05-25-1970 - Regular Meeting - MinutesMINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF CITY COUNCIL
CITY OF WEST COVINA, CALIFORNIA
MAY 25, 1970.
The regular meeting of the City Council was called to order at
7:30 P.M., by Mayor Ken Chappell in the West Covina City Hall.
The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Councilman Robert Shearer;
the invocation was given by Reverend Robert S. Condon, Chaplain of
the Queen of the Valley Hospital.
ROLL CALL
Present: Mayor Chappell; Councilmen Shearer, Nichols,
Young, Lloyd
Also Present: George Wakefield, City Attorney
Lela Preston, City Clerk
George Fiassa, City Manager
H. R. Fast, Public Services Director
George Zimmerman, City Engineer
Richard Munsell, Planning Director
William Vanettes, Communications Director
Ray Windsor, Administrative Assistant
Leonard Eliot, Controller
Doug Dawson, Administrative Analyst
Jim Butler, President - W.C.C.E.A.
Richard Bonaparte, Vice-Pres., - W.C.C.E.A.
Carol Whelan, Chairman, Salary Committee - W.C.C.E.A.
Art Velasquez, Fringe Benefits - W.C.C.E.A.
Chuck Bahn, Committee Member - W.C.C.E.A.
Ron Hedrick, Pres., W.C.F.A.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
May 11, 1970 Approved as corrected:
Councilman Shearer: On Page 21, the last word on the page should
be "Commission" rather than"staff."
Councilman Young: On the same page, remarks by Mr. Jones, last
sentence, the word is misspelled, it should be
"democratic".
Motion by Councilman Shearer, seconded by Councilman Young, and carried,
approving minutes of May 11, 1970, as corrected.
May 18, 1970 - Motion by Councilman Young, seconded by Council --
man Shearer, and carried, approving minutes of
May 18, 1970, as submitted.
PUBLIC WORKS ITEMS
PROJECT SP-69006 LOCATION: Sunset Avenue from North
Street Improvements Garvey Avenue to Puente Avenue.
D & W Paving, Inc.
Motion by Councilman Shearer, seconded by Councilman Young, and
carried, accepting street improvements and authorizing the release of
Fidelity & Deposit Company of Maryland faithful performance bond
No. 5767183 in the amount of $139,717.86.
PROJECT MP-69018-5 LOCATION: Galster Park
Installation of Fencing
Mills Fencing
Motion by Councilman Young, seconded by Councilman Shearer, and
carried, accepting installation`'of fencing in Galster Park and..
authorizing release of Fidelity & Deposit Company of Maryland faith-
- 1 -
REG. C.C. 5-25-70 Page Two
Public Works Items (Item No. 2) Cont°d.
ful performance bond No. 8317394 in the amount of $6,016.20.
PROJECT MP-6901-8-6 LOCATION: Galster Park
Installation of Utilities
Ace Pipeline
Motion by Councilman Shearer, seconded by Councilman Young, and
carried, accepting installation of utilities in.Galster Park and
authorizing release of The Travelers Indemnity Company faithful
performance bond in amount of $24,114.00..
VINCEI\T AVENUE LAND EXCHANGE
AND GRANT OF EASEMENT
Winchell Donut House, Inc.
Precise Plan 587
LOCATION: Westerly of Glendora
Ave., between intersection of
Glendora Ave., with Vincent Ave'.,
and intersection of Glendora Ave.,
with Walnut Creek Channel.
C"ouncil reviewed Engineer's report.
RESOLUTION NO. 4156 The City Clerk presented:
ADOPTED "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF WEST COVINA,
AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION OF A
QUITCLAIM DEED FOR A PORTION OF VINCENT AVENUE (AKA VINCENT PLACE)
FORMERLY VACATED: AND SUBJECT TO -THE RESERVATIONS AND EXCEPTIONS
OF CERTAIN --RIGHT§ AND EASEMENTS."
Mayor Chappell: Hearing no objections,.waive further reading of
the body of said Resolution.
Motion by Councilman Nichols, seconded by Councilman Shearer,
adopting said Resolution. Motion carried on roll call vote as
follows:
AYES: Councilmen Shearer, Nichols, Young, Lloyd, Mayor Chappell
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
RESOLUTION NO. 4157 The _City Clerk presented:
ADOPTED B'A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF WEST COVINA,
AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION OF A
GRANT OF EASEMENT FOR DRIVEWAY PURPOSES IN FAVOR OF WINCHELL DONUT
HOUSE, INC."
Mayor Chappell: Hearing no objections, waive further reading of
the body of said Resolution.
Motion by Councilman Shearer, seconded by Councilman Young, adopt-
ing said Resolution. Motion carried on roll call vote as follows:
AYES: Councilmen Shearer, Nichols, Young, Lloyd, Mayor Chappell
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
AUTHORIZATION FOR DELIVERY OF QUITCLAIM DEED
Councilman Young: I think the record should show what this payment
is in light of our earlier discussion on this
situation.
Mr. Aiassa: This is the amended decision: of..:.the._:Council...We
City Manager got an added reimbursement for,300 sqo ft.,
approximately nine hundred and some odd dollars.
Mr. Zimmerman: It was a total of 569 sqo ft. at the
City Engineer appraised price.
Councilman Young: I was hoping to commend staff for what appeared
to be very alert handling of this item, but now
that we didn't get the amount.....
- 2 -
REG..C.C. 5-25-70 Page Three
Public Works Items (Item No. 4 c) Cont°do
Motion by Councilman Young, seconded by Councilman Shearer, and
carried, authorizing staff to deliver the quitclaim deed and grant
of easement to Winchell Donut House, Inc., upon acceptance of
street dedication and upon payment by Winchell°s of appraised
value for excess property.
PLANNING COMMISSION
Review Action of May 20, 1970-- Council reviewed items of
Action individually.
Councilman Lloyd: Item 1 - is this the Roberts' property and
does this represent an automatic change?
Mr. Munsell: This is the Roberts' property recently annexed
Planning Director to the City of West Covina, and the proposed
change will come to the Council automatically
for approval or disapproval.
Councilman Young: There has been a hearing by the Planning Com-
mission?
Mr. Munsell: Yes, a hearing was held at two different meet -
Planning Director ings of the Planning Commission to verify what
would be the proper zoning for this parcel.
When it was annexed to the City it retained its County zoning and
at the applicant's request for clarification, staff initiated pro-
cedures and the Planning Commission held a hearing and determined
which areas they felt appropriate and now it will come to the
City Council.
Councilman Young: The R-1 40,000 is a County zoning and is that
roughly equivalent to Area District IV?
Mr. Munsell: Area District IV is 20,000 sq.. ft.,o:ominimum lots.
Planning Director We have an Area District V which is 40,000 sq.
ft. however, we have no land in the City of
West Covina currently zoned Area District V. The property
immediately adjoining is Area District III, the County property
west, east and south is R-I, 40,000. There is some property in
the City of West Covina immediately to the west which is zoned Area
District IV, however.it has a modification granted by the Planning
Commission to develop under Area District III.
Councilman Nichols: What procedure under the law allows for a modi-
fication of area zoning requirements? It is
my understanding the area zone is in fact the
requirements for the lot sizes. How can you be.in Area Zone IV
and develop according to Area Zone III standards° in fac-�.haven°t
you created an Area Zone III by doing that? .
Mr. Munsell: Not.preciselyo The code is set up in such a
Planning Director way that if topography or other unique
features of the land make it difficult to
develop under a particular Area District, it is possible for the
Planning Commission to grant a waiver. Thisparticular subdivision
to the west, probably the biggest percentage is developed to the proper
Area District, however, certain lots were slightly substandard due
to the Billy:".terrain.
Councilman Nichols: It is my understanding there was such a request
on this Area District IV annexation - was there
a request for the right to develop under Area
.District III standards?
Mr, Munsell: No, the property owner requested that the staff
Planning Director and Planning Commission make a determination
as to what Area District would be appropriate.
- 3 -
REG. C.C., 5-25-70 Page Four
Planning Commission Review of Action - Cont°do
•
L
If
The staff analysis indicated that Area District III would be
appropriate and as a consequence staff initiated the zone change
procedures recommending Area District III to the Planning Comm
mission, not only,for this parcel but also for the tract that had
been granteA the waiver. The Planning Commission after its hearing
determined that Prea District IV would be more appropriate and
recommended approval of a zone change to R-I Area District IV for
this parcel,. and the parcel which had the waivers was recommended
to be left as it is.
Mayor Chappell: If there are no further questions m this matter
will be heard by Council at a regular meetings
Councilman Shearer: Mr. Mayor, a question on the item pertain-
ing to the Unclassified Use Permit No. 155 -
Fun Master. Mr. Munsell, I assume the usual
notices were sent to all residents within 3001,'and would that
include those homes directly across the street?
Mr. Munsell: Yes they are within 3001 and notices were
Planning Director sent to all property owners in.the usual
mannero
Councilman Shearer: For the benefit of Council members, there
were no protests on this Unclassified Use
Permit.
Motion by Councilman Nichols, seconded by
carried, that Council accept and file the
Commission, dated May 20, 1970.
Councilman Shearer, and
action of the Planning
PARCEL MAP NO. 1696 LOCATION,. On the westerly side
James Meyers of Hollenbeck Street between
Alaska and Thackery Streets in
the R-1 zone.
REQUEST: Approval of a parcel
map to create two parcels of 0.21 acres (9,500 sqo ft.) and .1.63
acres (71,105 sq. ft.) from a parcel of 1.85 acres (80,605 sqo ft.)
Recommended by Planning Commission Resolution No. 2249.
(The Planning Director summarized Planning Commission Resolution
No. 2249; slides shown and explained.)
Councilman Shearer: Do I understand correctly that the develop-
ment of Parcel 2 can take place without
later the developer saying because I have
such an odd piece of property I now have to have MF-25 or something
of this nature - - we are not backing ourselves into a corner that
we can't get out of?
Mr. Munsell: That's correct -There has been a Tentative Parcel Map
Planning Director recorded which meets the criteria.and-we
mention it in..this'staff'.report so that at such time
the remaining parcel should be subdivided there is a definitc-
record to tie in to theother parcel and it would not be possible
for the applicant to indicate severe problems in development. .
(Some discussion followed on the jut in Hollenbeck and Mr. Munsell
explained; Mr. Zimmerman advised, in answer to question asked,
that the improvement of Hollenbeck Street is proposed in the 1970-71
budget.)
Motion by Councilman Shearer, seconded by Councilman Young, and
carried, approving Parcel Map No. 1696.
- 4 -
REG. C.C. 5-25-70 Page Five
Planning Commission (Item 3) Cont°do
Letter re. Campers and Trailers - Staff Report
Councilman Young: Mr. Mayor - does this come up later in
the agenda?
Mr. Aiassa: It comes up under the Traffic Committee
report.
Councilman Young: Can total discussion be deferred until
that time? (Nd objections by Council.)
Proposed Subdivision Ordinance
Mr. Wakefield: While there are a
City Attorney number of changes in the draft of the
Ordinance submitted to you,most of them are
designed to bring the current provisions of West Covina°s
Subdivision Ordinance in conformity with the recent amendments to the
State-Subdivision-�Map'Lawe In addition there is a substantial
change with reference to the current requirements for the dedica-
tion of park property.by subdividers. As you will recall the
present ordinance of the City requires that the subdivider shall
pay a flat sum of $25.00 per lot for each lot included in the
subdivision,., that sum to go into a fund for the development of
park facilities to serve the subdivided area. The $25.00 was felt
to be a rather nominal sum. The draft,4,�.as it pends before you,Vhas
incorporated into it the=provision with respect to park property.
to be dedicated by the subdivider which conforms with the
recommendation previously made by a Special Committee of the League
of California Cities at the time the Subdivision Map Act was
amended to specifically authorize cities to require the dedication
of park property in the approval of subdivisions. This feature
of the ordinance substantially improves the position'of the City
and conforms with the ordinances of the Cities in this general area.
Councilman Young: Would this have a tendency, or is there any
reading on this to discourage subdivision
development with respect to the park dedica-
tion requirement?
Mr. Wakefield: I think the experience in other cities that
City Attorney have similar requirements has been it really
hasn't affected the subdivision of property
within the City. It is an additional -requirement and like many
other types of requirements it tends to increase the cost of indi-
vidual lots which are sold by the subdivider, but it hasn't deterred
the subdivision property at all.
Councilman Young: One other question. On page 30- there is a
reference to population density to be
determined i,n accordance with the 1960
census. I was.curious why with 1960?
