02-22-1971 - Regular Meeting - MinutesMINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING --OP THE CITY COUNCIL
CITY
OF 'WEST COVINA, CALIFORNIA
FEBRUARY 22, 1971.
The regular meeting of
the City Council was called to order at
7:33 P.M. in the West
Covina Council Chambers by Mayor Ken Chappell.
The Pledge of Allegiance was ledby Councilman Chester Shearer._.
The invocation was given by Rabbi :El*isha. Nattiv of Temple Shalom.
ROLL CALL
Present:
Mayor Chappell; Councilmen Shearer, Nichols,
Young/ Lloyd
Others Present:
George Aiassa, City Manager
H. R. Fast, Public Services Director
George Wakefield, City Attorney
Lela Preston, City Clerk
George Zimmerman, City Engineer
Richard Munsell, Planning Director
Bert Yamasaki, Ass't. Planning Director
Leonard Eliot, Controller
Ross Nammar, Administrative Assistant
Terry Brandt, Administrative Analyst
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
February 8, 1971
On motion made by Councilman Lloyd, seconded
by Councilman Young and carried, minutes
approved as submitted.
AWARD OF' BIDS
PROJECT NO. MP-69018-9 LOCATION: Galster Park Picnic area and
IRRIGATION AT GALSTER interconnecting areas.
PARK PICNIC AREA and (Council reviewed Engineer's report.)
INTERCONNECTING AREAS
The City Clerk stated a total of 6
on February 17, 1971 in the office
reviewed and checked for errors an
proposals:
Superior Sprinkler, Covina
O.K. Coyle, La Habra
Superior Landscape, Anaheim
Barnes Landscape, Camarillo
Hydro -Dig, La Habra
Ace Pipeline, Pomona
bids were received at 10:00 A.M.
of the City Clerk, and were
determined to be valid bid
$13,220.00
$13, 744.00
$18,424.00
821,885.00
$22,268.00
$22,500.00
Motion by Councilman Lloyd, seconded by Councilman Young, to accept
the bid of Superior Sprinkler Company, Covina, California, as pre-
sented at the bid opening on February 17, 1971, for MP 69018-9 in
the amount of $13,220.00; and authorizing the Mayor and City Clerk
to execute an agreement with said Superior Sprinkler Company for the
work to be done. Motion carried on roll call vote as follows-:
AYES: Councilmen Shearer, Nichols, Young, _Lloyd, Chappell
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
PROJECT NO. SD-70005 LOCATION: Valinda Avenue, Service Avenue,
STORM DRAIN to Walnut Creek Wash.
VALINDA AVENUE (Council reviewed Engineer's report.)
The City Clerk stated"a total of 18 bids were received in the office
of the City Clerk at 10:00 A.M. on February 17, 1971, and all bids
were reviewed and checked for errors and determined to be valid bid
proposals:
Vido SamaTzich Company, Arcadia $29,164.00
Urban Pacific, Long Beach $30,202.00
Steve Kral, Baldwin Park $32,921.00
Mike Masanovich, Arcadia $32,976.00
l
Y
Ll
J
CITY COUNCIL 2/22/71
AWARD OF BIDS: NO. SD-70005
K.E.C. Company, Hawaiian Gardens
$.:Maletich, Canoga Park
Sully -Miller, Long Beach
Credence, Laguna Beach
Aman Brothers; Covina
G & G Engineering, Pomona
Desatoff, Montebello
Beecher, West Covina
Br -age, Diamondkcienda
r
Mike D a,bovich, Heights
City Construction, Covina
Salata, Inc., Stanton
G. W. Shore, Whittier
Richard Holmes, Riverside
Page Two
$33, 19TA0
$33,370.00
$33, 504A0.
$33, 585.00
$33,842.00
$34,055.00
$34, 332.00
$37,311.00
$37, 654.00
$371,939.00
$ 38, 779.00
$39, 539.00
$42,421.00
$44,699.00
Motion by Councilman Lloyd, seconded by Councilman Young, to authorize
the transfer of $7500.00 from project SD-71008o and,in addition,to
accept:', the bid. of Vido Samarzich Company of Arcadia as presented
at the bid opening on February 17, 1971, in the amount of $29,164.00
for project SD--70005, and to authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to
execute an agreement with the said Vido Samarzich Company for the
work to be done.
Mayor Chappell: Mr. Zimmerman have we checked this company
out to the fact that they do reliable work
and have done work of this type Abecause
there is such a tremendous difference in the various bids?
Mr. Zimmerman: Yes)this firm is a licensed contractor and
they will purchase a bond to assure
satisfactory work.
Motion carried on roll call vote as follows:
AYES: Councilmen Shearer, Nichols, Young, Lloyd, .Chappell
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
PUBLIC WORKS ITEMS
PROJECT NO. SP-68017 LOCATION: Cameron Avenue from Hollenbeck
AMAN BROS. Street to Citrus Street.
Motion by Councilman Lloyd, seconded by Councilman Shearer and
carried, to accept street improvements andto auth°or:ize release of
United States"Fidelity and Guaranty Company faithful performance
bond No. 40-0120-2036-70 in the amount of $117,443.72,,subject to
Notice of Completion procedure.
RESOLUTION NO. 4304 The City Clerk presented:
ADOPTED "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF WEST COVINA, APPROVING FINAL
SUBDIVISION MAP, TRACT NO. 24006 AND ACCEPTING AN AGREEMENT BY THE
SUBDIVIDER AND SURETY BONDS TO SECURE THE SAME." (Umark, Inc., and
Donald L. Bren Company.)
Mayor Chappell: Hearing no objectionss waive further reading
of the body of said Resolution.
Motion by Councilman Young, seconded by Councilman Lloyd, to, adopt
said Resolution. Motion carried on roll.call vote as follows:
AYES: Councilmen Shearer, Nichols, Young, Lloyd, Chappell
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
- 2 -
r1
.,
CITY COUNCIL 2/22/71 Page Three
PUBLIC WORKS: PCD #2 - WOODSIDE VILLAGE
PLANNED COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT LOCATION: Lark Ellen Avenue north -
NO. 2 - WOODSIDE VILLAGE - erly of Amar Road, adjacent to
UMARK, INC. Tract No. 24525 and Tract No. 24006.
(Council reviewed Engineer's report.)
Motion by Councilman Lloyd, seconded by Councilman Shearer, and
carried, to accept bond and agreement in the amount of $30,000
�. for improvement of Lark Ellen Avenue.
RESOLUTION NO. 4305 The City Clerk presented:
ADOPTED "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF WEST COVINA, ACCEPTING A GRANT
OF EASEMENT EXECUTED BY UMARK, INCORPORATEDIFOR PUBLIC STREET
PURPOSES TO BE KNOWN AS LARK ELLEN AVENUE AND DIRECTING THE RECORDA-
TION THEREOF."
Mayor Chappell: Hearing no objections waive further reading
of the body of said Resolution.
Motion by Councilman Lloyd, seconded by Councilman Young, to adopt.
said Resolution., Motion carried on roll call vote as follows:
AYES: Councilmen Shearer, Nichols, Young, Lloyd, Chappell
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
Councilman Lloyd: Mr. Mayor, a point of order.- Can we take
the next resolutions all..together, Mr. City
Attorney?
Mr. Wakefield: Yes/they may all be taken together on a
single roll call.
PLANNED COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
NO. 1 - ACCEPTANCE OF SANITARY
SEWER & PUBLIC UTILITY EASEMENTS,
QUITCLAIMING OF VOID SANITARY
SEWER EASEMENT & RECORDATION
OF IRREVOCABLE OFFERS OF
DEDICATION
WOODSIDE VILLAGE - UMARK, INC.
and DONALD L. BREN COMPANY
RESOLUTION NO. 4306
. ADOPTED
OF EASEMENT FROM DONALD
SANITARY SEWER PURPOSES
Mayor Chappell:
LOCATION: Parcel Map No. 1726
easterly of Azusa Avenue
between Temple Avenue and Amar
Road.
(Council reviewed Engineer's
report.)
The City Clerk presented:
"A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF WEST COVINA, ACCEPTING A GRANT
L. BREN COMPANY, A CORPORATION, FOR
AND DIRECTING THE RECORDATION THEREOF.
Hearing no objections)•waive further reading
of the body of said Resolution.
RESOLUTION NO. 4307 The City Clerk presented:
ADOPTED "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF WEST COVINA, AUTHORIZING THE
EXECUTION OF A QUITCLAIM. DEED FOR A
91 SEWER EASEMENT.
Mayor Chappell: Hearing no objections, waive further reading
of the body of said Resolution.
RESOLUTION NO. 4308 The City Clerk presented:
ADOPTED "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF WEST COVINA, ACCEPTING A GRANT
OF EASEMENT EXECUTED BY THE DONALD L. BREN COMPANY FOR SANITARY
SEWER PURPOSES AND .DIRECTING THE RECORDATION THEREOF."
- 3 -
I
CITY COUNCIL
PUBLIC WORKS:
Mayor Chappell:
2/22/71
RES. # 4308
Page Four
Hearing no objections waive further reading
of the body of said Resolution.
RESOLUTION NO. 4309 The City Clerk presented:
ADOPTED B°A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF WEST COVINA, ACCEPTING A GRANT
OF EASEMENT FOR PUBLIC UTILITY PURPOSES FROM DONALD L. BREN
COMPANY, A CORPORATION)AND DIRECTING THE RECORDATION THEREOF."
Mayor Chappell: Hearing no objections, waive further reading
of the body of said Resolution.
Motion by Councilman Lloyd, to.a.dopt Resolutions 4306, 4307, 4308
and 4309, and seconded by Councilman Shearer. Motion carried on
roll call vote as follows:
AYES: Councilmen Shearer, Nichols, Young, Lloyd, Chappell
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
Motion by Councilman Shearer, seconded by Councilman Lloyd and
carried,to_.direct. the City Clerk to cause recordation of
irrevocable offer for street and highway purposes for Temple Avenue
from Umark, Inc.
Motion by Councilman Shearer, seconded by Councilman Lloyd, and
carried, to direct the City Clerk to cause recordation of
irrevocable offer for street and highway purposes for Temple Avenue
from Donald L. Bren Company.
POLICY ON CITY LIMITS LOCATION LOCATION: General.
AT BOUNDARY WITH UNINCORPORAT- (Council reviewed Engineer's
ED TERRITORY report.)
Motion by Councilman Young, seconded by Councilman Lloyd, that the
policy as recommended in staff report dated February 19, 1971 be
adopted.
Councilman Shearer: Mr. Mayor a comment. I was not convinced
last time that this was a good idea and I am
even less convinced now. I feel the three
reasons given - with all due respect to those who signed the report -
but this to me does not prove the point. The fact that the "County
doesn't sweep streets frequently, the County area_ -is many times not
developed, Police and Fire response time by County forces are many
times slower than the City will provide" - I fail to see where
these have anything to do with either full or half streets
versus the County and the City.. I look at the County as I do another
adjacent City and they have an obligation to furnish services such as
street sweeping, fire response, etc, I fail to see where the
citizens of West Covina should pay for a half a county street. I am
opposed to the recommendation.
Councilman Lloyd: Councilman ShearerjI may be wrong but I was
under the impression that the reason this
was being done was to take care of the
• ,�rous situation involving an accident) wherein, say, a car was struck
and moved fron one point to the other and in order to facilitate
the legalities, the solutions to the problems presented, that was
the reason - so the whole street was in the City of West Covina.
I am not doubting your expertise in the area of having covered the
County but it seemed to me there was a logic in this,and I was
prepared therefore to go forth with the recommendation of staff.
Would you care to comment on that?
Councilman Shearer: l don't see any difference if there is an
accident and it is on the boundary adjacent
4 -
CITY COUNCIL 2/22/71 Page Five
PUBLIC WORKS: POLICY ON CITY LIMITS LOCATION
RE. UNINCORPORATED AREAS
to the vicinity of West Covina and they shove it across - you
still have that problem. You will have that problem with this
policy, perhaps not as much as you would without it. I think
there are other disadvantages, that we will be potentially taking
on obligations that we really don't have a right to. Some people
will say this will make the City more attractive and encourage
annexations and I think just the opposite is true. If I am getting
my street swept for nothing,why would I annex to the City so I can
pay taxes to pay for this thing I am now getting free?
Councilman Lloyd: Another thing that comes into play here,
whether or not the City of Covina has been
wildly enthused about joining us for
anything, the fact remains that their street and police facilities
in my opinion, just as our own, are frankly better than the County.
I don't think the County meets the same criteria or same standards)
and I think that is what we are trying to do, is provide these
services. I really think this would facilitate it. Mr. Aiassa)
would you have someone in staff comment?
Mr. Aiassa: I will. For thirteen years we have had
nothing but chaos and confusion because)
throughout the City whenever we have street
involvements, we have some taken to the center line and some taken
to the property line. Now we are trying to establish uniformity
so)throughout the boundary of the city limitsiwe will at least
know whose jurisdiction is whose. Right now, as an example, on
Barranca Street next to Eastland, this belongs to Covina and they
disturbed the islands and the landscaping and the circulation of
traffic/ and we have no jurisdiction. If we had 50/ of the street
in our jurisdiction - which we should have had - we definitely
would have put our finger on the traffic pattern,instead of allowing
them to set the pattern because they have the maximum jurisdiction.
In the County area this policy would establish the tie points that
go into all the corners of the street. If you have only half a
street you are going to,/be tying to where? Another important
point is) we do have utility controls? In the adjoining cities)
most of the cities have their maps as complete as oursi but not the
County areas. I also feel if we have the whole street -then in an
annexation from the County many times we can ask the County Road
Commissioner to improve the --road before we annex it.
Councilman Young: I think Councilman Shearer raises some
very valid points. What is the prospect of
County participation in a desired improve-
ment?: And is this generally the desire of the County to have its
territory gobbled up by the city adjacent to that territory?
Mr. Aiassa: The County has been more than cooperative
in putting in these types of improvements.
Valihda.'.Avenue extension from Amar Road to
Maplegrove was a County project and they did it before we annexed
it, We also had certain other streets improved by the County
before taking into City jurisdiction. Also there is the problem
of street names." If the County has a half a street and we have a
half street we have different street signs.,
Councilman Young: Of courselthis motion does not change any
existing boundaries, it just goes to
future annexations where they are contiguous?
Mr. Aiassa: Yes, this is not retroactive.,
Councilman Young: As a matter of course) we would annex to the
street" and now you are suggesting we annex
across the street and you are suggesting
prior to.such an annexation we could request and probably gain the
5 -
CITY COUNCIL 2/22/71 Page Six
PUBLIC WORKS: POLICY ON CITY LIMITS LOCATION
RE. UNINCORPORATED AREA
County improvements before we annex, and are you also telling us
the County generally takes a favorable attitude towards annexa-
tion?
