Loading...
08-24-1970 - Regular Meeting - MinutesMINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL CITY OF WEST COVINA, CALIFORNIA AUGUST 24, 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 the Mayor, and the invocation was given by Reverend William Noblitt of the Inter -Community Hospital. ROLL CALL Present: Mayor Chappell; Councilmen Shearer, Nichols, Lloyd. Councilman Young (Arrived at 7:40 P.M.) Others Present: George Aiassa,.City Manager Lela Preston, City Clerk George Wakefield, City Attorney George Zimmerman, City Engineer Chief Allen Sill John Lippett, Ass°t. City Engineer Leonard Eliot, Controller Richard Munsell, Planning Director Ross Nammar, Administrative Analyst Terry Brandt, Administrative Analyst, Jr. APPROVAL OF MINUTES August 10, 1970 Motion by Councilman Lloyd, seconded by Council- man Shearer, and carried, that the minutes be approved as corrected. Mr. Wakefield: On Page 2, Project No. .SP-70011, first sentence, City Attorney should continue with the addition of: "The results of the bidding were tabulated in a separatememo furnished to members of the City Council." And in the motion that follows the word "Bid" should be "bids". P PRESENTATION PEDESTRIAN SAFETY AWARD Don D. Hoffman: Mr. Mayor and Automobile Club of District Safety Councilmen and Southern Calif. Consultant certainly the citizens of this fine City, I am very pleased to be here tonight. It was just a year ago that we brought an award to this City, one of the highest awards ever given to any city by the Triple A for their pedestrian aid safety achievement program. We thought then the City of West Covina received the award for excellence and to and behold.- I think you should all realize what your Chief of Police has accomplished this year following last year's award of excellence. So we have come .up with a new merit citation made especially for the City of West Covina for their pedestrian program improvement. There is no City around here that was ever so honored and I hope Chief Sill will step forward and present this with me�to the Mayor. Again this is for an improvement program after receiving one of the highest awards last year ever presented. We are very proud to present it to you. Mayor Chappell: Well - Chief of Police - it is once again a pleasure to have you as our Chief of Police when you bring home an award like this. I know you have a special place for this and we want it to hang there in pride of our Police force. Councilman Lloyd: Mr. Mayor, since the Chief is here I would like to take this opportunity not only to add my congratulations and I know the rest of the Council - 1 - REG. C.C. 8-24-70 Page Two feels the same way, but to also thank him on behalf of the East Hills Homeowners' Association for the fine report he has given to the people there. It is always a pleasured as a local legislator, to have the support and help that makes the rest of us up here look good by a man of your caliber - Chief. Chief Sill: The credit should go to the Deputy Chief because he did it while I was on vacation. Councilman Lloyd: Please pass it on to him - congratulations to you and your Assistant Administrator. PUBLIC WORKS ITEMS PRECISE PLAN NO. 568 LOCATION: Northwest corner of Azusa C. L. CONCRETE and Rowland Avenues. Motion by Councilman - Lloyd;.r: peconded by. Counci.ltnan�.Shearer_ , and carried, accepting street improvements and authorizing the release of Mid - Century Insurance Company faithful performance bond No. 9281 67 41 C in the amount of $ 3, 800 . PRECISE PLAN NO. 578 LOCATION: Southeast corner of Azusa F. J. ZOELLE CONSTRUCTION CO. Avenue and Danes Drive. Motion by Councilman Nichols, seconded by Councilman Lloyd, and carried, accepting street improvements and authorizing release of United States Fidelity & Guaranty Company faithful performance bond in the amount of $1, 600. TRACT NO. 30726 LOCATION: Northerly terminus of CROWELL & LARSON Fernwood Street, north of Cameron Ave. Motion by Councilman Shearer, seconded by Councilman Lloyd, and carried, accepting street improvements and authorizing release of Argonaut Insurance Company faithful performance bond No. 072768 in theamount of. $20,000. PROJECT NO. SP-70001 LOCATION: Vine Avenue, between SIDEWALK CONSTRUCTION Hollenbeck Street and Montezuma Ave. (Council reviewed Engineer's report.) Motion by Councilman Shearer, seconded by Councilman Lloyd, and carried, approving construction of the sidewalk on the north side of Vine Avenue between Hollenbeck Street and Montezuma Way in the sidewalk construction Project„ SP-70001. PROJECT NO. SP-71006 LOCATION: Amar Road from Azusa Avenue east to Shadow Oak Drive. (Council reviewed Engineer's report.) Motion by Councilman Young, seconded by Councilman Lloyd, approving participation of Umark in the City's .project in the amount estimated in staff report dated August 21, 1970, subject to-approv.al.of .a.. formal agreement prior to award of contract; and approving plans and specifications and authorizing the City Engineer to call for bids for construction of Amar Road between Azusa Avenue and Shadow Oak Drive. Councilman Lloyd: Mr. Aiassa, we are not expending any funds.. tonight? Mr. Aiassa: No, but you are approving the negotiating City Manager of a formal agreement of the contract. Motion carried. - 2 - REG. C.C. B-24-70 Public Works;.Items - Cont°d. Page Three PROJECT NO. S.P-69007 ACCEPTING GRANT DEED ALBERT HANDLER LOCATION: Southwesterly corner of -.C.ameron.and Azusa Avenues., (Reviewed Public Service Director's report.) Councilman Nichols: Mr. Mayor, Council directed staff to explore this matter and I think the recommendation. that Is before us is the best that can.be achieved, so I would move that City Council ratify the agreement. dated August 12, 1970,.between. the City and Albert Handler, Councilman Young-: I will second that motion, but I do have a .question, having been in somewhat of the same position at an earlier time - weare taking 201 of .depth from this property - is that correct? (Answer: Yes) As I recall when Lark Ellen was.expanded it was 101 that was taken and as a rule 201 is somewhat of an unusually large - amount of footage. Mr. Aiassa: 'The reason we are taking 201 this is the City Manager widening expansion of a major street - Azusa Avenue. We did take 201 originally from. Mr. Handler on the fir..st.hal.f.under the 1911 Act improvement program. Councilman Young:. I thinkin light of the larger amount of footage involved it does appear fair and reasonable to me, particularly in light of the other alternatives. Mr. Aiassa: Also/ this complies with the recommended City Manager policies we have set up for the Committee that reviews these items. Motion carried. RESOLUTION NO. 4222 The City Clerk presented.: ADOPTED "A.RESOLUTION OF THE -CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF WEST COVINA ACCEPTING GRANT DEED EXECUTED BY ALBERT HANDLER AND DIRECTING THE RECORDATION. THEREOF".. (PROJECT No. SP-6900 7 _) Mayor Chappell: He:aring�no:.bbjections, waive.further'reading. of the body .of said- Resolution. Motion by Councilman'Nichols, seconded by Councilman Shearer, adopt- ing said Resolution. Motion carried -on roll call vote as follows: AYES: Councilmen Shearer, Nichols, Young, Lloyd, Mayor Chappell NOES: None ABSENT: None RESOLUTION NO."4223 .The City ..Clerk .presented: ADOPTED "A -RESOLUTION OF THE .CITY .COUNCIL OF. THE..CITY OF WEST COVINA ACCEPTING GRANT DEED EXECUTED BY THE BRATTAIN ASSOCIATES, A LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, AND DIRECTING THE RECORDATION T.HEREOF.41(Unclassified Use Permit.No.. 1.53) Mayor Chappell: Hearing -no objections,..waive further reading. of the body of said Resolution. Motion by Councilman Shearer, 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 RATES FOR PROFESSIONAL (Council reviewed Engineer's report.) SERVICES BY CONSULT- ING ENGINEERS Mayor Chappell: Mr. Zimmerman do you have anything further 3 - REG. C.C. 8-24-70 Page Four Public Works Items - Contd. to add to this report? Mr. Zimmerman: No, Mr. Mayor, this is a yearly item. City Engineer Mr. Gilmore: Mr. Mayor, if I may make a comment.... -Under the. State Professional Code what you..probably mean is Civil Engineer and you are including Consulting Engineers. I suggest you change it to Consulting. -Civil Engineers. Mr. Wakefield: Mr. Mayor and members of the City Council, City Attorney. if there i-s a name change in the recently adopted legislation it hasn't come to my attention. I think- that a Consulting Engineer is necessarily a registered Civil Engineer. Mr. Gilmore: Not now. It is a separate category. Councilman Young: Would it be appropriate to refer this back to staff in light of the comments made? Is it crucial that we complete this tonight? Mr. Zimmerman: No, I don't believe it would be crucial City Engineer other than the accepting date was to be Augu,s.t 1 to conform to the date of the raise in rates of the unions working for the Consulting Engineers.. Councilman Young: Could -we make it retro-active? I believe the report would be accepted, but if it is a matter of terminology and apparently there is legislation which we are not familiar with. Councilman Nichols: I don't believe we can make a matter of this type retroactivebeyond the first of. .the pay period that would be included.in .such a remuneration —would that be correct Mr. City Attorney? (.Answer: That is correct.) So if we delayed beyond the end of August it could not be made effective as of the -first of -August. Mr. Wakefield: It could be ..approved..subject to the`correction City Attorney of the title so it reflects the. -new legislation. Councilman Shearer: Mr. Mayor, it would seem-to.me a motion could. be formed to get it out of the.way and not refer back to staff, mere:ly have the. recommendation that the Ci.ty.Council .approves the proposed rates sub- mitted by these firms., namely:. Evans and Associates, Inc., and Walsh-Forkert, Inc.:..;. Wi"thou-ty-any::refeey.ence. to thoir .pr•o:fe.ssion.ai:, .title, -and- .I ' wli- so move_. Motion seconded by Councilman Nichols, and carried on roll call vote as follows: AYES: Councilmen Shearer, Nichols, Young,.Lloyd, Mayor Chappell NOES: None _ ....._.. ABSENT: None PLANNING COMMISSION Action of August 19, 1970 City Council reviewed action.of the Planning Commission. Motion by Councilman Nichols, seconded by Councilman Lloyd, and carried, that.City Council receive and file,the actions of the Planning Commission. - 4 - t FJ REG. C.C. 8-24-70 WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS Page Five LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA Motion by Councilman Nichols, second - CITIES ed by Councilman Lloyd, and carried, referring consideration of Resolutions to the City Manager's agenda, Item 1-11.' LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA Motion by Councilman Shearer, seconded CITIES.- ESTABLISHING by Councilman Nichols, and carried, OF TRAFFIC SAFETY WARRANTS referring this item to the Traffic & POLICIES FOR PROTECTION Committee. OF STUDENTS MIKE HANICH REQUEST Councilman Young-: Mr. Mayor, I can't believe this is serious. I know we have taken umbrage when a contractor that hadn't been paid for several months, wrote us a nasty letter ..... I would be happy to pay this $1.50 rather than move it be .referred to staff. Councilman Lloyd: I would have to point out that Mr. Hanich, sometime in the .past on several occasions, has been a client of mine and if anyone should pay it I should pay it. Councilman Nichols: There may be some unusual .and unnecessary re- lease of water under the freeway that would in fact virtually erase all .signs of good care of an automobile and if that is the case we should know about it, so I would refer it to staff and get a report back. Seconded by Councilman Shearer, and carried. MRS. H. B. SHREINER Motion by Councilman Young, seconded by re SIDEWALKS ON Councilman Lloyd, and carried, referring this MERCE.D AVENUE letter to staff. HRARTMag PROJECT NO- SP-68007 LOCATION: West side of Glendora Avenue STREET IMPROVEMENT between South _City Limits and Service Avenue. PROTEST HEARING ON HEARING OF -PROTESTS --AND OBJECTIONS to costs ASSESSMENTS - 1911 ACT of construction of .cur.b,-gutter, sidewalk,. (SHORT FORM) driveway approaches and .water line relocation. Set for hearing on this date by --Resolution No. 4199, adopted July. 27, - 19.70. Mayor Chappell: Madam City Clerk, do you have the affidavit of posting and mailing? City Clerk: Yes, I do. Motion by Councilman Young, seconded by Councilman Shearer and carried, that Council receive and file affidavit of posting and mail- ing. Mayor Chappell: Mr. City Engineer will you present the factual. data of the Engineer's Report? Mr. Zimmerman: Yes, Mr. Mayor. Construction under the 1911 City Engineer Act.Proc.edure (Short Form) was accomplished on the west side of Glendora Avenue between the south City Limits and Service Avenue. Prior to construction at 831,.835, 841, .845, 849, 853, 861, . 9.17, 909, and 905 South Glendora Avenue, more than 50/ of the adjoining frontage in the block was improved. The original estimate for con- - 5 - REG. C.C. 8-24-70 HEARINGS - Cont`d. Page Five - (a) struction quoted to the property owners was $10,248.40. Actual construction figures and the amount of proposed assessments to the property owners is $9,838.00. At 669 South Glendora Avenue, all parties had petitioned for improve- ments under the Short Form 1911 Act Procedure. The actual con- struction figures and the amount of proposed assessments to the property owners is $8,763.00. Thi-s amount is the same as was originally estimated. Mr. Mayor, this conclude_s.my...report. Motion by Councilman Young, seconded by Councilman Lloyd, and carried, that City Council receive and file the Eng.inee.r°s..report. Mayor Chappell: Madam City Clerk, have you received any written protests or objections against the assessmentfor'.the.improvements as proposed? City Clerk: No, I have not. Mr. Wakefield: Mr. Mayor andmembersof the City .Council, City Attorney you will .recall that sometime ago the City Council authorized the work to.be done that is involved in these .particular -proceedings. At that time,' one of the items that was in controversy as far as the property owners were concerned was the location of a certain water pipe. . The pipe had been r.e.located in connection with other improvements along the street and apparently at that time it was in a deteriorated condition. However, it was there by v.irtue. of a prior right on the part of the water company, and the City really had no alternative but to relocate :the-.pi.:pe, and the. property . owners involved in these..proceedings, some at least, at that time protested the relocation of .the pipe-.and.