Mr. Wakefield: Primarily because .we had no current
City Attorney alternative - we think:.. it_ will•_ be 197.2 before
'the 1970' population figures" are;-. available ..for
use.
Councilman Shearer: Would it be in order, rather than specify
a specific year to state "in accordance
with the''latest official population, etc."
so in 1972 we don't have to go back and modify the Ordinance?
Mr. Munsell: May I speak to that? We looked at it and
Planning Director attempted to modify the Subdivision Ordinance
with that in mind, but unfortunately it not
only used the 1960 census but it uses the standard metropolitan
statistical area as a calculation for the average family size within
- 5 -
REG. C.C. 5-25-70 Page Six
Planning. Commission (Item 3) Cont°do
certain types of dwelling units and to get a comparable figure
would mean we would have to use a standard set out by the 1970
census anyway and we would have to go back and make changes°
So it is not as simple as just changing that one reference,
there are a whole series of.tables that have to be modified as
well. So it was felt this would be more appropriate since it
is a standard put out by the League of California Cities.
Staff did`analyze the -Ordinance with this in mind and found that
it would be more cumbersome to attempt to put in that flexibility
rather than leave it the way it is.
Councilman Young: I think in reading this over this is a
specialized piece of work which requires
the application of thespec:ialties:,, put
into it. I would be very loathe to recommendsin the face of the
specialist,on this type of document. I would be in favor of
moving this right along.
Motion by Councilman Young, seconded by Councilman Lloyd, and
carried,.approving the Subdivision Ordinance and directing the
City Attorney to prepare the proposed Subdivision Ordinance for
introduction at the next regular meeting of the City Council.
HEARINGS
AMENDMENT NO. 109 A proposed revision to the
(Foster Families) Zoning Ordinance to amend Sections
City Initiated Nos. 9201 and 9216 of the West
Covina Municipal Code to define a
foster family and to.inalude foster family under provisions of the
Unclassified Use Permit Section. Recommended by Planning Commission
Resolution No. 2251.
(The Planning Director.verbally summarized Planning Commission
Resolution No. 2251.)
THIS`:`_I-S_ THE..'.TIME.. AND PLACE FOR THE PUBLIC HEARING. THERE BEING
NO PUBLIC TESTIMONY HEARING.CLOSED. COUNCIL DISCUSSION.
Councilman Shearer: Will you please explain what can't be done
right now under the present Ordinance that
will be allowed if we pass this?
{
Mr. Munsell: The current ordinance allows 3 children by
Planning Director right as a foster home situation which is
normally controlled by the County and I
believe we run sbme_..ihspe:ctions-.:through-".our- Fire' -Department.: '...
There are no provisions;fbr taking care of more than a c3rkldren V
in any zone. In any event, currently we are allowing 3 children
under a foster home situation. This Ordinance would allow 4, and
if an individual desires a greater number than 4,they might apply
to the Planning Commission for an Unclassified Use Permit and for
showing cause and .allowing staff to examine the.premises and go
into greater detail as to the appropriateness of the use on the
land and the effect it would have on the neighborhood such appli-
cation would be allowedtin R-I, and R-A zones.
Would_a foster family be allowed in -the
Councilman Shearer: MF-2.5.9 R_2 or afty'.o±, the multip-le`-zones?
Mr. Munsell:
Planning Director
Councilman Shearer:
Mr. Munsell:
Planning.Director
It says.it is prohibited
MF-25 0
So if I were living in an
I could not have 3 foster
you explain?
in the R-2 and
apartment,
children. Can
There is no provision for foster children
in apartment zones. Generally the thought
is if this is a home and a situation where
6
REG. C.C. 5-25-70 Page Seven
Hear ngs- (Item:'.I :.-'.Cont'I'd.
the community would feel it is such that it would create a good
foster home. For example, under the present ordinance prohibiting
more than 3 children, it is a family type situation and if we
expand it into apartments then we have a situation of where it is
possible that a person, not as a family unit, is rent2rig7_an, apart_
ment with children and would take advantage of this situation and
request this service. We just felt it was not the same type:..-'......
situation and inappropriate to compare them. For instance animal
regulations allow so many dogs per household and in a normal
situation you would not have 3 dogs per apartment in a 25 dwelling
unit per acre situation, because you don't have the appropriate
yard space. You made reference earlier to the .Park & Recreation
section of the Subdivision Ordinance and one of the new things
in the 1960 analysis in the statistical area is that apartments
have about 2.1 people per unit in the metropolitan area and single
family homes have 3.1. So it is just a matter of one type of
dwelling caters to a family and the other type does not cater to
a family and staff didn't feel it was appropriate -in multiple
family zone areas.
Councilman Shearer:
I don't quite agree with the analogy here.
I may agree that if I were to live in an
apartment I wouldn't want children, but we
don't legislate in the
City that if you live in an apartment you
can't have your own
children, and now we are saying certain types
of children, and I don't
think that we should be on record saying
in effect that someone
living in an apartment that wants to
provide this service
of taking care of a foster child cannot
because of living in
an apartment, but on the other hand you can
have 15 kids of your
would rent to you.
own running around if the apartment owner
I think this becomes a matter for the
apartment owner to decide
rather than the City by legislative action,
Mayor Chappell:
Do you know if the County allows foster
children in apartments?
Mr, Munsello
I am not aware of the various requirements
Planhing Director,
of the County.
Councilman Lloyd: I think what we are discussing this evening
is the regulation and control of foster
homes and the way they handle children and
the way they bring them into the neighborhood. No one on this
Council is in anyway trying to prevent or stop anyone that has
good intentions of being foster parents. I think everyone knows
that in our society today there is a crying need for this type of
activity and God bless those who are willing to take on this
responsibility; however,: what we are trying to do is legislate
a highly emotional type of thing and trying to legislate within
an equitable situation some safeguards for -not only the neighbor-
hood but for the children that go into these homeso I do concur
with Councilman Shearer°s comments, I think there are apartments
in the City that would be better as homes for children than some
of the single dwelling units. However, for thosewhoare kind
enough to take these children into their home it is probably better
for them to be -in a single dwelling unit and for those people who
tend to be- available and have not only the physical stamina but
also the inclination for this type of thing, they probably would
have to live in this type of atmosphere. I think I can safely say,
if I read the intent oftthe resolution correctly, it is not the
intent to stop anybody from providing a foster home - is that
correct? (Mr. Munsell answered "yes".) The intent is to insure
that the children'and-the foster parents have the best opportunity
to make this venture a highly'successful one and offhand I think
what we have is an equitable arrangement which requires the atten-
tion of this legislative body and our administrative processes in
the City. I think it is a very fair resolution. It doesn't solve
all the problems but no one is precluded from presenting a case in
all fairness and equity to this body., I personally favor the reso-
lution the way it is written.. 7
REG..C.C. 5-25-70
Hearings (Item 1.) Cont°do
Page Eight
Mayor Chappell: I have a question - when we go into
the Unclassified Use Permit do we have a
set of rules to follow, or how do we
handle this?
Mr. Munsell.* The Unclassified Use Permit has certain
Planning Director findings that have to berrade in terms of
the neighborhood, etc., but as yet it is
not a standard checklist that we have, it is general.
Generally speaking the County does have standards that they check
based on the size of rooms,'number of rooms, etc. Based on the
Unclassified Use Permit we would be looking in terms of what would
be applied to the land and what impact it would have on the
immediate neighborhood. That is our prime concern in relationship
to the use on this particular piece of property, its relationship
to the surroundings. The staff would do this in conjunction with
the County.
Mayor Chappell: If we pass on this tonight we certainly
could expect to have someone come in at our
next meeting and ask for this - so before
we pass this we should have the ground rules, or have a handout
sheet ready to give them to check to see if they qualify.
Mr. Munsell: The Unclassified Use Permit section is
Planning Director written to take care of unique and unusual
circumstances based on a particular situation
at a particular site at a particular time. We do this with
outdoor -walk-up restaurants, etc. As a general rule all of the.
criteria that we have ever given out is just as I mentioned
ho.w.'�.=.:,._. it relates to its surrounding usages. It is a staff
discussion- a. working out the kinks at staff level before coming
to a public hearing. Staff analyzed this and had intentions of
writing some criteria as you mentioned, but it is a very difficult
item because we had everything from Area District I through V and
each situation is different.
Councilman Shearer: Councilman Lloyd mentioned anyone coming
before us with an equitable and fair
request we would hear, and of course this
is true, but is there any procedure in any of the ordinances now
that if I were an apartment dweller and I wanted a foster,child
is there any way legally that I can do so now?
Mr, Munsell: I would defer this to the City Attorney
Planning Director if I am wrong, but I believe at this point
in time it would be impossible to setup
a foster family situation while living in an apartment as the
codes are now written°
Mr. Wakefield: Mr. Munsell is correct when he states there
City Attorney, is presently no procedure underwhich a
variance or an unclassified use permit or
any deviation from our established ordinance requirements could
be made that would permit foster children or a foster home or 'a
foster family in a multiple family zone.
Councilman Lloyd: How would you interpret the presented
resolution - would that allow someone to
come in and make an application even though
they were in an apartment?
Mr. Wakefield: No it would not. As the recommendation
City Attorney stands./up to 4 foster children could be
cared for in a foster family in a R-A or
R-1 zone as a matter of right. If the family decided to have more
than 4 children in either of those zones the owner of the property
would need to apply for and receive an unclassified use permit to
REG. C.C. 5-25-70 1 1 Page Nine
Hearings (Item 1) Cont°d
authorize the establishment of a foster home in R-I or R-A zones.
The point is/I thinkjand this should be emphasized/is what
Mr. Munsell has already said with reference to the function of
the zoning ordinance in this connection and that is what we are
concerned with here, a land use and the suitability of that
proposed use for a particular piece of property. We are not
concerned with the adequacy of the home itself, this is a matter
determined by the appropriate agencies of the County, perhaps
the Probation Department in some.cases, the Department of Public
Assistance in other cases, which makes a whole investigation
and decides whether the family is appropriate and whether the
physical facilities are adequate to provide for the additional
child or children proposed to be placed with that family. That
is a determination separate and apart from the determination with
respect to the land use.
Councilman Nichols: I think we shouldn't forget that we are
talking about an ordinance which is
applicable to a"commercial" operation.
There are many people in the County of Los Angeles who do care
for children on a short term basis as a noble and charitable
operation, but there are many others who in fact do care for
children ® three, four or five at a time, as an income producing
feature of their life. Everyday in my own work in the business
of the public schools -I have occasion to enroll children of this
type from homes of this nature, so by definition we are talking
not about an orphaned cousin coming to live at your home, or
the friend's child who is:boarded`with you while he goes to
high school, but talking about children who'come under, the
regulation and definition of the foster care act of the State of
1 California and these children are placed by public agencies in
homes. We are in fact talking about a defined business operation.
.I think in these types of instances it is entirely appropriate
to select the area and regulate the scope of it to this very
limited extent. I certainly support the resolutim as it has been
submitted.
Councilman Young: As I read the background information and
understand it from what Mr. Munsell has
said, this Resolution appears actually to expand the potential
for the .foster home rather than limit it --am I correct?
Mro Munsell: That is correct, It would allow an
Planning Director expansion over what the existing code has.
Councilman Young: This unrelated family mentioned here - is
this a means by which a man and woman
wanting three children can bring a household unit up to five?
They can have three foster children without any kind of contact
with the City?
Mr. Munsell: The current three children of the foster
Planning Director family situation are allowed in addition
. to any children you might have at home.
This particular ordinance says four children under the age of 16.
This, as I understand -it, would include your own children.
This would limit the total family rather than allow a family +o
The additional definitions are in an attempt to insure that
there is a clarification as to the number of foster children.
Councilman Young: I am with you as far as it goes, but it
still seems to me in the case of say my
heighbora:� _ they have foster children. That is the only children
in the household. That means there are four people in the household
on about a half acre of�lando Could they not qualify as an
unrelated family and not come under any regulations of the City?
Mr. Munsell: That is possible,
9
REG. C o,C o 5-25-70 Page Ten
Hearings - Cont°d.
Mr. Wakefield: In answer to Councilman Young's question,
City Attorney the present ordinance contains,a definition
of both a family and unrelated family unite
.Those definitions are simply separated in this proposal for the pur-
pose of convenience, but what Councilman Young says is correct..
In the R-I and R-A zones a couple might care for, on a regular basis,
three unreleated children and it would still be an appropriate family
unit within the definitions of our own ordinance and authorized
without permit from the City or any specific consideration from the
City.
