Loading...
04-12-1971 - Regular Meeting - MinutesMINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL CITY OF WEST COVINA, CALIFORNIA APRIL 12, 1971. The regular meeting of the City Council was called to order at 7:30 PM in the West Covina Council Chambers by Mayor Ken Chappell. The Pledge of Allegiance was led by the Mayor; the invocation was given by Mr. Herman R. Fast, Assistant City Manager. ROLL CALL Present: Mayor Chappell; Councilmen Shearer, Nichols, Young, Lloyd Others Present: George Wakefield, City Attorney Lela Preston, City Clerk George Aiassa, City Manager H. R. Fast, Ass°to City Manager George Zimmerman, City Engineer Richard Munsell, Planning Director Ross Nammar, Administrative Assistant Terry Brandt, Administrative Analyst Rick Oakley, Administrative Analyst Jim Butler, President - W.C.C.E.A. Bert Yamasaki, Ass°t. Planning Director John Lippett, Ass°t. City Engineer APPROVAL OF MINUTES March 15, 1971 Motion by Councilman Young, seconded by Councilman Shearer and carried, approving minutes as submitted. March 22, 1971 Councilman Nichols: Mr. Mayor, a correction on Page 12, remarks attributed to me, second paragraph, second from the last sentence, should read: "I hardly think a"-4 year 9 month old child is going to be offended by individuals consuming alcoholic beverages within the confines of the Elk°s Lodge." Councilman Shearer: On Page 13, top of the page, the punctuation is incorrect and should read: 10I don't see any incompatibility here. As I did in regard to the church use, ......11 Motion by Councilman Young, seconded by Councilman Shearer and carried, approving minutes as corrected. March 29, 1971 Motion by Councilman Young, seconded by Councilman Shearer approving minutes as sub- mitted. Motion carried. Councilman Lloyd abstaining, due to his absence at the meeting. AWARD OF BIDS PROJECT NO. MP-125-7013 Bids received in the Office of the SOMBRA AT MUNICIPAL POOL City Clerk at 10:00 A.M. on Wednesday April 7, 1971. Motion by Councilman Nichols, seconded by Councilman Young, as per staff report Council will hold Project MP-125-7013 over to their next meeting. Councilman Shearer: Mr. Mayor, a question. Were the bids too high? I am interested in why we are holding it over. Mr. Aiassa: Yes/they were higher than anticipated, but not considerable. - 1 CITY COUNCIL 4/12/71 AWARD OF BIDS - Cont°d. Motion carried. PUBLIC WORKS ITEMS Page Two PROJECTS NOS. SP-69008 LOCATION: Vi4e Avenue between Citrus and AND SP-70017 Hollenbeck Streets (SP-69008) STREET IMPROVEMENTS and Hollenbeck Street from 160 ft. AMAN BROS. INC. north of Thackery Street to 542 ft. north of Thackery Street (SP-70017). Councilman Nichols: Mr. Mayor, I am prepared to vote on this but I would like to request a staff comment at some future appropriate time on the particular project. It seems to me in driving the Vine Avenue project that there is quite a bit of ridging where the asphalt lanes are laid down. I noticed .it in my own automobile which rides very poorly indeed, but I thought it might be worth a comment and a question to staff as to what criteria is used by our staff in determining an acceptable street job. Mr. Aiassa: Mr. Mayor, I would like to recommend that we hold this item over and staff will give you the criteria. Motion by Councilman Nichols, seconded by Councilman Lloyd and carried, holding over Projects Nos. SP-69008 and SP-70017 to the next regular meeting. PROJECTS NOS. SP-70010 LOCATION: Orange Avenue between Pacific Lane and SP-71010 and 850 ft. northerly, and Orange Avenue between Cameron Avenue southerly to Garvey Avenue. Held over from March 22, 1971. Council reviewed Engineer's report. Councilman Young: Mr. Mayor, a question. This report leaves a question in my mind. It says here that three of the property owners in this area have stated that money was deposited by them in 1954 and 1955 and apparently there is no city record of it. My question - what is the result? Do we take the property owners word for it? Who has the burden - the City or the property owner? Mr. Zimmerman: Mr. Mayor and members of Council, this project qualifies under the terms of the Ad Hoc Committee for replacement at City expense in any event and I think it was the timing of the project at this time which was really motivated by the request of the people to acknowledge the fact they had made these deposits. We did attempt to confirm that they actually had made deposits but we are unable to do so. Councilman Young: If we had records that they had made deposits would that money be refunded to them now because this is a City responsibility or would it be applied towards the project? Mr. Zimmerman: I am sure it would be applied towards the project because that was what it was originally deposited for. Councilman Young: I guess there are not too many people here now that can take the responsibility for record keeping at that time, it even pre -dates the City Manager, doesn't it? Mr. Aiassa: I am afraid so. Councilman Young: It would appear to be something of a problem precedent, the fact that they state they have put up some money. - 2 - CITY COUNCIL 4/12/71 PUB. WKS: PROJECTS SP-70010 & SP-71010 Page Three Mr. Aiassa: I would like for the record, because I just don't like to see it state that in 1954-55 money was deposited, etc., and I believe this was reconciled. We spent quite a bit of staff time trying to reconcile an account known as Account No. la this was an accumulation of all kinds of deposits over a period of 10 or 15 years and we adopted one resolution actually ear marking the funds a percentage for parkway trees, a percentage for curb and gutters, etc. This was a very complex study and I think we worked almost 60 days on this at variable hours. I think we might be able to go back.into that file and try and clarify this at least for the record. Councilman Nichols: If that is the case Mr. Mayor and Councilman Young, there would be some question that would arise in my mind in regard to the City Engineer's comment that the money be applied to the project. If the City has changed its policy in the interim and is now creating this project as a City project with City funds and contributions were made in the past although under a different program, it would seem to me that the property owners would be entitled to a reimbursement of their contribution, if it can be determined. Mr. Aiassa: Councilman Nichols: Mr. Aiassa: Councilman Shearer: Mr. Aiassa: Councilman Shearer: There is an exception, City Clerk has just advised me that some of this money could have been deposited directly with the subdividers. That would be a different situation altogether. They could be confused and thought it was deposited with the City whereas it was deposit- ed with the subdivider. I believe this is the project that the gentleman at the last meeting started to ask some questions on. Has he been satisifed? Yes. Mr. Zimmerman) do you want to report on this? As long as he is satisfied, I am. Mr. Zimmerman: We met with him several times and with all the other people on the street and went over the details again and I feel that he was merely under the misapprehension that he was going to have to pay for the installation. I don't know where he arrived at that conclusion because all of our staff was aware of the type of project we proposed. Motion by Councilman Young,', seconded by Councilman Shearer and carried, accepting Engineer's report and approving the transfer of funds as requested and further approving the plans and specifications for City Projects SP-70010 and SP-71010 and authorizing the City Engineer to call for bids. PROJECT NO. TS-71007 LOCATION: Citrus Avenue and Workman TRAFFIC SIGNAL MODIFICA- Avenue. Council reviewed Engineer's TION AGREEMENT report. CITY OF COVINA Councilman Young: A question. Are the funds presently budgeted and just waiting for this action? The first sentence of the second paragraph indicates they are budgeted and the last sentence of the fourth paragraph indicates they are not budgeted, Mr. Aiassa: I think staff is saying in 1970-71 the project is budgeted in the Five Year Program but they don't anticipate commencing work until 71-72. - 3 -• CITY COUNCIL 4/12/71 Page Four PUB. WKS: PROJECT TS-71007 Mr. Zimmerman: Mr. Mayor and members of Council I do feel that the report is at fault, it/ieaves out one rather vital fact, namely that the money was transferred out of the Account in 1970-71 and I therefore intend to rebudget it in the fiscal year of 1971-72. . Mr. Aiassa: If these accounts are new fiscal budget they not rebudgeted into the are automatically dropped. Councilman Shearer: Perhaps the use of the word "budgeted" in relation to the .Five Year Program might be questioned. These are not budgeted, it is just like a planning program and they are not budgeted untilthe immediate year. A small point, but it might clarify. Motion by Councilman Young, seconded by Councilman Shearer and carried, accepting Engineer's report and approving the agreement for traffic signal modification with the City of Covina and authorizing the Mayor and City Clerk to sign the agreement. VACATION OF A CERTAIN LOCATION: Pass & Covina Road northerly of PORTION OF PASS & COVINA Amar Road and Old Amar easterly of Lark ROAD AND AMAR ROAD Ellen Avenue. (Council reviewed Engineer's report.) RESOLUTION NO. 4332 The City Clerk presented: ADOPTED "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF WEST COVINA DECLARING ITS INTENTION TO VACATE A CERTAIN PORTION OF PASS'AND COVINA ROAD AND AMAR ROAD SUBJECT TO THE RESERVATION AND EXCEPTION OF CERTAIN RIGHTS AND EASE- MENTS, AND REPEALING RESOLUTION NO. 4254 DECLARING ITS INTENTION TO VACATE A CERTAIN PORTION OF PASS AND COVINA ROAD AND AMAR ROAD." Mayor Chappell: Hearing no objections waive further reading of the body of said Resolution. Motion by Councilman Shearer and seconded by Councilman Nichols, accepting the Engineer's report, and adopting said Resolution. Motion carried on roll call vote as follows: AYES: Councilmen Shearer, Nichols, Young, Lloyd, Mayor Chappell NOES,, None ABSENT., None FINAL MAP - LOCATION: Northerly of Amar Road, easterly TRACT NO. 28919 of Valinda Avenue. (Council reviewed Engineer's report.) RESOLUTION NO. 4333 The City Clerk presented: ADOPTED "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF WEST COVINA ACCEPTING GRANT OF EASEMENT EXECUTED BY SO CAL PROPERTIES, INC., I.N.C.I., INC., AND L.M.C.I., INC., AND DIRECTING THE RECORDATION THEREOF." . Mayor Chappell: Hearing no objections waive further reading of the body of said Resolution. RESOLUTION NO. 4334 The City Clerk presented: ADOPTED "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF WEST COVINA APPROVING FINAL MAP OF TRACT NO. 28919 AND ACCEPTING AN AGREEMENT BY THE SUBDIVIDER AND SURETY BONDS TO SECURE THE SAME." Mayor Chappell., Hearing no objections waive further reading of the body of said Resolution. Motion by Councilman Shearer, seconded by Councilman Young, accepting Engineer's report, and adopting said Resolutions. Motion carried on - 4 - CITY COUNCIL 4/12/71 Page Five PUB. WKS.: RESOLUTIONS NOSa 4333 & 4334 roll call vote as follows: AYES: Councilmen Shearer, Nichols, Young, Lloyd, Mayor Chappell NOES: None ABSENT: None RESOLUTION NO. 4335 The City Clerk presented: ADOPTED "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF WEST COVINA ACCEPTING A GRANT OF EASEMENT EXECUTED BY SO CAL PROJECTS, INC., FOR STORM DRAIN PURPOSES AND DIRECTING THE RECORDATION THEREOF." Mayor Chappell: Hearing no objections waive further reading of the body of said Resolution. Motion by Councilman Shearer, seconded by Councilman Young, accepting Engineer's report and adopting said Resolution. Motion carried on roll call vote as follows: AYES: Councilmen Shearer, Nichols, Young, Lloyd, Mayor Chappell NOES: None ABSENT: None RIGHT-OF-WAY ACQUISITION LOCATION: Northeasterly side of PACIFIC AVENUE Pacific Avenue between North Garvey Avenue and Pacific Lane. (Council reviewed Engineer's report.) RESOLUTION NO. 4336 The City Clerk presented: ADOPTED "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF WEST COVINA ACCEPTING A GRANT DEED EXECUTED BY CLARENCE F. DIGGS FOR PUBLIC STREET PURPOSES KNOWN AS PACIFIC AVENUE AND DIRECTING THE RECORDATION THEREOF." Mayor Chappell: Hearing no objections