we should authorize the City
• Manager on some basis of a fee schedule from
zero up to twenty-five dollars. My personal reaction is that this
is too loose of a.p.rocedure for.. the use of the City's Council Chamber,
or any portion of the City facility. We'should either have a policy
or delegate it totally to staff If it is Council's desire to delegate
to staff.to rent facilities and set a fee and charge schedule for its
That would be one thing, but to do it on the basis that we haven't
gotten around to it yet - I believe there should be a better answer
than that,
Mr. Aiassa: I think)Mr. Nichols) we are proposcir9to Council
on the 12th of January a basic rental fee charge
for the entire available facilities. This
request happened to come.before the 12th and it takes place on the 13th
and they have given out notices, etc., so rather than just deny under
the circumstances we recommended in this manner.
Councilman Nichols: Fine - and now you see what happens when you
don't give us a complete reports
Motion carried.
Civic Center Flagpole Ceremonies
Motion by Councilman Lloyd, seconded by Councilman Gillum, and
carried, that Council concur with the date of January 13, 1970, for
the formal ceremony to.acknowledge .installation of the three flagpoles
financed by tie West Covina Veterans organization.
Councilman Gillum: Along the same vein, we have three flagpoles
and I am wondering .if Council would.give con-
sideration at this time to the possibility of
a City Flag to -be used on the third flagpole. I know the other flag-
pole is.for sppecial.-occasions and special visitors, but I am wonder-
ing if it shouldn't be considered for a City Flag also, and perhaps
Mr. Aiassa would -.take on the responsibility of designing a flag for
the City since he has designed the city seal.
Motion. -by Councilman Gillum that Council.direct the City Manager to
submit to the Council in the near future a design for a proposed City
Flag. Seconded by Councilman Lloyd.
Councilman Chappell: Do Cities have flags? (Answer by City Manager:
Yes)
Councilman Nichols: What Cities?
Mr, Aiassa:. I can name about ten, because I reviewed it
when we were redoing our City Seale
• Councilman Nichols: It sounds awful pretentious to me.
Councilman Chappell: These flags do require replacement continually
due to -wind, etc., and it is rather expensive,
Councilman .Lloyd: Were you suggesting that the flag be flown every
day?
Councilman Gillum.: Yes on every day tht we do not have a special
occasion - we do have three flagpoles there.
22 m
REG.. C.C.
12-22-69
Page Twenty --three
City Manager
- (Item
.12) Cont'_d.a
Councilman
Lloyd:
Mr. Mayor, honestly I would have to agree with
Councilman Chappell, although I think it is a
.good idealand when it should be flown and how
it should be
flown e
these things come under city protocol, but I do
agree that -a
flag--of.this.type
is an expense.
• Councilman
Nichol:
I agree also and with all the needs for money
that the City has, I think that is one that can
be . po-stpone.d--o
Councilman
Gillum-.
I am not asking ..for anexpenditure, only asking
the City. Manager to. design and report back.
Councilman
Chappell:
Some citizen group might take it on if the flag
is designed-,
Councilman
Lloyd:
Councilman Nichols would you concur with the
designing of the flagif some citizen group
might be interested?
Councilman Nichols: I do not. I don't think it will add one thing
to the effectiveness of this Council or any
.-.portion of the City Government,,, -It will only
tend to -bring ridicule to various of our citizenry, which we don't needs
So I don't support it from the design stage to its completion.
Councilman Chappell: Mr. Aiassa) would you care to comment?
Mr. Aiassa: I think Mr. Gillum does have a point and if.a
City is going to be recognized in the future
and if the City is going to be the headquarters
City,then we should have a flag. I'don't think we will be spending
any money in -the preliminary design.
Motion carried on roll call vote as follows-.
AYES: Councilmen Gillum, Chappell, Lloyd,, Mayor Gleckman
NOES: Councilman Nichols
ABSENT: None
Mayor Gleckman: I voted "aye" from the standpoint of the City
_,.Manager's recommendation to design one, but I
_don't think I would vote "Aye" from the stand-
point of the City of West Covina having one.
City Manager's Vacation
(Mr. Aiassa-orally explained he would like Council concurrence on his
vacation from the 26th of December to the.2nd of January, inclusive.)
Mayor Gleckman: Does Council agree?
So moved by Councilman .Lloyd, seconded by
Councilman Chappell, and carried.
(Mr. Aiassa asked permission to add an additional item to the agenda.
• Council agreed).