Councilman Young: So reiterating what we have gone over, this
would actually expand our present ordinance
and allow foster children in larger means,
as I see it, and on that basis I would certainly support it.
Councilman Shearer, I don't want to belabor the point and maybe
my question is not with the proposed amend-
ment but with the existing ordinance. It seems like we have already
placed ourselves, by previous actions, in a position of a City where
if the County of Los Angeles makes an investigation and says a family
meets all the requirements and should be allowed to have a foster
child, however because of the fact they live in an apartment in the
City of West Covina they can't have a foster child. Arent we. getting
into an area of preempt? This point bothers me, that an apartment
dweller can have all the children of their own they want but cannot
have foster children by law in West Covina. I am prepared to get this
off dead center and vote for the ordinance, but I would .like the staff
to investigate further and report back, informing me of someway that an
apartmentdweller has at least the opportunity to come before Council
and present his case. Under the present ordinance there is no way he
can present his case without having a revision. I will support this
Ordinance but how do I go about getting something else?
Mayor Chappell: First of all staff will determine if County
allows this and we can start from there.
Councilman Nichols: In order that Councilman Shearer will have
some sense of victory over this matter, I:
would tend to agree with him. If we can get
this adopted, I would then suggest to staff that they prepare a suit-
able amendment to the Ordinance that would enable an apartment dweller
otherwise qualified to get a piece of this action.
Motion by Councilman Lloyd that the revision to the zoning ordinance
to amend Sections 9201 and 9216 of the West Covina Municipal Code
defining foster farhily to include foster family in the provisions of
the Unclassified Use Permit, be adopted as per Resolution No. 2251.
Seconded by Councilman Young, and carried.
Motion by Councilman Nichols that Council direct the staff to investi-
gate and determine if there are any limitations imposed by other
agencies upon the keeping of foster children in apartment zones,
and if not, prepare a suitable amendment to our existing ordinance to
enable such residents to participate in this type of activity.
Seconded by Councilman Shearer, and carried.
PLANNED COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
PLAN NO. 1
Woodside Village
Donald L. Breen Co.
approximately 262 acres of land.
Resolution Nov 2250.
.(Mr. Munsell, Planning Director,
summarized Resolution No. 2250;
played and explained.)
LOCATION: Approx. 1000 ft. easterly
of Azusa Ave., in vicinity of pro-
posed extension of Amar Road.
REQUEST: Approval of a Planned
Community Development Plan for
Recommended by Planning Commission
reported on the PCD Plan No. 1,
maps and pictures of development dis-
THE CHAIR DECLARED A RECESS AT 9 PoMo COUNCIL RECONVENED AT 9,10 P.M.
10 -
REG. C.C. 5-25-70 Page Eleven
Hearings - Cont°d.
THIS IS THE TIME AND PLACE FOR THE PUBLIC HEARING ON PLANNED COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT PLAN NO. I, AND TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 25512.
IN FAVOR
Ron Grudzinski (Sworn in by City Clerk.)
Donald L. Bren Co. The Donald L. Bren Company in cooperation
15233 Ventura Blvd. with Umark, Inc., the owners of the property
Sherman Oaks, Calif. which you previously considered under the
• PCD Master Plan for Woodside Village, coopera-
tively prepared the development plan.which you see before you this
evening. Throughout all the deliberations and stages of preparation
of PCD No. I the general guide used was the West Covina, -Master .Plan.
The Master -.Plan when observed, particularly for this area, depicts a
certain pattern of land uses. First of all, the concentration of
land uses at Amar and Azusa transitioning to a less intense use of
multiple family housing or medium density housing finally to a less
dense concentration of units as high as 15 dwelling units to the acre
throughout the range of the intersection of Amar and Azusa. Another
item designated on the Master Plan of the City are public facilities
equal in proportion to the dwelling units that will be served within
that particular area of the community. We feel the development pro-
posals included in Development Plan No. 1 conform to the West Covina
Master Plan, both in terms of density and pattern of land use. We
,further conclude that the density is well within the limitations of the
Master Plan and as a consequence the City should experience no increase
in the demands for public services over and above that contemplated at
the time the Master Plan was adopted.
With this particular conformance out of the
.way, I think we can now concentrate on two items., The residential
dwelling unit types proposed under Development Plan No. 1, and the
land use environment created. Any plan that is undertaken either by a
private entity or the public entity, we feel, has to have some sensible
economic judgments made. From time to time I know you have heard
public-�,agencies say economics are not a consideration of land use
development: We feel quite to the contrary and we feel that you do,
also, because one of the first .steps you took in developing your Master
Plan was an economic base study of the City of West Covina. You were
able to make some sensible economic judgments in regard to how this
community functions. Likewise, we have undertaken market analyses
trying to analyze the type of people living there or who would desire
to live there, and what price housing they could afford. It will suffice
to say from a composite standpoint using your report from the Real
Estate Research Report and our own market analysis, we have established
median income figures for the City. In general, we anticipate in 1970-
71 a median income in the City of West Covina of approximately $100000
per family. Throughout our market analysis we have tried to target for
an. area.of':housincg`that!we would like to construct to satisfy the market
that we define as generally between $20,000 to $35,000. It is an area
which our analysis indicates is not being satisfied within the
San Gabriel Valley and, more important, the City of West Covina. In
comparing our market analysis with the median figure per family we can
conclusively state that families desiring to purchase homes from us
will have to have a family income equal to or greater than the median
income figure of the City, in order to qualify for purchasing.
Now taking these house prices into line we
have attempted to produce homes which will provide the resident the
maximum return for his homebuying dollar within these price ranges
and at the same time provide him the optimum environment in this location.
(Moved to display board and explained in detail the various displays
pertaining to the Mobile Home Park; Patio Housing (detached houses);
Bren.Court Yard Homes (attached houses); the apartment project located
surrounding the shopping center at Amar and Azusa, consisting of
Bachelor apartments, one - two and three bedroom apartments; explained
the carport arrangement; and the model complex, which is an apartment
situation of four units which can be purchased as a condominium. Dis-
cussed the Development Plan with regard to the walkways, green areas,
open spaces, school sites, park sites, streets, widths, etc.)
We feel that these proposals encourage the
Optimum utilization of land and provide a means of housing within the
- 11 -
REG. C.C. 5-25-70
Hearings m Cont°d.
Page Twelve
economic means of those desiring housing. In conclusion we feel this
proposal accomplishes thse goals and we respectively request that you
approve it as recommended by the Planning Commission. If there are
any questions, I will be glad to attempt to answer.
IN OPPOSITION
Joanne Wilner I learned at the last Planning Commission
2108 Casa Linda Drive meeting I attended, which was the one at which
West Covina this plan was approved, that something has
disappeared from our ordinance that used to be
in it, and that is the criteria to show there is a need for a particu-
lar kind of development. The PCD, one of its criteria was that it
just meet the General Plan and it really didn't meet it as it was drawn
so it was adopted by amending this plan through your action. Then when
the Precise Plan came up and I tried to speak to prevent the develop-
ment of the Mobile Home Park as a part of this, I was told it was too
late and it was too bad and we don't need to discuss this now because
it already shows this and it already exists. There seems to be a flaw
some place because I thought in order to create multiple family, or
any other kind of zoning that we were going to have guidelines and
something more specific to guide us into the future developments, and
as anything precise came up under the PCD the developer would still have
to show there was a need for that which he wanted to put in, even though
the zone label was -still there. In further explanation, we have had
zone changes in the past and when we have a zone change, one of the
criteria for the zone change is to show there is a need for the zone
change. Unless I am misunderstanding it, I don°t.think that was the
criteria in which this PCD was created, that there is a current present
need for this at this moment in time. I was under the impression that
this was just an implementation or.a more precising'of this tremendous
area of the City that was barren undeveloped land and that we were
talking not just of today, but of the next twenty years,, and that as
each little development -under this prime guide came up we would consider
the need .for such.. Am I wrong in interpreting what has occurred or
wrong in saying what exists here? You look lost - the point I am trying
to make is that it seems that we presently have two mobile home areas
already designated,.not in this.development, one is being developed
and the other just designated as such. Now we are asking for a Precise
Plan and development for these 59 acres of more mobile home units and
from -the standpoint of income to'the City and the. School District,
taxes derived from mobile homes are not what you get from permanent
development. I know there are laws before the legislature that would
change mobile homes from that of a motor vehicle to an ad valorem tax,
but presently a $10,000 improvement in the form of a mobile home
brings this total tax paid by the owner of it to be approximately $170
maximum when new and within 18 years it would move down to $30.00 a .
year. Each year it goes less and less because he just pays a flat 2/
of the stipulated percent of the selling price of what he has paid,
whereas if it were a house the tax bill to the West Covina homeowner
would be about $275 per year. The Mobile home owner, the money he pays
to the State is divided back to the City, County and School District -
one-third_to each. At first the ---City might benefit but the School Dis-
tricts are: losing _a.: tremendous _amdunt of .moneyB - and whete. -.the...School
Districts presently are in great need of money it doesn't seem like
this is the time and place to add something that will diminish its
needs at the same time you are adding to its requirements to build
schools, etc.
At the time I spoke before the Planning
Commission, I was told that you can't use this basis of need or approach
to deny such a request. If this is the case, it would seem that something
is wrong in this method and that we really should have paid more atten-
tion determining whether we really need all these people today - now,
in the development of these 1100 acres, rather than thinking of it as
a project to be considered by each little zone, whether each one is
needed-,; rather -
12
REG. C.C.- 5-25-70
Hearings (Items:.2 &.3),Cont1do
Page Thirteen
than ,saying I am going to develop an apartment here, etc. etc., and
that this was to be used as a guide rather than an absolute
definite zoned plan that could only be changed by the owner asking
for the request of a -zone change rather than the City or citizens.
I would also like to speak to the apartment
complex..,...'. I really think all of the proposed
development, in its concept of homes, is very beautiful and very
exciting, but we do have all this vacant multiple family 1•and
sitting within the City undeveloped and I think we should be
developing that before we zone elsewhere and develop. I am still
very worried about the parking for this complex. It does not
compare with the streets and house layout of the rest of the City.
Having two parking spaces per unit really just takes care of the renters
and doesn't take care of any visitors to the apartment complek,
because there are no streets available for offstreet parking as
would exist under the minimum multiple dwelling codes elsewhere in
the City. I am sure we are going to find that the West Covina School
parking lot is going to become the offstreet parking lot for the
apartment complex.
REBUTTAL
Ron Grudzinski I would like to point out that the questions
raised by Mrs. Wilner were raised at the
Planning Commission level and in my rebuttal
if I sound like I am echoing your Planning Commission that is
probably because I am. The questions were posed and I will restate,
l: Mobile Home Park question of services; 2., apartment regarding
the parking.
First I will comment on the apartment .parking.
A comment made at the Planning Commission level is that when we
originally developed the -apartment proposal and brought to the
City we had requested a consideration of waiver to the parking
standards because we felt from a design standpoint we could sub-
stantiate the need for less parking area and consequently less
asphalt area in.the proposal. After discussing with staff it was
our conclusion that we should not request the waiver but should meet
the City standards and in short we feel we have met what is being
required formultiple family housing within the City. In terms of
justification for that I can only defer to staff and the City,
because you adopted the.standard. You have reasons for adopting
that standard and we are complying with it and therefore we feel
it will satisfy both the resident and guest standard for parking per
unit. If you need any further discussion I will be happy to
continue, but I think staff may have additional comment on it, if
you need it.
Secondly, in terms of the Mobile Home Park:
we are developing a Precise Plan as depicted on the wall in an area
designated overlay mobile home park use when you adopted the Woodside
Village Master Plano It designated 8 dwelling units per acre as the
Mobile Home Park. overlay. So we feel the question of need so to
speak was answered at that time. The City made its judgment and
accepted the general land use. Under the PCD ordinance we, -returned
to you, as w yere rightfully required to do, with this specific
plan proposal/the specific development of the.mobile home parka
In line with the question that Mrs' Wilner
poses regarding school services: I venture to say that research
will prove both to you and anyone else that Mobile Home Parks do not
pay as much in taxes to,the jursidictions for these typesof services,
specifically educational services, but I think your research will
also point out and we can substantiate this because we have documented
evidence of this, that the Mobile Home Park doesn't demand as much
of that same service either. In essence you are getting a,balance,
they are not paying and they are not demanding. Under our system of
taxation you are taxed for the benefit received and the costs are
allocated accordingly. We feel the overriding answer here to the
® 13
REG. C.C. 5-25-70 Page Fourteen
Hearings ( Item.p.,, 2 &_,.3'Y Gent ° a.
questions of location and need for the Mobile Home Park, were
answered at the time the Woodside Village Master Plan was adopted.