waive further reading of the body of said Resolution. Motion by Councilman Nichols, seconded by Councilman Shearer, accepting Engineer's report, and adopting said Resolution. Motion carried on roll call vote as follows: AYES: Councilmen Shearer, Nichols, Young, Lloyd, Mayor Chappell NOES: None ABSENT: None RESOLUTION NO. 4337 The City Clerk presented: ADOPTED "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF WEST COVINA ACCEPTING A GRANT DEED EXECUTED BY SUPREME HOMES, INC., FOR PUBLIC STREET PURPOSES AND DIRECTING THE RECORDATION THEREOF." Mayor Chappell: Hearing no objections waive further reading of the body of said Resolution. Motion by Councilman Nichols, seconded by Councilman Shearer, adopting said Resolution. Motion carried on roll call vote as follows: . AYES: Councilmen Shearer, Nichols, Young, Lloyd, Mayor Chappell NOES: None ABSENT: None • RESOLUTION NO. 4338 The City Clerk presented: ADOPTED "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF WEST COVINA, ACCEPTING A GRANT DEED EXECUTED BY MARY ANTOINETTE MADOTT FOR PUBLIC STREET PURPOSES AND DIRECTING THE RECORDATION THEREOF." Mayor Chappell: Hearing no objections waive further reading of the body of said Resolutim. Motion by Councilman Nichols, seconded by Councilman Shearer, adopting M• CITY COUNCIL 4/12/71 Page Six PUB. WKS�: RES. NO. 4338 said Resolution. Motion carried on roll call vote as follows: AYES: Councilmen Shearer, Nichols, Young, Lloyd, Mayor Chappell NO.E S : None ABSENT: None RESOLUTION NO, 4339 The City Clerk presented,. ADOPTED "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF WEST COVINA, ACCEPTING A GRANT DEED FOR STREET AND HIGHWAY PURPOSES TO BE KNOWN AS AZUSA AVENUE AND THELBORN STREET, EXECUTED BY CALVIN SCHNEIDER AND ALVIN W. BURNETT, AND DIRECTING THE RECORDATION THEREOF. (Precise Plan No. 585).01 Mayor Chappell: Hearing no objections waive further reading of the body of said Resolution, Motion by Councilman Shearer, seconded by Councilman Nichols, adopting said Resolution. Motion carried on roll call vote as follows:. AYES: Councilmen Shearer, Nichols, Young, Lloyd, Mayor Chappell NOES: None ABSENT* None REAL PROPERTY TITLE SERVICES (Council reviewed Engineer's report.) APPROVING AGREEMENT WITH TI CORP., FOR TITLE SERVICES Councilman Young: Mr. Mayor, a question, REGARDING REAL PROPERTY I was curious - what MATTERS this agreement would contain? It seems like if we need title services we could call up and get them, what do we agree too? Mr. Wakefield: This particular agreement is a standard form of City Attorney agreement which TI Corporation uses with public agencies. The rates established for public agencies that are contained in this agreement are less than the standard rates charged for similar title searches and title insurance policies for private individuals and corporations. We have never had such an agreement in, the past but the Title Company now .insists that we have the agreement simply as the basis for justifying their charges on the individual billing for services they are providing upon request. This does not commit the City to use T.I, services exclusively, it simply says at the authorized persons request the specified kinds of services described in the agreement the rates will be fixed as in the agreement. Councilman Young,. It seems like more their agreement than the City°s agreement. Mr. Wakefield: That is correct. City .Attorney Motion by Councilman Young, seconded by Councilman Nichols and carried, accepting the Engineer's report and authorizing the Mayor and City Clerk to execute an agreement with TI Corporation for necessary title service. 0 APPROVAL OF .PRECISE LOCATION. West Covina .Parkway between Barranca ALIGNMENT Street and Grand Avenue. (Council reviewed • WEST COVINA PARKWAY Engineer's report.) Councilman Nichols: Mr. Mayor I take this to be totally a technical matter in the matter of completion following the Council°s earlier authorization and in that light I would move the three recommendations: That Council accept the Engineer's report® and approve the precise alignment of West Covina Parkway® and authorize payment to Walsh-Forkett Engineers of $4,521.50 for professional engineering services. Seconded by Councilman Lloyd. 6 CITY COUNCIL 4/12/71 Page Seven PUB. WKS.: APPROVAL OF PRECISE ALIGNMENT W.C� PKWY. Councilman Young: A question. :Has this alignment been reviewed with the property owners involved? Is there any opportunity for their participation or protest'in connecti(m with setting this up? Mr. Zimmerman: Mr. Mayor and members of City Council, yes, • this particular alignment has been discussed at several different occasions where the property owners had an opportunity to present their points. It was discussed as part of the General Plan, as part of the Master Plan, and then the exact alignment as previously established by the survey crews, which you are approving tonight, was actually approved a couple of years ago as the precise alignment between Citrus and the freeway to the east will be on Grand. This was a public hearing, both at the Council level and the Planning Commission level and so they have had adequate opportunity to be heard. Councilman Young: Then we are not circumventing any right or concern they might have for a protest by adopting this tonight, is that right? Mr. Zimmerman-. Again I would say the actual precise alignment has been previously approved and in one sense this should not be termed as the precise alignment but identified as the survey accomplishment of the precise alignment previously approved. Motion carried on roll call vote as follows: AYES: Councilmen Shearer, Nichols, Young, Lloyd, Mayor Chappell NOES. None ABSENT: None PROPERTY OWNER PETITION LOCATION: Danes Drive, east of Azusa REQUESTING CUL-DE-SAC Avenue. (Council reviewed Engineer's CONSTRUCTION report and Planning Commission action.) DANES .DRIVE Mayor Chappell'. We have a letter on this - should we bring it up at this time because we do allow people sending in letters to make statements, if they wish. Mr. Wakefield: Mr. Mayor and members of Council, Item G-2 (g) on your agenda is the letter from Mr. & Mrs. LaBerge, objecting to the cul-de-sacing on Danes Drive. While this is technically not a public hearing matter it would certainly be in order for the Council to hear from Mr. LaBerge before proceeding if it is your desire to do so. Mayor Chappell: Does anyone object to Mr. LaBerge speaking on the letter addressed. to City Council? Councilman Nichols: I have no objection at all. My only comment is the area of the cul-de-lacing has been encouraged repeatedly by the City, communica- tions were given to all the property owners in that area a couple of years ago and at the time of the rezoning the concept of cul-de-sacing • was adopted and at, that time the City Council by unanimous action indicated that the property owners within the area. if they petitioned unanimously for the cul-de-sacing that the Council would perform that service as a City function. I only mention this to indicate that this is not a new thing, although it certainly is to a couple of our Councilmen, but the policy was set through receiving the petition and the previous actions have been in keeping with City policy and Council direction. Mayor Chappell: And also on our North Azusa Plan this was a specific item, the cul-de®lacing of these streets. If Council has no objections the - 7 CITY COUNCIL 4/12/71 PUB. WKSe: DANES DRIVE CUL-DE-SACING Page Eight gentleman is present and would like to have his say before we vote. (No objections.) Ed LaBerge I do appreciate your allowing -me to 28517 Pacific Coast Hwy speak. It is true Mr. Mayor with Malibu regard to Mr. Nichols' comments and • your comment to me before the meeting that there was a public hearing but at that time we had another City Attorney and he said he was not sure that all the property owners, including ourselves, had to okay this and it never was determined all through those hearings whether Mr. Williams words were correct. Now the present City Attorney says there is no State Law or ruling but the trend is that if 99% of the property owners are for it they will put it in. We are against it. We are 1 . We own property there just as well as anybody else and we have to pick up the tab. This is just the most ridiculous thing I have heard of. We have to pay our share and they don't have to pay anything. The people on that street don't even have sidewalks for the kids. The protection for the kids they are talking about, the dangers of cars, etc., and they don't have sidewalks, but we have to put sidewalks in on our deals when we developed them. I don't think it is fair and that is what -I =want on the record. I don't think it is fair and as a 1/ property owner we have the right to object. The City pays half of it and we then have to share half of the other cost. The property owners don't pay anything, yet we are deprived of our corner, we are deprived of park- ing on. the street, which we planned to use because we bought this property 10 years ago and we paid a good price for the corner lot,, We were in the real estate business then and we realized the advantage of a corner. Now our corner .is destroyed, we got damaged and we are being asked to pay for it. I wish you would reconsider the expenditure of City funds to do this. Thank you. Mayor Chappell. Does anyone have any questions of Mr. LaBerge? Councilman Shearer.- I have some questions. Do we have a map? As I was not present at the time this was discussed originally I would like to have some of this explained with regard to his paying and losing his corner, etc. The report we have indicates it was going to be an obligation of the City. (Mr. Zimmerman, City Engineer, drew the location on the blackboard and explained-, further stating it was approved as an item in the North Azusa Avenue Study, and the petition referred to by the City Attorney is in reference only to the R-1 properties. The requirement is that all of the R-1 approve the cul-de-sac.ingo) Councilman Shearer. What is the distance from the street to the corner? Mr. LaBerge: Two 70, lots, 1.401 Councilman Shearer: The gentleman mentioned -the loss of parking at his property and the only loss of parking then would be those spaces on the residences up the street? Mr. LaBerge.- No that is not true. We cannot park in a cul- de-sac. We lose all the area on Danes Drive, Councilman Nichols: Again in this matter there is a precedent for this action, an adjacent street - Eckerman Avenue has already been developed to these standards and the developer was required to participate in those improvements. As far as the parking is concerned it has been consistent with the City to require off street parking for develop- ments in commercial areas. If this was an improper decision and I do not believe it was, I believe it was a proper decision, but if it was an improper decision my own feeling is that it should have 8 - CITY COUNCIL 4/12/71 Page Nine PUB. WKKS.: DANES DRIVE CUL-DE-SAC been brought out at the time this was originally discussed and at the time the cul-de-sacing was adopted and the previous developer down the street was required to do this very thing. With the thought that this may or may not minimize or maximize the value of the property and I • think a secondary fact is that the City Council controls the zoning on. Mr. LaBerge°s property and has the responsibility for controlling the . use and granting the use for commercial to only those properties where such a use will not be detrimental to the adjoining residential areas. There has been a long time argumentation in the City as to how these corner properties would be used ultimately and in each instance the property owners have come to the City and asserted their great objection to any kind of parking on the streets. This answer was an effort on the part of the City Council to give a reasonable chance for development of the property and at the same time give some kind of protection for the lots easterly of that property. So it is true this does impose some burden on the developer in my judgment but it also infers the benefit that the properties can in fact develop in an area immediately approximate to the single family area. I believe staff°s recommendation was a wise one and the Council°s decision at that time was a wise one and that it should be reconfirmed this evening. Councilman Young-. A question. Is the LaBerge property developed now? Mayor Chappell-. Yes it is. Councilman Young: The other question then. In terms of cost.what will be -the assessment against the LaBerge property for this cul-de-sacing? Mr. Zimmermann The cost is estimated as $7500. for the dual cul-de-sacing and Mr. LaBerge will be responsible for one-fourth of that or something under $2,000. Councilman Young-. This would not be an immediate charge against the property but a lien against future develop- ment? Mr. Zimmerman: Yes, that was what was done on a parcel of property on the .Eckerman Avenue cul-de-sacing. There is one parcel that carries a lien against it. Councilman Young: Well if this property is already developed then the prospect of eventually collecting that is pretty far distant, but I guess that would be up to Mr. LaBerge unless he planned to redevelop. Mayor Chappell: Is there any further discussion or questions? Councilman Nichols did state this was a hearing and we certainly .listened quite awhile to both sides of it and I thought this was a sure way of solving the citizens' problem in that area. Councilman Shearer-. For the record - one further question - what is the relation of the owner on the south side of Danes to this project, what are his obliga- tions? Mr. Zimmerman: Under the Precise Plan requirements this owner shoulders one-fourth of the cost of the development and is similar again to what was done at Eckerman Avenue which is already developed. The Precise Plan requires him to put in his one-fourth share of the dual cul-de-sacing. 