Mr. Aiassa: We have had no problems in annexing. and if the
• County retains half of the street and the'City
half of the street then they can just as well
tell us they are not interested in improving, but if you are going
to take it off their maintenance list and then absorb it, I think
this is the inducement we have to convince County that the road
should be up to our standards.
Councilman Shearer: Another question. Aren't fire hydrants
normally located within the street right-of-
way? (Answer: Yes) Who pays for the rent
on the fire hydrant in the County area if located in City right -of
way?
Mr. Aiassa: I don't think you will have very many hydrants
involved, probably not more than three or four
in any County annexation. When five annexed
the Valinda area there were no hydrants involved.
Councilman Nichols: Mr. Aiassa, wouldn't it be correct that the
numbering designations on the streets would
still be county -designated numbers.because
they would serve a portion of the adjacent property in the County?
So,even though the signs were in the Citylthey would carry the
County numbering designation?
Mr. Aiassa:
Yes, but at least we would be maintaining it.
Councilman. -Nichols: Like Councilmen Young, I think there are
pros and cons"in the matter. Councilman
Shearer brought up some of the detrimental
aspects. I think,weighing everything in balance,I would tend to
go along with the recommendation. Perhaps we might be able to
put signs up on our half of the street telling the County their
half is swept by the City of West Covina.
Mayor Chappell: Is there any further discussion? If not, we
do have a motion on the floor.
Motion carried_, Councilman Shearer voting
Hno"
MUNICIPAL SWIMMING Councilman Young: A question. Is this a
POOL SOMBRA budgeted item in the
current budget? (Answer:
Yes.) I was a little confused by the material on it. I seemed to
recall some discussion on'it in the past.
Mr. Aiassa: When we built the swimming pool we didn't
have sufficient funds for the sombra,,but we
wanted to put it in some time. in the future,
•and last year we put in the footings and this year we would like
to build the shelter.
Motion by Councilman Young, seconded by Councilman Shearer, to approve
the plans and specifications and to authorize the staff to call
for bids for the construction of the sombra structure at the West
Covina Municipal pool.
Councilman Nichols: It was my recollection when we discussed
the sum involved it was to be an inhouse
project.
6 -
CITY COUNCIL 2/22/71 Page Seven
PUBLIC WKS: Swimming Pool Sombra
Mr. Aiassa: It is partly an inhouse,project but) in
figuring out the cost we were~:
over the dollar amount legally allowed
for a complete inhouse project. Soy we have to go out on bide
Councilman Lloyd: Mr. Mayor, I am carrying that one step
further. I was under the impression that
we could go ahead inhouse, as a matter of
fact�Mr. Aiassalyou briefed us on the way we would do that. I
don't see why we can't. I don't see any reason for going ahead
and spending any monies on it at this point for several reasons,
not the least of which is that it does not hamper the use of the
pool. It makes it more acceptable and more meaningful,.but it
certainly doesn't hamper it. I am wondering if it wouldn't be
advisable for this body to say let's go a little slower and save
a little money on it. Would some of the other councilmen
comment on that?
Councilman Shearer: I don't see how we could save any money until
we put it out for bid and find out what the
contractor is going to agree to. On the
advice of the City Attorney we can't do it inhouse because of some
State law setting the. amount of funds that can be used on an
inhouse project. Is this correct, Mr. Wakefield?
Mr.. Wakefield: Yesp the law requires if the estimated cost
of the construction project exceeds $3500.00�
it must be done on the basis of advertising
and competitive bidding prior to the award of
the contract.
Councilman Shearer: Sol we are not faced
saving money or not,
to bids we don't do
item and we discussed it last April and the
Money is available in the amount of $6584,
higher that's the time to decide whether we
We may come in with a bid of $4500.
Motion carried.
with a situation of
because if we don't go
it. It is a budgeted
decision was to go ahead.
and if the bid comes in
want to go ahead or not.
ESTABLISHMENT OF PRECISE Motion by Councilman Shearer, seconded by
LOCATION OF WEST COVINA Councilman Lloyd, -to approve issuance of a
PARKWAY BETWEEN BARRANCA purchase order for surveying West Covina
AVENUE AND GRAND AVENUE Parkway between Barranca Street and
Grand Avenue to Walsh-Forkert Civil
Engineers, Inc.
Councilman Nichols. The report falls mildly short of what I had
in mind, but seems to meet my minimum
expectations so I won't make any further fuss
about this at this time.
Motion carried on roll call vote as follows:
AYES: Councilmen Shearer, Nichols, Young, Lloyd, Chappell
NOES: None
ABSENT. None
PUBLIC HEARINGS
ZONE CHANGE NO. 449 LOCATION: South side of Garvey Avenue,
PRECISE PLAN NO. 606 approximately 2501 east of Azusa Avenue, at
TED BLOCK 1840 E. Garvey Avenue.
REQUEST: Approval of a change of zone from
N-C to S-C and approval of a precise plan of design for an auto
dealership on property presently developed with a vacant auto
- 7 -
CITY COUNCIL 2/22/71 Page Eight
PUBLIC HEARINGS-. ZC #449 & PP #606
diagnostic center. Recommended by Planning Commission Resolutions
Nos. 2313 and 2314.
Mr. Munsell, Planning Director, summarized Planning Commission
Resolution 2313 recommending approval of zone change. Slides shown
and explained. Further summarizing Precise Plan Resolution 2314
reading staff conditions, Engineering requirements and Fire
Department conditions.
THIS IS THE TIME AND PLACE FOR THE PUBLIC HEARING ON ZONE CHANGE
#449 AND PRECISE PLAN #606.
IN FAVOR
Ted Block Mr. Mayor and members of the Council about
21121 Cloverland the only thing I can add to the presentation
Covina is the fact that the property in question
will become a modern professionally maintained
building, something that will lend credence to the City. In the
past it has been used as a diagnostic center) with the use of heavy
equipment. It is.not our desire to maintain it as a diagnostic
center or maintain any heavy equipment there, priImarily referring
to dyna-monitors. Other than thaty the facilities will be used for
the maintenance of new automobiles,with a very limited consideration
given to the sale of used automobiles. That is all I would have to
say about it.
THERE BEING NO FURTHER PUBLIC TF,,STT-K0NY, ,PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED.
COUNCIL DISCUSSION.
Councilman Shearer-. Mr. Mayor, I will make mire brief. I am in
favor of it.
CouncilmanLloyd; Me too!
Councilman Young-. I will join the two Councilmen. I think this
..is a gold facility. 3t is' not"going to'
interfere with'.&hything around -it _�nd)at this
pointjshould enhance some of our problems, I hope, all success to
Mr. Block, perhaps we can get some tax money off of it.
Mayor Chappell-. I think that is the consensus of the Counc.il�
Mr. Block, that we certainly welcome you and
your organization into our City and look
forward to a pleasant business relationship with you and your
organization.
Motion by Councilman Shearer, seconded by Councilman Lloyd, and
carried, that Zone Change No. 449 and Precise Plan No. 606 be
approved.
UNCLASSIFIED USE PERMIT LOCATION-. North side of Merced Avenue
NO. 166 VARIANCE NO. 656 approximately 1501 westerly of Glendora
LA PUENTE CONGREGATION OF Avenue.
JEHOVAH°S WITNESSES REQUEST-. Approval of an Unclassified
Use Permit to allow construction of a
building to be used for religious activities in the O-P Zone,
• and approval of.a Variance to reduce the required minimum site
size for a church from 2 acres to 0.5 acres. Denied by Planning
Commission Resolutions NOS. 2308 and 2307.
Mr. Munsell, Planning ,Director, summarized Resolution No. 230%,
recommending denial of the Unclassified Use Permit No, 166. Slides
shown and explained. Resolution No. 2307 summarized referring to
Variance application No. 656; slides shown and explained.
THIS IS THE TIME AND PLACE FOR THE PUBLIC HEARING ON UNCLASSIFIED
USE PERMIT No. 166 AND VARIANCE NO. 656.=
CITY COUNCIL 2/22/71 Page Nine
PUBLIC —HEARINGS: UUP #166 & V #656
Mayor Chappell: I might state at this time that we have had
a tremendous amount of letters regarding
this matter. Council has read them and will
keep them in mind in considering this issue.
IN FAVOR
Bill Ross (Sworn in by City Clerk)
1241 Robindale St., Our congregation is requesting this Variance
West Covina and Unclassified Use Permit to construct a
building at this particular site in order to
have a place to worship. Whereas it is true that this lot is only
slightly over a half an acre,I would like to mention the fact that
the organization°s policy is not :to -Save a larger congregation than
150 to 175 members. We feel that this limitation made does permit�in
fact,a reasonable exception in circumstances in order to allow for
the reduction of a 2 acre site size that normally would be required
by the City for a church building. In the eastern San Gabriol
Valley there are more than twenty-five congregations of 'Jehovah°s
Witnesses and everyone meets in a building comparable in size to the
one we are contemplating. The majority have lots smaller than what
we have chosen. So)quite evidently)it has been recognized by the
cities around us that there are exceptional circumstances with regards
to Jehovah°s Witnesses and we hope Council will recognize this in
deciding our requests.
At the present time. we are only 125 members,
and even.at this time we are discussing plans to form a new congre-
gation. We have presented our plans to the City Planning
Commission and the Department report stated-tliat we met and exceeded
all of the standards relative to parking and seating required by the
City. The area is a mixture of residential, medium residential,
and commercial) and we feel a building for religious purposes will fit
in with the area and be compatible. This type of activity will not
be detrimental to any individual or any business and, if anything)
will make the area more attractive.''Our intention is to have'a
meeting place for our members in the community. I might mention after
the notice appeared in the papers, that we were denied the request
by the Commission for this Variance change] we received a number of
phone calls by many different individuals .in the community wondering
why we were not able to have such a Variance. We hope the City
Council will consider this too, that there are many individuals that
are residents and taxpayers in the City of West Covina that are
very much interested in having us erect a meeting place in the
community.
In view of these reasons mentioned we request
this Variance and Unclassified Use Permit/ and hope the City Council
will grant it to us. Thank you.
(Councilman Lloyd requested of the Mayor if there might be a show of
hands of those in the audience interested in this matter. Council
Chamber: -was --filled to an overflowing capacity;_ a-*ajori-ty`of hands
went up.)
James Orbaugh - .(Sworn in by City Clerk)
1235 South California We feel this Variance should be granted,.due
• West Covina to the same policy of our organization to
seek an additional facility when our congre-
gation reaches from 1.50 to 175 membership. If I could have the
lights lowered I have five slides I would like shown, wherein
organizations are acting favorably and lending themselves well to
the benefit of the community. (Slides shown, denominations men-
tioned,along with the location and size of lot' alT bdin-6, uhder
a half acre or a half acre in size A We feel the 2 acre require-
ment is unfair and financially burdensome to a group that is small
and designed to stay small;in any one location.
Speaking as a taxpayer and for many other
taxpayers in the City of West Covina, we question the reason why
- 9
CITY COUNCIL 2/22/71 Page Ten
PUBLIC HEARINGS: UUP' #166`,& V ##656
our taxes pay for the planning staff to investigates analyze and
make an investigation on a request for an unclassified use permit
and a variance only to have our favorable recommendation so
grossly ignored by the Planning Commission. Alsodthe one-half
acre site would be more economical taxwise as opposed to a 2 acre
plot taxwise to the City. We respectfully submit these points to
you for your consideration. Thank youo
Jarvis Long (Sworn in by the City Clerk)
1134 South Shadydale I would like to comment on the opponents
West Covina claim that a church doesn't fit in the area
inasmuch as the locale is zoned for O-P.
It has been brought to your attention our buildings are not the
usual church construction but rather designed to blend in the
areajand the area also is one mixed with churches, buildings,
club buildings, service stations and medium residential. It is
an area of a variety of buildings soy in fact, in addition to the
O-P there is a tree farm just west of the Elks Lodge. We contend
our building does not indicate a departure from what is already in
the area. The Planning staff made a report on our proposed project
and.,xecommended approval and gave us several reasons, one which we
feel is very significant and apparently overlooked by the Planning
Commission, in their comment if there is sufficient parking and
good access churches will be compatible with the surrounding
development. We have complied with parking, access and other
requirements. We do not feel._there is validity to the claim that
we would be detrimental to the public welfare and injurious to the
properties in the vicinity. We have met the Department standards
set by the City,as acknowledged by the planning staff. I would
like to make a request that the City Council please consider these
points in regards to our request for a Variance and an Unclassified
Use Permit. I have been in West Covina as a taxpayer for 12 years
and have had to go to another town to worship at the church of my
choice. My family and I would like to see Jehovah°s Witnesses
have the right to build on Merced on the .lot in question. Thank you.
IN OPPOSITION
Don Huff (Sworn in by the City Clerk)
Exalted Ruler Mayor Chappell and Councilmen, we have
Elks Lodge 1996 represented our Lodge before the planning
841. W. Merced Avenue hearing the latter part of January
r and at
West Covina this time I will introduce a Past Exalted
Ruler - William Tanking. Mr. Tanking will
be our official spokesman of our Lodge this evening.
W. T. Tanking (Sworn. in by the City Clerk)
1538 East Cameron Tonight we may appear to be in the minority ' —
West Covina however, had I asked 1200 Elk�_to be in the
room it would have been a little bit too
adequate. As Elks, the 1200 of us are not against churches in the
least. Most of us belong to churches and one of the prime things
we have to indicate when we become Elks is that we do believe in God,
so it isn't that matter.jbut a matter of that in the beginning we
found a location that we thought was adequate for our type of
activity and then began to work with the City as to whether it was
rightjand since then with the guidelines setting it so it would be
right. So -it isn't our contention that this church is incorrect,
• it is our contention.that the church is - n an incorrect location.
An Elks Lodge, a filling station and a liquor store - it just seems
to me as though it is possibly wrong, but I will not bass my own
theory or the theory of our membership on saying it is wrong, but on
facto First, had the church been. on the location they are asking
for now we, the Elks Club and the liquor store, could not have
been there, because this is not allowed by the State Board of
Equalizationo So if this is the case that the Elks: Club and the
liquor store couldn't be there) then it would seem to me that the
church couldn't be there.