This was the answer the -Planning Commission gave in response to
the questions and that is our answer now.
HEARING CLOSED. COUNCIL DISCUSSION.
Councilman Young: A question on the parking situation. Is this
parking designed for general parking or will
it be assigned parking to the apartment units?
Mr. Grudzinski: Both. There will be assigned parking and guest
parking designated on the si.teo
Councilman Young: Will it be general guest parking or to a
particular unit?
Mr. Grudzinski: The guest parking will be assigned per different
areas of the project. (Went -to display board
and pointed out areas for guest parking.)
Councilman Lloyd: You have indicated there is adequate parking as
far as the apartments are concerned, does that
come out to what - "2- 5--parking spaces per living
unit, or ....
Mr. Grudzinski: It is slightly over 2. and your minimum re-
quirement is 2 per unit. It .is not an excessive
amount of parking because we tried to provide the maximum amount of
landscaping, which we feel is necessary for such a development.
Councilman Lloyd: What percentage factor do you anticipate in
occupancy?
Mr. Grudzinski: Sensibly speaking you are probably talking
'about 85 to 95q range occupancy. We hope to
have 100 . But you know there is going to be a
certain amount of vacancy, so it will probably be 10/ plus the guest
parking that could be'
utilized.
Councilman Young: These units, as I recall your earlier presenta-
tion, will go from the Bachelor apartment up to
three bedroom .units. And whether it is a
Bachelor unit or three bedroom each will have the 2. parking spaces?
Mr. Grudzinski: Yes. And in the Bachelor unit you would
probably not be utilizing the 2 spaces per unit,
or even in the one bedroom, so we feel there is
_.that cushion(in parking spaces) in -guest parking provisions.
Councilman Shearer: A question of clarification. The report we
have indicates a maximum of two bedroom and
Mro Grudzinski mentioned three bedroom?
Mr. Grudzinski: You will have to excuse..me - I stand corrected.
One of our earlier concepts included the three
bedroom, but we excluded.it and it is now only Bachelor, one and two
bedroom apartments.
i
Councilman Nichols: I remember back in 1965 when Home Savings and
Loan and William Peroka-were proposing a
development for this acreage and it was composed of a percentage of
units with carports and this shocked me so thoroughly to think of
having several hundred dwelling units all with carports that I opposed
the entire concept. It;is still my judgment that a City in allowing
large numbers of multiple housing units in a very congested area, all
of which would be without vehicular security, that the City in fact
is inviting a considerable amount of policing problems. In the years
since 1965 I have seen a lot of developments"come along and I
recognize that practically none of them have closed garages. So I am
prepared to accept this first development plan with the open carport
14
REG. C.C. 5-25-70 Page Fifteen
Hearings ( Items 2 & .31Coat I'd.
provision, but I would remind myself and my fellow councilmen that
the day will surely come when we are going to be required to
place additional police services in that area, so it will not all
be gravy in additional revenue to the City. Fortunately the
geographic location of this development and the-: way it is situated
will provide less open access than some of the earlier proposals,
so security may not be so great of a problem. But I would like the
is record to show that I have grave reservations about the open
carport facility.
As to the point made by the opposition
speaker that an opportunity was not given to protest the basic
Master Plan of Use, I think that opportunity was presented when
that same matter came before this Council, when we heard it and
reviewed all aspects of it and in:.the hearing of it and the adopting
of it obviously in the minds of each Councilman had to be the
element of whether the need did or did not exist. We, in America
today, are undergoing such tremendously rapid revolutions in housing
that even -what Councilman Nichols firmly believed to be the best
pattern for the San Gabriel Valley four or five years ago, doesn't
exist today. Four or five years ago we were building single family
houses and they were standing vacant in a surplus of housing.
Today, all over Southern California and certainly in our Valley,
there are practically no -single family houses being built and the
probability is that there:.will be very few single family type
residences ever built again. These types of developments are the
kinds of developments being built.,
If we had the option of saying - no, we don't want attached dwellings,
we want more of the Villas, then I would be up here standing and
fighting for that type, but I have come to the conclusion if we are
to provide homes for the young people, for.those graduating from
colleges and high schools, we must'allow the kinds of developments
.that are being presented in Southern California today. In terms
of need, in the.West Covina schiopls we were graduating 500 students
out of high school in 1962, this year we will be graduating 1000
and within three years 1200 students and the flow of these students
out into our society is an inexorable thing. In other words, in.a
span of less than a decade we have more than doubled the numbers of
young people going out seeking housing, yet there is no housing in
West Covina. There are no vacancies in apartments and few single
family residences and our young people must be housed, So I don't
see that I have the option to choose this type of development -as
compared to what I would have chosen. I think our option is to get
the best we can get that is made available to us and I think with
our staff and the Bren Company development proposed we are coming
pretty close to that. At least enough so, gentlemen, that I am pre-
pared.on as,massive a project as it is, to give my blessing and see
what we come up with in the first few hundred acres of the 1100 acres
that are to be developed in the next few years.
Motion by Councilman Nichols,seconded by Councilman Lloyd, approving
the Planned Community Development Plan No. 1, Woodside Village,
Donald L. Bren Company; and Tentative Tract Map No. 25512.
(Mr. Wakefield, City Attorney, advised it would be better to have
the motion separated for convenience.)
i
Councilman Nichols: With the permission of the second I will delete
the Tentative Tract Map No. 25512.
Councilman Lloyd: I accept the redividing of the motion.
Motion carried on roll call vote on the Planned
Community Development Plan No. 1, Woodside Village:
AYES: Councilmen Shearer, Nichols, Young, Lloyd, Mayor Chappell
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
15 -
REG. C.C. 5-25-70
Hearings (Items.2 & 3) Cont°da
Councilman Nichols:
carried on roll call
. AYES: Councilmen
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
Page Sixteen
I would move the approval of the Tentative
Tract Map No. 25512, Woodside Village.
Motion seconded by Councilman Lloyd, and
vote as follows:
Shearer, Nichols, Young, Lloyd, Mayor Chappell
1970 SUPPLEMENTAL WEED LOCATION: Various throughout the
AND RUBBISH ABATEMENT City (Per List attached to Reso-
PROGRAM lution)
PROTEST HEARING Council Reviewed Engineer's report::'
Mayor Chappell: Madam City Clerk do you have the affidavit
of trailing as required by law?
City Clerk-.
Yes, I do.
Motion by Councilman Young, seconded by Councilman Shearer, and
carried, receiving and filing the affidavit of mailing.
Mayor Chappell-. Madam City Clerk,,,have you received any
written protests or objections against
performing this proposed work?
City Clerk: No, I have not.
THIS IS THE TIME AND PLACE FOR THE PROTEST HEARING ON THE 1970
SUPPLEMENTAL WEED AND RUBBISH ABATEMENT PROGRAM.. THERE BEING NO
PUBLIC TESTIMONY FOR OR AGAINST .PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED. COUNCIL
DISCUSSION.
Motion by Councilman Young, seconded by Councilman Lloyd, and
carried, ordering the abatement of weeds and the removal of.
rubbish on those properties indicated in Exhibit "A" attached
to Resolution of Intention No. 4150.
PERSONNEL BOARD
1970-71 Salary and Fringe Benefit Proposal
Ray Windsor You have before you a memo which outlines
Administrative Ass°to a proposal that was presented initially
by the Employees' Association in conjunc-
tion with the administrative staff and was received by the
Personnel Board at its meeting of May 5 and held over to an adjourn-
ed meeting of May 1.2, and subsequently a recommendation was made
to Council that the City grant an across-the-bbard salary increase
of 607%. And, in addition) that the City change its payment for
medical insurance to a lump sum payment of $30.00 per employee.
Further, as of November, 1970, once the criteria cities have made
their salary adjustments the City would undertake another study to
determine where West Covina salaries fell and that we would align
with the comparable cities as in the past to the 3rd or 4th range,
becoming effective'January 1, 1971. This is the proposal you have
before you in the memorandum of understanding.
Councilman Shearer: We are in effect going on record if we
approve this and I Mould in that regard
think it would be more appropriate to hold
over to our budget session so we could consider the whole aspect.
If we approve this we are in effect saying we may give mid-'
year
raises and later on this evening we have before us a Resolution
asking the County of Los Angeles to reconsider :micJ'-_y.e.ar r.ai.ses
I wonder :if Mr. Windsor would comment on that, and I realize there
may be reason for it.
=1:SE
I*
REG. C.C. 5-25-70 Page Seventeen
Personnel'Board (Item 1) Cont°do
Mr. Windsor: The only comment I would make is that
the City Council has approved, and
therefore there is a policy in the City that the salaries for
positions here will be placed not less than the fourth ranking in
terms of the criteria cities, and of course, this is very
important to the employees:of the City. We have no idea at this
time that the across the board cost of living increase,which is what
6.7% represents, will keep all positions -in the City in the third
and fourth ranking. That was the sole reason for this additional
study in November. We have no idea m West Covina may remain high
and no change will be necessary. We do, however, acknowledge
there is a seemingly contradiction here.
Councilman Shearer:
just wanted to point that
Mr. Windsor:
Councilman Young:
by the City Council that
fourth ranking of the ten
January 1?
Mr. Windsor.*
true.
Mayor Chappell:
I am not objecting to the arid=year. raise.
possibility,, I think in fact this is fine
and there may be no need for it, but I
out at this time.
Staff is aware of that facto
Is it the understanding of the City
employees, and I gained the impression
it probably is, that this is a guarantee
all salaries will be adjusted within the
comparison cities at the mid -year on
I think so. We have not spelled out that
it is a guarantee, but I believe the way
the City Manager approached it that is
City Manager m what happens along that
line if wedon°t have money to maintain
that position come November?
Mr. Aiassa: Mr. Mayor, I think the whole premise
City Manager outlined at the joint meetings with the
Emplo ees° Association rep_esentatives
and the Personnel Board was that 6.77.
would approximarely move most of the employees to the first and
second place and after adjustments are made by the ten cities
approved by City Council in May of 1969, as the comparable cities,
we will resurvey the benchmarked positions established under this
Resolution, and if any of them fall below the fourth rank we would
adjust those classes or positions. This may be a factor say in
Public Safety - certain adjustments may have to be made, and in
Planning and Engineering, but basically after discussing with
other City Managergo the percentage we are now proposing is going
to pretty well adjust to the majority of class position we now
have and I think in essence this waiting game to July 1 to find out
where we are going, is at least stabilized, and we.,:.are going..to
allow a fixed amount to' adjust any of these other positions that
might fall below the fourth position. The Employees' Association
want the assurance that they will not fall back to sixth or seventh
place as they were several years ago.
Mayor Chappell: We don't want to go back there either, but
we already know we are faced with a 6%
decline in our sales tax revenue and this
may be a pattern throughout our whole financial arrangement. I
don't read that it_b hd6 us to maintain this position if we don't
have the funds'.
Mr. Aiassa:
We had our meetings and
The employees originally requested a 10%
across-the-board raise, along with
longevity pay and full health benefits.
our final proposal to--- the Personnel
REG. C.C. 5-25-70
Personnel Board (Item 1) Cont°do
Page Eighteen
Board and Council is that we feel, we can finance the proposal
before you. The only question that will come up is if a
majority of the ten cities adjust their percentages abow.e 8-9 or
10%, then you will still be faced with an adjustment or a large
turnover of employees.. I think this is one reason why the County
and City of Los Angeles went into this midyear salary increase -
it keeps and attracts people to work for them., I also want to
advise Council that we have made a pretty good analysis as far as
various cities are concerned, and I believe if an adjustment does
take place in November to take effect in January, it will not be
a major adjustment. I doubt economically that there will be
many cities granting very large pay increases. They are in about
.the same financial picture faced by this City. Our employees
are faced with the element of the rising cost of living and.in
our opinion, administratively, we felt the 6.7% raise would be
by June about what the cost of living increase is. So instead
of doing a large extensive salary survey, analyzing and playing
the waiting game to see what the tencities do, we are submitting
this proposal.
Councilman Nichols: Mr. Aiassa, I don't see a specific staff
recommendation in terms of this package.
It is a .Personnel Board recommendatidi
to Council based upon an employee representation to -the Personnel
Board. I am assuming, of course, that your recommendation
concurs with this; and are you thinking in terms of a July 1
situation for salaries -that these changes in salaries would be
effective as of July 1?