9 - CITY COUNCIL 4/12/71 Page Ten PUB. WKS.: DANES DRIVE CUL-DE-SAC Motion by Councilman Nichols, seconded by Councilman Young and carried, accepting Engineer's report and approving the con- struction of a dual cul-de-sac on Danes Drive, with funding to be included in the Five Year Public Works Program for the fiscal year 1971-720 • AUTHORIZATION FOR LOCATION: Vincent Avenue, north of RIGHT-OF-WAY APPRAISAL North Garvey Avenue. VINCENT AVENUE (Council reviewed Engineer's report.) Motion by Councilman Nichols, seconded by Councilman Shearer and carried, accepting Engineer's report and authorizing staff to negotiate an agreement for right-of-way appraisal on North Vincent Avenue subject to Council approval. uP71PTNv-c VARIANCE APPLICATION NO. 659 LOCATION: 298 North Azusa Avenue MURLIN D. GILL REQUEST: Approval of'a variance to (Majestic -Chrysler -Plymouth) allow pennants for an auto dealership in the S-C zone. Denied by Planning Commission Resolution No. 2325. Appealed by applicant on March 10, 1971. (Mr. Munsell, Planning director, summarized Planning Commission Resolution No. 2325 denying Application for Variance No. 659; explained number and sizes and location of pennants and banners and flags; slides shown. Also slides shown of other existing car dealers in the old C-2 zones.) THIS IS THE TIME AND PLACE FOR THE PUBLIC HEARING ON VARIANCE APPLICA- TION NO. 659. Mayor Chappell-. Mr. Munsell, was someone to be here? Were they notified? Mr. Munsell: The City Clerk notifies the applicants and I also talked with at least one of the car dealers today by phone and indicated the h.earing,would be tonight. The applicant is aware that the burden of proof rests on the applicant. Mayor Chappell: Madam City Clerk did all the information go out on this? Lela Preston: Mr. Mayor this was published on April 1 in the West City Clerk Covina. Tribune and on March 31 thirty-six notices) including the applicant and Howard Arnold)were mailed a copy of the notice, which was just 10 or 11 days before the hearing. Mayor Chappell: Is there anyone in opposition? THERE BEING NO PUBLIC TESTIMONY, PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED. COUNCIL DIS- CUSSION. Councilman Lloyd: Mr. Mayor a question of Mr. Wakefield. Obvious- ly we probably should not be involved in this at all if the applicant isn't here. He is appealing the decision of the Planning Commission - is there any legality involved in that? Mr. Wakefield. Mr. Mayor and members of Council, as has been City Attorney indicated the granting of a Variance imposes the burden of proof upon the applicant to establish that the conditions prescribed in our Zoning Ordinance have been met. These involve the showing that the granting of the Variance will not impose a. hardship on neighboring property, that the 10 - CITY COUNCIL 4/12/71 Page Eleven HEARINGS., VARIANCE NO. 659 si-tuations are such that other similar establishments in the area enjoy a privilege which has been denied to this applicant and other items of that sort. In the absence of that showing the City Council would be powerless to act upon the matter. iCouncilman Lloyd: Mr. Wakefield would it be possible - I happen to have an interest in this in that I don't happen to agree in the recommendation of the Planning Commission. I happen to be very strongly concerned over the fact that I feel an automobile agency in West Covina is working under a hardship, but if the applicant isn't here, can we hold it over until we can find out what his intentions are? If he doesn't intend to pursue then obviously the decision should stand. Mr. Wakefieldz If the Council decides to do so it can continue City Attorney the hearing and reopen it at the appropriate time. Councilman Nichols: Mr. Mayor, it would be my feeling that in the absence of the applicant it pretty well speaks for itself. If I were applying for a Variance I would be haunting the City Hall to find out the night it was to be heard, I wouldn't be waiting for a posted notice or letter, all of which have been sent-. I have participated on the Council at the enacting of the S-C zone, which established the requirements and which I concur with as an effort to upgrade the standards in our City. I read the Planning Commission staff study and report and it is unlikely, in my own mind, that the applicant could present any information that I am not presently aware of, so I am prepared to form an opinion and a conclusion and suggest that if this applicant determines at a later time that he was in error and should have been here that he reapply and come again before the Planning Commission and City Council. So for myself, I don't concur that the item should be held over, but that Council should make a determination on the evidence placed before it. Mayor Chappell: I did notice .in the Planning Commission minutes that they are discussing this at several other locations. It is possible that the gentleman may have been at that meeting and thought it was to be all discussed at one meeting at a later date. But he is not here and we sort of have some kind of a decision on this at the last time an applicant didn't appear before us, Does someone have a motion one way or the other on this? �_, Motion by Councilman Nichols, seconded by Councilman Shearer, denying Variance Applicant No. 659. Councilman Lloyd: Mr. Mayor, I really think my fellow Councilmen are pushing in an area where there is a very strong possibility that the applicant doesn't realize the seriousness of the matter. I cannot believe this man is not here because he has decided he is going to drop it. However, since we are forced into the situation and I think wrongly so, I think we ought to at least discuss the merits of the situation. First of all pennants and flags. (Asked for the I am not personally offended by reshowing of the slide showing • pennants, flags, etc.) Here we see strung above a used car and new car some flags and pennants which are establishment. That is a picture which is probably duplicated in every town and hamlet in California. Certainly many times in the L.A. basins I am frankly far more offended,if someone has to be offended, by the telephone pole than I am by the flags. I think the flags have far more color and are not at all offensive to me and certainly in the arena this is set, which is a commercial arena just as the Majestic Chrysler -Plymouth place is, is far more acceptable. I think it is already accepted that people are selling cars and one of the ways of selling cars is to create some sort of showmanship and I think that is precisely;what­ .--we-�.are-- - 11 .m CITY COUNCIL 4/12/71 Page Twelve HEARINGS: VARIANCE NO. 659 involved with here - a function of showmanship. I think the thing goes much deeper than just some showmanship and some flags, if indeed this would somehow flutter in the presence of homes immediately clustered around it, which it is not, then I would say we should give some consideration to that. However, the real problem we are faced • with is an unequal selling situation which is presented to the person who sells cars in West Covina versus those in Pomona, Pasadena, Whittier, Glendora or wherever it may be. I honestly believe as a person involved in the selling techniques in the area of advertising, and this is a form of advertising, that we are defranchising our own people in worrying about this. Perhaps in a few years, 3 years or 5 years, we should then say the other people are no longer doing it and the standards have changed, then I would be very quick to say very well if the standards are changed and we are not allowing any more flags or pennants and as long as the competition is equal, I would be more than willing to go back in and say "hey let's not have anymore of those", but personally I think a bit of fanfare, a bit of color of this type, adds the showmanship of the Fair - as you will - or the circus, which attracts our attention and is not offensive to the average person going down the street. I think we are being unduly rigid at this point if we force these people to take their flags down where in reality you can go up the street io&t a mile, or not a half mile, but probably a few hundred yards and see all the flags and pennants you want, and I don't think the average citizen differentiates as far as the City of West Covina is concerned. I think that the basic thing that we are discussing here and I am real sorry the applicant isn't here, but the basic thing is what is fair in comparison. I don't think we can debilitate or weaken the ability to participate as long as it does not offend the sensibilities and that does not offend my sensibilities, and I challenge anyone in the audience or on this Council to show me that is offensive. Councilman Nichols: I can't agree Councilman Lloyd that the issue that we are deciding tonight is whether or not it is fair for car dealers to have or not have pennants. The issue is a Variance that is being applied. The Council and the Planning Commission have been embroiled in philosophical debate over the wisdom of pennants and banners for various uses in the City almost constantly for all the years I can remember and it has been looked at and reviewed again and again. Sometime ago the Council determined that the S-C zone would not have the right to fly pennants and banners and again if the battle was to have been fought it should have been fought on the issue that it is not a proper requirement in that zone and the Council at that time determined that it was an act of upgrading and that particular zone would have the stipulation that these particular type of uses could not be in this zone. This property was picked up by a franchise automobile dealer under the terms of that Ordinance. It was known to that dealer. He developed, he built and operated for quite sometime at that location conforming to the zone and now he sold ,to another operator and it seems to me the obligation of that car dealer is to determine that in that zone and in that vicinity he is handicapped compared to some of the other uses in the vicinity. He has not shown that. He has not shown at all any of the criteria for a Variance. If it is the desire of the Council to bring back before this body the whole area of its zone requirements in the area of flags and pennants, well that is another battle to be fought another day, but I don't think the showings for a Variance have been met and that is the issue before the Council tonight and based on that evidence that is why I would be inclined to vote against it. Councilman Young: Mr. Mayor, this may be shaping up into two Councilmen