® 10 -
CITY COUNCIL 2/22/71 Page Eleven
PUBLIC HEARINGS: UUP ##166 & V #656
Let's get to the point of the Unclassified
Use Permit matter. The City of West Covina in their laws indicate
certain points: A m the proposed use is both desirable and
necessary at the proposed location. In our letter to the Planning
Commission we indicated under A. that the proposed use is not
desirable or necessary at the proposed location for our betterment
or the good of the immediate area. B - that the proposed use will
not adversely affect the surrounding neighbors. Our answer: the
proposed use will adversely affect the operation of our Lodge and
place our licenses and permits in jeopardy. To clarify this, any
reconstruction of our buildin.gyand it is always anticipated we
will expand, would be subject to,the consideration of the State
Board of Equalization and other people in the neighborhood. So at
the time when we would want to reconstruct for furtherance of our
buildingjor furtherance of our license opportunitiesjthere would
be the matter of churches or schools in the consideration of that
request. I bring that out under point B and our answer that it
would affect and possibly cause jeopardy. C - that the site is of
adequate size and the development would conform to all city
ordinances and standards. Our answer: the proposed site is not of
adequate size and will be even smaller when the area -;-.for half of
Wescove Place is removed from the north end. We are talking of a
piece of property 2601 in depth and 1001 wide. When 301 is given
to Wescove Place/you have a 1001 width and 2301 depth. That is
the facts having to do with the size of the lot. However, when we
consider the City of West Covina has established a law saying the
church must have two acres of propertyland then we say there is a
possibility of a church being built on what is 23,000 square feet
actually which is slightly over a half acre, I. believe that the
situation is too far inadequate for consideration as against the
law set having to do with two acres for a church. D ® that adjacent
streets are adequate in size for the traffic that will be generated
by the proposed use. Our answer: The E1*8 have no objection.
E - that the proposed uses will not adversely affect the General
Plano Our answer: the proposed use will adversely affect the
General Plan in that it is not conducive to the highest and best
use of the property as provided in the plan. And1going further in
that, we have worked with the City of West Covina both on the
General Plan itself and the new South Glendora ,Plan and we have worked
on the arrangements of Wescove Street behind and the ;apartments in
trying to be cooperative in all areas of the General Plano
That covers the Unclassified Use Permit No. 166 and the city°s
regulations, and our answers.
Now in the Variance matter #6.56, the City of
West Covina indicates point A. that there are exceptional hardships
on this property due to exceptional size, shapes or topography of
the property that do not generally apply to other property in this
general area. Our answer: there are no exceptional hardships on
this property for proper development in accordance with the General
Plan being office -professional type development. B - that the
Variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a
substantial right possessed by other property in the same vicinity
and zone but which is denied to the property in question. Our
answer: the Variance is not necessary for the preservation and
enjoyment of a substantial property rights, since there are no
other Variances in the immediate area and all development in the
area has been stfictly in accordance with the General Plano
C - that the Variance would not be detrimental to the public
welfare or injurious to the neighboring property. Our answer:
the Variance will be detrimental and injurious to our property
in that it will affect our progressive operation and is likely to
depreciate our property value] and this could result in loss of
revenue to the City of West Covina. This may I clarify? We have
1200 members, we are always in progress. This year the City of
West Covina will enjoy at least, and I say this in a minimal, of
a sales tax revenue opportunity of one -quarter million dollars.
We are expanding and working upwards at all times. We are working
11
CITY COUNCIL 2/22/71 Page Twelve
PUBLIC HEARINGS: UUP #166 & V #656
in all areas having to do with whatever is beneficial, to the City
in youth work, youth benefits and in the compensating factors that
have to do with welfare and charity, at all times. If we should
wish to submit to the State .Board of Equalization for further
licensing, such as an open license opportunity where the public
could enjoy the facilities for lunches, dinners or whatever
conviviality they so desire, we would be very limited in our
submittal for further licensing should we be in proximity to
schools and churchesjbecause had that been there we couldn't.
D m that the variance will not adversely affect the General Plano
Our answer., We believe the Variance would adversely affect the
proper development of the General Plan in that it would discourage
the desired development in accordance with the General Plano
Gentlemen, it is with mixed emotions that
the Elks object to a, church at any level because.,as I indicated
to you earlier we are believers in this type of thing. We are for
this type of thing. It is only our contention we were first.
We .started in 1956 and started on this land in 1958 and we are
doing a good job with it for the City, trouble freer and we would
like to cons-ider that possibly somehow or other this land that was
selected is the wrong location for the right thing. Thank you
very kindly®
Ira Stone (Sworn in by the City Clerk)
West Covina I own and operate the liquor store exactly
381 from the proposed church site. I feel
that this would be very detrimental to me
in the event I would decide to sell my business because it would
definitely lower the value of my business. I feel between an
Elks Club and a lr quoz store i,s.' de-f'initely not a place for the
church. I have nothing against their. type of religioni..but I just
don't feel that the back door of a liquor store is any place to
build any type of a church. Thank you. f
REBUTTAL (Sworn in by City Clerk)
James Andrich Mr Mayor and City Councilmenol would like
1202 E. Herring Avenue to comment on the opponents1claim that the
West Covina construction of the Kingdom Hall
would adversely affect the comprehensive
General .Plan of the City. Eirstyl would like to bring to the
Council°s attention that the report of the planning staff states
that the granting of a variance would not adversely affect the
General Plano We feel the staff has been employed by the City to
give objective and unbiased reports, Their report concurs with
our claim that,by meeting the City°s development standards and
exceeding them in certain mattersdwe would not adversely affect.
the General Plan of the community. We cannot understand why the
Planning Commission completely disregarded the planning staff°s
report. The complete project would enhance the area because the
architecture would be compatible with the existing structures.
Furthermore/ our construction area would have a good amount of
landscaping, in fact more than the minimum required by the City.
We agree with the planning staff°s report that the project of
building a New Kingdom Hall would renovate the vacant lot and will
increase the community's stock of well-landscaped)high standard
. developments. We feel the evidence and reports of our .intended
construction were not looked at objectively by the Planning
Commissionsand we therefore request the City Council to consider
the mentioned points in considering our request for a Variance
and Unclassified Use Permit for the building of a, place of
worship for Jehovah°s Witnesses, in the City of West Covina® Thank
you°
Ronald Horn (Sworn in by City Clerk)
719 South Gaybar Avenue I would like to comment on why the
West Covina proposed building - Jehovah°s
Witnesses' Kingdom Hall would not be
12
CITY COUNCIL 2/22/71 Page Thirteen
PUBLIC HEARINGS: UUP #166 & V #656
detrimental to the community. I feel the Kingdom Hall that we
propose to build just off Merced Avenue, between Merced and
Wescove Place, would be an asset to West Covina. The design of,
the building would be'in accord with the surrounding businesses,
including the professional, residential and Lodge buildings in
the area. As you have previously seen from the slides of the
surrounding area, Kingdom Hall looks more like a professional
office building rather than a church, due to the absence of a
steeple or Cross as most churches have. I have been a taxpayer
resident homeowner in the City of West Covina for 12 yearsi,and
I find that 40% of our present congregation m which have to meet
in LaPuente9 actually live in West Covina. We also would be a
material benefit to West Covina rather than a detrimental aspect,
because the local businesses would derive more income from us
and also this would help the City.
Our traffic problems would be practically
nonexistent with the use of Wescove and Merced. We never all
active at one time or depart en ma,sse. Also, 28/ ofthe total
congregation are the ones that drive the automobiles, the heads
of the family. Whereas)in comparisonyto the 1200 adult members
that drive cars at the adjoining Elks, Lodge. Andras you know/
our parking f acilitiesaie in alignment with the city ordinances
and were passed by your planning staff. So I therefore urge the
City Council to reverse this decision of the Planning Commission
and recommend that a Variance be approved. Thank you.
Richard Ferris (Sworn in by City Clerk)
1420 W. Durness Street Mr. Mayor and members of the City Council,
West Covina I would like to answer the opponents'
contention that the granting of a Variance
would be injurious to the properties in
the vicinity, especially in regard to the hindering of other
licenses and permits , especially permits that would allow them
to sell alcoholic beverages either privately or to the general
public. We felt if this was an objection then we should certainly
take a reasonable approach to it�and we went to the ABC Board and
we were referred to cases on record that deal with the same
objection that we are faced with here tonight. The case I would
like to mention is the Altadena Community Church, respondent,
versus the State Board of Equalization, appellant, under the
heading Intoxicating Liquors Licenses, discretion of the Board
State of California Law Records, briefly .states the mere fact
that beverages are in the immediate vicinity of a premise does
not establish an abuse of discretion by the State Board of
Equalization in granting an on -sale liquor license for such
premises. I have a copy of this which I will leave with the
Clerk tonight. Now/,the summary stated in 1950 an application for
an on -sale general license was opposed by three churches and by
over five hundred citizens of the area who signed a petition of
protest. In addition to this/the Sheriff of Los Angeles County
also filed a protest. They argued the premises are in the
immediate vicinity of three churches and a Youth Center building)
and the contention was that the -issuance of a license would be,
contrary to the public welfare and to the morals. At the
conclusion of the hearing the Board stated that the applicant
has heJ .and now holds a beer and wine on -sale license and also
the bhurr-hes came onto the scene after the time when the
applicant was operating. They summed it up by saying it would not
cause a moral hazard to the churches or the Youth Center, and
the permits were granted.
It is evident then that the proximity of
a church is not the d&tgkmimn t of whether a license will be
granted or deniediand we do not feel the opponents"objection then
is valid on this point. This case, which is public knowledge] shows
that the opponents'case is speculative and without basis. And in
fact to fortify this, let me mention that the Elks ; Club in
- 13
CITY COUNCIL 2/22/71 Page Fourteen
PUBLIC HEARINGS: UUP #166 & V #656
Laguna Beach permitted Jehovah's Witnesses to usetheir building
as a meeting place for a number of years for their meetings/
and there was no effect whatsoever on their licenses. I hope
the City Council will give consideration to these facts when
making their decisions. In our meeting with the Planning
Commission there was no effort by the Commission to verify
the opponentt1claim or ours, and the facts show that the
proximity then is not the determinwit;in granting licenses by the
ABC Boardhand we cannot understand why the Planning Commission
didn't follow through by investigating the matter thoroughly
before denying our request. Jehovah's Witnesses do not object
to others' activities. We are not teetotalers and were fully aware
of our opponents.° activities when we ag;;eed to buy the lot. We were
s4irprised-that such a suggestion was even brought up. We hope, in
view of the facts just presentedithat Jehovah's Witnesses will be
granted a Variance and an Unclassified Use Permit. I'would like
to leave with the'tlerk a copy of the case I referred to for your
reference.
Mrs. G. L. Rich (Sworn in by City Clerk)
838 East Herring Avenue Gentlemen, I would like to refer to a
West Covina point in the opposition, specifically
that we would be injurious to the
properties in the vicinity. The Council is aware of the nature of
our work and its benefit to the community; however, perhaps ...the
opponents are over -concerned about the future of their business
and their activities because of their dependence on their liquor
license. I feel this isn't a sound argumentibecause there are
examples of churches and schools existing in West Covina right now
in close proximity to businesses that have general liquor licenses
to sell either privately or publicly in restaurants, bars, liquor
stores and clubs. For example, the South Hills Baptist Church at
17250 East Francisquito is within one block of the 7-1.1 Store at
1819 North Azusa Avenue with. off -sale license; the Coronado
Elementary School at 545 East Vine and the Community Presbyterian
Church at 540 East Vine are both within'one block of the Ranch
Market at 522 East Vine)and Liquor Manor at 943 South Glendora is
directly.across from the Presbyterian Church. Then the Christian
Science Reading Room and Ward at 222 South Glendora has four such
businesses in the same block. Namely, the Great Wall Restaurant
at 232 South Glendora,- Hudson's Liquor, 227; the Cove Cocktail
Lounge at 146 South Glendora; and also the Royal Cocktail Lounge
at 181 South Glendora. Another example is the Immanuel
Lutheran Church and School at 512 South Valinda Avenue with the
In and Out Market. Liquor .store directly across the street.
St. Christopher's Catholic Church and School is only one block
south of this same liquor store. Alsoy the Christ Lutheran Church
at 311 South Citrus is across from the Pronto Market at 222 South
Citrus.
Gentlemen, these are by no means all of the
examples in our community, only the ones notable at a cursory
glance. The point being, as I am ,sure you -agree, that the fears
of our opponents are truly unfounded. My family has resided in
West Covina end have been property owners for over 11 years and we
do look forward to having a place of worship in our own neighbor-
hood. So I'urge you to reverse the decision of the Planning
Commission and allow us that consideration. Thank you.
John Mackelhenny (Sworn in by City Clerk.)
1314 Devers Street I am here tonight to comment on the
West Covina Planning Commissions refusal-totgrant a
Variance and Unclassified Use Permit on
the property in question,
Councilman Lloyd: Mr. Mayorga point of order on' -that. I
don't believe that was really brought up
- 14
CITY COUNCIL 2/22/7.1 Page Fifteen
PUBLIC HEARINGS: UUP #166 & V #656
in the opponents testimony.
Mayor Chappell: Please - only speak on items they have
mentioned.
Mr. Mackelhenny: They have concluded that our use of this
• property as a meeting place to worship
our Creator and Father would be detrimental
to public welfare and adjacent properties; we take exception to
this ruling on the evidence that never has the Watch Tower Bible
and Tract Society, known as Jehovah°s Witnesses been known to be
injurious to its neighbors. This is a worldwide claim - we respect
the civil authorities and peoples of all nations. Our purpose in
this troubled work as a benevolent organization is to improve both
men.., women and their children by Christian education through
charitable instructions based on Bible truth. Now the laws of
this land apply to Jehovah°s Witnesses,and they are glad to abide
by them. Our purpose .in wanting this piece of property is that it
is centrally located to serve the greater number of our congregation
whose tax monies are also being used for public purposes. With'
reference to being injurious to neighboring properties, may I bring
to your attention that on the west side of the .lot in question
there would be approximately 751 of open'space between our property
line and a secondary entrance to the Elks Club building. On the
east is almost a similar situation. It is approximately 401 to the
rear entrances of the small business buildings. Here we would not
interfere with their business activities that are usually conducted
through the front doors. Our evening meetings never go beyond
9:45, so this should not interfere with any social gatherings
in the vicinity so far as street activity or club activities.
May I again emphasize that we are only interested and concerned
with the work related to God°s Kingdom and in no way would
infringe on other people's rights. Thank you.
Dick Kelly (Sworn in by City Clerk.)
17103 Sangarry The spokesman for the Elks mentioned that
Valinda schools or churches in close proximity to
a place of business that wanted to sell
liquor would prove to be injurious in this regard. It has been
brought out already that several churches in close proximity to a
place of business that wanted to sell liquor was not injurious
in this regard and I wanted to bring to your attention tonight
a documented citation concerning a school which was the same result.
This school in Long Beach strongly objected to the place'o.f
business wishing an off -sale .liquor license to sell beer and
wine and,in spite of their strong objections
,,the license was
granted, so I would like to leave this case for your records and
observation. Thank you.
Mrs. Horn (Sworn in by City Clerk.)
719 South Gaybar Avenue Mayor Chappell and Councilmen, we have
West Covina been property owners in West Covina
for the past 12 yearsland I would like
to state the reason why the Jehovah°s Witnesses would not be
detrimental to the welfare of this community, Jehovah's Witnesses
are known throughout the world as being sincere, honest, law-
abiding citizens who live according to the Bible principles.