-asked,to be relieved ofthat_.burden. The City Council finally determined to proceed with.the.improve- ments as planned::and adopted the: resolutions •and the report, of .the staff. The ,work- .has now been done .and the .protest hearing this evening is . simply to .hear those persons who desire .to-...pro.test .against the spread of the assessment. Whether or not certain items of work, such as the -water line, were or, were :not :properly included .is, .not before the Council- tonight. The work -has been done -In accordance with the approved plans and specifications and,.the.question for resolution now is.the.determination..by Council whether or not the cost of the work has been fair and equitably spread among the property owners involved. THIS IS THE TIME AND PLACE FOR THE PUBLIC HEARING OF PROTESTS OR OBJECTIONS. Wes Travis Much of what I was going to say this 831 South Glendora Avenue evening was shot down.by your good West Covina Counsel when I realized the motive and reason for this meeting... I would:l.ike to bring _to. -your atten- tion - but I am not going to embarrass myself -.by bringing.anything.. up that is.not pertinent, but -if I may I would like to say -one thing to you in all sincerity. I would Like t_o..request that you treat me with the same consideration shown to the owner of 715 South Glendora Avenue when I . understand he protested a. like- arse-ssment .a . few- ye.ars ago, and I understand it has not been paid. I would like to say for the record that I applaud his stand and I think it is unfair that we are assessed and I don't think I should be compelled to pay - 5(a) - I • REG. C.C. 8-24-70 HEARINGS - Cont'd. Page Six it, and I hope that you would -extend the -same consideration to me that you did to him. Thank you for your attention. Art Pizzo I also feel that the assessment of the 841-845 South Glendora water pipe location is very unfair and I am West Covina going to do everything I can not to pay it. As far as the sidewalk and curb - I don't mind. The street doesn't belong to me, the..pipe doesn't belong to me and it doesn't bring any water to me and I don't see any reason why I should pay for it. Thank you. THERE BEING NO FURTHER PUBLIC TESTIMONY FOR OR AGAINST, PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED. COUNCIL DISCUSSION. Councilman Nichols: Counsel commented and -perhaps I misunderstood - that the matter of the water line came up subsequent to the original drafting of the improvement district - is that correct? Mr. Wakefield: It is my..understanding that at the time City Attorney of the original hearing to undertake the work, the matter came up at that time. Councilman Nichols: Were the costs of the relocation includ- ed in the .original estimates? Mr. Wakefield: Yes, they were. City'Attorney Councilman Nichols: Were all of the property owners involved advised of these relocation costs at that time? Mr. Wakefield: It is _my:_unders-tanding.. that they were City Attorney and that the cost of relocation of the pipe was separately stated along with the cost of the remaining portions of the work. MCNE REG. C.C. 8-24-70 HEARINGS . ( Glendora Ave.) - Cont. Page Seven I • Councilman Nichols,,: Then the information concerning the re- location of the water .pipe was available at the time the Council held the hearing concerning the establishment of the district? (Answer: Yes sir.) I would like permission of the chair to ask Mr. Travis to step forward and advise us of the nature of the dissatisfaction? It is obvious apparently you are dissatisfied with the amount of the assessment and the fact that this assessment is being made, but if what I understand is correct, did you express this to the Council at the time the district was established? Mr. Travis: No, I did not. Councilman Nichols: Why did you not? Mr, Travis: To be ..perfectly frank I thought it would not be approved based on the information I had. I should have been here but to be frank with you that was the reason. Councilman Nichols: Thank you. One of my pet peeves over the years that I have served on the City Council is the fact of levying charges against the property owners for the relocation of these utility lines, which in the main don't bring any particular advantage to the property owner at all. That is the major utility lines serving areas far wider. Over the years the Council has finally reached - I think - the general consensus that when we come to improving major streets that there is some difference in therhilos©phy .as to who should pay for them as compared to the improvement of a cul-de-sac street or minor streets. In relation to the utility lines we -have streets where we have major avenues and water lines that service a very wide area and these lines have deteriorated over the years and the assessment is levied against the person that happens to abut the street even tho.ugh.:his immediate benefit from that improvement is significantly less. I have felt consistently, even back when we improved Sunset Avenue sometime ago, that these assessments against.abutting..property owners are not really "f air in terms of the equity. Will you correct me if I am wrong, that this line is one in fact which serves other than the immediate frontages abutting it? Mr. Zimmerman: Yes,the line in various places is a 12" line City Engineer and in others a 16" line.and it does serve as a transmission line. Councilman Nichols: What portion of the cost of that improvement is being assessed against the property owners? Mr. Zimmerman: The largest amount was for a 1211 line and that City Engineer was actually put in the ground by the water company in two locations. Where the 16" Line was put in the water Company paid for. it - for the._upsiz,ing. Councilman Nichols: Are you saying that the property owners in this district are being assessed for the 12" line? Mr. Zimmerman: That is correct. City Engineer Councilman Nichols: As Mr. Wakefield has indicated, this hearing fundamentally is to establish the equity of the spread of the assessment and obviously the horse is well out of the barn and running down the street, and I don't know where I was resting or sleeping at the time but probably somewhere in the same building with Mr. Travis, because we both let this one get past us. Mayor Chappell: You voted "no" on it Councilman Nichols. 7 - I 0 REG. C.C. 8-24-70 Page Eight HEARINGS (Glendora.Ave.j _ Cont. Councilman Nichols: I did - then I was more wakeful on it then I remember. If I voted "no" and I lost then I will just complain again tonight and rest on it. Mayor Chappell: It was a 3 to 2 vote. Mr. Aiassa, why didn't Councilman Nichols get the notes that were reproduced on this? I know you were on vacationobut somebody? Mr. Aiassa: As a normal procedure if one councilman City Manager gets it then all' the councilmen get.it, unless it is a specific request of one of. them. Councilman Young: I didn't get the minutes but I received the memo of Councilman Nicholssprevious position which was just restated. Councilman Nichols: I am sorry I didn't know you had received it, if I had known you were appraised of my feelings I would not have restated. Councilman Young-: The testimony this evening goes to that issue and I personally regret the inconsistent treatment, if any, according to Mr. Travis,,. comment about the owner at 715 and I also regret Mr. Pizzo°s continued displeasure in the matter, but I don't think _there is any alternative except to make a motion that we adopt the resolution proposed here as to the appropr.iati:on costs and I will so move. Councilman Shearer: I will second the motion, but I would like to to be the one of agreement. How Mr. Zimmerman: City Engineer know approximately of the total $17,000 roughly,$10.,000 in location 1 - which seems concern, apparently location 2 there was no dis- much of that was related to the water line? Councilman Shearer: Council, and before this point? If you will give me a moment I will go through our records and attempt to give it to you. While the City Engineer is looking up .that. information a question of the .City Attorney. Could the matter at the discretion of the stating.any position on my part, be reopened at Mr. Wakefield: There is no provision in the statute which City Attorney authorizes it reopened at this point in the proceedings and the question of the necessity of the work or the amount of the work actually done. That matter was resolved -at the time the original resolution of intention was adopted and the property owners were ordered to either..perform the work or have the city perform it for them. What we .are confronted with tonight is an expenditure that has been made by the City .and _we are now talking about the spread of that assessment against the several property owners in a fair and equitable manner to represent the recovery of the expenditure made in performance of the work. Councilman Shearer:, What recourse would the property owners have if this assessment were made? Mr. Wakefield: They have none other than ultimately paying City .Attorney the assessment. It becomes a lien against the property until the assessment is dis- charged. REG. C.C. 8-24-70 Page Nine HEARINGS - (GleiA ra Ave . ) - Cont . Councilman Young: Wouldn't it be possible for them to proceed by way of a writ to test the matter in the Courts, if they still disagreed? Or does time run that fast -.-on council actions? Mr. Wakefield: No, but taxes'.and assessments of this sort, City Attorney as I view the matter, are not reviewable on a writ. However, we do have one such case still in litigation which involved the Japanese —American Society on a piece of property in the Civic Center. A suit was filed to compel the cancellation of that assessment; the matter has been.pe.nding'in the courts now for over 3 years and -the petitioners.have not yet seen fit to bring the matter to trial, although it has been set for trial on one or two occasions. It is a writ procedure (explained further). As I view the law on this subject the recourse of the property owner is to pay the assessment and sue for refund. Councilman Young: But one way or the other you do see available court procedure to the property .. owner? Mr. Wakefield: Yes. I believe he has the right to pay the City Attorney assessment and then sue the City for a refund if he is in a position to establish that the assessment has been invalidly levied in the first instance. Mr. Zimmerman:Mr. Mayor, approximately $6700. of the total City Engineer assessment of $9800. was for the water line. installation. Councilman Nichols: This hearing is to determine the spread and the equity of the costs of the improvement district - - to your knowledge would there be anything under law -that would prevent Council from maki-ng a con- tribution to these districts and thereby reduce the total .assessment?.. Mr. Wakefield: A contribution could have been authorized by City Attorney Council at the time the original.proceedings were initiated and that was not done in this instance. I am sure you are familiar with cases in the past - where the City'contributed to the cost of basic street improvements and the cost of curbs, gutters, etc., have -bed n'.as8essed7ag.atnst,:-the.. property owner. Had it been the determination of the City Council to make a contributionequalto the co.st of the relocation of the water line or a portion of that cost.at the time .the Resolution of Intention was adopted and the work ordered that could have been done. To do so at this time simply would relieve the property owners of a burden that to this point has been lawfully assessed to them... The City has now spent the money on the basis of the street improvements involved. This is the means by which that expenditureis recovered so far as the City is concerned. Councilman Nichols: I don't see any other avenue to explore from. my point of view. Councilman Shearer: Was this a city initiated project? Mr. Wakefield: Yes sir. Under the existing provisions of City Attorney the law if more than 50/ of a block.has -- - been improved the City .may initiate ..pro- ceedings to compel. the remaining property owners in the block to install or permit the installation of the improvements to conform the entire block to the street alignment established. This is done under the so-called Short Form of the 1911 Act. It is a simplified assessment district procedure 'and used in that limited situation. 9 - REG. C.C. 8-24-70 Page Ten HEARINGS(Glendora,.Aveo? - Cont. Councilman Shearer: I realize these questions are encroaching, which we are not to do, so unless I am ruled out of order I will continue for my own edification. The other 51% or more of the area that was improved, did this, also require the relocation of the water line and if so was it done at the private property owner's expense? Mr. Zimmerman: Mr. Mayor, actually these were the last City Engineer properties to be improved on this particu- lar stretch of road from Merced Avenue to Christopher Avenue, the others had been done by the property owners under various requirements such as precise plan requirements; there was one area near Cameron Avenue that was done in connection with a street project for the property owners and except for the one at 715 South Glendora, did pay for the addition of the water line and the street improvements. To my knowledge all properties that have been improved over the past 15 years or so were at property owners° expense with the one exception. Councilman Shearer:. We recently approved a policy for the City regarding dedication of right-of-way and improvements depending on whether it was a city improvement or private property - how would this proj.ect be handled under that policy today? Mr. Zimmerman: Mr. Shearer, I am sorry I don't have the City Engineer policy with me and I don't really recall. I couldn't answer without reviewing the policy. Mayor Chappell: Can you tell us why 715 is not paid when we have the right to condemn it or put a tax lien on it? Mr. Zimmerman: Mr. -Mayor, I believe it is in reality still City Engineer pending and while the individual has not paid he has not been forgiven either. It is .probably 5 years old now and there has never been a method found which would legally require him to pay. It is a complicated matter that would take considerable explaining which probably should be made in written report after reviewing the file. Motion carried on roll call vote as follows: Councilman Shearer: "Aye" Councilman Nichols: "Aye" and my vote is on the basis of the equity of the spread of the assessment and has no bearing at all on the basis of the assessment. Councilman Young: "Aye") and I think we would all join Councilman Nichols°remarks in our vote. .Councilman Lloyd: "Aye", and I reiterate the comments of Council- man Nichols and Councilman Young and reluctantly vote "aye Mayor Chappell: It looks like.we all have the same feeling. I will reluctantly vote "Aye". Councilman Shearer: Mr. Mayor, another question. Due.to the fact we have all voted as we stated "reluctantly, aye"j I wonder if it would be.' in order for the City Attorney to explore the possibility of legally reopening. this, If we all feel this may not be a proper assessment I think we should explore the reopening of the situation. If I were the only one I would not pursue this but since we all seem to be of the same mind I was wondering if Mr. Wakefield might explore it sand report back. Obviously if we go to Court and as in the case of 715 if the money is never paid, what do we gain other than gaining a few dissatisfied citizens in our community. 