over there and two Councilmen over here trying to influence your vote. I am personally impressed by Councilman Lloyd's statements and by Councilman Nichols, and I wonder if some of our requirements in this regard for upgrading, if probably we don't place an undue burden on - 12 - CITY COUNCIL 4/12/71 Page Thirteen HEARINGS: VARIANCE NO. 659 our merchants. This would be one thing if nothing else was around and if you happened to notice the sign as you left. west Covina, but otherwise the pattern changes and it is a competitive problem that west Covina merchant has generally with the LaPuente merchant and. the Covina merchant. Personally, like Councilman Lloyd, I am not at all disturbed by the showmanship and • if I were I would be moreso by the carnival techniques displayed at some of our shopping centers. I think the carnival. presently being held at one of the Centers is one of the most unsightly that I have ever looked at, also the animal. shows periodically. I think we may be at a point that we should take another look at the competitive stance that we place the merchant in. If this gentleman were here I think an argument he should make would be that I am being discriminated against because the other merchants in town do have pennants at this point and I do not. I guess we are pretty well bound by the regulations regarding testimony but I think we could properly defer this and let the gentleman fully understand he has to be here to present his argument. There is a motion pending but I would be happy to vote it down and continue this, Councilman Shearerz I seconded. the motion but that doesn't mean that I am for or against it. I have mixed feelings. Councilman Lloyd being on the other side. I recently purchased a car at that agency and I wasn't attracted by the banners or lack of banners. I don't feel the used car or new car dealers are particularly handicapped by thewaving.or lack of waving flags, at least not as far as I am personally concerned. It may be other people are. Normally people aren't driving up the street on a Sunday and say "hey let's go buy a car." At least not people in my standards, who plan ahead before buying a car. I will be willing to, if there are two other Councilmen, to give the applicant the opportunity to appear, although I don't want 'to establish a precedent that because somebody forgets to come down at the appointed time that we give him a second or third chance. I made the comment before that I like to hear someone if they are in favor of something, stand up and say it. I would be inclined to either deny or hold it over. I will not vote in favor of it without the applicant being here. Councilman Nichols: Before the chair speaks up, may I comment further that I hope we do not as a Council begin the practice of using the Variance to circumvent the laws and ordinance requirements we have on the books. There are definite procedures for meeting the requirements of a Variance and notoone oaf those are shown here. It would be a considerable stretching of the showings of a Variance to go that route, If it is the feeling of the Council in its wisdom that the requirements of this zone are too stringent then we should change the Variance and allow all the people in that zone the equal right of the benefit of the Council''thinking. Finally and I don't mean to encroach on anyone's right in a discreditable way but it seems to me that the feeling that we should carry this over is carrying with it our own feelings about the issue. That is if we are against it we want to vote on it tonight and if we 'tend to support the applicant we want to hold it over. It probably is prejudicial for me to say so but :if I could try and take an objective point of view it would seem to me that as a general policy the Council would be well advised to hold to the fact if the applicant does not come before the Council to carry through his application that the Council should deny the application. Otherwise it puts the Council in. the function of tending to be an advocate for the applicant and this council should not take that position in my judgment. Councilman Lloyd: I happen to concur with Councilman Nichols* remarks, but I think there is something real wrong here that this applicant didn't show. I feel so strongly about that - I think there is an error or mis- understanding, If I honestly believed that he didn't show because 13 - • i CITY COUNCIL 4/12/71 HEARINGS! VARIANCE NO. 659 Page Fourteen he said "oh well they will take care of it", I would vote against it myself knowing how I feel on it, not on the basis of the issue at hand, the Variance that is being asked for, but on the basis of if that man has no more interest in the decisions being made by this Council than to stay away then as far as I am concerned he deserves precisely what he gets and I do also concur with you that perhaps we should not use the Variance as a form of circumventing the intent of the laws of our land and community. However, there are circum- stances which prevail and I am not prepared to say we should have pennants, flags and banners and the Ordinance should be changed at this point in time. I am prepared to say that at this point in time'we should take a look at what is going on around us, see what is going on and then try to tailor what we are doing to that and if at a later date it turns out our original decisions were correct as a deliberative body then we can go forward with what we already have. I don't think we should say to Mr. Munsell that we think he is dead wrong, I really don't believe he is dead wrong. I just believe the applicant at the present moment requesting a Variance isn't dead wrong either if indeed his reasons are a competitive business situation, but I also recognize if everybody you have that.appears before you, you have to have a different set of. variables - as evidenced by Councilman Shearer - he evidently is not affected by that bally-hoo. I think he probably sets down, in the nature of his profession as a engineer, he sets each think out, makes his decision and goes forward on that. Fortunately or unfortunately, many of the people of this land do not buy on that basis. Impulse buying occurs even :i.n automobiles, so I think to give the applicant the benefit of the doubt and that is exactly what I am doing - and I agree with you Councilman Nichols that this is an unprecedented move and we should not normally be involved or engaged in it, but I really do want to get to the matter and I urge each Councilman here to grant this person this opportunity on the basis he may have erred on the date of this hearing no matter how well he was notified, but I think he got some mis- information somewhere and got goofed up. So as ;§ result I am asking that we hold it over. If it turns out we are all in error then I would be more than pleased Councilman Nichols to go along in the vote that you advocated. Councilman Nichols: Your comments are so eloquent and extremely sincere that you have overwhelmed me into submission and I will concur that this matter should be held over. Councilman Lloyd. I thank you sir. Mayor Chappell. One thing, in holding this over we are still talking about a Variance, about a competitive situation. Citrus especially is automobile row and we have three automobile dealers in that vicinity competing with automobile dealers in Covina and we have a sales problem there and when we restrict our dealers from some of the advantages other dealers have - and pennants may or may not be the only area or it may be, but I am firmly convinced that we are going to have to look at the auto dealer restrictions and find out if we are penalizing them and I have been told emphatically by several auto dealers, not all of them in Vest Covina, that those pennants are of a big help to their business. I do remember a few years ago some of the pennants and banners got awfully rundown and this probably was one of the reasons why the pennant type situation was taken out of our sign ordinance because they were mangy and we didn't have anyway to control the upgrading and keeping them in proper color, etc. I am willing to hold this over, but I feel this is a Variance he is asking for and he is not here and I think perhaps in reading the minutes of the Planning Commission, even being there, he might feel that we were going to bring it all up at one time and didn't come for that reason, so I am willing to give him the benefit of the doubt, but before we grant any Variance I would like to see if the Variance is the answer. I don't believe it is, I think we will have 14 - CITY COUNCIL 4/12/71 Page Fifteen HEARINGS: VARIANCE NO. 659 to rewrite some of our sign ordinances. We have a motion and a second to deny the applicant's request for a Variance. Are there any further questions? Motion failed, all voting "Nayi. °" • Motion by Councilman Lloyd, seconded by Councilman Young and carried, to reopen the hearing and continue to April 26, 1971, and so advise the applicant. THE CHAIR CALLED A RECESS AT 8:50 P.M. COUNCIL RECONVENED AT 9:05 P.M. STREET VACATION LOCATION: Northerly of Vanderhoof FUTURE STREET TRACT #k12292 Drive and easterly of Citrus Street. PROTEST HEARING Hearing of protests and objections set for this date by Resolution No. 4326 adopted March 22, 1971. (Council reviewed Engineer's report.) Mayor Chappell: Madam City Clerk do you have the affidavit of posting and publication? City Clerk: Yes, I do. Motion by Councilman Shearer, seconded by Councilman Young and carried, to receive and file. Mayor Chappell: Mr. Public Service Director do you have a statement to make? Mr. Fast Yes Mr. Mayor and members of the Council, Pub. Service Diro since the proposed alignment of West Covina Parkway and the expansion of Cortez Park will not affect the subject parcel it will no longer be needed for public use. There are no utilities within the subject property and therefore easement reservations are not required. Mayor Chappell: Madam City Clerk have you received any written protest or objections against the .abandonment 61- the -portions of these streets? City Clerk: No, I have not. THIS IS THE TIME AND PLACE FOR THE PUBLIC HEARING OF PROTESTS OR OBJECTIONS TO THE STREET VACATION. THERE"EBEING NO PUBLIC TESTIMONY, FOR OR AGAINST, PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED. COUNCIL DISCUSSION. NONE. RESOLUTION NO. 4340 The City Clerk presented: ADOPTED 00A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF WEST COVINA ORDERING THE VACATION OF A CERTAIN PORTION OF FUTURE STREET OF TRACT NO. 12292." Mayor Chappell: Hearing no objections waive further reading of the body of said Resolution. Motion by Councilman Shearer, seconded by Councilman Young, adopting said Resolution. Motion carried on roll call vote as follows: AYES: Councilmen Shearer, Nichols, Young, Lloyd, Mayor Chappell NOES: None ABSENT: None PRESENTATION Allan Fitzgerald, President Mr. Mayor and members of the Council, Anti -Crime Council we are grateful that you have given us this opportunity to bring to the attention of the Council the present status of the newly formed Anti- ® 15 CITY COUNCIL 4/12/71 Page Sixteen PRESENTATION - Anti -Crime Council Crime Council. Since this organization was started and the first notice went out over the Mayor's signature we feel obliged to bring you up-to-date on what we are doing and how it is going. You have before you a progress report prepared for you indicating the • officers, membership, by-laws and some of our objectives. We are here briefly to outline to you that we have a two -fold objective. • Namely, one of education and one of.citizen involvement. Perhaps what I can best say is what we do not want to be, to alleviate any questions or fears in the minds of the City Fathers. It is not our intent to be a Vigilanti Group, a Grand Jury Committee, or a Police Review Board. We are here to work together with the Law Enforcement Agencies of both the City and the County in attempting to fight crime and reduce the crime rate not only in the County of Los Angeles but also as it'affects the City of West Covina. This program was started by Judge Martin. At the present time we have had the cooperation of both the District Attorney°s Office, the Citrus Judicial Courts, as well as the Chief of Police of the