In fact] the very nature of their work is really. a blessing to
their community for they teach people high moral values and
respect for the government and its officialseas well as respect
foi the law and order. In fact, it is because of this behavior
that 250,000 Jehovah°s Witnesses were able to assemble in New York
City at an international convention. So impressive was this
display of harmony that a New York Times report on the convention
was even incorporated into the United States Congressional Record�-
from which I here quote: "Witnesses Style City°s Best Guests, They
win praise for courtesy, quietness and neatness. New Yorkers are
15 -
CITY COUNCIL 2/22/71 Page Sixteen
PUBLIC HEARINGS: ZC #166 & V #656
unanimous in agreeing the Witnesses' conduct has been exemplary.
Their cleanliness is now almost legendary. Courtesy has been their
watchword. They are a real asset to the community." Our youths
also set fine examples in the schools. You will not find any of
them joining protests or social reforms, demonstrations, etc., and
by their conduct and manner of operation they prove what fine
• citizens they are really becoming. They are obedient1not only to
their pad rats but to the officials and uplift the area because
they alsq put to teaching the Bible. It was reported in Seattle
Times last year, and I quote m "If every one were like Jehovah°s
Witnesses the police would be out of a job. Imagine 40,000 visitors
in the Cityjand all in the habit of being lawabiding citizens just
because they want to be." The writer also added - "I saw no
drunkenness, no walking on lawns, no unlegal parking, no traffic
offenses and heard no profanity. There is absolutely no littering
of any kind. I feel strongly,by their high standards of morality,
courtesy and honesty that they bring nothing but good to any City."
So I ask you gentlemen, could a group of people such as described
be'anything:'but',an asset to our community? Thank you.
Councilman Young: Mr. Mayor, a point of order. I don't want
to offend Mrs. Horn because everything she
says is true, but I don't think anything in
opposition spoken by the 'Elks Club was incompatible with that.
I think everyone agrees to that and I only speak to the point of
order that testimony along that line was not rebuttal testimony.
I appreciate everything you said ,Mrs. Horn.
Mayor Chappell: Anyone having to speakjplease do so only in
rebuttal to the items brought up in opposition
to your requests.
Bill Ross Mr. Mayor and members of the Council, the fact
1241 Robindale that there are provisions for a Variance
West Covina implies that there are exceptions. And ours
is just such an exception. The 2 acre
requirement that is made as a provision by the City for church
buildings is understandably for larger denominations, most of these
having much larger membership, and they have many more requirements
than what we would have. For instance/they may have a church
school such as the Bethany Baptist on Sunset. They may have a need
for recreational facilities or Sunday School Rooms�or maybe provi-
sions for future expansion of their buildings and we don't have any
such need as this, and to identify us with these larger denominations
would actually be unfair and unrealistic and actually discriminatory,
because it would be forcing us out. The financial burden of, the
unneeded land would be unreasonable and actually wasteful. I would
also like to emphasize the matter of meeting the requirements of
the City, which has been touched on before.. We: mentioned the matter
of parking, the matter of seating requirements- There are many
other requirements that had to be met, such as the furnishing of
sidewalks on the north and south of the property, the street -`lights,
the paving of Wescove .Place, trees, parking strips with adequate
"irrigation for these....
Mayor Chappell: Mr. Ross, we are only speaking on items of
opposition. You had the opportunity the
first time to speak on these points, now it
is necessary to stick to the points mentioned in opposition to your
request,
Mr. Ross: The spokesman for the Lodge,in talking down
the size of our lot�is trying to make it
appear it is not feasible for us to have
our -congregation on this size of a lot. I believe they are not in
the same position as the staff of the Planning Department that
okayed the size of the lot for our needs and approved and
recommended it to the Planning Commission. Thank you.
16
CITY COUNCIL 2/22/71 .Page Seventeen
PUBLIC HEARINGS: ZC #166 & V #656
THERE BEING NO FURTHER PUBLIC TESTIMONY, PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED.
COUNCIL DISCUSSION.
Councilman Young. Mr. Mayor, if I may? I spoke to the City
Attorney a few minutes before the meeting
started. I am a recent member of the
• Elks, Club and I am not a member of the Club at this time and I
would like that fact known. I would like the question of the con-
flict of interest stated on the record I do not now belong but I
have within the past two months. Mr. City Attorney?
Mr. Wakefield: The matter of a conflict of interest is
`determined under the State Law at the time
the action is taken by the City Council
with reference to the matter before it. The fact that Councilman
Young has terminated his membership in the Elks Club would not now
constitute a conflict of interest so far as his action on the
matter before you is concerned.
Mayor Chappell: You mean if anyone is a member of the Elks
Club they should speak out now?
Mr. Wakefield: Right.
Councilman Shearer: The same thing would be true if they were
a member of Jehovah°s Witnesses, I assume.
Mayon Chappell: Yes. If any member of Council is a member of
either organization they should speak out
now. (None)
Councilman Shearer: I will start out by asking a question of the
City Attorney. The one thing I feel in my
mind that will decide whether I vote.for or
against/is the question of the liquor license, the possible area of
protest. I would like the City Attorney to comment on that along
with the possibility of putting in a condition in the unclassified
use permit that the applicant agrees not to protest any future
requests on the part of the Elks Club or Mr. Stone s establishment
to expand, -remodel, change or transfer, etc., if this is possible.
Mr. Wakefield: Mr, Mayor and members of the City Council/
Section 23789 of the Business and Professions
Code deals with the question of protest so
far as the issuance of on -sale liquor
licenses is concerned. This section is particularly applicable to
the :Elks. Club, generally speaking. However, the same rule also
applies to off -sale establishments such as that operated)I think;
by Mr. Stone. The section provides that the State Board of
Equalization and now the Alcoholic Beverage Control Board is
authorized to refuse the issuance of on -sale liquor licenses for
premises located in the immediate vicinity of churches and schools.
This statutory grant or authority to the licensing authority does
not apply to renewals or ownership transfers for the same premises.
In other words., the .fact that the .Elks Club now has a license, the
renewal of that license would not be affected due to the fact the
church was subsequently built in the immediate vicinity of the Lodge.
However, as Mr. Tanking has indicated, if the Lodge were to expand
its premises and it was necessary for the ,Lodge to apply for a new
license then the section would apply. You will note the section
does not prohibit the licensing authority from granting a license
even though there be a protest.
You will
referred to the Altadena Church
Equalization. In that case the
proximity to a church or school
recall that one of the speakers
case versus the State Board of
Court did recite the fact that
may .supply an adequate basis for a
17 m
CITY COUNCIL 2/22/71 Page Eighteen
PUBLIC HEARINGS: ZC ##166 & V ##656
denial of the licensing as being inimical to the public morals /Y'
and welfare. However, this requires a positive finding by the
licensing authority based on the evidence submitted to him.
And,a,§ the speaker in behalf of the church applicant indicated,
the case concluded by saying that the Board is wisely left free to
• act on --:each application for a license as it comes before it.
Implying that the statute is merely a general direction and the
licensing authority is bound to act on the facts as it views them.
In substance, therefore while the establishment of a church or
school in the immediate vicinity of a licensed premise may affect
the licensing authority in determining how to proceed�it does not
control its action ands assuming that the licensed premises are
properly operated and the people who patronize the establishment
are properly behaved,"it seems to me it would be difficult for the
licensing authority to find the existence of the church was
inimical to the public morals and welfare. On the other hand, if
it was a typical kind of bar and the patrons of the bar spread out
into the community and caused disturbances then the result might
be different. But)again)this depends entirely upon the facts of
each individual situation.
With respect to Councilman Shearer's inquiry
as to whether or not the granting of the conditional use permit
or the variance could be conditioned upon the fact that the church
would not protest either the .renewal or granting of the license to
the Lodge on the premiseswhich now have an off -sale license, my
answer is that I think regardless of the fact that there might be
such a condition imposed it would not be enforceable, that an
individual cannot be denied a right granted to him by statute
simply by imposition of a condition that he will. not take advantage
of that right. In other wordsy we would be faced squarely with a
constitutional problem, one which would be resolved in favor of
the protest action in spite of the condition that might be imposed.
Councilman Shearer: Would this be true even though the condition
would not deny the person a right but would
deny the continuance of the use permit if
they so choose to exercise that right? They could go ahead and
protest but)like any other condition of the use permit)if not ful-
filled - and I am not proposing to get into an area of argument
with the attorney, but from: -that respect in saying you can't do it,
but if you do)then your use permit is cancelled?
Mr. Wakefield: Again, I think the result is the same from
a constitutional standpoint. In effect the
problem is created by the fact that the
protest doesn't relate really to an activity or use being made of
the particular premises for which the conditional use permit is
granted but applies more to the use being made of adjacent premises.
Again, what we would be doing is really restricting the individual
or the church in the use of its right to protest or petition a
governmental authority where the right to protest is expressly
granted by statute.
Councilman Shearer: I am not much further along the line than
when I started. I feel, taking point by
point, with regard to the question of the
variance, namely a one half acre versus a two acre site. I feel
that the applicant has made a good case and I feel in some
respects the two acre minimum is unreasonable and I think this
would be one situation where it would be. I think they, regardless
of the area in West Covina, whether next door to the Elks Club
or out in the middle of a vacant field with a mile on either side,
that this particular applicant would not want to develop two
acres. He would still be in with a request for a Variance for
somewhat less.
18
CITY COUNCIL .2/22/71 Page Nineteen
PUBLIC HEARINGS: ZC ##166 & V ##656
I feel the explanation the City Attorney
has given with regard to the hopeful wisdom, hopefully will
continue to be effected by the Alcbholic Beverage Control Board
and will give to the Elks: Club and the adjacent off -sale store
adequate protection. I would like to be able to see a little more
assurance in the condition of the use permit but if this raises a
question of constitutionality then perhaps we should not delve
iinto that area. At this point, until I hear from the other
Councilmen, I am favorably disposed to the application®
Councilman Nichols: Decisions of this type are inevitably
difficult to makejif for no other reason than
the Council has a roomful of people who
identify themselves as taxpayers of West Covina. Actually, there is
a central issue here tonight that has not actually really been
treated. The issue is one central to one of the points that
several of the proponents that spoke mentioned', this is a matter
of lawland one's interpretation of law and what the law .intends.
One of the proponents said the laws of the land do apply to
Jehovah°s Witnesses and Witnesses are pleased to obey themland
another one said'Jehovah°s Witnesses are all :law�abjding:_titizeus
and we know this, and we all try to belaW=abiding citizens. Our
problem comes in the area of interpretation.
I would like to try and explain to you what
I mean by this, because I am prepared to vote "no" on this request
and I want to explain why I am prepared to vote that way. The
Variance is placed in the laws of individual cities to allow
exceptions to the laws, but the Variance has certain requirements
in order that the use of the Variance is not treated lightly.
Becauselif the use were treated lightly�we could put chicken
farms next to the residences in West Covina, and you can see
immediately that this would be a great disservice to someone. So.
we must have criteria for the granting of Variances and there are
5 major points that any City Council must answer in its best
judgment affirmatively in granting a Variance. Four of them in
one form or another are mentioned in the staff report here,but
one, which is essential. and fundamental to the granting of a
Varianceiis not clearly .illuminated here. That one is the use
that is being requested that use is granted already to others
in the same zone and same vicinity. In my judgment I cannot find
that this particular use is granted to others in the same zone,
in the same vicinity on a similar size parcel.
In other wordsrwhat I am saying is that
the use of the Variance to achieve a church use in this neighbor-
hoodji.n my judgment�is not in keeping with the spirit of the law.
It mayT-well be that our law is extremely severe and/ in fact
excessively severe in West Covina on this point and if that be
the case then in my judgment the appropriate device is to change
the law, not bend the use of the Variance to achieve what cannot
be achieved as the law is written
In many other types of developments in our
City we apply sliding scales. For instance)in the shopping
centers the size of the store will depend on the amount of parking
required and therefor-e the size of the parcel necessary. A
resfdurant'develbpment'depends on the number of seats and that.
then regulates the size of the parcel and the number of parking
spaces) but somehow in West Covina we have said in the case of
churches we must have two acres and I think this is wrong. I
think you people here tonight have made a commendable and out-
standing presentation, but I still feel that the use of the
Variance is not the route to achieve it. I would welcome you as
neighbors and welcome your church in our City. The way the law
stands now I would welcome you on any two acre parcel. If the
law is to be .changed,)and perhaps it will in coming weeks, then I
would welcome you on lesser size, but until the law is changed I
�. 19
CITY COUNCIL 2/22/71 Page Twenty
PUBLIC HEARINGS: ZC #1.66 & V #656
don't find, along with five Planning Commissioners, that all the
grounds for a. Variance have been mete.
Councilman Lloyd: In view of the presentation made here,it
has to tell me that a great deal of planning
went into it. I am very much impressed.
I do feel there are inequities presented by both sides. I already
know, as a result of my experience on the Council, that had you
been there first I would have to agree that if the gentleman from
the liquor store asked for the liquor store I would have recommended
that it be turned down. As you probably know, the Council .
makes a recommendation in every liquor license issuance in the
area and the ABC Board does not have to go along with what we
recommend: however there are very few cases where they do not.
Generally speaking�if we recommend negatively then that liquor
license is not issued. So I would have to say, on the face of it)
that there would have been a disfranchisement in this case if anybody
wanted to go into this type of development.
My reasons for voting "no" m I too, go along
with the recommendation of the Planning Commission _ I recognize
that our staff has been favorably disposed and I find no fault with
that. They are hired to do what they want to doy and they are
indeed very professional peoplefand I can say without any hesitation
Mr. Aiassa and Mr. Munsell both do an extremely fine job. But I am
also of the opinion that our Planning Commission does an extremely
fine job and they do meet the requirements of our community and they
have that at heart and) as a result of their recommendations.,I. am
swayed. Also /I am swayed by the logic put forth by the people of
the Elks Club. In the long run, five or ten years hence, -there could
be a very good chance if they decided to expand, when most of us
sitting here now would be gone and probably many of you would be
gone from the City, because a City of our size turns over every three
or four years, and those people who are here five, ten and fi-fteen
years hence will not remember the comments that occurred here this
evening. In the logic of that, I think we are .forced to go back to
what ww the Ordinance? 'As a matter of f act.,if you were on the
other side of the fence and had a situation where your house when
you first purcha.sedeit had a requirement for 1500 square feet and
all of a sudden, and by the way this in fact occurred in West Covina
recently, you found out somebody was going to move in an 800 square
foot house next door to you and there was nothing you could do about
it because there was a Variance, well I am sure you would agree that
all of a sudden the ox being gored would be on the other side.
I want it clearly understo adjand this is
true with the other Councilmen also, that there is absolutely no
emotional involvement as far as the establishment of this church.
I would be the :first to say this is the bedrock of democracy, of
our society, and the first provision of the Bill of Rights which
says "freedom of religion" requires consideration on that basis/
and being a political scientist I would be the first to say this
is an important consideration. But in addition to that you will
find in the Constitution under Amendment Numbers 5 and 14 there is
a little thing called "due process of law". And I think, indeed,
we do have the due process here this evening and as a result of
that I am going to vote "no".