Mr. Aiassa: Right.
• Councilman Nichols: A comment for the benefit of our new
Councilmen. We have faced the situation
in recent years where we have oftentimes
run very late into August before making a determination of what the
10 cities were doing for their employees in order to make a
determination for our own employees. It would seem to me that
this device will enable the Council to act concurrently with its
budget sessions and make a firm commitment to its employees and be
prepared at the same time to honor Council policy which has been
to attempt to stay within the top third or fourth position with
the comparison city group, If this Council finds financially that
we cannot do that I think the time to consider that would be at
the time of our budget study sessions. I personally am quite
satisfied with the concept of the 6.7% raise, which is I think
minimal in this day and age, with the opportunity of review with
the other 10 cities around the first of the year, for one very
important reason, that we are in a very unstable situation and by
January 1 we may find that the adjustments might not be necessary
or are less, I certainly would be prepared to hold this over to
our budget session for incorporation in our budget action.
Councilman Lloyd.' Mr. Aiassa - is there a reason for acting
this evening? I presume since it is
presented, there is.
Mr. Aiassa: Yes - we have two reasons. One, I have
City Manager to make the analysis for the budget pre-
sentation and salary plays a major role.
Secondly, we have met with the Employees': representatives and this
memo of intention was agreed to by the Employees' Association and
the Personnel Board. (Enumerated the three items included in the
Memorandum of Understanding dated May 11, 1970.)
f
I might also point out to Council, if you
do have a further salary adjustment as of January 1 we will only
have to finance a six month -salary change, whereas anything you
propose now would be fora twelve-month period.
18 ®.
REG. 'C.C. 5-25-70
Personnel Board (Item 1) Cont°do
Page Nineteen
Councilman Lloyd: It is, of course, difficult for me to
remember that far back, but I do remember
my twenty-one years of governmental
service, and I recall one of the things which affects the attitude
and thinking of all governmental employees is the fact that they
live on a salaried situation. They are not as nearly attuned to
the rise and falls of the economic fortunes as they exist at any
given moment and as a result I can certainly sympathize with the
attitude of the City employees and the City administration.
It is my inclination to be favorably disposed to this proposition
and it is further my inclination as a vote of confidence to the
City Manager that if it is desired this evening,I am favorably
disposed and recommend that Council go forward with their vote.
I would also point out to Council that this is not irrevocable
and we are not forever committed. I think we are talking about
policy,,,and as a policy matter and a vote of confidence to all
our City employees, I would think it would call for a vote at this
time.
Councilman Young: I would like to concur in Councilman
Lloyd's remarks, and add recalling my
year on the Personnel Board and I think
that was one of the years`0:.- that adjustments were finally made in
August, and also in observing what is happening all around us in
raises of across-the-board types, with demands of 10% to 2.5/, I
think our employees have shown a remarkable restraint, and the
management and Personnel Board have come up with a remarkable
package as conservative as this package is, and I am certainly
prepared to add my favorable vote.
is
Councilman Nichols: I don't think this is a matter of showing
faith in the City Manager (or the City
staff, or trust in anybody whatsoever.
I think there are appropriate times to cast votes of good faith
and inappropriate times. I have been a Councilman in this City
for six years and I have never yet been asked to approve a major
portion of the budget of this City in terms of salary, make a
firm and rigid commitment, before I even had an opportunity to
examine the revenue figure,,for the budget year. I absolutely could
not - tonight - make a firm and binding commitment to adopt a
salary recommendation. I have indicated a..s_eceptfviJy and if
things come true;as anticipated they will; in the next six weeks
of our budget study„ I would be prepared'to accept. I think I
have indicated I would be prepared to accept these recommendations
but to be placed in a position at this time to irrevocably commit
"m.Y vote to an acceptance of a package without the benefit'of
budget figures, this I will not do. I think :this is very poor
legislating and I beg to differ with those that feel -we should
take action tonight, I don't in anyway mean to be offensive to
anyone, but for myself I will not take the vote until I have seen
the revenue figures and budget of the City for the next fiscal
year, because that is my responsibility.
Councilman Shearer: I would like to introduce a compromise
motion - if there is no further dis-
•
cussion - that we accept the proposal for the.1970-71 salary and
fringe benefits and instruct the City Manager to prepare his
budget°accordingly with the stipulation that the final passage
will be made during the budget session and that we are not/ at
this moment in tim/ granting as of July 1 a 6o7/ across the board
increase.
Seconded by Councilman Lloyd. Motion
carried on roll call vote as follows:
AYES: Councilmen Shearer, Young, Lloyd, Mayor Chappell
NOES: Councilman. Nichols
ABSENT: None
(Councilman Nichols stated his "no" vote was given as a matter of
principle.)
- 19 -
REG. C.C. 5-25-70 Page Twenty
Personnel Board Items - Cont°do
Salary Consultant's Senior Clerk Reclassification Study
Mr. Windsor: The Council has before it a memorandum
pertaining to this item, dated__"May 20,
1970. To refresh the Counciles:.�msnd,
the study was an outgrowth of the 1969..'. Salary Survey conducted
by Urban Associates. The Senior Clerk classification was a pro-
blem area. We have five Senior Clerk positiohs::.ih:the:'.City:.
three in Finance, one in City Treasurer's office,.and one in
the Building Department. Mr. Gold has made a study of the
positions and has recommended in the report you have before
you that four positions be reclassified from Senior Clerk to
Senior Account Clerk and the position of Senior Clerk in the
Building Department be reclassified to Building Regulations Clerk,
and no change in salary which is at 20Ao The Personnel Board
heard this matter at its May 5th meeting. At the conclusion of
which it recommended to Council the approval of the reclassifica-
tions of these five positions and in addition the amendment of
the classification of the Account Clerk position , since it hacd
to be realigned in its relationship with the position of Senior
Account Clerks. The Board, however, did not take any action with
regard to salary and has held that to their next regular meeting
in June and staff has been directed to prepare some additional
information on that. We are asking for your approval of the
classification change as recommended by the consultant and the
Personnel Board and holding off any action for salary on these
positions until you receive an additional recommendation from the
Personnel. Board.
Mr. Aiassa: ''I would like to relate to Council that
• City Manager at the time of our last Salary Survey
analysis, the Personnel Board and Council
concurred that we make a detailed study of the classification of
Senior Clerk and reclassify according to the functions they really
served. The purpose of the analysis made by Mro Gold was to
classify these people to their positions that they are now per-
forming and abolish the position of Senior Clerk per se. When
first created it was kind of a catch-all position, and we are now
at a point where we should be more specific as to the jobs they
are doing, particularly in the Finance Department, which is
strictly basically financial control, so when recruiting people
they understand what their job requirements are.
Councilman Young: Mr..Mayor - a question. Is it important
for the Council to act on the reclassifi-
cation prior to the salary consideration
or can it be" -done -all = at once?`-,
Mr. Aiassa: We have to adopt the classifications
City Manager because we are now predicating the 1970-71
budget, and also we are adopting the new
Rules and Regulations which will have the total number of positions
clags"ifcations incorporated.
Councilman Young: Apparently the recommendation of the
consultant - Mr. Gold, is that there be no
change in salary. Is that correct?
Mr. Aiassa: Yes. The difference is 22/ and the
City Manager Senior Clerks feel they should be in the
same range as Secretary,- because this has
been the criteria in their minds for sometime and.the Personnel
Board and the administrative staff =felt -in "accepting Gold°s report that
we will accept the ��'classifications and delay the action with:`..
regard to salary until the Board has more time to review whether
this is apropos or not. Mr. Gold has recommended no salary change.
Councilman Shearer: Going through the minutes of the Personnel
Board I came across the discussion on the
position in the Building Department. As I recall the statement was
20
•
9 /
REG. C.C. 5-25-70 Page Twenty-one
Personnel Board (Item 2) Cont°do
made that under the job description, etc., the new titled,position
could.not be filled if the present employee were to leave?
Mr. Windsor: That is correct. What Mr. Gold said in
effect was the employee in the position
had been in the position for a number of
years and had acquired some specialized duties because of her
tenure and were the position to become vacant we would not fill it
in the same capacity but would probably fill it with a Clerk -Typist
classification..
Councilman Shearer: Would this position then be retained as a
possible one to which they could promote
to in that Department or will it be just
cancelled out?
Mr. Aiassa:
City Manager i1!e w,l;ll 1TVC1 L his.po ition;.ou:,- ,.and -)-not -fill
f r ...but f it l it on1 byr L Glerk-Steno,-or
Clerk*,Ty_p_is.t;:,. depending on the demands of the Department at
that time. Up to a year ago the Building Department dial not
have a secretary, they had this one individual that did all the
clerical work, all the typing, billing, etc., but since this last
year we now have a secretary, so actually her position as Senior
Clerk has been reduced as to the amount of work and responsibility
she was carrying at the time she was one individual doing all the
clerical work of the Building Department.
Councilman Shearer:
Mr. Aiassa-.
City Manager
We have only one other
position of the Special
So when, the present incumbent leaves it
will be downgraded?
Yes,- it is a "Y" classification at present
and will be downgraded when refilled. That
is the only one that has a.special position.
that is specially classified and that is the
Services Officer.
Motion by Councilman Lloyd, seconded by Councilman Young, and
carried, that Council take no action with respect to the salary
level of the Senior Account Clerk positions and the Building
Regulations Clerk position until after the Personnel Board has
acted; however, to. --adopt the classifications as recommended by
the Personnel Board.
Payment to Salary Consultant for Special Studies
Mr. Windsor: Briefly, when Mr. Gold made his proposal
for the Senior Clerk study the Council
'approved it at its January 26th meeting
in the amount of $300.00 for the studyoof the five positions.
In addition there was an amount of $200..00 in his statement for
two special studies of classifications which were an outgrowth
from the 1969-70"salary survey which he undertook at the City°s
request. Monies have been budgeted for this -and they are available
in the Personnel. Department account.
Motion by Councilman.Young, seconded by Councilman Lloyd, approving
the payment of $500.00 for professional services performed by
Urban Associates as shown on their financial statement of
May 6, 1970. Motion carried on roll call vote as follows-.
AYES: Councilmen Shearer, Nichols, Young, Lloyd, Mayor Chappell
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
Rules and Regulations Updating
Mr. Windsor: This was a major undertaking which was
begun by my predecessor.over a year ago.
21
•
10,
REG. C.C. 5-25-70
Personnel Board (Item 4) Cont°do
Page Twenty-two
The intent was to bring up to date the 1963 Rules and Regulations
to incorporate all the changes that occurred up to 1969or The
original -book was rather unwieldy in that it was all in one color
and was not indexed to the best extent and therefore the intent
was to bring it up to date in all respects. The City Attorney
found that there were many areas in the booklet which needed a
revision technically for clarification. Mr. Wakefield worked with
staff and these changes were in turn processed through the City
Manager ° s office, anal::. tb.e:-Torsonne1 Board o
:;.0 e Several major changes did occur. I
would like to say that the majority of the changes do not affect
the original meaning and intent of the booklet. If you would like,
I can go through the book - section by section.
(Council determined that Mr. Windsor should point out only the
major changes. Mr. Windsor explained the major changes made with
regard to Overtime, Disability Sick Leave, Citizenship, etc.)
Mr. Wakefield: I might comment that when I became City
City Attorney Attorney the Rules and Regulations relating
to the City°s merit system were then some
eight or ten years old. The Council had approved changes in the
Rules and Regulations from time to time that had not been incorporated
in the printed version. The rules referred to sections of the
original merit system ordinance which had been superseded when the
Municipal Code had been adopted. All these things were changed, I
think, simply to provide a more usable tool for the City°s personnel
sys.temo In the process we revised and updated language in various
sections, again in the interest of clarity and understanding. I
think there are no substantial _ , changes other than outlined by
Mr. Windsor; the others are very minor in nature. The end product
I think is a much more usable and much more satisfactory set of
Personnel Rules & Regulations than the City has'had heretofore.
The Council by Resolution should adopt the
Rules & Regulations and the Salary Resolution as revised and as
printed in the booklet. The ordinance text is simply a reprint of
what is in the Municipal Code and needs no action by the.Councila
(Councilman Nichols called for the reading of the heading of the
Resolution.)