10 - REG. C.C. 8-24-70 Page Eleven HEARINGS (Glendora Ave. - Canto Councilman .Nichols: I would go along with your thinking and move that the City Council direct the City Attorney to explore this matter and report back to Council the feasibility, if any, in attempting to modify the final assessments and actions of the Council to this deed in respect to this matter. Councilman Young: I think we have a broader problem in the assessment on these particular properties: we have the situation that arises throughout the City whenever water lines have to be moved and particularly the larger lines and what have we done and what is fair and what'isn°t fair and what is standard municipal procedure in this area. I think we have to consider that principally and further are we going to establish the policy of the City paying for the water lines, which is certainly involved, and at one point,at least, a minority of the Council felt it should and further what participation if any should the water company have. It is a private company as all of the water companies are in West Covina. Councilman Nichols: You are very correct,)'Council.man Young, and certainly any action I would entertain on this matter would presage a review of the overall picture, but the urgent matter is the immediate one and there areas you say, many technicalities to be considered - the prior rights of the water company, who would have to share these expenses and perhaps it would not be propitious for Council to move into this area. Councilman Young: I would suggest the staff studying with the City Attorneys the city°s involvement in these areas, so we will know first what we are dealing with. Motion seconded by Councilman.Shearer. Councilman Lloyd: I would like to point out.to this Council and particularly Councilman Shearer in this case, that he has not opened something new. I remember expressing the same consternation and .frustration over a similar situation about two years ago. This continually arises and I, am sure Cou-ncilman Nichols has done so far more often than the rest. of us as a result of his service on this body. I know I have personally asked the City Attorney what we could do to relieve the pressure to the individual and he had some very specific comments and I know he will be glad to resubmit them. I think we face a very difficult situation as a legislator in the fact that we seem to see what appears to be a moral injustice yet it fulfills the requirements of the law. Unfortunately when I said I was"reluctant" I 'amo, but I am not reluctant to interrupt the normal processes of the administra- tive function of this City, but I am very reluctant normally to ask people to pay when there i.s an inequity involved - not a legal one but a moral one. I am presumptuous to this point, that I think you will find when the report is submitted there is very little we can do without opening Pandora's box. While I feel very strongly in the case of Mr. Travis and Mr. Pizzo, I think there .are.problems presented to the City when you get all through with it and the reason I voted "aye" and the others voted "aye" is the fact that there is really nothing we can do. The problems we are now dealing with have to do with an old water pipe that ...is inadequate to serve and which has been a part of the problems this City has had and were created a great many years back.and the municipal law which is applicable and the engineering studies and all of the functions that have preceded the problem we are now presented with, unfortunately simply didn't occur only in the"enlightened" situation we have at ,the present moment. Motion carried. REG. C.C. 8-24-70 Page Twelve HEARINGS (Glendora, Ave.) Cont. Mr. Wakefield: If it is the desire of the Council to continue the final action on this matter, _which would be the adoption of the Resolu- tion which actually spreads the assessment toe Resolution should be continued on your agenda until the next regular meeting and in the meantime with the help of the staff I will try and prepare some kind of an adequate report for you. Motion by Councilman Nichols, seconded by Councilman Shearer, and carried, that Council delay consideration of the enacting of the Resolution until the first regular meeting in September, September 14, 1970. Councilman Shearer: In connection with that I would request that I be furnished with a copy of the minutes when this hearing was discussed originally, and perhaps the other members of the Council would like the same. Mr. Aiassa: Mr. Mayor, I would also like to express for the record that this water line situation is not a new one in West Covina, and the City Council not too many years ago got penalized with a very large expense for the lowering of an old pipe that was left in the ground so long that there was nothing left of it, and this happened when we made the major improvements on Sunset Avenue and at that time the City took its share about $8800,, but because they had a prior commitment as far as street right-of-way the City was obligated to lower the ` pipe line. Sunset School was also involved and the cost for lowering ' the pipe was almost as much or more than the physical construction of the street. So this is not an easy matter to solve with an easy kind of a policy. Councilman Nichols: I might only add that the situation in.this sort of thing seems to be generally that'the benefiting agency is the water company. The water company gains a new pipe line which will last 50 or 75 years at no expense to itself at all. A pipe line that in many cases:.in....our City, has deteriorated to the point it needs replacing and it just.. really depends on who can.out-wait whom. If we can wait long enough they will have to replace it, .but because of their prior rights in the streets if we can't wait then we have to replace. The inequity comes when we try to involve the individual property owners in picking up the cost, which in reality should, from a moral standpoint, accrue to the water company. (On request, permission granted by Council to allow Mr. Travis to speak.) Mr. Travis: Touching upon your statementlMr. Nichols, especially when the property owner is not being serviced by that particular line. That is the unf air part .of it. Mr. Aiassa: This was also true on Sunset Avenue where the City paid the $8800. And I will see that Council is supplied with a copy of the previous minutes on this matter. 1970-1971 WEED AND LOCATION: Throughout the City. RUBBISH ABATEMENT (Council reviewed Engineer's Report.) PROGRAM Hearing of'protests or objections from owners and other interested parties to the proposed program of weed and rubbish abatement for 1970-1971, pursuant to Resolution of Intention No. 4218, adopted August 10, 1970. Mayor Chappell: Madam City Clerk, do you have 'the affidavit of mailing? - 12 - REG. C.C. 8-24-70 HEARINGS (Weed Ab-atement) - Cont. Page Thirteen City Clerk. Yes, I have. Motion by Councilman Young, seconded by Councilman Lloyd, and carried, _-to :receive:..and file affidavit of ,mailing. Mayor Chappell: Madam City Clerk, have you received any written protests or objections against the performance of this work-? City Clerk: I have one letter of protest from Paul Townsend, 3004 Sunset Hill Drive, West Covina (read letter). THIS IS THE TIME AND PLACE FOR THE PUBLIC HEARING OF PROTESTS OR OBJECTIONS. Albert Gilmore I think.. over .a period of 8 years. I_ have been 835 South Orange. ..., .putting. -.in a writtenrequest that..I. be..taken. West Covina off the -list and .I have been -assured each. year that I would be, but I .still receive the notices. Then last year somone didn't like the fact that I was fiberglassing a boat in the back yard, which I thought was legal, so I got a notice of $200. to remove the things in the back yard which turned out to be a boat and firewood. So I ended up taking the firewood, which I generate from our own trees for bur.ning..in the fireplace and I had to have that hauled off .and-then.they sent me a letter saying that due to the fact that I had -complied with.the legal.spirit of the Ordinance I could ignore the previous letter. Now nothing has happened since that time. What I do. on the..rear. portion of my lot, which is about 1401 to 2301 back, I have fruit trees on there and on a portion of that grass grows up to .about.l2" and I knock the grass down by driving over it. It is down to less than an inch of -the ground. I do that r.ather.than disc it because I don't want the blowing of the dirt. Now unfortunately you -.moved in with a city truck on the adjacent property on Garvey Avenu.e.and the. contractor has done half .the.. job, he has swung his disc- .around..abou.t half the lot and left the wild mustard -all along the fence. line on Garvey Avenue and when you.look at -the property -you think it..is my... property. My property doesn't have anything at all except dry gr.as.s.. during the summer because.I justdon't-carry a lawn back that far. There is not a weed' on the whole place because .I -knock them .down. when they show up,early and ..I. have gotten rid of the wild mustard,,.. therefore I say to you and.I have said this to the City.Engineer and particularly Mr. Bonaparte - who seems to have a vendatta against me - but- what does .he mean? I will do .anything ask.ed....but...I........ would like to know what it is.and I.want to -be taken off the list. Just because my lot is 2301..de.ep I.don°t think I automatically should be given_a notice each year. I was assured by Mr. Russell five years ago that I would. be .removed James E. Mort . I own the -property -adjacent _to.Mr. Gilmore, 829 South Orange on the corner. What I. would like to find-. West Covina out, according to your letter .the _City wasn ° t, .supposed to take any action..until September 21. Well someone was in, -these 3. -or. -4- weeks ,ago :and - did.. a., half job there.. I don ° t know who did .it but I- .was going to contr.act.. out and have it. done. The letter .I received said I--would-n°t be. penalized until after-September--2-1. I.. would l,i-ke to.-.kno.w.w.ho_...did.. it? Mr. Gilmore saidthey didn't do a good job and left the weeds..along. the fence and only did about half .of the back yard. _I have seen.that but I don't know who did it. It is a rental -piece of property, I don't live there and according to the notice I thought I had until.....-. f September 21 to-do it.. Mayor Chappell: Thank.you. We will check into that. Mr. Wakefield: Mr.' Mayor, if there are no other protests City Attorney then it would be in order for the City Council 13 - REG. C.C. 8-24-70 HEARINGS (Weed_Abatement) - Cont Page Fourteen to refer the one written protest and the two oral protests to the City Engineer with instructions to conduct whatever investigation — is necessary. If weeds.have.been abated prior to the.September.21.. deadline then the names of the protestors should be removed from the list and the balance of the list approved and the City Council. should order the ,abatement of weeds and rubbish on those.properties. THERE BEING NO FURTHER PUBLIC TESTIMONY THE CHAIR DECLARED THE. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED. COUNCIL DISCUSSION. Councilman. Young:..-.. A question of the City -Attorney. Assu.m.ing. - that Mr. Mort, Mr. Townsend and Mr.. Gilmore, are removed from the list and.then assuming that the City disagrees with their own maintenance.of the property independent of..our.weed abatement program, I take it that it would be handled by our own Special Service Officer, who would conduct further communications.. on this matter. Mr. Wakefield: There is always a supplemental list submitted City Attorneyto the City Council for.approval on..proper- ties which for one reason or another were not included on the original list because the weeds were not present at that time and if weeds are pre.sent those properties will be includ- ed in the supplemental list. Motion by Councilman Young, seconded by Councilman Lloyd, that the written and oral protestations be submitted to the City Engineer's office for removal from the list, and that otherwise the weed and rubbish abatement program be approved. Councilman Nichols: I think- the Council°s concern.rightfully should go beyond the compla-int.of- Mr. Mort - that_his.property was abated -in recent weeks when he had received a notice of compliance prior to September 21, 1970, which is yet a month away from now. If .in.f act the city abatement agency, the firm that received the contract, _.is...out chopping.. down the weeds 5 or 6 weeks -in advance of the legaldeadline for property owner compliance we may have .a whole.serie.s of illegal actions on private .property which the. city couldn.°t. r.ig.ht.fully bill. . for. This could be applicable to any number of a large...number of others and I don't want to open' Pandora °-s box, .but Mr.. Aiass.a I would like to be assured that you would direct staff to look into this immediately to see what position our contractor is putting us - in. With regard to names reappearing .on the list, I personally -.had occasion to communicate with staff several times where names appeared -repeatedly on the abatement list even though there was no reason for the names to appear, and I would hope_... we could tighten up that procedure also. Mayor Chappell:. Mx...Aias-sa,-when we sent this letter out we gave them a deadline and if they provide their- own service before the deadline -we ignore them and do not bill them? Mr. Aiassa: After our inspections if we find it has. City Manager been done satisfactorEy� they -are .removed from the list -and are not_. placed for .an assessment charge; and if not done satisfactorily they are..no.tified that it has not .been done satisfactorily and the.;( they have --a certain time to redo. it. If they fail to do it -and -over. pass, the. time allowed then we haveto put them on the supplemental list for. Council approval With regard to the question.Mr. Nichols..br.ought.. up, I am not sure this is the 1970-71 abatement and we may .be.. having some stragglers from the 1969-70 program that are still being policed and cleared, so an investigation will have to be made to check that out. - 14 - REG. C.C. 1 8-24-70. Page Fifteen HEARINGS (Weed Abatement) - Cont. Mayor Chappell: What was the deadline date - maybe it wasn't September 21? Councilman Lloyd: It was September 21, I did see the letter. Mayor Chappell-. Then someone is acting a little hastily in . clearing the w6eds - Mr. Aiassa. If there is no further discussion we do have a motion and a second on the floor to submit to staff. Motion carried. THE CHAIR DECLARED A RECESS AT 8:55 P.M. COUNCIL RECONVENED AT 9.:07 P.M. ZONE CHANGE -..NO. 442 LOCATION: South:side.of Cameron Avenue PRECISE PLAN NO. 599 adjacent to and west of. Walnut Creek MAURICE ZEBKER Channel. REQUEST: 1) Approval of.a change.of zone from R-1 to O-P for a triangularly shaped 2.07 acre parcel; and 2) approval 9f a precise plan for office uses on the existing O-P and proposed.b-.P zoned parcels of 4.39 acres. Recommended by Planning Commission Resolutions Nos. 2276 and 2277. (The Planning Director summarized verbally Planning Commission Resolutions Nos. 2276 and 2277; slides shown and explained.) Mr. Munsell: One further comment. Staff, due .to the Planning Director requirements of the applicant, indicated that phasing development would-be appropriate in the order as stated, should the City Council take positive action to approve the Precise Plan and the Zoning..' The Precise.Plan.could take place without going through:.the process of waiting two months for the usual procedure. Al.so inthe event the Council -should. not desire.... to recommend the Zone Change, the .applicant could still .go-ahead. with a development plan because .it,is.a contained.unit.and.meets.al.l the codes. Staff has also indicated that either one.of the locations that you have before you here are all contained._units .and.,. it is possible to have development occur in either one .of them; either Phases,I. A and D, Phases`B and C being the commercially zoned property. It is possible that we may see the Allstate.Building go up immediately, should you have a favorable. approval., or it is possible that we. may see a. cur.r..ent. development which would require - architectural approval. THERE BEING NO FURTHER PUBLIC TES.T.IMONY, PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED. COUNCIL DISCUSSION. Councilman Young,:. I would like -to comment that I did s.it.in with the -Planning Commission - silently; and it was thoroughly discussed and gone over and it seems to be an..appropriate zone change request.. I.think the Planning Commission did.a good job and .the hack of any speakers -here. tonight is indicative of that facto There was only one speaker at': the Planning Commission hearing and that was the owner of the property. So I am prepared to go along with the recommendation. Councilman Nichols: May,I have a presentation showing the. proximity of this parcel. to Sawyer .Avenue? (Slide shown and -the Planning Director explained the location of the property in relation to the various streets in the area.). Councilman Nichols: .... Thank you. The present zoning .wa.s.,.pu.t on .the property 4 or 5 years ago andthere.w.as.some thought on the part of staff, at that time,. that they might be able to'develop some additional ending of Sawyer Avenue, perhaps turn it and bring out to Cameron Avenue, and for that - 15 - REG. C.C. 8-24-70 1 Page Sixteen HEARINGS -(Z/C 442) - Cont. reason at that time it was held in R-1, but obviously the passage of time has concluded that 'is not feasible, so I mould concur with Councilman You-ng.,.that this is appropriate zoning-. The only .other - question would be that portion of the property that abuts right __up . to the end of Sawyer, what will be the treatment there? Is Sawyer to be chopped off dead? We have taken some of these streets and. made additional improvement at the -end. Mr.,Munsell: The staff has set the requirements that Planning Directorall of the property line that would abut the.singl.e family residential would have the normal mall and a-61 screening .of landscaped plantings. It is the determination of the City Attorney that we could -.not require. cul- de- saccing on the applicant's property since the street would. not service his property. The determination as to whether.i.t would. be a modified cul-de-sac within the existing street right-of-way in the existing development has not.been made as part of this item, however, staff had discussed it. Councilman Nichols: How could we require developments along Azusa Avenue to be paid for by the developer when we closed Danes and cut- de-sacced when that street didn't service the property being developed, yet in one case I believe we have a lien right now against a parcel for paying his share of the,cost. What is the difference? Mr. Wakefield: You will recall that this situation here City Attorney this evening is similar to that encountered when the Haefner-Chrysler-Plymouth property was rezoned some 6 or 8 months -ago. At that time the question arose as to whether or not a fence could be erected al, Qn� a boundary line of the street that deade.nded at the pro.pertyo---The-.