Councilman Young: Mr. Mayor, I guess what I have to say will
sort of :wrap it up in a sense/not to
preempt your own com.ments/but it will be 3 "no" votes. I say that
first, not to belabor the point. I cannot agree with Councilman
Nichols that it would require a change of the law. I do agree with
one of the gentlemen who spoke in rebuttal, who stated the fact
that we have a provision in the law for Variances, indicates that
under proper circumstances they should be allowed. I think I
perhaps 'would not be overwhelmed in my conscience in allowing the
Variance requested in this particular case, and I think .if some
20
CITY COUNCIL 2/22/71 Page Twenty-one
PUBLIC HEARINGS° ZC #166 & V #656
other location is found which is of sufficient size to accommodate
the church, and I am sure that we have been addressed in good
faith by the church and that they would not expand beyond the
limits of the half acre of ground, then at that time I will
certainly be predisposed to grant a Variance and welcome this
particular body to the City of West Covina. I was especially
impressed by the demeanor and attitude they displayed at this
hearing. This is the most orderly hearing of any we have ever had
of this dimension and interest and speaks very well.
My reason for voting "no" is because I think
we are at odds here. We have two very viable organizations and
there are definite potential areas of incompatibility involved,and
we are setting out on a course of creating bad neighbors. Not
that there would be stones thrown back and forth because neither
organization operates that way, but there would' be a certain
element of bad feeling involved. I think this location is not
that vital .in terms of other available locations. I think there
is an important political consideration involved. The Planning
staff and Planning Commission has been criticized and that is
appropriate. Fair criticism is part of it. But the Planning
Department is a professional organization. The Planning Commission
is political and this body is political, and if we are to accept -
in other words this body and the Planning Commission is supposed to
represent the consensus of the community which is a consideration
apart of the professional consideration. And if we simply blindly
follow the consideration of the professionals, why do we have a
Planning Commission and City Council in the first place? Why not
just turn all of the government over to professionals and let
it go at that? I think the political considerations are well
consideredlin light of the proximity of uses that are somewhat
incompatible of two very fine organizations and very legitimate
enterprises. That is the reason I shall vote as I vote.
Mayor Chappell: Mr. Munsell, in reading over some of the
letters sent to us in our mail last week
it appears that this property is not under
the ownership of the organization at this time? Have they been
long.the owners of this property or just in the process of pur-
chasing?
Mr. Munsello The application indicates they are a
purchaser.
Mayor Chappell: Escrow is not closed?
Mr. Munselle I don't know, I would presume so. The Code
does allow the purchasers to file these
applications.
Mayor Chappell: Sometime in the past the City Council deemed
two acres was a reasonable amount of land
for a church. I think most of you sitting
here can l.00k1back to other congregations you belonged tooand I am
thinking of one I just passed in the last two weeks„ where the
church parking lot was filled and the streets were filled with
cars, there was some sort of a meeting being held by Jehovah's
Witnesses. Two acres doesn't necessarily mean two acres of
building. The parking is considered adequate by certain people,
but in my mind is considered inadequate. I think it should be
adequate for a church because we do not want on -street parking.
We want off-street parking. I think you might regret yourselves
if you go on this one-half acre because you may eventually change
your philosphy, you may want to put up a Sunday School. It is
very possible that in the City of West Covina with 68,000 people,
that a church for 125 people will not be adequate.
- 21 -
CITY COUNCIL 2/22/71 Page Twenty-two
PUBLIC HEARINGS: UUP #166 & V #656 '
In the past some Council decided that
2 acres is the smallest ground for a church, and I know churches
that have more acreage than this wish they had more.and they
don't have a school or ape -.school. So I think we have had
Councils in the past that have been wise in their considerations
and in writing their ordinances, so perhaps 2 acres in your eyes
may seem to be too large now but there may be a time when you wish
you had more than the 2 acres in West Covina. We are going to
grow and there will be another 35,000 people in the City in the
next several years.
I would say the Council is pretty well
unanimous in their consideration this evening that this is just
not the time for a Variance to be granted. I will give you a little
story with regard to variances. Not too long ago a professional
building came into the City to be built, a business for doctors
to practice their profession and because of 8 parking spaces this
Council turned it down. So you are not being discriminated against.
We have the rules of thelaw and we are trying to work within them.
So I'am sure there are other locations in West Covina ➢and no one
here objects to Jehovah's Witnesses.
Motion by Councilman Young, seconded by Councilman Lloyd, that Unclass-
ii.ied_:Useu Permit No. 166 and. 'Varia"nce No. 656 _bd . derhie&'
denied. Motion carried on roll call ....
AYES: Councilman Nichols, Young, Lloyd, Chappell
NOES: Councilmen .,hearer.
ABSENT: None
THE CHAIR CALLED A RECESS AT 9:50 P.M. COUNCIL RECONVENED AT
10 P.M.
PROJECT NO. SP-71010 LOCATION: Sunkist Avenue, northerly of Garvey
PROTEST HEARING ON Avenue.
PROPOSED WORK - 1911 Hearing of protests and objections to.street
ACT (SHORT FORM) improvements on Sunkist Avenue, northerly of
Garvey Avenue, set for hearing on this date
by Resolution No. 4298 adopted by the City Council on February 8, 1971.
THIS IS THE TIME AND PLACE FOR'THE PUBLIC HEARING ON PROJECT
SP-71010.
Mayor Chappell: Madam City Clerk) do you have the affidavit
relative to this hearing?
City Clerk: Yes, I do.
Motion by Councilman Shearer, seconded by Councilman Lloyd and
Carried, to receive and file the affidavit of posting and mailing.
Mayor Chappell: Mr. Public Services Director will you present
the factual data of the Engineer's report?
Mr. Fast: Yes, Mr. Mayor. In accordance with Council's
/ instructionsIthe Street Superintendent posted
the property on Sunkist Avenue northerly of
Garvey Avenue on February 9, 1971, with a notice to construct
curbs, gutters -and driveway approaches. These improvements will be
constructed as part of City Project SP-71010. In addition frontage
on Sunkist Avenue northerly of Garvey Avenue is presently improved
for a total frontage of more than 50/ on these sides of the
streets and blocks wherein the construction will occur. That
concludes the report, Mr. Mayor.
Motion by Councilman Young, seconded by Councilman Lloyd and
carried, to receive and file the Engineer's report.
Mayor Chappell: Madam City Clerk,have you received any
- 22 -
CITY COUNCIL 2/22/71
PUBLIC HEARINGS:. SP-71010
Page Twenty-three
written protests or objections against the proposed improvements
to be constructed?
City Clerk:
No, I have not.
Mayor Chappell: Are there any oral protests against this
project by property owners liable to be
assessed for the improvements, or any other
interested persons in the audience? (None)
THERE BEING NO PUBLIC TESTIMONY, PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED. COUNCIL
DISCUSSION.
Councilman Lloyd: Mr. Mayor, I have a question. Mr. Fast, is
there a reason why the rate of interest in
this is 7/?
Mr. Fast: I believe that is the legal rate, Mr. Lloyd.
Councilman Lloyd: Mr. Wakefield why is the legal rate 7/?
Mr. Wakefield: Simply because the Improvement Act of 1911
provides that the maximum amount of interest
that may be payable is 7. In other words,
there is a statutory limit.
Councilman Lloyd: My question is�do we have a great run of
default? Because 7/ is higher than the prime
at this point.
Mr. Wakefield: No, I don't think there is any history of
default particularly, so far as proceedings
of this sort are concerned. The 7/ is a
maximum rate. It could be less.
Councilman Lloyd: I understand 5-3/4/ is now the primes and that
is 1-1/4/ difference and in view of the fact
that these people have no choice in this
involvement it does seem as if we could give them a break. Do we
set this price or does somebody else?
Mr. Wakefield: No, the interest rate is set by the City
within the maximum established by limit of
law.
Councilman Lloyd: Okay. Mr. Aiassa1is there a reason why we
have to charge 7/ or could we give our good
citizens a break?
Mr. Aiassa: These are small projects,,and when it comes
to financing they are not the ones most
readily acceptable at 5-3/4/ or even 6%
and the smaller the project the longer the investor usually has
to wait to get his money back, and he demands a higher interest
rate.
Councilman Lloyd: I am very well aware of what it takes to
secure a loan-, my question wasjand maybe I
should have asked you - is there a great amount of default on
these type loans?
Mr. Aiassa: We haven't had a great deal.
Councilman Lloyd: What is the percentage factor?
Mr. Aiassa: I haven't had it worked out.
- 23 -
CITY COUNCIL 2/22/71 Page Twenty-four
PUBLIC HEARINGS: SP-71010
Councilman Lloyd: Let's understand I feel Very strongly
that when a man has no choice in his in-
volvement in this type of activity - and
we can accept the fact that they have none - we?as a Citythave
the obligation to seek the most favorable situation financially
that is possiblerand I don't think this has been done.
Mr. Aiassa: There is a condition in this person being
assessed has a period of time in which he
can pay for the project before it is
put into the assessment district.
Councilman Lloyd: Okay. What is the amount the average owner
will.be involved with - $1,000?
Mr Zimmerman: The cost for the average owner is approxi-
mately $2001 because we are only charging
for the curb and gutter. It would be
about 60, or 70, frontage at approximately $3.00 per foot. And,
of course he does have the chance of installing his own improve-
ments without any expense of interest.
Councilman Lloyd: All.right�but most of us as homeowners don't
have two or three hundred just to put into
this.
Mr. Aiassa: One point I would like to bring to the
attention of the Council; these improvements
are being put on properties that have been
existing for at least 10 years without curb or gutter, and they have
retained the benefit of the entire services of the City and got in
there as unimproved property and not as part of a subdivision. I
frankly feel that the penalty is to each property owner on each.
side, he has put the curb and gutter inland these individuals
retained the benefit of not doing so for 10 years. I think it is
high time that Council realizes that we have to do this the hard
way.
Councilman Lloyd: Mr. Aiassa, the Council realizes what is
going on. I am just saying I don't want the
City people to pay more than is absolutely
required. I am not arguing the point whether it should or should
not be done. I think it should be done and I think we should have
consideration for the average taxpayer with regard to the interest
imposed when he has no ability of getting out of it and he is going
to have to pay for it. I know how I felt when I paid my $1,000
bonus because somebody put a sewer out there. I paid the whole
thing but let me tell you I felt it,.and I think most of the people
in this City feel the same way. I don't think they are any
different than I am.
Mayor Chappell: This money doesn't come out of the General
Fund - we have to borrow it somehow?
Mr. Aiassa: We usually have to advance the money from
city funds on which no interest is earned
once it is put into this project.
Councilman Shearer: Mr. Mayor, I would be very happy to obtain
some money right now at 7/. I have to have
my house'fumigated to get rid of the
termites and my driveway fixediand I am going to have to borrow
money at 9/ and I think 7/ is a good fair rate. If someone will
give me a $1,000 at 7%, they have a loan tomorrow. I think 7/ is
a good fair rate.
Councilman Nichols: I think all points have been well made. I
think we should be as economical as possible
- 24 -
CITY COUNCIL 2/22/71
PUBLIC HEARINGS: SP-71010
Page Twenty-five
and if the 7/ figure is our rock bottom then let's go with it. I
agree.
RESOLUTION NO. 4310 The City Clerk presented:
ADOPTED "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF WEST COVINA, INSTRUCTING THE
STREET SUPERINTENDENT TO TAKE CERTAIN ACTION WITH RESPECT TO THE
CONSTRUCTION OF CURB, GUTTER AND DRIVEWAY APPROACHES, PURSUANT TO
SECTION 5870 ET SEQ. OF THE STREETS AND HIGHWAYS CODE OF THE STATE
OF CALIFORNIA, AT SUNKIST AVENUE NORTHERLY OF GARVEY AVENUE."
Mayor Chappell: Hearing no objections waive further reading
of the body of said Resolution.
Motion by Councilman Shearer, seconded by Councilman Young, to adopt
said Resolution. Motion carried on roll call vote as follows:
AYES: Councilmen Shearer, Nichols, Young, Lloyd, Chappell
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
Motion by Councilman Shearer, seconded by Councilman Young, and
carried, to+.:authiar:ize.:the City Engineer to advertise for bids on
Project.No. SP-71010.'
PLANNING COMMISSION
REVIEW ACTION OF (Council reviewed action.)
FEBRUARY 17, 1971.
Councilman Young: Item 5--I have had some conversation on this
item with people not on the Council - the
Unclassified Use Permit No. 167, and based
on that discussion I would like to request that item be called up
for Council review. ( No objections.)
Motion by Councilman Young, seconded by Councilman Lloyd, to receive
and file the summary action of the Planning Commission of February
17, 1971, with the calling up of Item 5.
Councilman Shearer: Mr. Mayor, referring back to two weeks ago -
don°t we approve them? These are action
items. We were told last timeowhen we
received and filed the Human Relations minutes,that wasn't approval
of the $5,000 map.
Mr. Wakefield: Mr Mayor and members of the City Council.
This is simply a review of action taken
and,under these circumstances you would
simply receive and file the record of the review.
Motion carried.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS ,
Councilman Young: Mr Mayor, may I speak -to a point of order
before going into that? I see under Written
Communications we have numerous letters on
Item G-2-a, and I think addressing the Council under Oral Communica-
tions on this subject would be premature. I think the matter is well
recommended by staff) and that we should discuss it and then perhaps
hear from whomever wanted to speak on it.
Councilman Nichols: I concur with Councilman Young. If we have
a Written Communication item where the
Council cannot take any action at all) and
where the material has been presented at the option of the communi-
cant in writing and the recommendation is to refek.to staff, but in this
2 5
0
Is
CITY COUNCIL 2/22/71
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
Page Twenty-six
case, it would create a hearing situation and could very well
defeat the purpose of the staff report.
Mayor Chappell: Fine. Then we will skip over Oral Communi-
cations at this time and go to Written
Communications.
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS
AMERICAN POSTAL CORP. Motion by Councilman Young, seconded by
RE BUSINESS LICENSE Councilman -Shearer, and carried, to refer
FOR POSTAL SERVICE to staff and City Attorney.
VETERANS OF FOREIGN Motion by Councilman Shearer, seconded by
WARS, POST 8620 Councilman Young,t-o graht approval for
REQUEST permission to operate three fireworks stands
over the 4th of July, as approved in prior
years.
Mayor Chappell: Are these the same locations they have had
in the past?
City Clerk: They seem to be. We will check them out.
This will come .through - on a Temporary
Use -Permit. In our fireworks ordinance it
says that they have to get permission from the Council to have
a fireworks stand. So they request permission and then it comes
through the Temporary Use Committee once you have given approval to
them to have the license.
Motion carried.