RESOLUTION NO. 4158 The City Attorney,presented:
ADOPTED °°A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF WEST COVINA,
APPROVING `-A5 , REVISED; THE CLASS ANTIS"' SALARY' RESOLUTION
J.RES.OLUTION NO. .T2T7`)-, AND :THE PERSONNEL RULES..O'F THE,:.:.C.ITY:-OF_.WEST
COVI.NAs
Mayor Chappell: Hearingno objections, waive further
reading of the body of said Resolution.
Motion by Councilman Young, seconded by Councilman Nichols, adopt-
ing said.Resolution. Motion carried on roll call vote as follows:
AYES: Councilmen Shearer, Nichols, Young, Lloyd, Mayor Chappell
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
Mrs. Bert Bergman On your agenda tonight is a topic relat-
426 South Leaf Avenue ing to the disposal of drugs and hypoder-
West Covina mic syringes in the City of West Covina.
I would like to suggest and request of
Council that some very simple paragraph of explanation be made
available to the citizens, possibly in a mimeograph type item.
It has come to my attention by a number of people asking what they
are supposed to do with them having read the details in the paper.
I figured out a couple of ways myself, but I don't feel I am in a
- 22
REG. C.C. 5-25-70 Page Twenty-three
Oral Communications - Cont°do
position to tell them what to do with these things when it comes
up. I would like to have you take this under consideration.
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS
• a) Letters objecting to raising speed limit on Virginia Avenue:
Received from - Carlo and Leoni Del Pano; Mrs. Charles Zug;
Carol E. Ford; Herbert and Nancy Carlson; all residents on
Virginia Avenue
Motion by Councilman Lloyd, seconded by Councilman Shearer, referring
to Traffic Committee.
Councilman Nichols: A comment, Mr, Mayor. My recollection
was that Council, not very long ago,
voted to retain the present speed limit.
How did this get back on the agenda so soon?
Mr. Zimmerman: When the item was considered at the last
City Engineer Traffic Committee meeting it was
recommended it would be held over for
further study in 60 - 90 days, so it is due to come back to the
Traffic Committee and then Council, before too long.
Motion., carried.
b) San Gabriel Valley Symphony Association
Motion by Councilman Lloyd, seconded by Councilman Young, and
carried, referring to staff.
c) Public Utilities Commission Order re Motor Vehicles
Stopping at Railway Crossings
Motion by Councilman Young, seconded by Councilman Lloyd, and
carried, referring to staff.
d) Public Utilities Commission re Application of General
Telephone Company to Increase Rates
Motion by Councilman Young, seconded by Councilman Lloyd, and
carried, referring to staff.
e) State Department of Public Works, re share of TOPICS Funds
Motion by Councilman Young, seconded by Councilman Lloyd, and
carried, referring this item to the City Manager's Agenda -
Item No. 1-8.
f) Albert Handler - re Weed Abatement
Motion by Councilman Young, seconded by Councilman Nichols, and
carried, referring to staff.
(Councilman ...Lloyd,: inquired of the City Attorney if it would be
possible to speed things up by taking the motions on Ordinances
and Resolutions in a group, rather than individually. Mr. Wakefield
advised as follows:
Mr. Wakefield: The Ordinances need to be handled
separately and the Resolutions also,
simply because of the requirement that the headings be read. There
really is no means of saving timeJ.I don't think] by combining them.
Upon occasion, if it would serve. the purposes of the Council, we
could take a single roll call vote applicable to the introduction
of the first two ordinances, etc., and making.it known that it was
applicable to those two'itemso
- 23
REG. C.C. 5-25-70
Page Twenty-four
THE CHAIR CALLED RECESS AT 10.55 P.M. COUNCIL RECONVENED AT
11:04 P.M.
CITY ATTORNEY
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. 437 - STANDARD OIL COMPANY OF CALIFORNIA.)"
ORDINANCE "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
INTRODUCTION CITY OF WEST COVINA, AMENDING THE WEST
COVINA MUNICIPAL CODE°.5.0 AS TO REZONE
CERTAIN PREMISES (ZONE CHANGE NO. 438 - WILLIAM AND ANGELA HAALCK)."
Mayor Chappell: Hearing no objections, waive further read-
ing of the body of said Ordinances.
Motion by Councilman Lloyd, seconded by Councilman Young, and
carried, introducing said Ordinances. Councilman Nichols absent.
ORDINANCE NO. 1129 The City Attorney presented:
ADOPTED "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. 436 - UMARK INC.)"
Mayor Chappell: Hearing no objections, waive further read-
ing of the body of said Ordinance.
Motion by Councilman Shearer, seconded by Councilman Lloyd, adopting
is said Ordinance. Motion carra,ed .on_roll call vote -as follows:
AYES: Councilmen Shearer, Young.., Lloyd.,:.=,Mayor,. Chappell
NOES: None
ABSENT : N-6ne
ABSTAIN: Councilman Nichols.
ORDINANCE NO. 1130 The City Attorney presented:
ADOPTED "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. 429 - HENRY Ho MOGHTAD.ER, M.D.)"
Mayor Chappell: Hearing no objections, waive further
reading of the body of said Ordinance.
Motion by Councilman Shearer, seconded by Councilman Lloyd,
adopting said .Ordinance. Motion carried on roll call vote as
follows:
AYES: Councilmen Shearer, Nichols, Young, Lloyd, Mayor Chappell
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ORDINANCE NO. 1131 The City Attorney presented:
ADOPTED "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF WEST COVINA, ADDING A NEW PART 32
TO CHAPTER 2 OF ARTICLE IX OF THE WEST
COVINA MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO MODEL HOME MARKETING COMPLEXES.
(AMENDMENT NO.. 107)."
Mayor Chappell: Hearing no objections, waive further
reading of the body of said Ordinance.
Motion by Councilman Shearer, seconded by Councilman Lloyd,
adopting said Ordinance. Motion carried on roll call vote as follows:
AYES: Councilmen Shearer, Nichols, Young, Lloyd, Mayor Chappell
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
24 -
•
C�
REG. C.C. 5-25-70 Page.Twenty-five
City Attorney - Cont°d.
< ORDINANCE NO. 1132 The City Attorney presented:
ADOPTED "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF WEST COVINA, ADDING SECTION 5103
TO THE WEST COVINA MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO THE DISPOSAL OF
MEDICINES AND OF SINGLE -SERVICE SYRINGES, HYPODERMIC NEEDLES AND
SIMILAR DEVICES."
Mayor Chappell: Hearing no objections, waive further read-
ing of the body of said Ordinance.
Motion by Councilman Shearer, seconded by Councilman Young,
adopting said Ordinance. Motion carried on roll call vote as
follows:
AYES: Councilmen
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
Mayor Chappell:
Shearer, Nichols, Young, Lloyd, Mayor Chappell
and needles, a printed
Mr. Aiassa - I would like some sort of
public announcement put-out with regard
to the disposing of the drugs, syringes
form item. (Council agreed)
RESOLUTION NO. 4159 The City Attorney presented:
ADOPTED "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF WEST COVINA, APPROVING A PRECISE
PLAN OF DESIGN. (PRECISE PLAN OF DESIGN APPLICATION NO. 592 -
William and Angela Haalck.)"
Mayor Chappell: Hearing no objections, waive further reading
of the body of said Resolution.
Motion by Councilman Shearer, seconded by Councilman Lloyd, adopting
said Resolution. Motion carried on roll -call vote as follows:
AYES: Councilmen Shearer, Nichols, Young, Lloyd, Mayor Chappell
NOES: None'
ABSENT: None
RESOLUTION NO..4160 The City Attorney presented:
ADOPTED 1°A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF WEST COVINA, DENYING A REQUEST
FOR APPROVAL OF AN UNCLASSIFIED USE PERMIT. (UNCLASSIFIED USE
PERMIT NO. 152 - Sandy George Gourlas).11
Mayor Chappell: Hearing no objections, waive further read-
ing of the body of said Resolution.
Motion by Councilman Lloyd, seconded by Councilman Young, adopting
.said Resolution. Motion carried on roll call vote as follows:
AYES: Councilmen Shearer, Nichols, Young, Lloyd, Mayor Chappell
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
INTEREST RATE CEILINGS = 1951 Parkin .District
Mr. Wakefield: The next .item is a matter that we may wish
to consider legislation with respect to.
Staff has been considering appropriate
legislation with respect to the redevelopment of the CBD and one
of the important items is the development and formation of a parking
district. The,statute that seems most applicable and best fits the
needs of the City seems to be the Parking District Law of 1951.
Last year the legislature raised the maximum interest rate that such
Districts could pay in the issuance of bonds to 7/. These bonds
are essentially revenue bonds and secured by revenues secured, -
from the operation and from any contributions made by the City to
the support of the Parking f acility and backed up by an ad valorem
assessment that may be levied against the property within the
District as a means of financing a deficit that may exist. I think
the 7/ rate is _probably inadequate under present bond market condi-
- 25 -
REG. C.C. 5-25-70
City Attorney (Item 9) Cont°do
Page Twenty-six
tions. The Council may wish to consider requesting our legisla-
tive representatives to see if the rate could be increased.
I think probably 8% would be a possible acceptable ceiling rate
and provide an opportunity for the sale of the bonds. Whether
we would get bond buyers at 7% is doubtful.
Mayor Chappell: We can only vote on 7%?
Mr. Wakefield: 7% is now provided for in the existing
law. I would suggest that we propose
to our legislative representatives that
they attempt to increase the maximum rate to 8%0
Councilman Lloyd: Is this 8% tax free?
Mr. Wakefield: Yes, these are public authority bonds.
Councilman Lloyd: Bonds at the present moment are really
going begging according to the Wall
Street Journal.
Councilman Young: Is this related in :any.vay to Prop.os:_it-:ion, 7
on the ballot?
Mr® Wakefield: No, that relates to State bonds issued
by the State Government and is designed
primarily to free up the sale of bonds
previously authorized and voted on by the people having a 6%
maximum interest rate.
Councilman Young: This motion being proposed here, is this
a resolution?
Mr. Wakefield: No it would just be a request of the
City°s legislators to introduce a Bill
attempting to raise the interest.ceiling',
rate to 8% on bonds.
Motion by Councilman Lloyd, that Council encourage legislators to
increase the rate bf intdre8t on bonds to 8%o Seconded by
Councilman Young.
Councilman Shearer: Do these type of bonds require a
submittal to the voters?
Mr. Wakefield: No, the bonds may be issued simply by
action of the City Council without the
necessity of a vote. These are revenue
bonds.
Councilman Shearer: I was wondering if we get legislation
through at 8% and the low bid is 8.2%
and we are dead.
Councilman Lloyd: I doubt that we will get the 8% but it is
worth a try.
• Councilman Shearer: My thought was maybe we should try for 9%0
(Further Discussion by Council.)
Motion carried.
` Project No. MP-69018-7 Date Chan e_of Bid Opening
Mr. Wakefield: This item is submitted to Council for
ratification. It was discovered that
there was an error in the bid proposalform
submitted for the work to be done to the Boys°Camp at Galster Park.
In order to correct the bid form it was necessary at staff level
- 26 -
REG. C.C. 5-25-70 Page Twenty-seven
City Attorney (Item 10) Cont°d.
to prepare a revised form, issue an addendum and extend the bid
opening date from,last Wednesday at 10 A.M. to next Wednesday at
10 A.M., and for the City Clerk to republish the bid opening.
Those things have been done.
Motion by Councilman Nichols that Council ratify the action of
the City -Engineer in extending the time and the action of the
City Clerk in publishing the notice of the extension. Seconded
by Councilman Shearer and carried.
RESOLUTION NO. 4161 The City Attorney presented:
ADOPTED "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF WEST COVINA,
CONG.RATULATTNG THE,;ORGANIZERS AND'' PARTICIPANTS TN- THE-T TMAY7.164 19.70
MARCH AGAINST HUNGER."
Mayor Chappell: Hearing no objections, waive further
reading of the body of said Resolution.
Councilman Young: I would like the record to show that
the Resolution singles out for special
commendation Howard Hawkins, Jr.,
Melissa Harnack and Matthew Small.
Motion by Councilman Young, seconded by Councilman Nichols,
adopting said Resolution. Motion carried on roll call vote as
follows:
AYES: Councilmen Shearer, Nichols, Young, Lloyd, Mayor Chappell
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
CITY MANAGER
Helicopter Landing Site Alternatives
Mr. Aiassa: Staff has presented a written report.
In summary we would like Council to
authorize us to review the -vacant site
of the Carousel Theatre and to have a meeting immediately with
the State representatives and L.A. Airways.
Councilman Lloyd: Have you had any communication with the
people at L.A. Airways?