-.d.i.fference I think. is the so-called off site improvements as contrasted with improvements that relate to the .property itself and the-adJo-i-ning_ street which is to be used as a part of the facility. and .part -of the improve.ment.. -. In the cul-de -saccing situation to which you-Yefer you will recall there was a requirement as part of -the precise plan that the cul-de--sac be constructed at the expense ofthe developer. It was both .a - convenience and a benefit to that property being devel.oped•, .as well as to the adjoining properties, but.here in the deadend-.situation the property is not proposed to be developed to -use the ..street and the street is outside of the limits of the property itself .and for that reason the requirement to this property owner to participate in the.-. cost of the street improvement; -would be-* Impr.oper... . Councilman Nichols: I think -the City has some degree.of.conc.ern,. rightfully.so, when we have streets terminat- ing abruptly and our Master Plan shows the continuance of that street, of at least treating it in such a fashion that it wo.u.ld.consummate..in a pleasing manner. We change the signals and say we are not going to finish the street off or. carry it through as we have shown it on our maps and it simply continues as a deade-nd-- street and. it continues as a, Long .term deficiency. I don't know..if there is a proper answer, I don't know if we can require some .dedication of right-of-way from this.deve.l.oper,- or whatever; but . I. do feel if we move ahead on these .types of . thing.s. and do not give consideration to theending of the street that we are not considering all that we should consider. I don°t.want to hold this matter up unless by holding it up staff would have -a chance to get some further information.to us .in -this area. I would.be..happy to get some response from staff and if you don't feel I have .raised a matter that should be looked into any further I am.prepared to go this way tonight, but I do hope that we'just won't forget these streets that have been wiped off very abruptly i-n.contrast to commitments made in...-. the pasta --. Councilman Shearer: Councilman Nichols beat me to the;;punch, so to speak. I am concerned thereDtoo,,- it is a - 16 - REG. C.C. 8-24-70- HEARINGS -(Z/C 442) - Cont. Page Seventeen 321 street, I drove up there today and in order to turn around .and go back I had to go up into someone's driveway and I have a rather short car. I think.. -..we do have an obligation to finish off a street in a reasonable manner. Someone suggested a gate for the fire trucks but this I don't feel would be finishing it, it would only be a stop- gap measure. I feel there should besomethingthere to indicate that this is an .intended .and-..wel-l. designed _.street.. Now, . here --again, we run into the. - legal ..r.equ.ir.ements What canwe require.?. Earlier..-. this this evening we..discussed,.the relocation of a water line that has... no benefit whatsoever to the adjacent property owners, yet he had.to pay for it. On the other hand we say the cul-de-saccing .is ,of no benefit to the developer so he doesn't have to pay for it. These don't quite ri.ng..trueo I am prepared to support the zone change but_ I am not prepared to support the precise plan -as -.submitted with the street deadending nowhere. I would like to see a finished pro- duct and as it is..going ,.to stay permanent I think. it .should _look... permanent and not temporary. Mr. Wakefield. I think thelegaldiscussion is .really a City Attorney question of access. If the property under consideration tonight had access to the street and the precise plan± -.was such that they proposed to use that street for access and,. to'the.extent that this property owner had any control over the matter, for example, you couldn't require this property owner to provide.the.necessary improvements to cul-de—sac a street where he didn't abut the street on any side of his property. The only means of development, in such a situation as this would be to .provide for a cul-de-sac wholly within the limits of the property considered for this development; otherwise you place an impossible bur-den.on the property owner over which he can't have any control. Councilman Shearer: It seems to me we have a situation here - where at the present time_.the property is zoned R-1 and in order to develop he would have to extend the streetl now he comes in with a proposal -that says now I don't want to extend the street I want to develop in another manner, so therefore, he does benefit. He benefits ..a l.ot. in the approval to build.under the O-P zone rather than the R-1 zone. He may not directly benefit from...dr.iving up and down the street, -.but he does receive the benefit of being able to'change in effect --maybe.. not a specific Master. Plano but the indication in the presentzoning. with the temporary barricades at the.end of the street and-.an--.indca- tion that the street would go through. -and if he developed under.the present plan he would have tobuild a cul-de-sac when he got down to that end of the wash. So it would seem to me hs is'benefiting and therefore we could.- requir-.e- him to -put in a cul-de-sac. Mr. Wakefield. This could be a requirement as apart of the City Attorney approval.of.the precise plan. As you indicate, we cannot condition the zoning to require it but if the devel.opment.is.actually.to.occur on this partic- ular piece of property and if it is to have access ;to this particular street then the precise plan could be conditioned upon the require- ment that he indicate whatever right-of-way is necessary for the continuation of a cul-de-sac with access to the remainder of his.prop- ertyo Councilman Shearer: I don't favor that the access..from the Office - Professional parki.ng.To.t i.s up that street. I am not an attorney so I..don°t .speak that language, but I think there is a moral obligation on the -part .of the Council to give the people on that street a finished product, and I would like to see some W,'IY that we could, without allowing the people that want to go to Allstate office driving up that street. Councilman Nichols. I agree that something .should.be done in that respect. I don't know whether we can or should involve this property owner, but I 17 - REG. C.C. 8-24-70 Page .Eighteen HEARINGS -(Z/C 442 ) - Cont think we have some additional obligation here. Councilman Lloyd: I would concur that the moral concept, as presented by Councilman Shearer is here, and in that vein I would like --to ask- the Planning Director a..ques-' tiono Mr. Munsell, have you approached the property owners on that street who would be affected in the event of a cul-de-sac that may or may not affect their property? Mr. Munsell: We have not had an opportunity to discuss Planning Director the disposition of the ending of the street with any of the property owners. Councilman Lloyd: Had you considered this as one of the prob- lems that might be forthcoming - I am sure the answer is "yes". Mr. Munsell.. Yes - however we expected some response from Planning Director the property ownersbecause there has been a history of response, but we did not get any and we did not follow through to solicit additional inquiry from these people. Councilman Lloyd: In view of, the fact I am prepared to vote favorably on both the zone change and the precise plan, how could we effect a successful working out of a plan that would be satisfactory to the residents on the street and the developer? If we hold this off and refer back to you to work out some feasible situation how would this affect the building of this development? Obviously the people want to go ahead as rapidly as possible with the development. Mr. Munsell: If you .approve the precise plan, phases A and Planning Director D, the developer can proceed with the building of his structures in the existing O-P zone and it would be possible, I believe, then to continue the zone change forihe rear portion until the staff has the opportunity to solicit participation from the property owners and the developer in terms of whether he would cul-de-sac on his property voluntarily or cul-de-sac in the existing street right-of-way to the west of his property. It would be the matter of a meeting which we could probably set up in the next 2 or 3 weeks. Councilman Lloyd: Do you see any problem to working out an equitable arrangement to have.a finished product? Mr. Munsell: No, there are a number of alternatives, I Planning Director think.it:is just -a matter of getting every- body to agree. Councilman Lloyd: In your negotiations so far, have you found any resistance from the developer? Mr. Munsell: There might be a design problem if we Planning Director force a cul-de-sac bulb in the middle of the triangle (explained further). Because of this I would hate to say he would be agreeable, Councilman Lloyd: That was an unfair question anyway., I am prepared to make a motion that we -approve Precise Plans A and D and refer Precise Plans B and C back to staff for..further review to investigate the possibility of completing the street in an acceptable manner satisfactory to all parties concerned. -... Seconded by Councilman Shearer. - 18 REG, C.C. 8-24-70 Page Nineteen HEARINGS (Z/C 442.) - Cont. Mr. Wakefield: Mr. Mayor, both the Precise Plan and the City Attorney Change of Zone are before you, and if you desire to approve that portion of the Precise Plan applicable to the property that is already zoned O-P you can do that and refer the balance of the Precise Plan to ,sta,ff for further review and continue the hearing on the Change of Zone until the next regular meeting of City Council, Councilman.Lloyd... moved to.include as part of his original motion; seconded by Councklfanc�n' Shearer. Councilman Young: I take it that this entire program A m B m C and D, has been duly advertised and the property owners have been advised of these .procedures? Mr. Munsell: Yes, twice. Once for the Planning Commission Planning Director hearing and once for City Council. Everybody within 3001 of this property which includes Sawyer Avenue. Councilman Young: How long is Sawyer Avenue? Mr. Munsell: Just under 6001. Councilman Young: So those directly affected.*plus those indirectly affected/ have been notified and there has been no complaint or objection by these people regarding the proposal here. Is that correct? (Mr. Munsell answered "Yes".) In that case I\am disinclined to create a problem here where the property owners are apparently satisfied. Councilman Nichols: But what often happens is what happened in this Glendora Avenue thing - the property owner oftentimes, does not know what is happening. He does not recognize the implications of what is going on in the City. Councilman Young: I daresay the property owners along here are smelling commercial, development along their way sometime in the near future because of the zone change in Phases B and Co Councilman Shearer: Did the notice state to the people the change of zone as well as stating the dead- end street? (Answer by Mr. Munsell: a°NO"o) I am sure the people were not aware that the street was going to abut and continue forever with a block wall at the end. I don't think it is fair to say that the property owner's were fully aware of the proposed design because of the fact that they didn't appear indicates agreement with it. Mayor Chappell: And we still have a problem that people have to get around and get back, and a fire truck has to get around, so I am in favor of the motion. Mr. Wakefield: Mr. Mayor, this should be. a .roll call vote, City Attorney and may I suggest one additional thing - that the hearing on the remainder of the Precise Plan be continued to the same time as the change of zone hearing is continued to, so if after some further review you desire to proceed on both you will have an opportunity to do so. This can all be included as part of the original motion. So included by Councilman Lloyd, and seconded by Councilman Shearer. Motion carried on roll call vote as follows: 19 REG. C„C, 8-24-70 HEARINGS m AMEND —NO. 110 Page Twenty AYES. Councilmen Shearer, Nichols, Young, Lloyd, Mayor Chappell NOES,. None ABSENT: None AMENDMENT NO. 110 REQUEST,. A revision to the .Zoning Ordinance CITY INITIATED to amend Section 9205 to modify the R-2 zone (MF-15). Recommended by Planning Comm mission Resolution No. 2273. (The Planning Director verbally summarized Planning Commission Resolution No. 2273, stating revisions proposed-, map displayed showing all the multiple family zoning locations in. the City. THIS IS THE TIME AND PLACE FOR THE PUBLIC HEARING ON AMENDMENT NO. 110. THERE BEING NO PUBLIC TESTIMONY FOR OR AGAINST, PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED, COUNCIL DISC'USSION� Councilman Lloyd: First of all, thank you very much Mr. Munsell for a very fine presentation involving the intricacies of planning which are really very sophisticated in a society in which we are all involved in and I think we are extremely fortunate in having a good staff working in this area. As far as I can tell it would appear to me that you have allowed for the expansion process of urbanization which really is occurring in West Covina. I don't know where we are going with the development of the City as far as a residential situation is concerned. I get the feeling we are beginning - because of the high rate of interest, the increased taxes and the squeezing together of our people, to see more and more multiple development. I have really no express feeling one way or the other as far as this is concerned, And I like the way you laid it out, but I am not real sure in my own mind that I want to go the way of all this is pointing. Perhaps I ampgetting a little more. conservative but in these developments, when we bring these families in and in the total impact of schools, public safety, housing, water, sewerage, etc., all the services that go into the livability and development of these areas, are we going to be able to sustain financially, in your opinion, say 5 or 10 years from now when we will more probably not be sitting here but 