Councilman Young: May I offer a further motion. I suggest
we vote approval to this subject in
compliance with staff conditions.
Seconded by Councilman Lloyd and carried.
VETERANS OF FOREIGN Motion by Councilman Young, seconded by
WARS, POST 8620 Councilman Lloyd and carried,t® grant
REQUEST approval to the request for permission to
sell "Buddy Poppies" on May 21 and 22, 1971,
as approved .in prior years.
PUBLIC UTILITIES COM. Motion by Councilman Nichols, seconded by
Councilman Young and carried, to receive and
file Notice of Hearing regarding Application
of Western Union .Telegraph Company to revise rates.
SO. CALIF. GAS COMPANY Motion by Councilman Nichols, seconded by
Councilman Young, and carried, to refer to
staff Notice Of Filing Application'to modify
its firm general service tariff schedules.
CITY OF POMONA Motion by Councilman Young, seconded by
RES. NO. 71-43 Councilman Nichols and carried, to receive
and;file City of Pomona Resolution.#71-43
regarding enforcing laws on Air Pollutign .Control, particularly
involving smoke from coke furnaces at Kaiser Steel Company in
Fontana.
LEUKEMIA SOCIETY OF
AMERICA - REQUEST
Councilman Young: Has this been done
in past years by
this organization?
City Clerk:
I checked back/ and I do not have a record of
this particular organization coming before us
previously.
- 26 -
CITY COUNCIL 2/22/71
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS - Cont°d.
Page Twenty-seven
Motion by Councilman Young, seconded by Councilman Lloyd and
carried, that this matter be referred to staff for staff
clearance.
MR. & MRS. E.J. JAHN Motion by Councilman Young, seconded by
AND OTHER LETTERS AND Councilman Lloyd, and carried, to..refer,
PETITION letters and petition protesting proposed
0 rate increase of West Covina Disposal
Company to staff.
Mayor Chappell: While on this subject I would like to
appoint Councilman Nichols and myself to meet
with the City Manager and members of his
staff and the West Covina Disposal Company with regard to the matter
of khat these letters refer to.
Councilman Lloyd: What is the object of the meeting? What will
be accomplished by the mppointment of yourself
and Councilman ijichols? Both very capable men.
Mayor Chappell: We are going to.sit down with the City Manager
and listen to what West Covina Disposal
saysland then come back and report to the
Council and we will then make a decision.
Councilman Nichols: Mr Mayor, having been suitably honored with
this appointment I am perfectly amenable
to passing it and having someone else on the
Council serve. I would concur that as has been done in the past,
we should meet with them as you suggested. I am of the opinion that
there should be some mutual investigation in this area and,�as in the
past.jusually the`Mayor and one Councilman do it. I particularly
don't find the prospect of. this service invigorating and if
Councilman Lloyd would dike to do it?
Councilman Lloyd: Nod I am not able to do it; I am over-
committed at present, I just wanted to know
what would be accomplished.
Councilman Nichols. Mostly to sift through all these materials
that we have with the Disposal people and
then bring a report back to the Council.
Mayor Chappell: That was my feeling, just to weed out the
fasts and bring it back to Council.
Councilman -Lloyd: Okay. I just wanted to know. Suddenly
appointments were being made and I knew
nothing about it.
Councilman Shearer: Do you know how soon we will get this
information?
Mr. Aiassa: I would say next week.
WEST COVINA HIGH SCHOOL
• W.C. COUNCIL -OF PARENT
TEACHER ASSOCIATIONS
MRS . S.N. P'ATTE RSON
833 Pima Avenue
MICHAEL LEWIS,
816 Gaybar Avenue
MRS® WALLACE E. BUTLER
1042 E. Vine Avenue
PTA Councilman Nichols: Mr. May.o,r. may I
speak on this
matter? The
recommendation is to refer these
communications regarding school
crosswalks in West Covina School Dis-
trict formally to the staff for
investigation and report back to the
Council. I would only like'to add a
comment or two.
�ftm
We have had,for many years a chronic
problem with crosswalks in West Covina, whether we.have more or
fewer problems than a similar community, I do not know, but the
- 27 -
CITY COUNCIL 2/22/71 Page Twenty-eight
WRITTEN.COMMUNICATIONS: Crosswalks
heart of many of the most 4evere problems are with the midblock
crosswalks. I don It believe we have shown as much vision as we
might show'to provide some additional type of warning device
notifying motorists of the presence of the crosswalks. I have no
answer and no particular recommendations,except to believe that
• we have tended to take one of two extreme positims, either hiring
crossing guards or doing nothing, and I think there must be some
ground between these two areas. So,as a part of this,I would hope
that staff would accept my own entreaty and give this a very
extensive look in terms of the answer to these problems that might
go beyond our traditional approaches.
Mayor Chappell: I think that is a good point. Having worked
in Las Vegas area for some two and a half
years, staff might take a look at the way
those people handle crossing in school areas. I have seen people
almost slow down to a stop when they came to them, they were so
well indoctrinated to the fact that there was a school crossing
ahead. It was all spelled out. At no expense to the City, we
might have somebody when up there, take a look at their method.
I think it is time we come somewhere along the way so that drivers
when approaching these areas will recognize the crosswalks well in
advance.
Motion by Councilman Nichols, seconded by Councilman Young and
carried, to: refer to staff and the Traffic Committee.
Councilman Shearer: Mr. Mayor, a question. Is it correct that
the School District cannot or will not
participate?
Councilman Nichols: Cannot.
Mrs Aiassa: Mr. Mayor, a question of Mr. Zimmerman. When
will the Traffic Committee convene on this -
March 16th? (Answer: Yes.) So evereyone
present interested in this item knows it will be discussed.by the
Traffic .Committee on March 16tho'
Mr® Zimmerman: Yes, it will be held at 2 p.m. in the
Conference Room at the Police Department.
There is a provision for the School Board
to participate in costs of flashing lights, this is in the Streets
and Highway Code, but not of crossing guards.
Councilman Nichols: Mr. Wakefield perhaps you could advise us.
My recollection was that the basis of the
schools1position in California was the
basis of an Attorney General's finding that the hiring and
employment of crossing guards was a police function, that the
school districts were not privileged to use school district taxes
for that purpose. Is that correct?
Mr. Wakefield: That is correct. The Attorney General has
said the school districts are not authorized
to engage individuals to cover traffic laws
or to participate in law enforcement activities. So while the
educational code, as you know, does specifically provide for school
crossing guards in the sense it is pupil participation in crossing
guard activities, they have no authority to really stop automobiles
or do anything of that sort. They are simply there to warn
oncoming motorists® The school district cannot employ crossing.
guards or law enforcement personnel.
CITY COUNCIL 2/22/71 Page Twenty-nine
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS
AMERICAN CANCER SOCIETY Motion by Councilman Nichols, seconded
REQUEST by Councilman Young and carried, to grant
permission to the
American
Cancer Society
to.solicit funds from April
1 through April
30, 19710
as approved
in prior years.
. COMMUNICATIONS re
Mayor Chappell:
This
item has already
UNCLASSIFIED USE PERMIT
been
taken care of
NO. 166 and VARIANCE
this
evening under
NO. 656
Public Hearing items.
COMMUNICATIONS re "MOE" Councilman Young: I move that we re -
THE CHIMP ceive and file these
applications. I
think Moe°s problem is in the form where it belongs and any comment
by this Council would be improper.
Councilman Lloyd: We11)I have a comment, I always like to be
improper. I think things of this nature -
we110I heard the KFWP broadcast tonight and the role of the City
of West Covina was at best a very bad one, public relationswise.
I think if things of this nature come up I really believe we should
have some sort of a system;of handling it prior to the time some
reporter gets the information and the whole thing comes out that
the City of West Covina is prosecuting a chimpanzee and its owners.
No one has ever called mepand I don't think they have called any one
else here. I, too, have a personal opinion about pets. I have no
objection to them. I do know we have city ordinances which are
applicable and again just as we talked to the people of the
Jehovah°s Witnesses, the ordinance .maybe should or should not be
changed. But I know at the present moment we have been tried and
hung and haven't had a day in Court, much less anywhere else.
I think this kind of activity can be foreseen and maybe forestalled
by pointing out to these wonderful purveyors ahead of time4.so_that•
we can preclude or prevent unwarranted comments about a City.which
has, I think, maintained a pretty wide open attitude as far as I
know . If you want horses - well/ how many years have we been on
the horse ranch Mr. Wakefield?_.
Mr. Wakefield: Too many.
Councilman Lloyd: The last time we had a wild animal situation
it involved a cougar or a mountain lion?
Mr. Aiassa: It was a mountain lion and it had no teeth
or claws.
Councilman Lloyd: I think we had one animal episode involving
a truly wild animal, but I don't think we are
as bad as the radio station indicatedland
I think we should have some mechanism to avoid this. I would like
to ask staff to present some sort of solution or mechanism to handle
such information wherein the City does not get a black name. That
story is going to be a national wire service story, no question
about itoand I think it gives the City a bad name. We are going to
• get a million dollars1worth of bad publicity/ when I think a little
prevention would solve part of the problem and I do think we have
a problem.
Mr. Aiassa: I think it stems from the Courts.
Councilman Lloyd: It doesn't make any difference where it
stems from. I agree with Mayor Chappell, it
is the Court°s business, but the fact
remains when they write the story they are not going to write it
about the Court but the City of West Covina.
- 29 -
CITY COUNCIL 2/22/71 Page Thirty
WRITTEN COM.: "Moe" the Chimp
Councilman Young: The City of West Covina has an ordinance
which in these communications, and I think
I read everyone of them, the ordinance
itself was not attacked, it was the application of the ordinance
in a given situation. And I have every faith that our judicial
. system will resolve this in a just manners and perhaps we should
refer these communications to the City Attorney, but I think if we
are going to make a referral we ought to refer the ordinance to
the City Attorney and have a little inhouse thinking about the
enforcement, because that is where the problem stems from.
Councilman Lloyd: You misunderstand me. I am talking strictly
about the public relations approach. I am
not questioning the ordinance. I am just
saying there should have been a press release stating why these
ordinances were set this way so as to preclude the bad things that
have occurred in the wire service stories and the stories that
come over the radio. I am not involving myself in the legalities,
because I really don't know. I don't think we have done anything
wrong, I think we have handled this matter properly, I am only
saying from a public relations view the City of West Covina will'
receive a black eye to some degree greater or lesser on a national
scale because of this going on the wire service, and what I am
asking for is comments from the Council and"."I--would like to have
some preventive mechanism, if indeed one is available, set up by
the administrative staff so we can preclude such a happening again.
Councilman Shearer: Since we have thrown it open for discussion,
I wasn't going to since it is in Court.
First time I heard about it was when I read
it in the newspaper. To clarify the situation, what is the process?
It is my understanding if someone complains - I have a guinea pig in
my backyard and if someone complains that this is a wild animal, is
it correct that an automatic filing with the District Attorney or
can the City say we are going to do such and such, or what kind of
discretion does the City have short of repealing the ordinance?
Mr. Wakefield: The ordinances of the City prohibit the
possession of wild animals,and there is no
discretion at the administrative level to
permit any deviation from that ordinance requirement. The only
exception exists in the case of carnivals and circuses and things
of that sort, where the animal is brought into the City on a
temporary basis for the purpose of show and display andjunder
those circumstances) the Police Department is authorized to issue
a permit covering the bringing of the animal into the City and
making sure it is properly caged and all that sort of thing.
So far as the business of wild animals otherwise in the City, our
City ordinance simply prohibits the possession of wild animals
as such.
Councilman Shearer: It is up to the Court to determine whether
this is in fact a wild animal or a
dangerous animal) and if somebody does file
a complaint such as the next door neighbor thinking Moe is a wild
• animal and he files a complaint with the City then it must be
prosecuted through Court. Is this correct?
Mr. Wakefield: The normal course would be a complaint would
be filed, the Police Department would
investigate the complaint and if) in fact) it
is a wild animal, incidentially it doesn't make any difference if
it is a domesticated or tamed wild animal, the ordinance simply
refers to wild animals as such. Councilman Lloyd has referred to
the case of the cougar or mountain lion that apparently had been
def anged and had his teeth removed but it was still a wild animal,
although he had become a family pet. The same is true with the
- 30 -
CITY COUNCIL 2/22/71 Page Thirty-one
WRITTEN COM.: "Moe" the Chimp
Chimp. It is not a question of whether the animal is properly
caged or tamed but if it is in fact a wild animal then our Ordinance
would prohibit it being in the City.
Councilman Young.: I would like to suggest that my motion to
receive and file either be passed or dropped
• and I would offer a further motion requesting
a determination or study by the City Attorney and/or staff as to a
possible amendment to this Ordinance to allow some discretion in
the application of it. That might then go a long way toward giving
the City the control it really wants and at the same time prohibiting
what is shaping up as kind of a ludicrousr- situation.
Mayor Chappell: The previous motion would die then for the
lack of a second.
Councilman Lloyd seconded the motion and
motion carried.
Mr. Aiassa: Mr. Mayor, one further comment to Council.
The Council should realize why this
ordinance was adopted. A couple of pet.
shops in the City were going to specialize in the handling of wild
animals such as ocelots, etc., and also we had a family that had
boa constrictors and two got out and we had quite a disturbed
neighborhood. That is how the ordinance came about.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
Mrs. Sanford Grumet This is a request for a public hearing
1445 Queen Summit Drive regarding Tentative Tract No. 29126,
West Covina Brutoco Development Company.
Mr. & Mrs. Abernathy, Mr. Robertson, my
husband and myself, are representing the two hundred property
owners that signed the petition presented to the City Clerk on
Friday, February 19th. These citizens are requesting a review
of the MF-15 and MF-25 zoning on this property. 1 - due to the
fact this zoning was approved 8 or 9 years ago; 2 - with all the
multiple buildings within the five mile area there is no need for
additional units; 3 - it is detrimental to surrounding and over-
looking properties and their value.
.Also asking to cul-de-sac Hillward and
South Hills Drive for the protection of the.existing residents
and their children. That it is possible to use alternate roads
for circulation of traffic.
On March 8th the summary of action taken
by the Planning Commission at its February 17th meeting will be
brought forward to the City Council. At that time we respectfully
request a public hearing to discuss our objections most specifically.
Councilman Young: I think there will be a public hearing
automatically.
• Mayor Chappell: Yes.
Mr. Munsell: Mr. Mayor, that is not a normal public hear-
ing. It comes before the Council under the
Planning Commission report and it is not a
public hearing as the Planning Commission hear. So there is no
notification that goes out,nor is the public invited to participate
unless the Council makes an exception at that time.
Councilman Lloyd: But it ordinarily comes before us?
- 31 -
CITY COUNCIL 2/22/71 Page Thirty-two
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
Mr. Munsell: Yes, but not in a normal public hearing.
Councilman Nichols: Let's explore that a moment more, Mro Mayor.