Mr. Aiassa: Mr. Fast or Mr. Zimmerman have you con-
tacted L.A. Airways? (Answer: No)
Councilman Nichols: Mr. Mayor, at the same time Council
authorizes staff to proceed with a look
at alternate sites I would be most
curious if staff could arrange some follow up on this article(frUper)
to see what the pertinent facts might be. The key point is the
statement by a Councilman in Downey saying that this firm is
virtually out of funds. We ought to have a look at that.
Mr. Aiassa: I did contact the City Manager of Downey
and as you know the previous City Manager,
Orrin King has just retired, the new City Manager has just taken
office and he is forwarding what he has in his file. I am also
contacting Orrin King.
Motion by Councilman Nichols, seconded by Councilman Young, and
carried, authorizing staff to investigate alternate landing
sites and report back to City Council.
Councilman Shearer: There .is another recommendation by staff
not covered by Mr.,Nichols'motion, that
staff be authorized to study permanent locations for, the heliport
and report back to Council.
27
REG. C.C. 5-25-70
City Manager (Item 1) Cont°do
.Page Twenty-eight
So moved by Councilman Young, seconded
by Councilman Lloyd, and carried.
Councilman Shearer: One further request of the City Manager.
In my Friday°s mail, I am sure there
have been economic reports submitted by L.A. Airways substantiat-
ing what the City might get back in revenue. I would like
copies.
Councilman Young: I would appreciate the same thing in my
mail, if available.
(Mr. Aiassa said these reports would be sent.)
Southern California Edison Company (Damage Claim)
Mr. Aiassa: As Council knows, lightning struck twice
and I had a meeting with the Edison
Company and have come forward with a
compromise to the effect that the City assume obligation for one
of the poles at a cost of $515.59 and Edison Company would take
the other pole at a cost of.$627092. I have a fund in my budget
to pay for these claims. I don't like to add it to the total
claims against this.
Councilman Shearer: I assume we do have automobile insurance
covering this type of liability?
Mr. Aiassa: Oh yes. The only reason I don't want to
apply it to the insurance is we have two
cars to settle with the insurance
company and I don't want to compound the case; with the compromise
offer I would rather handle it in this manner.
Councilman Shearer: Normally our policy would cover if you
wanted to push it?
Mr. Aiassa: Yes and if it was just oneJ I would have
no hesitation to go to the insurance
company, but the first car was a -total
loss and the second - repairs will run about $1600.
Motion by Councilman Shearer, seconded by Councilman Nichols,
authorizing the payment of the claim of $515.59 to Southern
California Edison Company. Motion carried on roll call vote as
follows:
AYES: Councilmen Shearer, Nichols, Young, Lloyd, Mayor Chappell
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
THE American Indian Institute
Mr. Aiassa: Council has received a detailed staff
report. Mr. Dawson is present and he did
the analysis on this matter, and also
• Mr. Strachan, Manager of the Chamber of Commerce, is present - if
Council has any further questions.
Motion by Councilman Shearer, seconded by Councilman Lloyd, that
the request for solicitation in the City of West Covina by the
American Indian Institute be denied.
Councilman Nichols: I feel this is'an outstanding job of
staff investigation and they certainly
should be commended for providing Council
with this type of information.
Motion carried.
REG. C.C. 5-25-70 Page Twenty-nine
City Manager - Cont"d.
4) Traffic Committee Minutes - Mav 19. 1970
a) Time Limit Parking -
(Council considered each item of action individually.)
Councilman Shearer: A question on Item 3. How many other
"No Parking" signs are installed in
alleys in West Covina?
Mr. Zimmerman: I don't recall. I know there has been
City Engineer no recent action of the Traffic Committee
in installing but there may be some that
I am not aware of.
Councilman Shearer: We have a prima facie. restriction against
"No Parking" in alleys. (Mr. Zimmerman:
That is true) What does a sign cost installed?
Mr. Zimmerman: Installed, at least $5.00.
Councilman Shearer: I just question this because a little
later on we say with regard to a request
on a speed limit sign that it is according
to prima facie, law and therefore we do not need a sign.
We have quite a few .alleys; in town and if start putting up signs
in every location where there is a parkingiproblemo which in
effect is really the complainant ° s. problem, "because he is . the -..man
that is right there. The children are playing in the street and
might get hit or run'over'by a care I have no objections to
• spending $5.00 to put up a "No Parking" sign, but I don't want to
establish a precedent where everyone that has an alley can come
in and request this of the City. Generally a "No Parking" sign
in an alley isn't going to be enforcedlit will be ignored anyway.
Councilman Nichols: I tend to agree, if you have a specific
situation which is no different than
hundreds of others around the City would you oblige the property
owner by putting a sign adjacent to his 'property if he asked?
You are going to be hard put denying all other citizens who abut:
alleys and request the same signage adjacent to their alley.
(Discussion on the exact location of this alley.)
Councilman Young: Mr. Mayor -;May I inquire - I like the
idea of putting up a warning sign if we
are issuing citationsit keeps the citizens from getting a
ticket and I am in favor of that. Is there any comparison as
to this type citation elsewhere? If it is a general problem./
then we probably shouldn't honor this particular request, but
if this is a specific trouble spot it might be a great favor to
the citizens that get a ticket where it is a prima facie. prohibi-
tion.
Councilman Nichols:' That is a humanitarian response.
Councilman Young: I see people in front of my office backing
into those parking spaces and I rush out
and say - don't do that you will get a
ticket.
Councilman Shearer: I think the principle I am talking,about
is the prima facie. - such as the speed
limit of 25 miles in any City even if it
is not postedlyou can get a ticket for going over 25 miles. The
same thing is true on any highway in the State of California, the
prima facie. is 65 miles. We can end up with a profusion of
signs warning people of this and that - I don't like signs.
29 -
REG. C.C. 5-25-70
City Manager (Item 4) Cont°d.
Page Thirty
Mayor Chappell: The Traffic Committee is the high-
ranking group of people that no doubt
take all these things into consideration
before coming in with a recommendation.
Mr. Aiassa:
I am very sympathetic with Mr. Shearer.
Signs get damaged and then they have to
be replaced and all
this --amounts up in costa
Councilman Nichols:
I would be interested in knowing if they
have put up the sign already?
Mr. Aiassa:
NO the Traffic Committee does not do that.
Councilman Young:.
I would be in favor of moving that the
sign be established.
Mayor Chappell:
We will just leave it,
Councilman Shearer:
I would like the record to state that
this does not establish a precedent of
putting up signs in any alley in the City
because a person does
not like his neighbor parking behind him.
(Council continued on
with individual consideration of items of
actim by the Traffic
Committee.)
Councilman Shearer:
A question on Item IV'.~ There,_is a state-
ment indicating damage to the construction
• Does the school bus
of the street because of the school bus'.
result in damage
any appreciable to the street?
Mr. Zimmerman:
Evanwood is a typical residential street,
it does not have the same construction as
Merced or California - however, school
buses are frequently
run on streets of lesser quality.
Councilman Shearer:
We are not experiencing any problem that
we can attribute to the school buses?
Mr. Zimmerman: Not on this street.
Motion by Councilman Young, seconded by Counlman__Lloyd, and
carried, that Council accept and file- the minutes of the Traffic
Committee meeting of May 19,.,19-70.
Proposition No. 7
Motion by Councilman Nichols that the City Council go on record
in support of Proposition No. 7. Seconded by Councilman Lloyd.
Councilman Shearer: What has been the policy of the City
Council in the past in supporting
State-wide propositions which
indirectly affect the City and directly affect the citizens?
• This Proposition No. 7 refers to State issue of bonds - do we
normally take a position? We could then also be requested on
Proposition 8, etc.
Councilman Nichols:. Some Councils have endorsed Proposition 8.
I'.noticed in the paper tonight the
LaPuente City Council did so. If I may
respond to your question - I think it is just a matter of Council
determination on each issue. We have sometimes and we have not.
Councilman Shearer: I am not questioning the for or against
of Proposition 7 - I question the
Council°s action on issues that do not actually affect this
Cityyonly indirectly but do affect its citizens directly and our
- 30 -
•
REG. C.C. 5-25-70 Page Thirty-one
City Manager (Item 5) Cont°do
endorsements of this type.
Mr. Aiassa: This is normally why we leave this open,
for Council discretion.
Motion carried on roll call vote as
follows:
AYES: Councilmen Nichols,
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: Councilman Shearer.
Young, Lloyd, Mayor Chappell
La Puente Valley Coordinating Council
re Solicitation Request
Councilman Young: With no more information than I have
on what this Council is, what it
exists for and what. the money is to be
used for - I would not be inclined to open the streets of West
Covina to it for solicitation.
Councilman Nichols: I would concur. We have our own
Coordinating Council.
Motion by Councilman Nichols, seconded by Councilman Lloyd, and
carried, that this request be tabled.
San Gabriel Valley Water Company
re Rate Decrease,
Motion by Councilman Young, seconded by Councilman Lloyd, and
carried, that this matter be tabled.
TOPICS Consultant's Proposal
Mr. Aiassa: I would like to have this item carried
over to the next meeting of Council.
So moved by Councilman Nichols,
seconded by Councilman Lloyd, and carried.
Public Works Tour
Mr. Aiassa: We have selected two dates - June_.l or
June 10 at 4:30 P.M. We would like
Council to state their preference.
(Discussion followed as to time required - approximately 2 hours
plus dinner, etc.) Final decision by Council - June 1, at
4:30 P.M.
San Gabriel Valley Humane Society
Mr. Aiassa: Actually this is just information. They
were evidently under the impression their
contract expired this year, whereas it is
a 2-year contract.
i..; County Mid -Year Salary Increases
Mr. Aiassa: No one anticipated this rate increase
and we would like to have Council protest.
Councilman Nichols: Mr, Aiassa - it is rather difficult to
protest when in principle we are doing
the same thing.
Mr. Aiassa: The only difference is the County made a
settlement with their employees on July 1
31 -
REG. C.C. 5-25-70 Page Thirty-two
City Manager (Item 11) Cont'da
of last year and there was no indication given that they were
going to review again during this period. I would agree with
you Councilman Nichols�if County had stated last year they were
reviewing but they did not give this indication. We have stated
our intention. That is the only thing, we feel if they let us
know this is forthcoming then there are no objections.
Councilman Shearer: What do they mean by "reconsider"?
Revoke.it?
Mayor Chappell: Changing their minds.
Councilman Young: I think the Board of Supervisors action
has been disruptive of morale and
procedure to every municipality in the
Country and certainly in Los Angeles County, and.I don't think the
action we took earlier this evening anywhere near approaches
that. I think it is comparing apples with oranges and potatoes.
I would be in favor of the Resolution.
RESOLUTION NO. 4162- "A RESOLUTION. �OF. THE"CITY COUNC'IL''.OF THE CITY
ADOPTED OF WEST COVINA URGINKI; RECOLQSIDERAT.I'ON BY THE
BOARD OF,SUPERVISOR:S OF THE. MID -YEAR SALARY
ADJUS.TMENT,$.._F , r,PFR.S,ONNEL , OF THE SHERIFF ° S DEPARTMENT AND COUNTY FIRE
DEPARTMENT o;.ea,.:..;. ...
Mayor Chappell: Hearing no objections, waive further
reading of the body of said Resolution.
Motion by Councilman Young, seconded by Councilman Lloyd, adopting
said Resolution. Motion carried on roll call vote as follows.*
AYES: Councilmen Shearer, Nichols, Young, Lloyd, Mayor Chappell
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
Public Utilities Commission Applications
Mr. Aiassa: This is a progress report to Council and
is informational only.
Legislation Affecting City
Mr. Wakefield: These are two bills - SB 941 and SB 601,
City Attorney that have been recommended for opposition
d the Directors of the League of
California Cities: I think, Cities generally have opposed both
bills as an infringement upon the home rule prerogatives of City
Government and City Council. They are both expensive propositions
and will be costly to implement should legislation be passed.
Motion by Councilman Nichols, seconded by Councilman Shearer, and
carried, directing the City Attorney to draft a Resolution
for adoption -opposing these bills.
"Look Before You Sleep'
Mr. Aiassa: This is a progress report. We are waiting
for a copy of their Resolution.
Authorization to Retain Consulting Engineer
Umark Development
Mr. Aiassa. Council has a copy of the written report
by staff with our recommendations.
Councilman Lloyd: Mr. Aiassa ® I appreciate all of those
things in the.report but I was under the
impression that our own Engineering Department had a pretty good
grasp of what was going on and needed.
mlp�
REG. C.C. 5-25-70 Page Thirty-three
City Manager (Item 15) Cont°do
Mr. Aiassa: But none of them are water specialists.