5 other gentlemen will? Mr. Munsell: The experience`that I have been able to Planning Director determine from most cities having relation to the development of a multiple family situation is for .the most part they pay for themselves and in some cases return additional revenue to the City, not only from..property taxes but they provide a market for potential customers to shop within the community. This is not always true of single family developments especially as street areas begin to deteriorate. As far as overall development of schools,.I think --..it was noted by .Council at one of our -recent meetings that some of the new federal programs have kind of thrown a monke.y..wrench into the sales pitch planning has been giving about multiple.family units not providing as many kids as single family units. So I really don't have an answer in terms of big changes that are unknown. At this time the type .of development that could be placed on this property is severely limited even by FHA. under some of these low cost house programs to -the number of children, even many of the multiple family units where they have .as many as four bedrooms. Staff has attempted to develop a device which. will meet the growth requirements of this community and the.planning._ area within the General Plan which calls for a certain amount of multiple units. The very fact that in all the years we have had an Rm2 zone, I believe we have 3 or 4-.pieces of development, the last in 1955, which was on half an acre, which means they were a 2-plex and in a very isolated portion of the City, which would indicate the current Rm2 zone is not a feasible zone. So we attempted to develop within practical limits a zone which would.be practical to go with the development on the zoning we have in the City, and if our standards are not stringent enough we would be happy to,review them. 20 REG. C.C. 8-24-70 Page Twenty-one HEARINGS (AMEND o7 NO. 112.) Gont However, we feel, with possibly some minor exceptions, this .looks like it will fill the bill and be an economical type of development potential for someone liketheMacco Corporation which was recently.. rezoned, and it will provide a development very similar to the PCD zone which has a portion of 15 dwellings to the acre. I don't think. staff has much more to say. We can't predict the market or the Federal Government any better than some of the other financial experts we have tried to consult with. We feel the _zoning does a good job in terms of allowing those large portiDns available under the R-2 zone to develop* whether the City would like to expand the amount of R-2 zoning in the City is another problem. Councilman Lloyd: Thank you. I am favorably disposed and perhaps this might even be a zoning situation which would be considered in lieu of some higher densities in some other areas. Councilman Nichols: Amen! Councilman Young: There was a communication to the Mayor or the Council and I was quoted as being .in favor of some portion of that communication by Mrs. Wilner who is on vacation just now, but it doeslead`me to inquire when you get right down to the basics the exis-ting,R-2 zoning is actually increasing its market potential by 50% as far as available dwelling units, - is.that correct? (Mr..Munsell, answered: "That is correct.") This would. tend to increase the portion of rentals available by 50%, although..if you took. -about a 650 sq. ft. space or a 1,000 sq. ft. space you would not expect to pay as much as 1200 sq. ft. or whatever, and these are of course minimum standards, but I foresee, as I am sure we all do, there are vacant' pi.ece.s of property in the City - one of them .being at,Azusa and Cameron -which created so much hassle a few months -agog some of these owners of large parcels coming in and asking for the change of zone as opposed to the R-1 they have or the R-A or whatever, and essentially we are establishing 15 units per acre as our standard as far as the minimum. number of units per acre are concerned. Mr. Munsell: No, it would be the maximum number of units Planning Director per acre. Councilman Young: We have a maximum in the R-2 now of 10..units and we are increasing the maximum by 50/? (Mr. Muns-el.l answered: "That is -correct. When these new requests come along, which I am sure they will, then any zone change that is existing, R-1 or R-A,'would also require approval of a precise plan - is that correct? (Mr, Munsel.lo Yes.) This -is where there will still be some retention of discretion on the part of the Planning Commission and ultimately really on the part of the City Council as .to establishing the condition for the zone change. Is that correct? Mr. Munsell: Yes, there is actually more potential for Planning Director discretion than just the precise plan. One, if Council does not feel that this is an appropriate location even though density is not ruled out by the General Plan, this of course is a point of Council determination which has nothing to do with whether the plan works or not. There is also the position the Council or Commission might take that this is a General Plan for 1990 and this is not the appropriate time for such a zone change, and then we have the control over the actual design and how it relates to the property around it and the physical development of the property. Councilman Young: That is as far as future changes, but it doesn't affect the existing R-2? 21 - REG. C.C. 8-24-70 Page Twenty-two HEARINGS (AMEND. NO. 110) - Cont. Mr. Munsell: That is true. That is controlled only by the Planning Director precise plan which you have control over. Councilman.Young: We still have control of the precise plan on the existing R-2? (Mr. Munsell answered: Yes) In light of that explanation I am willing to support the zone change. I do feel that consideration should be given, where ever_ possible, to the asphalt jungle we are creating, and I am sure that will be done as well as possible as these precise plans come along. Councilman Nichols: I would like to direct a couple of questions to the Planning Director. If I wanted to build a duplex in West Covina under the ordinances as they will exist, what do I do? Where can I build? Mr. Munsell: You may build a duplex which after this would Planning Director be considered a multiple family structure.... Councilman Nichols: I would need a 100' wide lot? Mr. Munsell: If you did not have a zone already appropriate you would have to have a minimum of 12,000 sq. ft. lot of 1001 width. That is correct. Councilman Nichols: It seems to me,that although it is true in f actjthat there has not been a demand in the last few years for the lesser number type of multiple developments/that we should not preclude these. We should not structure our zoning in such a way as to say the "more the merrier", and "come in with all your huge projects," - such as the 236 and welcome to West Covina! And if you want to build a duplex or tri-plex you have to have such a big lot that it isn't even practical. I think what we are saying to people is you have to have at least 1001 wide lot to build a duplex when we don't require that for a 2500 sq. fto home and we are probably just freezing everybody out. So I would like to leave the first thought - that it seems' to me we may have inadvertently frozen out or made it extremely difficult for duplex or tri-plex to be built in the City under this type of ordinance. The second question is if I owned a' -lot in West Covina 1001 x 4001 and there is a nice Spanish style area California structure on the property and I come in and want to put three quality uits on the front of the lot, say the first 200, of the lot and I want to reside back in my Spanish type house, I can't do it, can I? I would have to tear it out before I can build anything else. Mr. Munsell: The way the Ordinance is structured it would indicate this to be the case. There is a variance procedure allowed which would give the property owner the opportunity to defend the integrity of this structure. The obvious reason for this requirement is to avoid many of the problems of the older cities such as Alhambra, Pasadena, Inglewood - where. an existing single family' would be on the hal.f-, .;a..:;.:. acre where you had the home in front and farmed the back, and we have two or three garages in the rear and the house is in front, and the redevelopment of the neighborhood does not really take place because we have new structures in the rear and 40 year old house in the front and for the most part leased out and it all becomes an absentee landlord situation. So rather than improving the area we have created a situation where we have just multiplied the density and put enough money in the front unit so it will last another 10 years. Councilman Nichols: Well we are in an area of philosophy here, but I think it is very possible that what we have been doing in.We.st,.Covina in the past two or three years is catering_in out;.zoning.to;.major'' develope.rs,.,_. and making it extremely difficult or unpopular for any lesser type of development to occur, and when you can't develop in a lesser sense there is no chance whatsoever for the upgrading of any - 22 - REG. CoC. 8-24-70 HEARINGS (AMEND -,NO. 110_) - Conto Page -Twenty-three Property. So we see now in our community significant areas in our City, steadily going downhill, steadily declining, all in very bad shape, and they have no opportunity to even be motivated to upgrade and improve their neighborhood.. I believe, personally:, we .are making a very serious mistake -when in every one of.these zones we totally exclude the opportunity for lesser type of developments; such as saying you must have at least 1001, and so you have lot after lot where you could have some nice duplexes or maybe Mom .and Pop could add an additional unit on their property and rent and keep them in their home as they grow older, and itwouldn°t hurt the City and. wouldn't harm us, but wesay"oh no, we don't want this -in our City because we are highclass.°' So we don't get anything. I think we ought to give some thought to doing something for the type of development other than Macco type developments- I think we should give some thought for doing something for the other.type:Zo.f::,devel.op- ment. I will surrender on that as far as the Oid Hacienda having to come down, but I won't surrender on this other one. I think I will come back at it. I tend to support this for one reason only because I intend to agitate changing the R-3 zoning around the City into thinking R-2. I see this is one device to come back at it. As Councilman Lloyd said, I think we are facing one of the most critical changes in community complexions over the next two or three years that we have ever seen or remotely know as citizens in this community. I notice in the paper tonight that the City of E1 Monte is going to freeze on all of their multiple type developments because of certain changes.in law which is mandating the.kinds of developments we are now experiencing on Cameron Avenue. Councilman Shearer: With regard to the comments of the small developer, perhaps it would be possiblefor staff and the Planning Commission to develop an -additional ordinance along the lines of the present R-2 that would cove- the small lot - the 501 x 2001 or deep lot sections. I would suggest that whatever the procedure is that Council.ins.truct them to investigate the possibility ,as an additional zoning,maybe.to a MF-10 zoning that would -allow that type of development.,that Council- man Nichols refers to.: I have one question on Section 9205.5 which automatically transfers all R-2 to MF-15; I assume thi-s will make some of the existing zoning and existing developments nonconforming as to lot widths, etc. Does this seclude- any remodeling on these? Mr. Munsell: No, Councilman Shearer, we have three par Planning Director eels in the City® two at 2/10ths of an acre and one at 6/10ths of an acre which are developed R-3 today. These parcels may maintain their property without hindrance from the City at all. Should they desire to tear their structure down and rebuild then we might have another look at the property. However, this ordinance would not have an effect other than the fact they would be non- conforming or would want to build somethiicg new. They can remodel if burnt down to 70% of their structure. Councilman Young: I would like.to comment that it is agreed that large lots need some -further considera- tion for development but .I. can see what will happen when we have whole series of half acre lots* someone will decide. they want duplexes on them and I can hear the protests that will occur from the adjoining lots and I think we are talking .about - fairly large parcels in all the zones, and fairly substantial -parcels in undeveloped property at this point and in the future. In other words I don't want to get carried away on the idea of developing encouragement on every square foot of land in the City. Councilman Nichols: I certainly agree with you on that subject, I do suggest that we all take, a look at 23 - REG. C.C. 8-24-70 Page Twenty-four HEARINGS (AMEND .NO. 11.0) - Cont.- some of our neighboring communities who have some very respectable - looking developments not on major sizes. I am of the opinion that you need some kind of motivation for people to -upgrade their property and I do feel that we have tended to concentrate on the.great and fine and the large scale without looking a little closer to home and I think we should not automatically freeze out the possibility of someone building a duplex in some appropriate place in the City. I wouldn't go_beyond-that for tonight. Motion by Councilman Young, seconded by Councilman Lloyd, that the change from R-2 zoning be made to the MF-15 multiple family zone as contained in -Planning Commission Resolution No. 2273. Motion carried on roll call vote as follows: AYES: Councilmen Shearer, Nichols, Young,'Lloyd, Mayor Chappell NOES.- None ABSENT: None AMENDMENT NO. 111 REQUEST: An amendment to the Zoning Ordinance CITY INITIATED covering changes in the sign provisions of the commercial zones as proposed by the Sign Ordinance Review Committee. Recommended by Planning Commission Resolution No..2274. (Mr. Munsell, Planning Director, verbally summarized Planning Commission Resolution No. 2274.) THE CHAIR CALLED A RECESS AT 10:30 P.M. COUNCIL RECONVENED AT 10:40 P.M.) Mayor Chappell: Before continuing with the Public Hearing on Amendment No. 111, we did ask one of our citizens to come in tonight and be interviewed for the Human Relations Commission, and he has .informed us that he has to leave in the morning at 5 a.m. on a trip, so with the permission of Council, I will call an Executive Session at this time. (COUNCIL CONVENED TO EXECUTIVE SESSION AT 10!40 P.M. RECONVENED AT 11:10 P.M.) Councilman Nichols: Mr. Mayor, a question of the City Attorney. Is it an improper act for .the Council to interrupt the hearings before all are heard and go on to some other item on the agenda? Mr. Wakefield: I think_ not, Councilman Nichols. The City City Attorney Council has control of its own agenda and they may deviate from that agenda as may be required. The items that relate to planning matters and certain other items that are regularly set on your agenda are items that have been advertised for hearing at a specified time7 however, the people here are able to follow the agenda and follow the course of action of the City Council. Councilman Nichols: May I ask one more question? Are there members of the audience here in connection with hearing Item 5 - Sign Ordinance Revisions? (Several people indicated their interest; Council determined to continue with the item rather than take-up another item that appears later on the agenda.) THIS IS THE TIME AND PLACE FOR THE PUBLIC HEARING OF AMENDMENT NO. 111. IN FAVOR Corky Wells I represent the California Electric 311 N. Normandy Sign Association and the Sign U,.ser°s Calif. Electrical Sign Asso. Council.,- and most of you gentlemen Los Angeles were serving on the Council at the time the Sign Advisory.Committee was - 24 - REG. C.C. 8-24-70 HEARINGS (AMEND.