City of West Covina. They serve as our advisors and we are at the stage where we have organized our program which will highl)at the following activities: A Speaker's Bureau; a continuation of mock trial and mock arraignment and lectures to schools by Judge Martin and his group; a new program of agency placement of children - as emergency cases arise and these must be qualified homes meeting both City and County standards, they would be short -termed, 2 or 3 days, depending on the size of the family and circumstances involved. We are inaugurating a drug education program, available to schools and groups including a panel presentation. A booklet on "Where can I Go" in terms of referral in case of a variety set of circumstances that might come up in the life of an individual citizen. We also want to involve ourselves in recruitment of adults in working with not only existing youth groups but particularly in helping the Probation Department and such agencies who deal with individuals that have been involved in crime one way or the other. Our membership is made up of representatives of community organizations and we hope to enlarge upon it. We want every bona -fide group in the city to become involved. We have representation from churches, schools (PTA) Youth Organizations, Service Groups, Veteran Groups - quite a wide gamut of community organizations. . Our specific request this evening is to ask of the City .Fathers, sanction and approval of this program in the same light as the Sister City Program, City Beautification and other organizations,not of a Commission status, have received the support and sanction of the City Fathers in the pasta We feel extremely grateful to the City Manager, Mr. Aiassa for his support and help and assistance in bringing this matter before the Council. Particularly, we want to note before you the guidance and assistance Chief Sill and his Deputy Chief have given usand also Rick Oakley of the City Staff, for his liaison between the City Manager and our organization. We further intend to =assign.eithex an Officer or member of the Board to the existing Commissions that affect our activities, such as: The newly formed Youth Committee, the Human Relations Commission and the Recreation & Parks Commission. Due to the nature of the activities we have been involved in I could take too much of your time and maybe not give you what you want to know, so we will say that is our presentation at this time. If you have any questions we will be glad to attempt to answer them. Mayor Chappell: Thank you. We may have some questions when we get into the discussion of the sanction and. will call on you at thattime. Mr. Aiassa, do you have anything to say on this subject? Mr. Aiassa: No, I do not Mr. Mayor. - 16 - • 0 • CITY COUNCIL 4/12/71 Page Seventeen PRESENTATION - Anti -Crime Council Mayor Chappell: We have been asked to sanction this organiza- tion and I think perhaps we should discuss it before we do and perhaps tonight is not the night to discuss it. Do you have any comments at this time? Councilman Nichols: Mr. Mayor, I feel this is the type of item that I could act upon only with staff recommendation and concurrence. If staff feels they have the professional capability of providing this assistance then I would be all in favor of it because it is an activity that is accepted in the highest counsels in the community. There are implications in terms of what the sanctioning and support might involve, because of the other organization°s indication resulted in additional involvement beyond the acknowledging of the sanction, so I feel it would be appropriate to refer this matter to staff for a further review and investigation and a recommendation back to Council as to the appropriateness of this type of action, and I would so move. Mayor Chappell: Mr. Aiassa: Mayor Chappell: think you are on the you have put into it. PLANNING COMMISSION SUMMARY OF ACTION APRIL 7, 1971 RECREATION & PARKS COMMISSION SUMMARY OF ACTION MARCH 23, 1971 Seconded by Councilman Lloyd and carried. Mr. Aiassa, when do you think you can bring this back to us? The first meeting in May. Mr.'Fitzgerald we certainly thank you for coming tonight. You may wish to appear again in May or have a representative present. I right track and commend you for the many hours (Council reviewed action.) Motion by Councilman Young, seconded by Councilman Nichols and carried, to receive and file the report of summary action. Councilman Nichols: be to hold that item to the budget hearings those recommendations that Council has been receive and file the balance of the report. motion. Mr. Mayor, I would think the _appropriate action relative to Item 5, would in that it incorporates made aware of and to I would offer that as a Councilman Young: I will second the motion. I have some questions and comments. As far as Item 5 is concerned I think perhaps Councilman Nichols' point is well taken. It occurred to me in reviewing this - I under- stand the 10(,' park tax was originally passed specifically for developing Galster Park to meet the terms of the Deed of Gift, and that has been accomplished to some degree, and not meaning to sound offensive to one of the Commission members present this evening, but it seems like once you get a tax started you never get rid of it and it leads me to question principally overall city priorities. I know some of the problems we have had in the year I have been on the Council, priorities in terms of crossing guards, adequate police staffing, controls and the like, and I don't think we have a clear set of priorities. We have never even thought it through and this might be the time to do it. Perhaps instead of giving a single department a substantial sum of money annually to develop in that area we should take a look at the whole picture. We may find that - 17 •- CITY COUNCIL 4/12/71 REC. & PK. COMMISSION ACTION OF 3/23/71 Page .Eighteen we want to eliminate this tax and increase the General Fund Tax by 10e, because of priorities. I throw that out for your considera- tion. Councilman Nichols: I think that is a point well taken. It was Councilman Nichols who moved the adoption of the 10cl park tax several years ago. It was . imposed by the Councils inability to fund the required improvements for Galster Park for the granting of that park to the City. Perhaps I am mistaken, but I believe the staff recommendation (and this is not a fingerpointing exercise at all) that some small portion of that tax was moved away from direct application into the Galster Park development and placed at other locations within the Park .Budget. And I stand to be corrected on that, but I think the record will show that in the past year all of the .10q. tax was not used for Galster Park. The reason I am bringing this up is because I think the Recreation & .Park Commission had a, precedent established which lead them to believe this might go on and they acted in good faith on the basis of an understanding in their mind that the funds would be used indefinitely for park purposes. Having said that, I certainly concur with your thinking Councilman Young, that the Council should not at this early date be committed to using any portion of the park tax for next year. Councilman Young: As I understand this 10(l, tax will expire unless it is reenacted. Councilman Nichols: Yes, all of our taxes will. Mr. Aiassa: In August we determine the tax structure of the City, Mayor Chappell: When we go into our budget sessions we will then determine the need for all of our tax rates. In the meantime we have had a request from the Recreation & Park. Commission to consider the continuance of this tax, so I think Councilman Nichols was correct in saying that we hold this over and discuss in the budget sessions. Councilman Young. I think we might give some consideration in establishing goals similar to what the schools are doing now, establishing priorities. Mayor Chappell. We have a number of Blue Ribbon reports perhaps Mr. Aiassa we should take a look at them. Mr. Aiassa. The staff has gone even one step further. We have a major capital outlay budget ready for Council to consider at budget time, Councilman Nichols. Mr. Aiassa, have the new Councilmen been given copies of all the Blue Ribbon Committee reports? Mr. Aiassa: Yes, I remember making up the packets. We have now actually established the priorities for Capital. Outlay and it is in the preliminary stage and will be presented to Council at the time of the budget reviews. • This breaks down all the areas that need priority decisions along with methods for financing, Mayor Chappell. Is there anything else in the Summary Action for comment? Councilman Young: A question regarding Item 1. South Hills Little League request. Does this involve a city expenditure or where does the money come from? CITY COUNCIL 4/12/71 Page Nineteen REC. & PK. COMMISSION SUMMARY ACTION OF 3/23/71 Mr. Aiassa: The only thing we do participate in is the keeping up of the fields. Councilman Young: This indicates some major construction - we are not inadvertently committing ourselves to 10 a substantial expenditure? • Mayor Chappell: No. Councilman Nichols: I believe our only connection so far has been on turf and ground maintenance and this project does not involve that aspect. Mr. Aiassa: I think Council could protect themselves in Item 1 by so specifying that if there is anything beyond what has been done for the other Little Leagues that this be brought back for further Council consideration. Councilman Shearer. I believe the South Hills Diamonds are all located on school property and the City does not participate in any maintenance on school property. The League I am associated with is split down the middle - half on City property and half on School property - and I understand the City does do some of the turf maintenance on the one diamond but not on the other that is on School property. In this case there is no adjacent park property so I don't think the City has any involvement at all. Mr. Aiassa: I think if the Council is concerned it can be so stipulated in the motion. Mayor Chappell: One thing where the City does become involved is in the building permit. I believe this is a. batting cage, which is major construction. We don't participate at all in funds for any of these things. The League always raises its own money and only asks us for permission to do it. Our only involvement will probably be in granting the permit for the building of the structure. Does that answer your question, Councilman Young? Councilman Young: More or less. Nobody seems to be real certain. So I think we should put in the reservation Mr. Aiassa suggested - at no expense to the City. Councilman Nichols: I would amend my motion to include a stipulation in Item 1 that Council approves subject to no cost to the City. Councilman Young: And on Item 3 - Robert S, Gingrich Memorial. Does this action tonight constitute the naming of that park? I notice we have other items in the agenda this evening involving Mr. Gingrich - B-7. • Councilman Nichols: I think this would be correct, that our acceptance would accept this. • Mr. Aiassa: We created a Committee that was working with the Recreation & Parks and they in turn made the recommendation to the City Council. This is a recommendation to Council and it is your time to either concur or not. Councilman Young: This would constitute the action then? Mr. Aiassa,. That's right? - 19 CITY COUNCIL 4/12/71 REC. & PK. COMMISSION SUMMARY ACTION OF 3,/23/71 Councilman Nichols: 0 Mr, Aiassa-, 0 PERSONNEL =BOARD I wonder if there would be involved in the closeness being named the same. Page Twenty some problem. of the two and The way it is going to be developed they will be adjacent, and adjoining each other. No fences to distinguish the difference. Motion carried. MINUTES - MARCH 2, 1971 MINUTES - MARCH 9, 1971 REQUEST TO APPROVE APPRENTICE FIREMAN CLASSIFICATION Motion by Councilman Shearer, seconded by Councilman Lloyd and carried, to receive and file. Motion by Councilman Shearer, seconded by Councilman Lloyd and carried, to receive and file. Mayor Chappell: Mr. Aiassa, do you have anything else on this item? Mr. Aiassa: No, I do not. This is similar to the Police Cadet program. Motion by Councilman Lloyd, seconded by Councilman Shearer and carried, approving Apprentice Fireman classification, as outlined in the staff report of March 29, 1971, including the job specification dated March, 1971. REQUEST FOR FORMAL Motion by Councilman Shearer, seconded by RECOGNITION BY Councilman Lloyd, that Council give official MISCELLANEOUS recognition to the Miscellaneous Employees as EMPLOYEES a formal bargaining unit in accordance with Section 2454 of the Ordinance on Employee Organizations Councilman Lloyd: A comment. I hope that all of this will bode well for the City and that in 1975 or 1980 that this Council, even though it may not be serving,can look back upon this .involvement and say ayes that was a good thing." I really hope that, because I really think in the area of employee relationships with the City and in view of the evidence throughout the Nation, I am really very concerned. I think there have been some new values which have been put forward because of the understanding of the relationship of governmental employees (of which I was one at one time and now retired) and their employers, or the people for whom they work which of course is ultimately the general public. As I say, I hope that all of this activity bodes well and I think we have an obligation to the employee and we also have an obligation to the people and I hope that these new Associations in their dealings with the City will be ever mindful of that. I mean • that sincerely. • Motion carried. HUMAN RELATIONS COMMISSION SUMMARY OF ACTION Motion by Councilman. Nichols, seconded by MARCH 25, 1971 Councilman .Young and carried, to receive and file. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Jonathan M. Stark I think most of you of the Council know me. I 1228 South Sunkist have been here numerous times on the same West Covina - 20 CITY COUNCIL 4/12/71 Page Twenty-one ORAL COMMUNICATIONS thing. We still have a problem concerning the horse property on Merced and Orange. After numerous times in here and postponements we finally did get it in Court and the City Attorney got an injunction and they have had adequate time to comply but out problem is they have ignored it and it is getting worse instead of better. The reason I am here tonight I would like to have you instruct the City Attorney to file a Contempt of Court action against the property owners of this property and request that the animals be removed. Councilman Nichols: Mr. Mayor, I would move that Council direct staff to immediately investigate this with regard to the comments and allegations that conditions are not being complied with and inform the Council if in the opinion of staff that is correct and at that time I think would be the time for this body to make a direction to the City Attorney. Councilman Lloyd: I will second that motion; and I have a question. Mr. Wakefield has the speaker spoken to you already about this? Mr. Wakefield: Yes. I agree with the comments which Mr. Stark City Attorney has made. The last day for compliance with the conditions of the judgment was March 12th. Under the terms of the judgment certain work was to be commenced within 30 days of the entry of the judgment which was the 12th of November. After it became apparent that nothing was being done to comply with the judgment I wrote to Mr. Weiss, the attorney for Mr. Nichols, calling his attention to that fact and advising him if steps were not immediately taken to comply with the judgment I would ask the City Council for permission to initiate proceedings. There- after I was advised that plans were underway to perform the required work immediately, nothing was done. Then I was advised that there was a new tenant on the property and for a short time the horses that were on the property were removed. The new tenant then moved on to the property and we took the opportunity to serve him with a copy of the judgment so that he would know what the requirements were. He advised us that it was his intention to comply. Several weeks went by, I again wrote Mr. Weiss advising him that conditions on the property were unsatisfactory, that there had been no apparent effort to comply with the terms of the judgment. City staff, at my request, has regularly inspected the property and I was advised by Mr. Stanford there were no longer arrangements made to remove the droppings from the horses on a weekly basis which was one of the requirements of the injunction; the fences have not been set back from the property line as required and no pasture grass planted. It is my personal conviction that the matter has been delayed more than a reasonable time and the City now has an obligation to proceed to seek compliance with the terms of the judgment. I think we need to bear in mind also this was a stipulation voluntarily arrived at by the owners of the adjoining property and by Mr. Nichols through his attorney. It is in effect something which he assumed the responsibility for doing but which has been wholly neglected so far. Councilman Nichols: I would like permission to withdraw the motion. • Councilman Lloyd: A point of order, Mr. Mayor. Once a motion is made it cannot be withdrawn. Am I right Mr. Wakefield? Mr. Wakefield: Once the motion has been made and seconded it City Attorney becomes the property of the Council and it must be disposed of one way or the other. Motion failed, all voting "nay." Motion by Councilman Lloyd, seconded by Councilman Young and carried, directing the City Attorney to initiate Contempt of Court proceedings as a means of enforcing compliance in the case of West Covina versus Nichols. - 21 - CITY COUNCIL 4/12/71 Page Twenty-two ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Councilman Nichols: Mr. Mayor, I would like to puruse this a little further. The City has progressed along the route of trying to bring a legal solution to this at no small cost to the general taxpayers of the City and I hope the people involved realize this. I don't think we should rest • there if there is any possible way that we can bring to bear upon this person that owns the property some share of the responsibility. The question I have is of Mr. Wakefield. Is there any legal means that the City has to bring civil action against the owner of the property for damages, said damages representing the cost to the City of gaining enforcement of a legal court order? Mr. Wakefield: I really don't know of any civil action which City Attorney would lie in a matter of this sort. The principal cost to the City in litigation is the cost of attorney fees and attorney fees are normally not re- coverable unless there is an agreement between the parites or unless there is some special statytory provision that imposes such a obligation on one party or'the other. In this particular type of proceeding there is no provision that actually would compel the award of attorney°s fees and expenses to the City. I believe that it would be appropriate in our citation for Contempt to request that as one of the conditions of relieving the situation that the property owner be required to bear the City°s cost of the Contempt proceedings and I will be happy to include that in the motion which will be presented to the Court. Councilman Nichols: That would seem like a reasonable request to me. Mr. Wakefield: There is one other matter involved here and I City Attorney am sorry I can't give the Council a definitive answer to the question, but it has been suggested to me that one of the means by which compliance could be compelled would be through the initiation of the change of zone proceedings. The property is presently zoned R-A and if rezoned to R-1 I suppose the question would still remain then as to whether or not the right to maintain horses on a piece of property constitutes a right in the nature of a nonconforming right. In my personal opinion it does not. I think the right to maintain horses upon property is not a property right in the sense that it involves a right to continue to use the property in a particular way, that is for the maintenance of horses. This is also a possibility. There are no cases that involve this kind of a precise problem. There are one or two old ones in which the number of horses or cattle upon property has been increased after a change of zone and the Court has declared the increase of the number of animals maintained to be improper, but the basic question as to the right to continue to maintain horses on a given piece of property simply because it has been done over a long period of time is really unresolved, as far as the courts are concerned, but there is a basic consideration involved here and in any event it seems there was a period of time perhaps a week or two when no horses were maintained on this property and I am sure we were all encouraged by that event. If that becomes necessary and our Contempt Proceedings are not completely successful I would recommend • to the City Council that we seriously consider that additional step in connection with this matter. • Mayor Chappell: Thank you, Mr. Wakefield. Are thereany other comments? Councilman Young: I would personally be somewhat adverse to using zoning as a punitive measure... ---It would certainly have to be the last --resort to use in that fashion. Perhaps a few days in jail...,,. Councilman Shearer: And even if you did rezone: it w.oul_dn ° t., be ._any easier. getting. rid, -,of. the_,hor.ses..,; - 22 - CITY COUNCIL 4/12/71 Page Twenty-three ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Mr. Wakefield: That is correct. I think we have to take the first step discussed. Joanne Wilner Mr. Mayor, I will delay my comments if I might 2108 Casa Linda Drive be able to make them when you bring before • West Covina you the Tentative Tract Map on the Brutoco Development matter and if not then I will make them now. Mayor Chappell: We held a hearing on that matter at the last meeting and closed it. You may make your comments only at this time. Mrs. Wilner: I have read the report which I believe was sent to you gentlemen dated April 12 on this subject and I would like to make some.comments regarding it. I think one .facet has been ignored and that is the facts of human nature. That if you can avoid a situation of getting involved in traffic like going onto Azusa Avenue you will useisome other routed because it ends up being faster even if it is up a hill, over a winding road. The planning staff has stated in its report here that there would be no significant traffic generated on the streets and I think if the development is developed as per the plan all the people living down there will not be using Aroma Avenue to go to Azusa Avenue if they plan on going north but will come over Hillward and South Hills. I have lived on the street where I am now which the map shows as the only perpendicular between Hillward and South Hills and I have noticed just from the development of South Hills to the south of me on Hillward and the homes up on the hill, a tremendous increase on Hillward, my own street Casa Linda and South Hills, and my street deadends at both of those. This increase of traffic will cause, I would say, additional accidents which are not even referred to as possibilities.by the.Police Departmentdue to the speed cars do some down these steep grades because so many of them are teenagers, and I think that should also be con- sidered. Also with the widening of the freeway and the opening of the Hollenbeck underpass anyone interested in going to Galster Park will avoid Azusa Avenue if they can and will use Hollenbeck which in fact becomes South Hills, to get over as a quick access to Galster Park or to go to the Model Rocket meets and thereby causing tremendous traffic especially on weekends in an area that is supposed to be a quiet residential district. The Engineering report refers to the fact a substandard street would be caused by leaving Hillward as a cul-de-sac street because it was too long. I know this would not be good according to so-called good standards, but I am sure it has occurred in other parts of the City and we could probably find other streets where this has occurred and if it would maintain the quiet, peaceful. environment that this neighborhood should have, I think we too could go along with one more small substandard street in this area. I