Councilman Lloyd:
But for $1500.00 how much of a professional
do we get? For $1500, you are not going to
get that big of a consultant . and for that
amount of money our
own staff can probably give it to use
_
Councilman Young:
Doesn't Umark have its own engineering
staff? It is going to come in with.a
water plan established by its own engineers
and isn't the City
going to have essentially an approval or dis-
approval function?
Mr. Aiassa:
That's right. Some of the reservoirs
will be spotted in areas not part of
this development area and Umark is also planning to receive their
water from the main
trunk line going up Azusa Avenue.
Councilman Young: Is Umark making a contract or is the
City making direct contract with the
water district?
Mr. Aiassa: Umark will make direct contract,: .with` -the
water district for the rights to connect
to the metropolitan water line. They are
actually putting the large lines through West Covina on Azusa
Avenue and the widening of the freeway will affect the trunk line
that is going north. (Explained)
Councilman Young: Does°that mean Umarkwill be selling
water?
Mr. Aiassa: Yes, they will be selling water to their
own consumers in their own development
and they also would like to make the
proposition to the City that if the City would like to do what
Thousand Oaks did - is to approve the plan'and after the plan
has been built and the utilities applied the City can take over the
system using revenue bones replace the cost of the installation
and the City will own the system.
Councilman Young: Is Umark paying for the installation
on Azusa Avenue all the way up?
(Mr. Aiassa answered "yes.". Further discussion followed by
Council regarding the length of the installation, etc.. The
Umark representative was asked to comment.)
Ron Sloane We have let a contract for the prepara-
Umark Inc. tion of the reservoirs; the Azusa Line
is under construct:kDn now. Home Savings
put in a portion of this line previously when the storm drain
went in, they tried to coordinate at that time so we won't be
ripping up that portion of the street. And we are now co-
ordinating with the Griffith Corporation who, as soon as we
• finish the trench, will come back in and resurface the street.
Councilman Young: What is there left to approve then if
the project apparently has-been
engineered? What is there -left except
the feasibility study as to whether West Covina wants to go
into the water business at that point?
Mr, Sloane: Montgomery Engineers are doing the
design work on our water plans at the
present time and also•are quite active
in the preparation of our filing x the Public Utilities Company,.
for certification for the water company. We are not particularly
interested in total c-` being in the water business when -we are
- 33 -
0-
0
REG. C.C. 5-25-70 Page Thirty-four
City Manager (Item 15) Cont°do
finished. This is the vehicle we are presently negotiating with
the water companies - time being of the essence we are putting
forth the expenditure of money. The line on Azusa it over a
million dollars, it is a four million dollar system and we are
going ahead with our money so we won't be behind the "8 ball"
and be without water. We are making .a plea to the Public Utilities
on June 15th, or there about. As f ar-a approving other plans,
it will be designed and as Mr. Aiassa points out, the system is of
great magnitude. Our total storage capacity for our development
is over twelve million gallons of water per day.
Councilman Nichols:
Mr. Sloane:
being sunk
it can't be
additional
appearance.
Reservoir storage?
Yes, our first reservoir is going in and
will be before .the Planning Commission
probably on June 17tho It actually is
down into the ground so from various points of view
seen. On the tank design itself we spent'an
$5,000 to round the edges. so it will give a better
Councilman Nichols: Part of this design work is interior
design work then within the system
it doesn't involve Azusa Avenue,
Mr. Aiassa: We are more concerned with the interior
design work, the trunk lines etc. We
would like to have Mr. Kenneth 1. Mullen,
consulting engineer review with the possibility of the City
going into the water business:at.some.later date. We. would prefer
to have the opinion of an outside consulting engineer than our
staff recommendation alone. (Explained in further detail)
Councilman Nichols: I think it is a reasonable request,
Mr. Sloane: If West Covina will take the water
company - we would be very happy to pay
the consultant's fee of $1500. at that
time.
Motion by Councilman Nichols, seconded by Councilman Young,
authorizing the engagement of Mr. Kenneth I. Mullen to perform
engineering services in connection with the water system being
constructed by Umark, Inc., at a cost not to exceed $1500.00,
and that the Mayor and City Clerk be authorized;to'"sign an
agreement covering these services.
Councilman Lloyd: I was wondering when this would be
completed?
Mr. Zimmerman: At the present rate,of speed indicated
by Umark - I would say 90 days would be
reasonable.
Councilman Lloyd: Mr. Aiassa - what type of report will be
furnished?
Mro.Aiassa: We will get a report which will identify
all the various objects of installation,
etc., also a recommendation to Council as to the feasibility to
acquire or not'acquire and maintain the system.
Motion carried on roll call vote as
follows:
AYES: Councilmen Shearer, Nichols, Young, Lloyd, Mayor Chappell
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
MY -I
REG. C.C. 5-25-70 .Page Thirty-five
City Manager (Item 16)
Public Utilities Commission re Interim Opinion
Case No. 8993
Motion by Councilman Nichols, seconded.,by Councilman Young, and
carried to receive and file.
. Declaration of Surplus Property - City Auction (Held Over)
w Azusa Avenue Right -of -Way (Handler)
Mr. A.iassa-. This requires a decision from City
Council.. 'There are three alternates as
stated in the written report given to you,
Councilman Shearer: Why was the gap left at the time of the
other construction work?
Mr. Aiassa-. At that time the halfway mark was all
that was needed at that time and it was
impressed upon staff that we were taking
undue advantage of the man if we required all of it4Staff
originally recommended all the way up, but Council action was
taken to reduce it to midpoint to accommodate that construction.
Councilman Shearer:
Do we own the right-ofmway000
Mr. Zimmerman:
In this particular 3301 we have a
construction easement over which traffic
is now travelling for the duration of the
contract and we have
.a 20,1 deficiency 'in right-of-way width.
Councilman Shearer-.
So 201 from where it ends now would be
our right-of-way line?
Mr. Zimmerman:
I believe it is .101 because the other 101
is for future parkway. This is only for
construction right--of-way.
Councilman Shearer:
That expires when?
Mr. Zimmerman-.
At the end of the contract presently
scheduled for October.
Councilman Shearer: And if we don't go ahead with this we
couldn't continue on with the whole
street with curbs, gutters, etc.
Mr. Zimmermann That is correct.
Mayor Chappell: Wasn't it also that the present property
was divided into two parcels and we would
have to broaden the 1911 Act, -to take .in
the whole parcel?
Mr. Zimmerman: Yes. There are actually two parcels of
property owned by Mr. Handler and .the Council
made the -definition- at the hearing in which this lower
parcel was removed from the 1911 Act as originally proposed. .
Motion by Councilman Nichols, seconded by Councilman Young, and
carried, authorizing staff to offer the property owner a trade
involving his gratis dedicating right-of-way for.installation
of the improvements at City expense, and if the property owner
is not willing to trade right-of-way for improvements, that the
City Council -instruct- staff to proceed on the basis of
either alternate 2 or alternate 3.
(Mr. Aiassa asked for permission to add an' additional item to
the Agenda Permission granted by Council.)
35
REG. C.C. 5-25-70 Page Thirty-six
City Manager
Mr. Aiassa: I have the table for the budget hearings
and I would like Council to look it over.:
(Council decided to advise City Manager at the next meeting
if dates scheduled were or were not agreeable.)
CITY CLERK
:.; ABC Applications: a) Rocio So Ladeau dba Rocio°s Mexican
Foods, 2696 E. Garvey Avenue
b) Von°s Grocery Co., 1512 E. Amar Road
Motion by Councilman Nichols, seconded by Councilman Shearer,
and carried, no protest on the ABC applications of Items A and B
as listed on the agenda.
0
Request of Jewish War Veterans, Post 1776,
For Permit to sell Fireworks July 1-4,__1970
Motion by Councilman Nichols, seconded by Councilman Young, and
carried, that permission be granted.
CITY TREASURER'S REPORT
Motion by Councilman Nichols, seconded by Councilman Young, and
carried, to receive and file the City Treasurer's report of
April, 1970,
MAYOR'S REPORTS
Mayor Chappell: This proposed resolution of commendatim
is on the retiring of the Assistant
Superintendent of Schools and I would
recommend Council acceptance. (No'objectionso)
RESOLUTION NO. 4163 The City A.ttorn_ey_presented:
ADOPTED "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF WEST COVINA,
COMMENDING NORBERT F. FUELLING FOR HIS SERVICES TO THE COMMUNITY."
Mayor Chappell: Hearing no objections, waive further
reading of the body of said Resolution.
Motion by Councilman Nichols, seconded by Councilman Young,
adopting said Resolution. Motion carried on roll call- vote as
follows:
AYES: Councilmen Shearer, Nichols, Young, Lloyd, Mayor Chappell
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
Motion by Councilman Nichols, seconded by Councilman Young,
authorizing the Perma plaquing of Resolution No. 4163. Motion
. carried on roll call vote as follows.
AYES: Councilmen Shearer, Nichols, Young, Lloyd, Mayor Chappell
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
COUNCIL COMMITTEE REPORTS
Councilman Lloyd: I have two things.. I was very much
pleased at the report by staff -ttating
Doug Dawson°s participation in the
arrangements of the visit of the 13 members from Toluca and regret
the trouble encountered with the breakdown of their bus,
indicating a repair bill of $265.78.
36
REG. CoC. 5-25-70
Council Committee Reports
Page Thirty-seven
0-
•
Motion by Councilman Lloyd, seconded by Councilman Young, approv-
ing the payment of $265.78 as itemized on the memorandum from
Doug Dawson and Mr. Aiassa dated May 25th regarding the Toluca
expenses.
Councilman Shearer: Is this out of the $750.00 budgeted
for the Sister City?
(Mr. Aiassa answered "Yes".
Motion carried on roll call vote as
follows:
AYES: Councilmen Shearer, Nichols, Young, Lloyd, Mayor Chappell
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
Councilman Lloyd: I thought it was a very good visitation
and I was most pleased with the response
we got from our citizens in the community,
which further strengthens my opinion that we have interest in the
Sister City program and that we should try to get this program
going. And if we don't get a sufficient amount of interest then
I would recommend dissolving it, but I would like to try.
Mayor Chappell:
Would it be in order for your Committee
to write a letter of thanks to each of
the people that received one of the
gentlemen in their home?.
Councilman Lloyd:
The letter has already been written,
Mr. Mayor, and I'believe it is prepared
for your signature.
Councilman Lloyd:
My other item - I am still interested
in our public service helicopter - what
has happened to .that, after all our
trips, etc.
Mr. Aiassa: You will have a report in probably two
weeks - the next Council meeting.
Councilman Young: I noticed in the material brought over
Friday a couple of checks to the City of
West Covina from State Compensation totalling about $35,000.
I assume that is something good. If any commendation is in order,
Mr. Mayor - I think it should be made.
Mayor Chappell: Yes that is a Workmens.Compensation
dividend. We have had fewer losses and
so we are paid a dividend and we
probably will have our rate reduced because our loss ratio is in
line.
Mr. Aiassa: Mr. Young is right., Back in 1963-64
we had a notice of increase in our
premiums. So we formed a Safety
• Committee and started working to reduce our losses. In 1965-66
we received dividend returns. We have just about completed
reducing the back --up of claims, I believe we have one more big
one to go yet. Since that time we are watching this very.
carefully,and I think staff should be commended on the job they
have done because it is outstanding.
Councilman Young: This .was my intention to commend staff.
- 37 -
49
REG. C.C. 5-25-70
DEMANDS
Page Thirty-eight
Motion by Councilman Young, seconded by Councilman Shearer,
that Council approve Demands totalling $324,914.03 as listed
on Demand Sheet B441 through B442 and C704 through C706. This
total includes payroll and inter -bank Motion
carried on roll call vote as follows:
AYES: Councilmen Shearer, Nichols, Young, Lloyd, Mayor Chappell
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
i
Mr. Aiassa: Mr. Mayor - I would like to bring to
the Council°s attention that not only
Doug Dawson worked on the arrangements
for the visitors from Toluca but appreciation should be mentioned
also for the help from Ramona Vera and Art Velasqugz. Without
their help it would not have been the success it was.
Motion by Councilman Young, seconded by Councilman Lloyd, and
carried, that at 12:20 P.M., this meeting adjourn to June 1,
1970, at 4:30 P.M.
ATTEST:
CITY CLERK
APPROVAL
MAYOR
nb