* -NO. 11.1) - Cont. Page Twenty-five formed and I was appointed to the Committee. We met with many of the businessmen in the community that were issued abatement notices and the reason the changes have been asked for by the Committee, these were most of the thing.s_-that brought up problems in the City on abatement. They are problems that were not .as big as .they .appear- ed to be to the City yet they were big problems to the.businessmen. You ask a man that has a $5,000 sign with perhaps -a useful life yet of 20 years and you.. ask..* him to take it down at a time when .mone.y is tight - you are forcing.a.pretty big -hardship on him and this was one of the things we found out in talking with the people that came before us. The Committee and Mr. Munsell°s staff spent many long hours working with us on it and formulating and the Planning Commission -put in more time on it, and I think when the businessmen of the City realize what the City has been able to.prepare to help him, he will be very happy. We ,would ask that the City Council adopt the amendments to the Sign Ordinance and we thank. city staff for their help,and we commend them highly. Thank you. George Strachan, Manager My statement will be -brief. I Chamber of Commerce think you-all..know that the Committee. 1500 West Covina.Pkwy. West you appointed to work on.this.prob-lem gave literally hundreds -o.f.man.hour.s..-. in going to i—depth consideration of the changes and the amendments. I don't think it is necessary to go into this,.Mr. Munsell.has done an excellent job explaining the changes. I think that the Sign Ordinance, as currently proposed with the amendments, is a very good one. I think it gives ample protection against any.bad signing in the City and one that is economically feasible and practical) as fair. as the business community is concerned. I would like.to commend Mr. Munsell and his staff for their very excellent job, their very positive approach and cooperation and understanding of the business community problems and the Sign Ordinance than exists, - I think they have done an outstanding job and we appreciate that. In view of this as a representative of the Chamber of Commerce and a member of.the...Sign Advisory Committee, I would like to very strongly -urge and recommend your approval of the amendments and changes that are before youJ, as recommended by both the Planning.Commission and the Sign Advisory Committee. I hope you will give it your very favorable consideration. Thank you very much. THERE BEING NO FURTHER PUBLIC TESTIMONY, FOR OR AGAINST, PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED. COUNCIL DISCUSSION. Councilman Lloyd: I think -it is clearly evident that there has been thorough review and research by administration and we have heard the voice of the business community directly affected by this, and I would recommend that we approve this, and I so move. Seconded by Councilman Young. Councilman Shearer: My concern is with Item 10.- Board of Sign Adjustments. Several points I am not clear on. The proposed Ordinance does not specify, unless Chapter 3 of.the State Government Code so states, - who appoints the five members to this Board.. Mr. Wakefield: That.particular.reference is not to the City Attorney authority to appoint, it is a.reference to a type of Commis.sion or Committee which is authorized to handle variances in the planning sections of the Government Code. It is my impression that it was -the clear .intention of everyone that the Board of Sign Adjustments would be appointed by the City Council and in the preparation of the Ordinance it would so provide. - 25 - REG, C.C. 8-24-70 Page Twenty-six. HEARINGS (AMEND..NO. 111) - Cont. Councilman Shearer: I don't believe it is there and I would like - to see it included before I.would vote to support it. I do have two other questions on the Appeal - page 5. A procedure is outlined here whereby -appeal can be made to the Planning Commission, but there is no outline as to appeal to the City Council if the .applicant is not in accord with . the Planning Commission :decision,. .... Id am also concerned with the automatic approval at the endof7 days. This is fine when.it covers the denial part of the Board, but there -may be times when the Planning Commission or City Council.would like to call it up -and if it becomes law automatically within 7 days the door i.s.shut, .so I would like to see some provision made where the door is not shut automatically after 7 days,. I would like to see/ -,those three items somehow included in the Ordinance. Councilman Lloyd: Mr. Wakefield - isn'°t there an automatic appeal from the Planning Commission with regard to Item 211 Mr. Wakefield:. .This section referred to,: would constitute City Attorney a separate and special.provision with respect to appeals and in my opinion it would..control. I think the section should be.expanded to specifically authorize an appeal to the. City Council .or invest in the City Council the authority to call the item up, as it now has under the existing. provisions of the -Ordinance. Councilman Lloyd: Very well, if Councilman Shearer will make an amendment motion covering these points I will be glad to second it. Councilman Young: Before the amendment motion is made - that would necessitate increasing the 7 days? Mr. Wakefield: Yes, it would need to conform to the appeal City Attorney provisions which are in the present section of the ordinance. Councilman Young: One other question - is there any compensa- tion for this Board? Mr. Wakefield: None is provided for in the Ordinance. It City Attorney would- take -...a separate ordinance to authorize the payment of compensation. Councilman Young I wonder if that was considered by the Committee, whether or not it was to be a compensated function. Mr. Munsell: As far as the Committee was concerned it Planning Director would be a 1-ay board, which would act much like. -the Planning Commission without compensation and it was hoped that they would not be as active as the Planning Commission and which by right might be entitled to certain expenses. But compensation was not -indicated by the Commission for this Committee. Councilman Shearer: The P1-anni,ng. Commission does receive com- pensati,on - $50.00 per month. Mr. Munsell: There was no intention by anyone studying Planning Director this that they would receive compensation. Councilman Nichols: We are talking about two different breeds of cats. We are talking about Commissions and Boards. We may, as our City expands, appoint any number of Boards. I think it would be a valid approach to enact without compensation and see what type of load is put on it 26 - REG. CoC. 8-24-70 Page Twenty-seven HEARINGS (AMEND..' -NO . 111) - Cont. for the first few months and then look -at it again. Councilman Lloyd: Mr. Mayor - a question of Mr. Wells. Do you see any necessity of compensation as you would envision this position? Mr. Wells: No, I honestly don't, because I don't believeunderthe Ordinance there will necessarily be that many instances for the Board or Commission - I believe Mr. Mun_sell could pretty well tell you about how many times the Commission would have to meet. Councilman Shearer: I have one other point. I would like to see the Ordinance amended to include the .,procedure -for .appointment, the -appeal procedure to the Council including the time element and something with regard to the meetings - that it would be on call as needed and not a regularly set meeting every month. Also the statement that they would serve without compensation. Councilman Lloyd:.. I will second that amendment motion. Mayor Chappell: One question on Item 8. Are we talking primarily in the CBD area or throughout the City? I have heard both. What is the intent? Mr. Munsell: Item 8 covers the Regional -Commercial zone Planning Director only. Section 9213.8 is the Regional - Commercial zone. The Master Plan calls for that zone to be in the area of the Central Business District and the Eastland Center. Motion carried on the amendment motion on roll call vote as follows: _ AYES: Councilmen Shearer, Nichols, Young; Lloyd, Mayor Chappell NOES: None ABSENT: None Motion carried on the main motion on roll call vote as follows: AYES:Councilmen Shearer, Nichols, Young, Lloyd, Mayor Chappell NOES: None ABSENT: None Mayor Chappell: I think -.the Sign Committee should be commended not only .because .of the long. hours but the -fact .they did achieve results that I think we can all live with. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS R. W. Smith I have a letter here dated 11-18-69 1216 South Sunkist Ave., in regards to.the horse.rarich on West Covina Merced Avenue. We still have the horse rancho On November 13, 1969, Judge Pro tem sitting in the Superior Court at -Pomona granted -the City°s motion for a preliminary injunction and this goes on to say they are to clean up daily, spray regularly, etc., and states the preliminary injunction is to see that the status quo is maintaineq without unwarranted injury to the people in the neighborhood until the case can be tried on its merits, signed by George Wakefield,. City Attorney and addressed to the City Council of West Covina. On June 16, 1970, I had a letter from the City Attorney saying that they had set trial date for August-17, 1970 in the Court in Pomona and that he would call and get the neighbors together and see what could be done as far as witnesses for that tri-al. I hadn't heard further so I set my vacation and everything around this trial date. I went to Pomona with my wife and a neighbor to see what was going on and found out the trial was set`.back another 60 days. In the - 27 - REG. C.C. 8-24-70 Page Twenty-eight ORAL COMMUNICATIONS (MERGED-AVE.HORSE RANCH) meantime we still have our dust, the flies, and the messes the horses make. They tried to clean up somewhat but I am sure nobody comes by to see that they are keeping the flies down and the dust down and some days it reaches a point where we are ready to back up - and move. For a year we were without the rooster but for the last 60 days we have had those. I talked to Mr. -Wakefield a.while ago and he said the attorney for the other side is apparently working on a murder case and that is the reason for setting it back another 60 days. We just keep getting these 60 day setbacks and we have been coming down here 5 or 6 years now - so all these 60 days don't help. I would like to know. if there isn It some my to get this going - the county man or the health service .officer - anyone - isn't there someway they can.. be. sent out to follow up and see if something is being done regularly? Mrs. Morris Drooks You may recall one month ago I 1632 South St. Malo Ave., presented a petition on the signal West Covina on Durness and I wonder if we could have some.report on it. Councilman Shearer: Mr. Mayor - may I comment in that regard? This will be an item under Traffic Committee which wil-1 :be taken up- shortly. Mrs. Shreiner I don't know if all of you gentlemen got a 1917 West Merced chance to read my letter that I sent last week. West Covina What I wanted to ask is what do you mean by referring to staff and which staff and when will we have a report? Because the men came today to start cutting trees and they are planning to come back tomorrow again unless something is done to abate this until the matter is settled. Councilman Young: This is an item on our Agenda tonight - Item G 2 W . Mrs.Shreiner mentioned to me awhile ago that it says refer to.staff, but they are out there to do the work -already, so I suggested she -bring it to Council°s attention. Mr. Zimmerman: The contractor is ready to.start and�in City Engineer fact started today and we stopped him because of Mrs. Shreiner°s complaint. We have investigated the problem in considerable detail and can report if Council wishes. (Council asked for verbal report.) We have received a letter from Mr..John Eastman, Assistant Superintendent of the School District addressed to John Lippett, Assistant City Engineer. (Read letter.) We also investigated some of the problems in connection with installing the sidewalk on the northerly side of Merced rather than the southerly side and we find that if the sidewalk is placed on the southerly side we recommend it be placed against the curb and 6 trees would have to be removed and there would be a line of poles on that side of the street from Van Horn westerly to Willow. If placed on the northerly side only 3 or 4 trees would have to be removed. So for these reasons stated/staff is recommend- ing it be placed on the north side of Merced in this area. Mrs. Shreiner: If I-may.rebut? My point is that all of the students walk on the south side because the schools are on the south side and they cross the street further down.from that area. Furthermore they are going to put the sidewalks from the curb in on the residential area without a parkway area on the north side and on the south side the Temple already has its sidewalk which would save the City money, and on the north side .are all the utility poles and a wall where they have to put walks the whole length and it doesn't have any front residential property to it, no yard. On the north side they said they have to cut 14 trees in order to put the sidewalk by the curb but on the southerly side where the old horse ranch is and you have two big old dying trees they don't cut them down. We feel if we get 28 - REG. C.C. 8-24-70 Page Twenty-nine ORAL COMMUNICATIONS (SIDEWALKS) some sidewalks in there it may help that property to go R-1 the way the plan shows. So with the three points of the School District on the south side and the students walking to the swimming pool on that side plus the fact they won't put a parkway island on the residential yards, I say it should go on the south side in order to help us fight the horse ranch also. It will save the city money because the walk is already laid by the Temple and also the fact that the students all walk.on that side. I am not against sidewalks but I would like them put in right with parkway islands and in the front yard. There is an utility . pole on Van Horn and Merced they will have to remove and I don't know who bears that expense, but surely laying all that walk behind the block wall plus moving,the utility pole it would cost the City more money than putting it on the south side. I want sidewalks on the north side but in a proper residential area it should have a parkway and so I vote it should go to the south side for those three reasons. Councilman Nichols: Mr. Mayor, may I respond? Probably more than anyone present I am also involved in this situation because all of the children are in the schoolw here I am Principal. You are correct, the children do cross the street and walk on the south side, but if the public agency puts the sidewalk on the south side it is then mandating that all children must cross Merced and walk on that side and then what response will you get from a significant number of parents? And rightfully so, - you are requiring our children to cross over a busy secondary street to reach the sidewalk with no crossing guards., and so the next request is that the City provide crossing guards during school hours for the children to cross Merced. Human nature is a very strange thing and the very parent who will come in and say 'you make my child cross the stree-C will probably allow his child to cross when you don't make them. So I think the position I would have to take as a Councilman would be that I must put the sidewalk where there is a traffic -controlled light, and then if the parents , through their own . choice,, allow the children to walk on that side where there is no sidewalk then that is their own business, but if I, as a Councilman put the sidewalk over there then I am saying they must cross an unprotected street to walk on the sidewalk and I just couldn't do that. Mrs. Shreiner: When they get to Orange and Merced they have to cross for those schools and I never see a crossing guard there and they have to cross there where the intersection is busier. Councilman Shearer: It is a 4-way stop sign. Mrs. Shreiner: But they have to watch traffic four ways instead of just two? No good? Councilman Shearer: On this point I would just like to point out, that last week we had a petition submitted by a large number of people to not have "parkways" and here we'have a request for "Parkways." So it is not all one-way or the other. Some want a parkway and some do not. In this case I presume the sidewalk is proposed to be adjacent to the curb. Mr. Zimmerman: proposed The sidewalk is to be on the north City Engineer side of Merced and in the first block westerly from Orange because of power poles it is proposed to be put next to the property line but from Van Horn westerly on Willow it is proposed next to the curb. - Mr. Smith: I no longer have little children going to school but all the small children bused -to school are picked up on the south side of the street and they stand on people's lawns all along Merced on the - 29 - REG. C.C. 8-24-70 Page Thirty ORAL COMMUNICATIONS .