In order thatIthe petitioner does not have
a misunderstanding. There will be no hearing
on this item on March 8th. It is not a hearing item when it comes
before the Council, is that correct?
Mr. Munsell: That is correct.
Councilman Nichols: There would be the opportunity to call it up
at that time if Council desires?
Mr. Munsell: No, your opportunity is tonight. The Council
acts on the Commission's recommendation, -of
approval that night, but it is not a normal
public hearing item. If you wish to set it for a public hearing
we have to bring it to the Council within a certain number of
days.
Mr. Wakefield: Mr. Mayor., perhaps I can straighten the
confusion out. The Tract Map will come
before the City Council for City Council
approval. Now,under the Subdivision Map Act
and our Subdivision Ordinance/it is not a hearing matter in the
technical sense that public notice is given pzf the fact that it is
before the Council and people are invited to come in and protest
the matter. It comes before you in a routine fashion for your
consideration. The subdivider or anyone else interested have an
opportunity to express their points of view)but it is not really
set as a hearing matter. The Subdivision Map Act simply
contemplates that the City Council will review and approve or
disapprove the Tentative Tract Map based upon the map before you
and the recommendations of the Planning Commission°
Councilman Nichols: Mr. Mayor, my concern is that there are
people petitioning the City for action. They
are people who believe they desire or would
like to see the zoning changed; they do not know the procedures
necessary and they may believe that in the next week or two the
Council can,,at a meetingychange the zoning or do some other things
that will have a significant effect on the landsand what I am
attempting to do is avoid any possibility of a misunderstanding
that might go out of here to a couple of hundred people that some
momentous event can in fact occur. The matter of the oral
communications involving the change of zoning that can't
possibly be considered at that time. All the Council can do is
approve or disapprove of the particular plan for the subdivision.
Mr. Wakefield: That is correct,Councilman Nichols. The
zoning on the property is not a matter
that is before the Council and will not be
before the Council in connection with the consideration of the
approval of the Tentative Subdivision Map. Change of Zone
proceedings can be initiated by the Planning Commission or the
• City Council. but.,by petition of property owners in connection
with the Tract Map, cannot get that matter before the City Council.
Councilman Young: Mr. Mayor�I happened to attend a portion of
the Planning Commission meeting the other
;- night and I think I was present when
Mrs. Grumet addressed the Commission and,frankly)I was under the
impression when we received and filed the Planning Department
bulletin - in fact,,I have always been under the impression that
where it is automatically reviewed by Council that this meant in
public hearing, and I have learned something tonight after almost
a year on this Council. I would be willing to see us accommodate
Mrs. Grumet and the two hundred people she is spokesman for, within
® 32 -
CITY COUNCIL 2/22/7.1
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
Page Thirty-three
the limits that we can legally accommodate these people, which
would be approval or non -approval of the Tract Map. That is all
that would be before the Council, is that correct?
Mr. Wakefield: Yes, that is correct.
• Councilman Young: On that basis I would be willing to offer
a motion that Item 1 of the Planning
Department bulletin reviewing the Planning Commission procedures
of February 17th4be called up for hearing before this honorable body.
Seconded by Councilman Lloyd.
Mr. Wakefield: Mr Mayor and members of Council, it is not
necessary to call the item up, the item
comes before you automatically for the purpose
of approval or rejection.
Councilman Young: But the motion is for the purpose of a public
hearing.
Mr. Wakefield: There is no provision in our Ordinance or the
State Law with reference to the approval of
subdivision maps which provides for or
authorizes a public hearing. At the time the matter is before the
City Council, the subdivideroor others interested may have an
opportunity to express their point of view with respect to the
design of the subdivision, the improvements required, the location
of streets, matters of that sort, but it is not like a change of
zone where public notice is given by advertisement and notices
sent to the surrounding property owners.
Councilman Young: Mr. Wakefield, was'the hearing then that
the Planning Commission had simply more of
a courtesy hearing - these people were allowed
to address the Planning Commission pro and con.
Mr. Wakefield: Yes, the Planning Commission itself is not
required to hold a hearing as such. The
tract map comes before the Council for
consideration of approval or disapproval only.
Councilman Young: It appeared on the agenda as a public hearing
item and was so dealt with by the Commission.
Mr. Wakefield: Well, again,it is not a matter that is required
to be treated as a hearing matter.
(It"was determined the motion made and seconded was not._a valid
motion.)
Councilman Young: May I suggest that when this comes before
the Council-then/that the same courtesy
afforded by the Planning Commission be
afforded by this Council.
• Councilman Shearer: I think in that regard we should make it
clear that the matter we will be considering —
and I got the impression when Mrs. Grumet
spoke they are interested in a zone change, and this is not
going to be hopefully allowed to have a rather lengthy discussion
as to whether the zone should stand or not stand, and I trust.the
people that come will not have this in mind and that they not
testify with regard to a particular zoning matter;but rather the
design and layout of the subdivision under its present zoning.
It is long past the time of zoning discussion on this particular
parcel or any other parcel in the City.
33 -
I
r
CITY COUNCIL - 2/22/71
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
Page Thirty-four
Marilyn Spande.au I guess this is more or less a question. It
1228 7outh Evanwood is referring to something you haven't come
West Covina to yet)and that is the Traffic Committee
minutes of February 16th. The question is -
the Committee made recommendations to be presented to you tonight
and I just want to make sure that this subject won't be closed but
will be included, the subject that Councilman Nichols spoke of
before about the school crosswalks.
Mayor. Chappell: I think we will include all crosswalks and
have them all looked over. I won't promise
you thatrbut I would think that is the way
it will be.
Marilyn Spandeau: A1so,I have a list of the warrants that have
to be met for 4-way stops/and when the whole
thing is considered about school crosswalks
I don't understand why there has to be an accident warrant when
you can see a dangerous situation and prevent the accidents from
happening. The accident warrant says 5 or more accidentspand lists
types acceptable for 4-way stops, but when you can see a dangerous
situation and prevent accidents; why do you have to wait for the
accidents to happen? I don't e�pect you to answer that, but I
would like to know why this even has to be included in warrants
for 4-way stops when they take this matter up?
Mayor Chappell: Just as a general answer,and we will probably
be discussing it further, but someone in our
City would probably want 4-way stops at
every intersection in -the City and that is exactly where we would
be if we didn't have some rules and guidelines to work with and
work in between. This is something the Council has been very aware
of and we haven't come up,with the proper answer yet. We don't
think 4-way stop signs is the proper answer but in some areas it
island we do put them in in some areas. We haven't given up on
this item yet and will be discussing further. So have faith with
US. We certainly hope no one gets injured in the meantime.
CITY ATTORNEY
Mr. Wakefield: Mr Mayor and members of Council, the first
four items on the City Attorney's agenda
are prepared upon the basis of the staff
report from.the Building and Safety Director to the City Manager
and City Council, which didn't get on the agenda. I hope the
memorandum has been received by the members of the Council,
because I was asked to prepare the ordinances on the basis of that
recommendation because there was some urgency in connection with
them. I mention that so Council will understand how the items
got on the City Attorney's agenda and come to your attention for
the first time.
What the drdinance does is to adopt the
two uniform codes as a part of the Ordinances of the City. The
codes are adopted by reference and the only change has reference
• to the procedure to be followed in.connection with the abatement
of unsafe buildings and that procedure conforms to the existing
procedure in our present ordinances.
ORDINANCE The City Attorney presented:
INTRODUCTION "AN ORDINANCE.OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF.T.HF
CITY OF WEST GOVINA AMENDING ISECTTDN'S $sl:l`Q :A
AND,8110-1 'OF ;THE WEST COVINA MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO THE
ADOPTION OF THE'�UNIFORM BUILDING CODE,1970 EDITION�AND.THE�UNIFORM
MECHANICAL CODE, 1970 EDITIONo'AND MAKING CERTAIN CHANGES THEREIN
REQUIRED TO MEET LOCAL CONDITIONS.--
- 34 -
r"
CITY COUNCIL 2/22/71 Page Thirty-five
CITY ATTORNEY
Mayor Chappell: Hearing no objections waive further reading
of the body of said Ordinance;..
Motion by Councilman Shearer, seconded by Councilman Lloyd and
carried, that said Ordinance be introduced.
• ORDINANCE The City Attorney presented:
INTRODUCTION "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF WEST COVINA AMENDING SECTIONS 8120
AND 8121 AND REPEALING SECTION 8122 OF THE WEST COVINA MUNICIPAL
CODE RELATING TO THE "UNIFORM PLUMBING -CODE, 1970 EDITION-` TO
MEET LOCAL CONDITIONS."
Mayor Chappell:. Hearing no objections�waive.further reading
of the body of said Ordinance.
Motion by Councilman Young, seconded by Councilman Lloyd and
carried, that said Ordinance be introduced.
ORDINANCE The City Attorney presented:
INTRODUCTION "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF WEST COVINA, REPEALING PART 3 OF
CHAPTER I OF ARTICLE 8 CONSISTING OF SECTIONS 8130 to 8163
INCLUSIVE AND ADDING A NEW PART 3 TO CHAPTER 1 OF ARTICLE 8 TO
THE WEST COVINA MUNICIPAL CODE ADOPTING THE"NATIONAL ELECTRICAL
CODE, 1968 EDITION" AND ADOPTING CERTAIN ADDITIONS THERETO REQUIRED
TO MEET LOCAL CONDITIONS AND CONSTITUTING THE ELECTRICAL CODE OF
THE CITY."
Mayor Chappell: Hearing no objections waive further reading
of the body of said Ordinance.
Motion..by Councilman Young, seconded by Councilman Lloyd, and
carried, t`o'introduce said Ordinance.
Councilman Young: Mr. Mayor, I would like to make a comment
commending Mr. Fowler on reducing a
complicated subject to something you can
understand.
Mr. Wakefield: Mr. Mayor - before these Ordinances may be
finally adopted by the City Council it
will be necessary to give.public notice
of a hearing where. anyone who desires may come and object to the
adoption of the ordinances. I'have di®cussed the matter with the
City Clerk,and we have selected the date .of March 22nd as the
date of the hearing ands if satisfactory to ,Council, the Clerk
should be instructed to -give notice of the -public hearing for
that date. The hearing would be applicable to the three
ordinances introduced tonight.
So moved by Councilman Lloyd, seconded by
Councilman Young and carried.
ORDINANCE NO. 1155 The City Attorney presented:
• ADOPTED "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF WEST COVINA AMENDING SECTION 2410
OF THE WEST COVINA MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO OFFICES AND
EMPLOYMENTS IN THE EXEMPT SERVICES."
Mayor Chappell: Hearing no objections waive further°reading
of the body of said Ordinance.
Motion by Councilman Shearer, seconded by Councilman Young,
:to adoptsaid Ordinance. Motion carried on roll call vote as
follows: \
35 -
CITY COUNCIL 2/22/71 Page Thirty-six
CITY ATTORNEY
AYES: Councilmen Shearer, Nichols, Young, Lloyd, Chappell
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ORDINANCE NO. 1156 The City Attorney presented:
ADOPTED "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF WEST COVINA AMENDING SECTION 3191
OF THE WEST COVINA MUNICIPAL CODE, RELATING. TO A DECREASE IN
MAXIMUM SPEED LIMITS (Amar Road)."
Mayor Chappell`: Hearing no objections1waive further reading
of the body of said Ordinance.
Motion by Councilman Young, seconded by Councilman Lloyd, to adopt
said Ordinance. Motion carried on roll call vote as follows:
AYES': Councilmen Shearer, Nichols, Young, Lloyd, Chappell
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
WATER SERVICE AGREEMENT Mr. Wakefield: The next item simply is an
informational item. I have
prepared a draft of a proposed agreement between the City and the
Suburban Water -_SSr -tems relating to the furnishing of water to
Cortez Park. The agreement is generally acceptable to Suburban.
They have submitted a rate schedule to the I►ublic utilities
Commission for approval which would authorize the preferential
rate provided for in the agreement. As soon as the �ublic Utilities
have acted on that tariff rate we will proceed with the City approval.
CITY MANAGER
TRAFFIC COMMITTEE MINUTES (Council reviewed minutes,)
February 16, 1971 f�
Councilman Nichols: I would like to call attention of the
Council to Page 8 of the minutes. This
was the.request made of Council by the lady that tpoke a few minutes
ago on the crosswalks. The ladies involved have gone now, so I can't
be accused of playing to their particular concerns when I mention
this is the kind of problem which is frustrating to the citizenry,
when dealing with governments at all levels. I think it is a.case
where we should all - staff and council - take a close look. The
recommendations that have come out of this party°s request, to the
Council are the same recommendations that come out again'and again.
In fact they are almost the same recommendations that came out the
last time a group of mothers came in on this same particular cross-
walk. And I don't mean to sound too severe but the citizens,tend
to become aware that all that is happening on this is that they
are getting a joyride as an answer. There are four recommendations
listed herejand they are listed in all good sincerity;- but not bne
has even the remotest prospect of providing any assistance to the
hazards that exist there. I would commend to you to read each one
over. No. 1 - where the, very accompanying study on 'Page 2 indicates
at the beginning of --the last paragraph, "As can be seen from the
above study, observance of the 25mph speed limit is practically nil.`"
We put a radar car down there for two or three days) and the kids
• from the high schools slow down their vehicles and then the radar
leaves and the speed is right back up to where it was before within
just a few days. No. 2 -j0we request the high school to post
notice that the street speed limit will be enforced." We hope it
will be. No. 3 -"that we ask the high school to schedule classes
to minimize the conflict." It is a literal impossibility to do this
sort of thing. No. 4-16that a Police Officer be assigned to
instruct students." We are concerned,with 5 year olds, 6 year olds
and 7 year olds and I instruct them month after month, and year
after year -Edon°t ride double on bikesg we have safety assemblies
and they go right out on their bikes and ride double. So)'having an
officer come over once and awhile wearing a.....uniform will not really
- 36 -
CITY COUNCIL 2/22/71 Page Thirty-seven
CITY MANAGER: Traffic(Committee Minutes
answer these problems, and this is why I feel we need to take a
fresh look at these kinds of problems instead of dealing in what
has almost become a series of platitudes in answering the concerns
of the public. I think their concerns are legitimate and I think
our problems in answering are legitimate)but I don't think we will
• reduce this flow of concerned people to the Council until we come
up with other answers than let's instruct the officers to enforce
the speed law. That is just not a good enough answer, anymore,
and I hope we will certainly try and come up with something
different.
Councilman Shearer: I think that in that regard there is better
communication on the part of Council needed.
I think the recommendations coming out of the Traffic Committee are
based on warrants that have been established, warrants that have been
tested in criteria that the engineers and police department must use.