Police Blazers
.Mro Aiassa: We have a possibility of trying some blue blazers
in the Police Department. The Police Chief has
been visiting other Departments and there have
been national write,,ips where they are.trying to change the image of
the Police Departments and .I.have a request fromtheChief to try
a few in Police Administration, I have held off for almost a year but
in looking around and seeing some_of our men actively engaged on
campuses, etc.,, I think they would look more acceptable- in'='the blue
blazers. Right now the uniformed men wear uniforms and the other
personnel wear clothes that they feel will be acceptable) and I think
23 e
REG, C.C. 12-22-69
Page Twenty-four
City Manager o Cont'dv
this would then give
us a standard of identification.
Mayor Gleckman:
You. - do -have it in the budget? (Answer: Yes)
Councilman Nichols.,
I would favor that. I think it is a wise
decision.. But I just as soon not call them
•
"blazers'.
Councilman Lloyd:
Mr. Aiassa-,-..what do you envision in this?
I don't really see the difference whether he
runs around with a coat with a big emblem on
it saying ®"City of West Covina Police" or whether he wears. a uniform.
Mr. Aiassa:
You are right.- the men that wear uniforms
will continue but the Chief of Police and
Deputy Chief wear suits along with some of the
other personnel and
are not identified as police and this will get us
some identification-,
also when working behind the counter with the
public.
Councilman Lloyd: If you want it, it is okay with me, but I really
don't understand it.
Councilman Nichols: I might say that there is another area that we
might be talking about involving the personnel
known as -plainclothes men in public places in
the City where it would in fact not'be.appropriate to identify them as
police officers of the City of West Covina and it might not be advisable
for them in full uniform and oneof the cases would be the officer work-
ing on the .high school campus or where he appears at an evening PTA
meeting to give_a talk. In those circumstances I think it might be a
good community relations gesture.
Mayor Gleckman: A1,� g �:°9 N[r.a. Aas.ssa, ,you -have: our blessing.
Mr. Aiassa: I have one further item to report on and that
is the Esquire Health Club. The Esquire Health
Club is now out of operation.
(Council expressed the fact that it was an excellent job of police work.)
CITY CLERK
Request from Camp Fire Girls to Conduct
their Annual Candy Sale from January 23 m February 15, 1970
Motion -by Councilman Gillum, seconded by Councilman Chappell, and
carried, granting permission to the.Camp Fire Girls to conduct their,
annual Candy Sale f.rom.January 23 February 15, 1970.
.Request from Goodwill Industries for renewal of
their Fee -exempt Business License
Motion by Councilman Lloyd, seconded by Councilman Chappell, and
carried, granting the request from Goodwill Industries, cAllowing the
. renewal of their fee -exempt business license.
CITY'TREASURER'S REPORT
Motion by Councilman Gillum, seconded by Councilman Chappell, and
carried, to accept and file the City Treasurer's report for the month
of November,'1969.
24
REG, C.C. 12-22-69 Page Twenty-five
MAYOR'S REPORTS
;Comiti t`t-erAppointments - January, February, March & April, 1970
Mayor Gleckman: Following are the Committee Appointments:'
Planning Commission - Councilman Chappell,
Alternate Councilman Gillum; Personnel Board -
Councilman Gillum, Alternate Councilman Lloyd; School Board -
• Councilman Lloyd, Alternate Councilman Nichols; Recreation & Parks
Commission - Councilman Nichols, Alternate Councilman Chappell.
Chamber of Commerce Letter re Sign.Ordinance
Mayor Gleckman: I would entertain a motion that this letter be
referred to staff for a report to Council at
the next meeting.
So moved by Councilman Chappell, seamded by
Councilman Lloyd, and carried.
.. Dr, Snyder'_s Request
Motion by Councilman Nichols, seconded by Councilman Chappell, and
carried, that this be referred to staff for a recommendation.
COUNCIL COMMITTEE REPORTS
Councilman Gillum: Mr., Mayor I have nothing to reportother than
wish you all and staff a Happy Holiday.
Councilman Nichols: I have a bill and statement and letter from the
Upper San Gabriel Valley Water Associaticm
requesting $100.00 in dues for the next year
which I hereby turn over to the City Manager for a recommendation.
nrMA mng
Motion by Councilman.Chappell, seconded by Councilman Lloyd, approving
payment of demands totalling $276,459.79 as requested on Demand Sheets
C671 through C673 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 Gillum, seconded by Councilman Chappell, and
carried, that this meeting adjourn at 10:25 P.M.
9 ATTEST:
City Clerk
APPROVED: ,
Mayor
- 25 -a