(SIDEWALKS) - Cont. south side of the street waiting for the bus and the same route is used when going home and all these little kids have to cross that street twice a day without guards now and I am sure they will not reroute the buses to.pick them up on the sidewalk. Councilman Nichols: That is very true,but what you are talking about is something the School District is doing and what we'are doing is City Council, so if they are in errox and that might be a valid judgment, it doesn't condemn us to repeat the error by directing children to do the same thing. Mayor Chappell: Plus the fact the School District is asking for the sidewalk in the first place because they.are cutting down on the buses.. I don°t know how muchl, but in all areas -where they are cutting down on buses they are-ask-ing.-us to put in sidewalks -and we are .putting sidewalks in all over the City for that reason alone at the present time. For the fact isthat.buses are being curtailed -and eliminated. I think this problem -has been weighed by our staff and the school people who looked at it in the first place and requested sidewalks so then our staff studied it and what they are recommending to us now in their opinion is our best route. We hope they are right, they have basically been right in the past on sidewalks, so therefore I think Council would be remiss if we didn't follow the recommenda- tions we are getting from the professionals. You certainly have pointed out some.good points and perhaps some day we can have sidewalks on.both sides of the street and that will eliminate all the little problems we now have. No matter which -side the walk is on it will:not please.all',of the people. Mayor Chappell: Mr. Aiassa, I think we should have an answer at this time for the lady that,brought-up the item that is handled in the Traffic Committee minutes pertaining to the traffic signal. Mr.. Zimmerman: The Traffic_ Committee met on.8-18-70 to City Engineer consider the installation of a traffic signal at the intersection of Durness Street and Sunset Avenue. The Committee reviewed the matter in considerable detail and checked the warrants necessary for a traffic signal and was of the opinion that the warrants were met, although it was a little difficult to determine the school childr;en.traffic.b.ecause of summer vacation. However, on the basis of those' attending.summer school in July at the time the count was taken it seemed.apparent that with a full school session operatingithat the warrants would be met. The Traffic Committee therefore recommended that the Sunset Avenue - Durness Street intersection be considered for,signalization. Also they made some -recommendations for .putting some .streets in the Select System of Streets and Highways, including..Durnes's Street. So it would be eligible -for future repair with gas tax funds. At the_._.... present time Durness Street isnot a Select System Street. So the net effect of this proposal as the staff sees.it, it .would be con- sidlered as part of the reconstruction of Sunset Avenue from Merced Avenue southerly to Francisquito,..which is proposed as a county funded project for nextyear°s budget.in the 5-year program of public works; and we have received a preliminary commitment from the county to fund this project. This would-be done in 1971-72 fiscal year. Mayor Chappell: What do we do between now and then - school starts in September? Mr. Aiassa: I would suggest that for temporary City Manager expediency that the Council direct the Traffic Committee to investigate the possibility of the utilization of a traffic guard during the peak period of classes or reshifting of a guard for this use. - 30 - REG. C.C. 8-24-70 Page: Thirty-one ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - Cont°d. Councilman Nichols: I certainly concur with that recommenda- tion. Of all of the places where we have traffic guards I can't think of one that is worse on a traffic basis and we are having younger children cross- ing now. If you can't put a signal in for a -year) let's protect it if we can. Councilman Young: Can the School District participate in the cost of a guard? Councilman Nichols: By .law they cannot. Mayor Chappell: Will they have to make a request to install a .traffic "guard there or can we go on our own? Mr. Aiassa: Council can make the request tonight City Manager directing the Traffic Committee to investi- gate the possibility of a crossing guard at this location during peak periods of classes and recommending to Council their findings. So moved by Councilman Nichols, seconded:by Councilman Young, and carried. Mayor Chappell: We would like to have.,that traffic guard available and ready to go when school starts. Mr. Zimmerman: We will hold a special meeting of the Traffic City Engineer Committee and set this up. CITY ATTORNEY URGENCY ORDINANCE The City Attorney advised this was.the requested urgency ordinance pertaining to prohibiting the moving of buildings or structures onto land in the City zoned R-A or R-1 areas. ORDINANCE The City Attorney read following Urgency INTRODUCTION Ordinance in full: "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF WEST COVINA PROHIBITING THE MOVING OF BUILDINGS OR STRUCTURES ONTO LAND IN THE CITY ZONED R-1 OR R-A." Motion by Councilman Young, seconded by Councilman Lloyd, and carried, introducing said Ordinance. ORDINANCE NO. 1141 Motion by Councilman Lloyd, seconded by ADOPTED Councilman Young, that said Ordinance be adopted. Motion carried on roll call vote as follows: AYES: Councilmen Shearer, Nichols, Young, Lloyd, Mayor Chappell NOES: None ABSENT: None RESOLUTION NO. 4224 The City Attorney presented: ADOPTED "A RESOLUTION OF. THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF WEST COVINA DESCRIBING A CERTAIN PORTION OF THE CONSOLIDATED COUNTY FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT WHICH HAS BEEN INCLUDED WITHIN THE CITY OF WEST COVINA AND DECLARING THE SAME WITHDRAWN FROM SAID DISTRICT41 (Southerly Annexation District No. 212). Mayor Chappell: Hearing no objections, waive further read- ing of the.body of said Resolution. - 31 - REG. C.C. 8-24-70 CITY ATTORNEY - Cont'd. Page Thirty-two 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 Mr. Wakefield: Mr. Mayor and members of City Council, in City Attorney connection with .this same matter the area included within Southerly Annexation District No. 212 is also incl.uded.in the County .Sanitation District, also included in the Consolidated Sewer Maintenance:Dis- trict and the County Lighting District. Staff has these -matters under review now and as soon as a study is completed we will come back with some recommendations for the exclusion of the area from the Lighting District and the Sewer Maintenance District and the annexation of the areas to the appropriate city districts. REPORT ON LEGAL FEES Mr. Wakefield: This item is also an item re CITY OF WEST COVINA that was continued from vs. GARNIER & WHITE your last regular meeting. (Cortez Park) I think .it. would .be. appropriate before Council finally considers the matter to continue until your next regular meeting to give us a chance to review the matter with the City Manager who has now returned.from vacation. So moved by Councilman Young, seconded by Councilman Lloyd, and carried. CITY MANAGER TRAFFIC COMMITTEE MINUTES Motion. .by Councilman Shearer, second - OF AUGUST 18, 1970. ed by Councilman Lloyd, and.carried, approving Traffic Committee minutes. BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Mr. Aiassa: I have one suggestion, LETTER re TOPICS and that is.in the recommendation of staff that the words "engineering staff" be changed to "City Manager's staff'. Motion by Councilman Lloyd, seconded by Councilman Young, and carried, authorizing the City Manager's staff to notify the County of the City's general concurrence in the concept of this proposal, and that official approval will be deferred until the City's TOPICS study.is completed. PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION Mr. Aiassa: I would suggest that LETTER re LIST FOR 1971 this be received and RAILROAD -GRADES IN NEED OF filed. SEPARATION So moved by Councilman Young, seconded by Councilman Lloyd, and carried. WEST COVINA SYMPHONY ORCHESTRA �Mr. Aiassa: Council does have the SOCIETY REQUEST TO USE CITY staff.report.and SEAL recommendation.. This is the same situation which we had recently with the request of the Employee's Association. This is strictly a policy matter and something Council has to decide. Motion by Councilman Young, seconded by Councilman Lloyd, that the specific recommendation by staff for di,sapprovah based on reasons enumerated in report dated August 19, 1970, be adopted. Councilman Nichols: I think the motion should be amended to include .a directive that the Mayor personally contact the President of the West Covina Symphony Orchestra Society and state the. reasons for the City's position. 32 - REG. C.C. 8-24-70 Page Thirty-three CITY MANAGER - Cont°.d. Councilman Young: I would concur with that. Accepted by Councilman Lloyd; and carried. RESOLUTION FROM CITY Motion by Councilman Young, seconded by OF WALNUT re LOS ANGELES Councilman Lloyd, and carried, to receive COUNTY HEALTH DEPT. and file. f SERVICES MINUTES CLERK CONTRACT Mr. Aiassa: We have a conditional contract RENEWAL & SALARY with Nancy Beardsley; her con - INCREASE tract will run for one more year and according to the terms of the contract we were to discuss any possible salary4 change at this time. My staff has met with Nancy Beardsley and also analyzed some pf the other cities and staff has recommended that we give',her a 5/ increase. Motion by Councilman Young, seconded by Councilman Lloyd, that staff recommendation with regard to the salary of the Minutes Clerk be adopted as set forth in staff report dated August 4, 1970. 'Motion carried on roll call vote as follows:_ AYES: Councilmen Shearer, Nichols, Young, Lloyd, Mayor Chappell NOES: None ABSENT: None ACQUISITION OF PROPERTY Mr. Aiassa: Council has staff FOR FIRE STATION NO. 6 report dated August 20, 1970, with staff recommendation authorizing a lease with option to purchase agreement with the Donald L. Bren Company and/or Umark Company which shall be .in compliance with the terms.as outlined in this report,.subject to the approval of the City'Attorney,' and that the final agreement be executed by the Mayor and City Clerk. Councilman Young: This does have to commence sometime prior to the withdrawal of the County service? Mr. Aiassa: County service will probably terminate as of July 1, 1971, but in the meantime we have -to have the organization of the depart- ment rolling. We also have one other matters as soon as construction starts on Woodside Village we have to protect that too. Councilman Young: When do you propose the lease to commence? Mr. Aiassa: This will probably start in October. Motion by Councilman Young, seconded by Councilman Nichols, that staff recommendation as stated in report dated August 20, 1970, be adopted. (Councilman Nichols asked if this was included.in the budget and Mr. Aiassa advised it was and explained in further detail. Councilman Lloyd asked if there was any possibility that this land might be dedicated to the city.) Mr. Aiassa: No, we tried... This is one of the elements that is not easy to acquire. Even the price they gave us was much cheaper than what we were offered by Home Savings & Loan. Motion carried on roll call vote as follows: AYES: Councilmen Shearer, Nichols, Young, Lloyd, Mayor Chappell NOES: None ABSENT: None - 33 - REG. C.C. 8-24-70 Page Thirty-four CITY MANAGER - Cont°d, RESOLUTION NO. 4225 The City Manager presented: ADOPTED "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF WEST COVINA FIXING, THE AMOUNT OF MONEY NECESSARY TO BE RAISED BY TAXATION FOR THE FISCAL YEAR BEGINNING JULY.1, 1970.." Mayor Chappell: Hearing no objections, waive further read- ing of the body of said Resolution. -Motion by Councilman Nichols, seconded by Councilman Shearer, adopt- ing said Resolution. Councilman Lloyd: Mr. Aiassa - this will not in any way increase the tax levy? Mr. Aiassa: No, there will be no change. Motion carried on roll call vote as follows: AYES: Councilmen Shearer, Nichols, Young, Lloyd, Mayor Chappell NOES: None ABSENT: None RESOLUTION NO. 4426 The City Manager presented: ADOPTED "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF WEST COVINA FIXING THE RATES OF TAXES AND LEVYING TAXES FOR THE FISCAL YEAR BEGINNING JULY 1, 1970." Mayor Chappell: Hearing no objections, waive further read- ing 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 RESOLUTION NO. 4227 The City Manager presented: ADOPTED "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY .COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF WEST COVINA,FIXING THE AMOUNT OF MONEY NECESSARY TO BE RAISED BY TAXATION FOR THE FISCAL YEAR BEGINNING JULY 1, 1970 FOR THE WEST COVINA.SEWER MAIN- TENANCE DISTRICT, AND FIXING.RATES OF TAXES AND LEVYING TAXES FOR THE FISCAL YEAR.BEGINNING JULY 1, 1970 FOR SAID SEWER MAINTENANCE DISTRICT." 