I think if the Council wants to indicate a desire to place stop
signs wherey from an engineering study they are not warranted, signals
where they are not warranted, then I think it is up to us to indicate
to this Committee that this is what we want. We want something
beyond the cookbook answer, plus the fact that we are willing to
appropriate the money for it, whether it be crossing guards or
signals or whatever. These things do not come cheap. Flashing
yellow lightsdon°t come cheap. If we want something done maybe we
need to consider a special tax for this particular activity. I think
we need to indicate to the community that they are not held by the
various warrants that cover these situations.
Councilman Nichols: I certainly take your comments well. I
think they are well made. I think the
greatest continued concern is the budgeting
concern. And the City Manager and staff are well advised to consider
carefully hiring $1600. crossing guards at each crossing when a
group of parents come in. In factoit is this very crossing that I
have found myself in hot water with my own parents as a principal
of the school, because I have to stand before them and say in good
conscience I cannot go to the City and say we should expend funds
for a crossing guard. It has been a very difficult issue and the
parents are not�of courselaccepting my recommendation/either as a
school principal or a councilman and that is why they are here and
I am equally aware of these budgetary problems; but I am saying
that I feel very strongly that we need to,-l-ook for new answers,
where they may be I don't know, and how much cost is involved I
don't know, but I am thinking of perhaps new painting devices.
All we do is give exactly the same answers back)and we are not
satisfying the public.
Councilman Shearer: On the first request, the request was
for two W 28 R "Yield Ahead" signs, but
the findings and recommendation covers
only one. Does that mean the other one is to be dropped?
Mr. Zimmerman: That is an oversight Councilman Shearer,
thank you! The second item was actually
added to the agenda .at the meeting and
was evidently not picked up in the original recommendation when
typed.
Councilman Shearer: One of the comments on the last recommenda-
tion - and what caught my eye was
Mr. Zimmerman ° s "no" vote .:_ on -..the right turn intersection south -
bound Glendora to north -bound Vincent. I can't disagree with the
fact that it might be somewhat hazardous although I made that
particular turn in my car and I have a rather long wheelbased
car, plus the fact that traffic stops-- and there is no conflict of
tr'affic,so I fail to see putting up another sign to say don't do
something that I am. not sure really isn't the problem. Granted
- 37 -
CITY COUNCIL 2/22/71 Page Thirty-eight
'CIiPY MANAGER: Traffic Committee Minutes
they should use the>channelization provided rather than go past
but now they are up there and forgot to turn and the sign says
now you can't. I-.don°t see the reason for prohibiting when."in
my opinion that isn't the hazard. If we want to put a sign up
there the most__ -it should be is a "no right turn"on the red"0which
. would eliminate the possible conflict of a person making a legal
right turn with traffic coming from the.other direction. I would
be glad 'to hear the other side, although Mr.. Zimmerman is the only
one here and he voted like I am saying. Do we request that this
go back for further study?
Mayor Chappell: Yes, just make.the motion.
Motion by Councilman Shearer requesting that the "no right turn" at
Glendora and Vincent be given a little further study. Seconded by
Councilman Young and carried.
Motion.by Councilman Young, seconded by Councilman Lloyd and
carried, to acoept as qualified by prior motion, the receiving and
filing of the Traffic Committee Minutes of February 16, 1971.
CULVER CITY :Councilman Young:.._'- I move we receive
RESOLUTION and file the
Culver City Reso-
lution regarding Municipal Liability Insurance. I would like to
make a suggestion on this and Item 3. Apparently we have had a
staff study. When we get these resolutions by the dozens I think
we should stop making a study of all of them and putting all of them
on the agenda and just put them into informational packets and if
the Council wants it studied and put on the agenda and brought before
Co,LAhcil for whatever reason he might have he would have the opportunity
at the time of the Council reports.
Mr. Aiassa: Mr. City Attorney, can that be done?
Mr. Wakefield: Yes, it would be perfectly appropriate
simply to send the resolutions of this
sort as information items to the Councils
and if any member wishes to bring it up for further study by staff
he can do so.
Mayor Chappell: Councilman Youngs does this motion -also
cover the City of San Mateo resolution
referring to the establishing of a different assessment ratio for
single-family dwellings?
Councilman Young: Yes, both items.
Seconded by Councilman.Shearer and carried.
Motion by Councilman Young to withhold further resoluti(ms from
other political parties from Council agenda unless specifically
requested by a member of the Council. Seconded by Councilman Lloyd.
Mayor Chappell:
We still will get the document to look at?
Mr. Aiassa: Yes,you will get copies of all documents.
Councilman Nichols: Your motion is not intended to preclude
the staff from bringing up resolutions
that they fear Council might not bring up?
Councilman Young: Oh,no!
Councilman Nichols: I think it is a brilliant suggestion.
a■
Motion carried.
- 38 -
CITY COUNCIL •2/22/71 Page Thirty-nine
CITY MANAGER
WILLIAMS & MOCINE Councilman Shearer: A question, Mr. Mayor.
STATEMENT I have seen a lot of
these statements in the.past few months, but
when are we going to get something substan-
tial in report form?
• Mr. \Aiassa: In about two weeks. We are working on
J.C. Penney"s-t and up to now we have a
favorable input and Mr. Williams has done quite a bit to help make
this feasible and that is part of this expense®
Councilman Shearer: I wasn't complaining/but just wondering
when we will see something in this area.
Motion by Councilman Young, seconded by Councilman Lloyd, <t_o.ap.pro.ve,
the payment of Williams and Mocine statement in the amount of
$1,476.00. Motion carried on roll call vote as follows:
AYES: Councilmen Shearer, Nichols, Young, Lloydp Chappea.l-
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
APPLICATION FOR�EXCHANGE Mr Aiassa: It appears this
OF ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE man- is.•,requesting
CONTROL LICENSE a change in his
;(Water.heei) operation, dividing the restaurant
from the bar. He doesn't want to keep
the restaurant open when he keeps the bar open. I believe the City
Attorney can give the Council further information on this matter.
Mr. Wakefield: Mr. Mayor and members of Council, it was
sometime ago, maybe a year ago, when the
City Council asked the Planning Commission
to initiate proceedings to amend our zoning ordinances to restfict
ABC licenses within the Civic Center area to licenses that were
operated in connection with a bona fide eating establishment. That
matter has not been processed but I am advised that the matter will
be scheduled for hearing before the Planning Commission at its first
meeting in April. As a result/what we have is a proposal by an
establishment that does have a license to operate an on -sale
establishment)in connection with a restaurant asking to disassociate
the restaurant from the on -sale license premise. The appropriate
action seems to be for the City Council to request the Chief of
Police to protest the operation of the license on .the basis that the
City has under consideration a change in its zoning ordinance to
limit the use of premises within the Civic Center area to on -sale
l censes operated in connection with a bona fide eating establish-
ment. Thislat le ast1would get the matter before the ABC Board with
an opportunity to make a determination one way or the.othero I
might add that a part included in the motion made by Council pre-
viously was also to provide for a 10 year amortization period for
existing on -sale licenses that were not operating in connection with
a bona fide eating establishment. So the subject will be covered
by the proposal that will be considered by the Planning Commission
in April andoin the meantime)if Council desires you may instruct
the Chief of Police to protest this change in the license of the
Water Wheel,
Councilman Shearer: Mr. Mayor, I am interested in the state-
ment in the letter by Chief Sill - "I
talked to the ABC people in E1 Monte and they in turn have discussed
this, etc., and feel we may have a motion for denial if a valid
ordinance is in effect by March 8th.1' Does this mean we have to
pass an emergency ordinance to make this effective,or did I miss
something in your presentation - Mr. Wakefield?
Mr. Wakefield: I had not seen the Chief°s report and I
did not realize that what he was proposing
39 -
9
CITY COUNCIL 2/22/71
CITY MANAGER: Water Wheel
Page Forty
was limited to an existing ordinance. I had understood that the
fact the City was considering a change in its Ordinance would be
sufficient basis for protest. If that is not the case then the
only alternative would be to adopt an emergency ordinance. Such
an ordinance could be adopted for a period of 90 days. We would not
get it before the City Council now until the meeting of March 8th.
Councilman Nichols: The wording of the Chief of Police tends
to put this back into the lap of the City
Council. I feel when he says "it depends
on how strongly the Council feels..,.°' it seems to me if we launch
into some type of emergency action to try to prevent this
separation: -of business we are discriminating very highly against
``one business operation in a geographic area where there are other
businesses of a similar nature operating separately. It seems to
meffurther/_that if we hopefully do provide for this with a 10 year
amortization period it should apply equally to all businesses and
as their status may be at the time that law goes into effect. So I
would not propose to protest this unless that protest were based
on a poor operation)or on a complaint in some area such as has.,
come to us in the past from the Chief.
Councilman Young: I agree with"Councilman Nichols. I think
the strongest thing the Chief says is the
violation here is a technicality,,and what
difference does it make if it is under separate management?
Mayor Chappell: It seems to me a long time ago that this
Council voted that the eating establishments
in this area would be a restaurant combined,
and also voted to have the 10 year provision go into effect. I
didn't know we hadn't voted on it. We certainly talked about it
enough.
Mr. Wakefield: The Council did take the action to
initiate the proceedings through the
Planning Commission, but again it is one of
those things that requires a change in our zoning ordinance and will
have to come to the City Council based on a recommendation from the
Planning. Commission.
Councilman Young: Well, they are combined in this case; it
just happens to be under separate manage-
ment. I don't see that the intent of the
City is violated. I will make a motion that there be no protest.
Seconded by Councilman Nichols, and
carried; Councilman Lloyd voting "no".
SIDEWALK ON SOUTH SIDE Mr, Aiassa: I would like to advise
OF CAMERON..,. Council that we are advancing
our 5-year program to place
a sidewalk on the south side of Cameron from the end of the eastern
portion of the First Baptist Church to Lark Ellen, so when students
are walking on the south side they don't have to have an intermediate
crossing there but can go to,an automatic signal.. This will help
to solve some of our crossing problem and I further want to advise
that we have amended our 5-year plan and this will be coming forth
in the'71 272 fisal year budget.
FIREMENS° ASSOCIATION Mr, Aiassa: One further item which is
EMPLOYEE RECOGNITION partly informational. The
Fire Department has applied
for proper employee recognition and it has to go to the Personnel
Board for recommendation to Council. I have made copies for the
Council. I would like to have the Council, by_motion, refer to
the:'Board for formal recognition the petition of the Fire Department.
0
4
•
CITY COUNCIL. 2/22/71
CITY MANAGER
Page Forty-one
So moved by Councilman Young, seconded by
Councilman Lloyd and carried.
CITY CLERK
MERLE MATZENBACHER Motion by Councilman Young, seconded by
1140 South Shasta Councilman Ll,byd and carried, to refer.
REQUESTS MAIL ORDER this.•reglest'to staff.
BUSINESS LICENSE
DROP -IN FREE CLINIC
REQUEST FOR EXEMPT
NONPROFIT BUSINESS
LICENSE
exempt I_statUS with the
AMERICAN FREEDOM -FROM,
HUNGER FOUNDATION
PARADE PERMIT REQUEST
MAY .8, 1971
Motion by Councilman Young, seconded by
Counclm.an.Lloyd and carried, to grant
.approval to the DROP=IN FREE CLINIC
for exempt nonprofit business license,
subject to their qualification for tax -
Internal Revenue Service.
Motion by Councilman Young, seconded by
Councilman Lloyd and carried, to:r.ef.er.
this request to the City Attorney.
ABC APPLICATIONS Motion by Councilman Shearer, seconded by
Councilman Lloyd and.carried, that there
be no protest on the ABC application of Leroy Rufus Cook and
Doris May'Cook dba as 7/Eleven located at 2887 E. Valley Boulevard.
Motion by Councilman Shearer, seconded by Councilman Llo,�d and
carried, that there be no protest filed on the.-ABC,,.application of
James Britt, dba Eastland Lanes, located at 2714 East Garvey Avenue.
CITY TREASURER'S REPORT Motion by Councilman Young,�,vseconded by
January, 1971 Councilman Lloyd and carried, to r6c.e:ive'
and .file City Treasurer's report of
January, 1971.
MAYOR'S REPORTS
PROCLAMATIONS Mayor Chappell.: We have a request to
—proclaim National Poison
Prevention Week, March 21-27, 1971 and if there is no objection. I
will so proclaim. (No objections.)
Alsolhave a request
Week, February 21-27, 1974 and if there is no
proclaim. (No objections.) They also want
Hall, - cantake care of that Mr. Aiassa?
COMMITTEE Councilman Lloyd:
COUNC2h
REPORTS .
Councilman that is interested.
to proclaim Engineers,
objection. I will so
to use a room at City
(Answer: Yes.)
I just wanted to announce
that I am prepared to
give flying lessons to any
Councilman Young: Two things, Mr. Mayor. Number 1, I have
broken the precedent here and flown with
Councilman Lloyd,and he is a highly
capable pilot because we got there and back and we are here.
The other item is Dorothy Davis, the mother
of Hillard Davis, a familiar name on the West Covina High Basketball
team, called me regarding her subcommittee on the Goals Committee
of the West Covina Schools and that subcommittee is to share the
responsibility between the schools and the community and she wants
a joint meeting with City Council on a Monday night, as convenient.
I suggested to her that perhaps it would be better to schedule a
meeting with her subcommittee and invite the City Council to attend
- 41 -
CITY COUNCIL 2/22/71 Page Forty-two
COUNCIL COMMITTEE REPORTS
and she countered what about the Brown Act if more than two show -up.
So I promised to bring it to you. This is the Subcommittee of the
Goals Committee of the West Covina School District, and that is a
Committee that Harvey Krieger heads and which,,apparentlylis involving
about every citizen in the City of West Covina. Perhaps Councilman
Nichols might comment) they are formulating goals for the schools.
This Committee combines school and community sharing responsibility,
and we are the representatives of the community.
Councilman Nichols: Mr. Mayor - I think a representative of
the Council such as Councilman Young?
Mayor Chappell: Councilman Young since you have' rapport
already.
Councilman Young: You gentlemen are entirely too kind. I
will report back to Mrs. Davis.
Mayor Chappell: I will go with you)Mayor Pro tem Young)
if that will help.
DEMANDS
Motion by Councilman
Young, seconded by
Councilman Shearer,
approving demands
totalling
$328,684.02
as listed on Demand Sheets
C758 through 760.
This total
includes payroll. Motion carried
on roll call vote as
follows:
AYES:
Councilmen
Shearer, Nichols, Young,
Lloyd, Chappell .
NOES:
None
ABSENT:
'None
ADJOURNMENT. Mayor Chappell: We have a request for an
adjourned joint meeting
on Monday, March 1, 1971,
with the Human Relations Commission at 7:30 P.M. This was set up
prior to now. May I have a motion to adjourn to that date, ora
Fdiscussion of it?
So moved by Councilman Nichols, seconded
by Councilman Lloyd, and carried, to 'adjourn at 11:40 P.M. to
March 1, 1971 at 7:30 P.M.
APPROVED:
MAYOR
ATTEST:
40 I
CITY CLERK �
42 -