also recall that the cul-de-sac philosophy which dates back probably to some early planning in West Covina, the purpose of which was to maintain quiet, very low traffic areas, and this report seems to imply that we want to do away with cul-de-sac,ing arid'.. -the philosophy of trying to maintain this type of environment, but to have easy, speedy access for the neighbors as the alternative. I think those are the • comments I would like to add and hope that you will consider the keeping of South Hills and Hillward closed as they now are. Thank you. • WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS All items listed below are considered by the Council to be routine and will be enacted by one motion unless called for discussion by a Councilman or a citizen wishing to address the City Council: a) Stan Chambers, KTLA - re Letter from Mrs. E. Marilyn Downs concern- ing School Crosswalks. (Receive and file.) b) Mrs. E. Marilyn Downs, 1235 Durness St., - re School Crosswalks and letter to KTLA. (Receive and file) c) G.E. McBride, 628 LeMar Park Drive C, Glendora - Requests Waiver of Business License Fee (Refer to City Attorney) • • • CITY COUNCIL 4/12/71 WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS - Cont°d. Page Twenty-four d) Board of Supervisors - re Contract Law Enforcement. (Refer to Staff and Chief of Police. e) West Covina Chamber of Commerce - re Route 39. (Receive and File.) f) National Multiple Sclerosis Society - Request Permission to Solicit for Funds, May 9 - June 20, 1971. (Approve, subject to staff investigation.) g) Mr. & Mrs. Ed LaBerge, Malibu - Object to Cul-de-sac on Danes Drive. (Refers to Item A-11) h) Mrs. Jack W. Calvin, 1222 E, E1 Dorado St., - re West Covina Disposal Company. (Refer to staff.) i) O'Leary Disposal Inc. - Interested in submitting proposal to provide trash removal. (Refer to staff.) j) City of Duarte - re Creation of County Law Enforcement District. (Receive and file.) k) International Spring Fair - (Staff Report) 1) Request .Permission to sell food and beverages on City Hall Grounds, May 2, 1971. 2) Request Permission.to sell Tickets for the Spring Fair. 3) Request Waiver of Business License Fees for all Activities of Fair, April 26 - .May 2, 1971. Councilman Nichols: Mr. Mayor, I notice we have a new format tonight which lumps all of the matters together and leaves it up to each Councilman to bring up any item of concern. I have nothing to add or comment on, and will move to accept as recommended by staff. Mayor'Chappell: Does­anyone:have anything to bring up on any of these items? Councilman Shearer: I have two items. Item D - the recommendation is to refer to staff and the Chief of Police. My question -why? Inasmuch as it is final action by the Board of Supervisors - I don't know what the Council would expect the staff and Chief to report back to us. Now if there is something constructive that we might do then I have no objection but I don't believe in making staff work on something that is just a matter of information to submit to us. The next Item is Item i. I have no objection to referring to staff. My only comment is I discussed this informally with a businessman in the City of Riverside where O'Leary Disposal is now operating and before we go into too much detail of supplying information to them, the suggestion was to contact the City Manager of Riverside to get his reaction to O'Leary Disposal. Mr. Aiassa: We were planning on doing that, Mr. Shearer. On Item D - .the normal thing we usually do on these is we review on the relationship of carrying over from prior years, and once in a while we do protest their rates. One of the things why I would like to have referred to staff - this is where they came in with the patrol cars and they were char4kpg $139,000 per car and now they are going to $227,000 per'car and I believe the Grand Jury recommended $328,000 per car. It appears now that the new fiscal budget of the County is now being considered and if their new salary rate increases in the Sheriff's Office, this will naturally affect the contracting service. Councilman Shearer: if that is your reason I will withdraw my comment. Councilman Young: I think Item K should be acted upon separately. With the withdrawal of that item, I second the motion. Councilman Lloyd: Mr. Mayor, I wanted to comment on ItemsA and B. I think there is a misapprehension perhaps that as a result of this letter that Mrs. Downs wrote to Channel 5, KTLA, that there was an immediate response on - 24 - CITY COUNCIL 4/12/71 Page Twenty-five WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS - Cont°d. being properly chastised and that the Council promptly came forward, including Mr. Nichols and the Mayor, and did exactly what they were told to do and therefore this Council had no consideration for crosswalk problems in the City of West Covina; and any acceptance whatsoever of "receive and file" would be an indication that was the case and would be objectionable to me because this Council did discuss crosswalk problems and I have no wish to be defensive but at least be pointed in my remarks with regard to Councilman Nichols. I think Councilman Nichols has been one of the strongest proponents of consideration of crosswalk; -,safety in the City of West Covina and no comments to the contrary wouldn't be very acceptable to me. Councilman Nichols: Thank you, Councilman Lloyd, Mayor Chappell: All those in favor of the recommendations made with the exception of Item k? Motion carried. All voting in favor. Councilman Young: Councilman Lloyd: Councilman Young: CITY ATTORNEY With respect to Item k. I move that subitems 1 and 2 be approved and the sub'item-T.be denied. Seconded by Councilman Nichols. Councilman Young would you explain to me why the denial of the waiver of the business license fee? The City Attorney says we can't waive the fee and the Chamber of Commerce has been so advised and they agree. Motion carried. ORDINANCE NO. 1161 The City Attorney presented: ADOPTED "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL'OF THE CITY OF WEST COVINA AMENDING THE WEST COVINA MUNICIPAL CODE SO AS TO REZONE CERTAIN PREMISES. (ZONE CHANGE Application No. 451 -William Barnes)." Mayor Chappell: Hearing no objections waive further reading of the body of said Ordinance. Motion by Councilman Shearer, seconded by Councilman Lloyd, adopting said Ordinance. Motion carried on roll call vote as follows: AYES: Councilmen Shearer, Nichols, Young, Lloyd, Mayor Chappell NOES: None ABSENT., None ORDINANCE NO. 1162 The City Attorney presented: ADOPTED "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF WEST COVINA AMENDING THE WEST COVINA MUNICIPAL CODE SO AS TO REZONE CERTAIN PREMISES. (Zone Change Applica- tion No. 442 - Maurice Ho Zebker.)" Mayor Chappell: Hearing no objections waive further reading of the body of said Ordinance. Motion by Councilman Shearer, seconded by Councilman Lloyd, adopting said Ordinance. Motion carried on roll call vote as follows: 11, AYES: Councilmen Shearer, Nichols, Young, Lloyd, Mayor Chappell NOES: None ABSENT: None - 25 - CITY COUNCIL 4/12/71 Page Twenty-six CITY ATTORNEY - Cont°do ORDINANCE NO. 1163 The City Attorney presented: ADOPTED B1AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF WEST COVINA REPEALING SECTIONS 8200, 8201, 8202 and 8203 OF, AND ADDING SECTIONS 8200, • 8201, 8202 AND 8203 TO, THE WEST COVINA MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO THE RELOCATION OF BUILDINGS AND STRUCTURES." • Mayor Chappell: Hearing no objections waive further reading of the body of said 0rdinah6e ,., Motion by Councilman Shearer, seconded by Councilman Young, adopting said Ordinance. Motion carried on roll call vote as follows: AYES: Councilmen Shearer, Nichols, Young, Lloyd, Mayor Chappell NOES: None ABSENT: None RESOLUTION NO. 4341 The City Attorney presented: ADOPTED "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF WEST COVINA GRANTING AN UNCLASSIFIED USE PERMIT (Unclassified Use Permit Application No. 167, M. W. Sullivan Pre -School Centers).°' Mayor Chappell: Hearing no objections waive further reading of the body of said Resolution. Motion by Councilman Shearer, seconded by Councilman Nichols, adopting said Resolution. Motion carried on roll call vote as follows: AYES: Councilmen Shearer, N11chols, Young, Lloyd, Mayor Chappell NOES: None ABSENT: None RESOLUTION NO. 4342 The City Attorney presented: ADOPTED "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF WEST COVINA DENYING PROPOSED REVISION NO. 2 TO THE SOUTH GLENDORA AVENUE PLAN, AREA I." Mayor Chappell: Hearing no objections waive further reading of the body of said Resolution. Motion by Councilman Shearer, seconded by Councilman Young, adopting said Resolution. Motion carried on roll call vote as follows: AYES: Councilmen Shearer, Nichols, Young, Lloyd, Mayor Chappell NOES: None ABSENT: None RESOLUTION NO. 4343 The City Attorney presented: ADOPTED 01A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF WEST COVINA DENYING A REQUEST FOR A CHANGE OF ZONE AND DENYING A PETITION FOR APPROVAL OF A PRECISE PLAN (Zone Change Application No. 450, Precise Plan of Design Application No. 601, Revision 1, Shareholders Capital Programs, Inc.)" Mayor Chappell: Hearing no objections waive further reading of • the body of said Resolution. Motion by Councilman Nichols, seconded by Councilman Young adopting said Resolution. Motion carried on roll call vote as follows: AYES: Councilmen Shearer, Nichols, Young, Lloyd, Mayor Chappell NOES: None ABSENT: None - 26 - CITY COUNCIL 4/12/71 Page Twenty-seven CITY ATTORNEY = Cont°d. RESOLUTION NOa 4344 The City Attorney presented: ADOPTED "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF WEST COVINA ENDORSING THE CONCEPT OF ALLOWING HIGH OCCUPANCY VEHICLES EXCLUSIVE USE OF RESERVED FREEWAY LANES." Mayor Chappell: Hearing no objections waive further reading of • the body of said Resolution. Motion by Councilman Lloyd, seconded by Councilman Young, adopting said Resolution. Motion carried on roll call vote as follows: AYES: Councilmen Nichols, Young, Lloyd, Mayor Chappell NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: Councilman Shearer Mayor Chappell: For the benefit of the audience this is an item regarding the freeway and Councilman Shearer working for the State Highway Department did not wish to vote on it. MRS. W.M. A. GUZZARDO Mr. Wakefield: These were items 1440 Queen Summit Drive referred to me at Claim for Damage Caused your last regular by Power Failure meeting. I checked AND into both items and would recommend that both claims be denied and referred WM. S. TIMMONS to.the City°s insurance carrier. 