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 ,SOUTHEASTERLY ANNEXAT.ION... Mr. Aiassa: Southerly Annexation DISTRICT NO. 213 District No. 213, known as the Villa Annexation which we attempted to annex several months .ago and.it-:was not successful; we have met' with- the, property owners in the area and they now agree with the Homeowners' group. It appears we have a strong proponent group of approximately 80% and we have divided into Districts those that really want to annex to the City of West Covina. The proceedings that will have to be followed is the request be received by City Council and referred to the Planning Commission for a report back to the Council. So moved by Councilman Nichols, seconded by Councilman Young. - 34 - REG. C.C. 8-24-70 Page Thirty-five CITY MANAGER - Cont°d. Councilman Nichols: Mr. Mayor, I have a request to make. So many times when these annexations come up, .letters are written to the press and comments are made that the big bad City is trying to gobble up the poor little homeowners. I would -like to request staff to make a particular point to contact the press tomorrow and see for sure that they have copies in their hands of .these communications and Ask them to please indicate in their coverage that this is not a city initiated attempt. Mr. Aiassa: This is a very .unique situation, we have a person.by the name of Mr. __otter in the annexation and he is one of the .proponents of the annexation. Councilman Nichols: Then he should be very cooperative in that respect. Will you do that - Mr. Aiassa? Mr. Aiassa: I will do that. Councilman Lloyd: Are you proposing a news release be pre- pared? Councilman Nichols: Not exactly. Councilman Lloyd: If you are contacting the press in any other way you are "shovelling feathers." Councilman Nichols: Maybe you can consult.with the City Manager and see that they do it right. I just know somebody will write a letter saying West Covina just gobbled them up and this is not the case, as we have said repeatedly that we will entertain requests for annexation but are not going out and proselyte,,. and I think we ought to let the press.know we want the true picture painted on this annexation. Because for one, I am tired of the black. eyes we are getting every time some area wants to annex to the City. Mr. Aiassa: I might comment to Council that we will have about 7/ protest. Councilman Nichols: I will buy that. Councilman Lloyd: In that case.I would concur with the remarks of Councilman Nichols, and I think staff should :be directed to prepare a -press release which incorporates the intent and spirit and perhaps direct quotes from the letters you have received by way of 'request for this annexation and submit to the radio stations and newspapers that service this areas and I will so move. Seconded by Councilman Nichols and carried. Mayor Chappell: We also have a motion on the floor that this matter be referred to the Planning''Commiss'iono Motion carried, all were -in favor. Councilman Shearer: Assuming every -thing goes well, how long does it take - say)a minimum time? Mr. Aiassa: About 90 days. Councilman Shearer: So it would be possible that it would be annexed by March 1? Mr. Aiassa: Yes, that is what we are shooting for. - 35 - REG. C.C. 8-24-70 CITY MANAGER - Continued Page Thirty-six JOINT MEETING WITH COVINA Mr.. Aiassa: The -date requested CITY COUNCIL is September 15th. Mayor Chappell: As.you know, Councilman Shearer will be on vacation at that time and I feel we should have 100/ attendance, so I think we had better ask for another date. (Discussion followed on.possible date. Council agreed to tentative dates of September 21 or September 23rd. City Manager to check and advise Council.) LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA Mayor Chappell: I would ask that we be CITIES RESOLUTION prepared to vote on these Resolutions as soon as possible because we have to have them into the Resolution Committee so they can be on the calendar for our.October meeting. Is everyone in agreement on number 1? Councilman Lloyd: Do I under -stand that city staff is recommending we adopt all these resolutions? Mr. Aiassa: No, the staff is suggesting that City Council consider and discuss each resolution and come to a conclusion. Councilman Lloyd: All 25 at 12:25 A.M. tonight? (Discuss by Council followed on postponing.) The only point I make is that staff hasn't made any recommendations,...pro or con regarding the resolutions and.I...am not -prepared to discuss architectural barriers to.the.physically.handicapped .and all the rest of these things. I don ° t ..know what I am talk-ing .about - frankly. I understand vaguely but I don -It understand the legal implications of what is being proposed on some of these things. I think.that these either directly affect our City.or they don't., bu.t I don't know. Mr. Aiassa: May I make the suggestion, due to the late hour,.that the City Manager and the Mayor ..get together and go over each resolution and send a report to Council and then if you have any questions after you receive these suggestions, .you -can give yourcommentsto the Mayor, so he will have your...gu.idelines. Mayor Chappell: One comment. These are all recommended by the League ..of -California Cities for adoption.. , The only, one I would object to is number 4, and possibly.Councilman.Shearex - this afternoon in a meeting we had in the City Manager's office going over the agenda he would possibly have more reasons to vote "no" for it than I.did, but in listening to the way the.League presented these items I would say Item 4 is the only one I would have strong opposition to. Motion by Councilman. -Lloyd that staff get together with the Mayor and review and report their recommendations to Council, and if Council have any suggestions they can so communicate. Seconded by Councilman Young -and carried. UMARK DEVELOPMENT Mr. Aiassa: This is a confidential report. WATER SYSTEM Umark has developed a water system and they .are now trying to determine whether or not to establish a water system with .the City of West Covina. Umark, I.nc.., inthis report brings .-us pretty well up-to-date. We did g.et . a rough. dr.af.t of a proposed agreement back in November, 1969, at.which time .there were two other..possibiliti.es. The main factors of concern here is that this water system was also included in our $25,000 water survey and study report. As you know right now we have 8 separate water services in the City of West Covina and if a new operation takes place we will have the 9th separate water company. What we would like to have is Council - 36 - REG. C.C. 8-24-70 CITY MANAGER - Cont°d. Page Thirty-seven f authorize the City Manager to -meet with the official representatives of Umark and review the facilities they are .proposing and consider the possibility of West Covina going into a municipal water system. This in no way will obligate the Council, you .are not signing a blank check or a contract, but you will allow me the power to negotiate on a factual basis as to what can be acquired, what is required, the terms, the financing, etc. All the facts that will be pertinent to Council. I would also like. -to have a Councilman sit in on these discussions. Motion by Councilman Lloyd, that the City. Manager be authorized to sit in negotiations with Umark, Inc., .regarding the possible establishment of a water system that would be operated by the City, and that a liaison from the Council. be..appointed and, that a. report be submitted to the Council at an appropriate date in the future. Seconded by Councilman Young. Mayor Chappell: As it has been explained to me there are two organizations in the City of West Covina, and a Walnut Company which is a mutual, and which is considered a public type water company. I wanted to make this known to Council and for that reason I am willing to support this motion. Motion carried on roll call vote as follows: AYES: Councilmen Shearer, Nichols, Young, Lloyd, Mayor Chappell NOES: None. ABSENT: None Mayor Chappell: If Council has no objections, I would like to appoint myself as Council liaison. (No objections.) _._... Mr. Aiassa: I would like to make a suggestion -,.being that we are going to have two,, blank meeting nights in September due to holidays, that somewhere in here we have an adjourned meeting so we can bring some of these things to. a decision. (Discussion followed on date. Determined to hold a meeting on September 2, 1970, at 4:30 P.M. in the City Manager's conference room.) FIRE UNDERWRITERS Mr. Aiassa: This is just an informaticnal report to Council. CITY CLERK RATIFICATION OF CHANGE City Clerk: Mr. Mayor and members of the OF DATE FOR OPENING Council, this i.s..a.request BIDS ON PROJECTS 70011 for ratification of change AND 71011 of date for opening bids on Project Nos. 70011 and 71011, Tertiary Streets, etc., from the regular Wednesday before City Council meeting of September 14, 1970, to Tuesday, September 8, 1970, due to Wednesday, September 9, 1970,.being Admission Day, a Ifoliday on which City offices will be closed. Motion by Councilman Lloyd that the change_.of.,:bid opening.'dates be ratified; seconded by Councilman Young, and carried. CITY TREASURER'SREPORT July, 1970 Motion by Councilman Young., .seco.nded by Councilman Nichols, .and carried, that City Treasurer's report for July 1970 be received and filed. - 37 - REG. C.C. 8-24-70 MAYOR'S REPORTS Page Thirty-eight COMMITTEE APPOINTMENTS Mayor Chappell: If any member of FOR SEPTEMBER - Council has' any DECEMBER, 1970 objections or.. can't make any of the following. appointments, please let me know. I am attempting to get.the.ne.w Councilmen around to the various Commissions. Councilman Shearer.: Planning Commission; Councilman Young: Recreation &.Park.Commi.ssion; Councilman Lloyd: Personnel Board; Councilman Nichol_s.:.Human Relations Commission; and myself to'the Chamber of Commerce; and Councilman Young to the School District. If there are any conflicts call me so I can make the necessary..changes. COUNCIL COMMITTEE REPORT'S Councilman Nichols: I would Like to pursue a matter that dame up earlier which involves the horse.r.ancho Mr. Smith made a complaint, the .allegation was that the party is not living up to thepreliminary injunction. I would like to ask off --the City -.At-torney,-.,what:,leg.a.l_ procedures are open, 1:.-to'-determine-if that is in fact the case;.and. 2: to enforce the injunction. Mr... Wakefield: T.he,__I�ealth..Inspe..c:tor:,_has. inspected the City Attorney premises.at regular intervals since the original temporary restraining order was issued, and the City°s Service Officer also has inspected the premises from time to time and so farlas has been reported to me) there are no existing violations of the temporary restraining order. As'I suggested to Mr. Smith earlier this evening, I will be glad to personally review the matter again with the Health Officer and with Mr. Stanford and we can conduct ano-ther._series of inspections of the property. There are a.series of. co.mplain.ts.that have been made. Mr. Smith .refers to a rooster .on. the . property ..for .the ..Last sixty days. Unfortunately there was no rooster -on ..the -property _at.. the time the temporary restraining order was..issued.and..it re.al.l.y.... doesn't cover the rooster. I gather from the.nature.o.f.the complaints that some have been designed primar.i.ly,.to..irrit,ate..the_ neighbors, perhaps -by children whose horses.are-on .the...property. I. suggested to Mr. Smith .that we would endeavor to...-i.de.ntify ..the _.. children who have horses on the property and, serve-.the..p.arents.of. those children with the temporary restraining..order..so.-.they..will be aware of the terms and conditions. I think this might --help the situation temporarily. -until thematter is finally, tried:__. - Councilman Nichols: I would think it would -be-appro.pri.ate to meet again with the Health Officer and. I would hope that our own Enforcement.Officer would make at least a weekly check, and I would move that..Council direct city staff to make an inspection of the.property not less. than once a week pending trial, and Mr. Wakefield..be .dir.ected.to... meet with the Health Officer and the City Enforcement Officer to determine current levels of enforcement under the preliminary. injunction. -\ Councilman Young: I am generally -reluctant to delve that far into administrative procedures, but in light .of this problem .I will second the . motion. Motion carried. Mr. Wakefield: For the information of City Council have City Attorney made it a practice on my way, into..C.i.ty-Hall on Wednesdays to go by the property -.and I am personally familiar with what is happening - at least on Wednesday when I go by, I don't know on other occasions, but ----I have made an effort to follow the problem. Mayor Chappell: Thank you, Mr. Wakefield. REG. C.C. 8-24-70 Page Thirty-nine COUNCIL COMMITfEE REPORTS - Cont°d. Councilman Lloyd: I have a couple of items. It has been reported to me that once -again we seem to be having some problems in the... Ruppert property area and immediately adjacent to it. There are some new people that moved in there that are under the impression, 1: that the 25 mile per hour speed limit is some sort of harassment.. It is my understanding that it involves our City Police and I would. appreciate if I could hear from you on this, Mr. Aiassa. We have also approached the Police Department with regard to burglaries in our area and I passed the report .I received on down. Thepeople in that .area do have a very real problem and we will continue to work.with our local police in an endeavor to help. This brings up another item and I would like to ask...a question, although I know you probably don't have the answer at this. time, Mr. Aiassa. Are we really deep enough in our law enforcement with the number of people we have? Is it something that merits a study, as far as this Council is concerned? I am not finding fault with the Department, but do we have a sufficient number of people? Mr. Aiassa: Yes, we have. But we have had a little City Manager bit of a problem in recent months in that certain people were on vacation and some were at the Academy. Mayor Chappell: I have two additional items, with Council permission. First of all City Council is appointing Mr. Ed Cano to. the Human Relations Commission replacing Mr. Mount who resigned as of August 1. May we have a motion on that? So moved by Councilman Lloyd, seconded by Councilman Young, and carried. RESOLUTION NO. 4228 The City Attorney presented: ADOPTED "A RESOLUTION OF THE, CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF WEST COVINA, APPOINTING MR. ED CANO TO THE HUMAN RELATIONS COMMISSION." 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 Mayor Chappell: The last thing I want to bri.ng.up - Mr. Aiassa, is what Councilman Lloyd referred to.. The _fact that throughout our community .we ..are having a tremendous amount of burglaries in -the homes,_.bet.ter-than 2 a day according to the report, and we are also . los.ing.- l ..to...2 . cars. a day in auto thefts.. I was wondering if it .is .time to..pu.t..o.ut...some type of release or P.R. publication to our citizens, calling thi.s to their attention. It is not derogatory to our Police ..at.all,. i.t is happening allover $.outhern California, and I think that perhaps it is time that Council and the police make some sort .of rele.ase.in this area. Mr. Aiassa: We are going to review this matter.in.a meeting on Wednesdays and it is:. k.i.nd__._o.f...._ universal throughout Southern. California. We.did have a situation recently where some o.f. our..men were:going in training at the Academy and some turnover of persond6l. I will have a report for Council after the meeting. - 39 - REG. C.C. 8-24-70 Page Forty COUNCIL COMMITTEE REPORTS - Cont°de Councilman Lloyd: Mr. Mayor, may I.prevail upon you one step further. I forgot to mention .that Betty Plesko, Chairman of the Recreation.& Park. Commission, called me and asked me to remind the Council that Sunday,. August 30th would be the Symphony night concert, and she would appreciate it if each of you. would respond to that R.S.V.P. letter sent to you. Mayor Chappell: Right. It is at 8 P.M. Thank you. I am glad you brought that up. DEMANDS Motion by Councilman Young that City Council approve demands totalling $422,942.49 as listed on Demand Sheets C-722 through 724. This total includes payroll and interbank transfer. Seconded by Councilman Shearer. Councilman Young: I understand from prior discussion with the City Manager, that this automatically excluded the payments to the City Attorney and Harrison Baker & Associates, which is a subject for discussion at the next regular Council meeting. Motion carried on roll call vote as follows: AYES: Councilmen Shearer,' Nichols, Young, Lloyd, Mayor Chappell NOES: None ABSENT: None .PROCLAMATION Mayor Chappell: I find on.my desk one more item. The AFL-JCIO would .Like to have the week of September 7 through 13 proclaimed as Union Label Week, and I will so proclaim if there are no objections. (None.) ADJOURNMENT Motion by Councilman Lloyd, seconded by Councilman Young, and carried, that at 12:47 A.M., this meeting adjourn to 4:30 P.M. on September 2, 1970. ATTEST: CITY CLERK R APPROVED: MAYOR