19518 Cortez Street Claim for Damages due to So moved by Councilman Shearer, second - Cavity in 3000 Block of ed by Councilman Nichols and carried. Cortez Street FREEWAY RIGHT-OF—WAY Mr. Wakefield: I have one additional (AGENDA ADDITION) item which I think requires your emergency consideration. I am sorry to bring it to you without having it properly included on the agenda but the City has been in negotia- tion with the Interstate Leasing Corporation which is the owner of the property upon which the Cal -Store is located for the exchange of certain parcels of property required in connection with the widening of the San Bernardino Freeway and the reconstruction of the off ramps at that corner. Those negotiations have sort of reached an impasse simply because of the difficulty of dealing with a corporation.that is in the east and the property is encumbered by outstanding mortgages held by life insurance companies, also in the east, and we have had great difficulty in reaching an agreement that is acceptable to the Interstate Leasing Company and the mortgage holders, thus negotiations have finally reached a point where I think we can recommend a method of approach to the City which will resolve the problems. I have a map and perhaps if we could put it on the board it would be easier to explain. (Map displayed and explained by Mr. Wakefield —Pointed out two small parcels that will become surplus and available to the City when the freeway is constructed.) The negotiations bogged down at the point • where we had in fact asked Interstate Leasing to convey the green parcels to the City immediately in order that the City could fulfill its obligation to the State for the required right-of-way and the City to delay in the conveyance of the orange parcels to Interstate until the off ramps were constructed and those parcels were actually vacated. We have now reached the point where Interstate Leasing is willing to deed the green parcels to the City now if the City will deed its underlying fee interest in the orange parcels to Interstate.' Leasing now, based upon an agreement to convey whatever remaining interest it has when the freeway off ramps are reconstructed and the Vacation proceedings for the vacation of the public street - 27 - CITY COUNCIL 4/12/71 Page Twenty-eight CITY ATTORNEY - Cont°d. easements in the orange parcels are concluded. I have two items to submit to the City Council, one is the agreement for the exchange of the parcels of real • property involved; the second is a deed from the City to Interstate conveying the underlying fee interest in the orange parcels and specifically reserving a right-of-way for public street and highway • purposes until such time as the freeway widening is completed, and the off ramps constructed. The agreement simply embodies the details for the exchange of the property as I have explained them to you. It states that it has been determined the value of the property to be exchanged is equal in each case and no cash consideration is required. I think the exchange can be completed rapidly if the City .Council is willing to authorize the Mayor to execute the agreement and to authorize the Mayor to execute the required deed to Interstate Leasing Corporation. The deed to be delivered when Interestate delivers its deed to the green papers to the 8ity. Mr. Aiassa: Mr. Wakefield when did you get this matter? Mr. Wakefield: This matter has been kicking around since last Fall. Mr. Aiassa: Yes but when did you get final clearance? Mr. Wakefield: I got final clearance the first of this month. Mr. Aiassa: I was just wondering why it wasn't on the regular agenda and why we carried it off as an additional item. Councilman Nichols: Mr. Mayor, it appears that Mr. Wakefield is the man caught in between. Mayor Chappell: Is this your recommendation Mr. Aiassa? Mr. Aiassa: No it is the City Attorney°s recommendation. Mr. Wakefield: Mr. Mayor and members of Council, I was advised by the Engineering Department and I thought it was a matter of urgency so far as the City was concerned in obtaining the right-of-way to be able to deliver it to the State so the State could proceed to award its contracts for the widening of the freeway. As I understand it the State will not proceed to advertise for bids, etc., until the necessary rights-gf- way are in hand. As far as I am concerned I would be perfectly willing to have the item regularly agendh at the next meeting along with whatever specific report the staff might desire to make. Mayor Chappell: Mr. Zimmerman do you have something to say on this? Mr. Zimmerman: Mr. Mayor and members of the City Council, as to the timing on it the City has a cooperative agreement with the Division of Highways which actually sets in it the deadline of the first of January of this year and the State once postponed it to the first of April and then • very recently postponed again to the first of June. It is questionable how rapidly this matter can be resolved. Right-of-way matters in general seem easy at first sight but then a month goes by and another month and another month and it seems very difficult to really bring them to a. conclusion, so we feel we could well use all the time possible in working with Interstate to get a final answer. Mayor Chappell: We won't receive anymore information than what was presented- this evening even if we hold it over to our next meeting, will we? - 28 - CITY COUNCIL 4/12/71 Page Twenty-nine CITY ATTORNEY - Cont°d. Mr. Wakefield: Not that I know of. Mr. Aiassa: The only thing is we have two items really responding to this question. One is the California off ramp and the other is the Orange Street off ramp. It is surprising that we had a meeting till 5:30 • this afternoon and no information was given to me until all of a sudden it was on the agenda. That is the thing that alarms me a bit. Frankly this matter should clear through the regular channels and regular procedures so we all know all the facts involved. Councilman Nichols: Mr. Aiassa it is apparent that there is an internal matter that will be resolved at some later date but having heard all of the information tonight and being apprised of the urgency of it, would you have an opinion as to whether or not the Council should act on this tonight? Mr. Aiassa: I have been in correspondence with two of the principals and have been awaiting a response and suddenly it is on the agenda tonight. Councilman Lloyd: That isn't the question, Mr. Aiassa. Do you recommend it or don't you? Mr. Aiassa: I suggest you carry it over to the next meeting. Councilman Lloyd: I don't understand. Are you favorably disposed or not? Mr. Aiassa: All I have received is the information the City Attorney presented; I haven't looked over the reports or the agreement. Motion by Councilman Young, seconded by Councilman Lloyd and carried, deferring this item to the next regular meeting agenda. Mayor Chappell: Thank you, Mr. Wakefield. CITY MANAGER BURKE, WILLIAMS AND Mr. Wakefield: This is in connection SORENSEN STATEMENT City Attorney with the litigation (Wright vs. Sill) which involved the action brought against the Chief of Police to reconvey certain property which the Police Department had recovered on the basis of a theft report. It was not an item covered by the City°s insurance policy and the City Attorney was instructed to defend -the City. That was done and the case is now concluded satisfactorily, so far as the City is concerned, and the sur of $250.00 represents only a portion of the time actually spent defending this matter, plus the cost of drawing up the various papers, etc. 0 Councilman Nichols: Mr. Mayor, I am sure this is a very understated billing and I would move that payment in the amount of $303.10libe authorized to Burke, Williams & Sorensen. Seconded by Councilman Young. Motion carried on roll call vote as follows: AYES: Councilmen Shearer, Nichols, Young, Lloyd, Mayor Chappell NOES: None ABSENT: None THE CHAIR CALLED AT RECESS AT 10:20 P.M. COUNCIL RECONVENED AT 10:33 P.M. �ASAE CITY -COUNCIL 4/12/71 Page Thirty CITY MANAGER - Cont°d. PROGRESS PAYMENT TO Motion by Councilman Lloyd that the ARMSTRONG & SHARFMAN City Council approve the expenditure (Park Master Planning) of funds in the amount of $1,269.50, as per agreement between the City of West • Covina and Armstrong and Sharfman, Account 152-690191, Councilman Young: A point of order, Mr. Mayor. There is apparently a corrected invoice and the amount should be $1,267.50. Councilman Lloyd: I will change the motion over to that amount, since it has not been seconded. Seconded by Councilman Young and carried on roll call vote as follows: AYES: Councilmen Shearer, Nichols, Young, Lloyd, Mayor Chappell NOES: None ABSENT: None CIVIC CENTER DEVELOPMENT Mr. Aiassa: There is a staff report A) Agreement with Frank Sata presented on both of B) Site Survey these items. (Staff reports) Mayor Chappell: Staff recommends and the motion would be approving the architectural services agreement with Frank T. Sata for the preparation of the final plans and specifica- tions for the Civic Center parking structure and authorize the Mayor and City Clerk'to execute same. Seconded by Councilman Lloyd and carried. Mr. Aiassa: With regard to the Walsh-Forkert bid we checked with several firms and they came up with the best proposal. Motion by Councilman Lloyd, seconded by Councilman Shearer, authorizing Walsh-Forkert Engineers to proceed with a site survey of the City portion of the Civic Center, in accordance with Council approved rates, not to exceed $5,000. Motion carried on roll call vote as follows: AYES: Councilmen Shearer, Nichols, Young, Lloyd, Mayor Chappell NOES: None ABSENT: None WILLIAMS & MOCINE Mr. Aiassa: This is the final agreement AGREEMENT for execution, and as per re CBD staff report dated April 12 it is the amended agreement from that discussed with Council at its meeting of March 15th. Motion by Councilman Nichols, seconded by Councilman Lloyd, that the City Council amend its Central Business District contract with Williams & Mocine to include an additional sum for a portion of the contract designated Part A in the amount of $9,965. and authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute the agreement. Motion carried on roll call vote as;follows: iAYES: Councilmen Shearer, Nichols, Young., Lloyd, Mayor Chappell NOES: None ABSENT: None AUTHORIZATION FOR CITY Mr. Aiassa; You have a staff report ATTORNEY TO PREPARE A and this has been presented CONTRACT FOR COVINA°S to the City.of Covina and OPERATION OF UMARK WATER I believe their Council authorized their SYSTEM Attorney to work with our Attorney in formulating an agreeable contract. 30 - • • 9 0 CITY COUNCIL 4/12/71 CITY MANAGER: Umark Water System Page Thirty-one Motion by Councilman Lloyd, seconded by Councilman Young, authorizing the City Attorney to meet with the City of Covina City Attorney to prepare an agreement for the operation of the Umark water system an-d-7,ta.zbe;=15resented,;to-Council..fdr approval on April 26, 1971. Councilman Nichols: Mr. Aiassa, the Council°s action originally in this matter was to authorize the City to be the agent to provide temporary water service to the Umark development and then the=C-auncil directed the City Manager to negotiate with Suburban Water Systems.to provide personnel and services as a contractor working for the City. Do you know why it is in that framework of reference that the Suburban Water Systems would be required to get permission from the PUC for the offering of its services as a contractor to the City, which itself does not need to have? Mr. Aiassa: The PUC in the this area set and Mr. John Lippett, attended that him make a quick report. Councilman Nichols: Before he does able to answer basis why the offer its services to the City? expansion of its services into up a hearing which was held today hearing. I would like to have give that report would you be the question? Is there a legal Suburban Water System cannot Mr. Aiassa: I can do it rather quickly. The Examiner stated he had two alternatives. One was an ex p�arte to the Commission for their approval and it would take about a month. Two, was to broaden the Suburban application to consider their eventually serving that area and then in effec t they would either approve or deny the application, which would take 3 or 4 months to receive an answer and by that time our lease agreement would be up, The PUC staff has now recommended Alternate No. 2, which would broaden the application; however if the Examiner chooses to go the ex parte it still takes 30 days and we have one man occupying a home now that wants water. We are advising Council that we have to serve the water because we are the vehicle for doing so. So we are taking the only agency that can provide the water. Councilman Shearer: What has caused the delay? Mr. Aiassa: A series of things. We tried everything possible - we met with Suburban several times but they just never got the papers to the right agencies to get the thing rolling, but they do have them now but it still has to be processed. Councilman Shearer: The second alternate sounded like it was wrapped up with the eventual servicing of the area? Mr. Aiassa: Councilman Shearer; That's right. Why is that even at this point of time even in the picture when we are really trying to get someone to work for us? Mr. Aiassa: It is in the picture because we gave this 1 year moratorium and said we would be the agent and that we would serve the water in which time Umark was to go out and secure an agreement, preferably with Suburban, for providing water. What the PUC has done now, when they come in for this ex parte service, which is a limited service, the Examiner does have the right to say - "this is only a small part of a large - 31 - CITY COUNCIL 4/12/71 CITY MANAGER: Umark Water Svstem Page Thirty-two part" and he can take either alternative. We still won't know which they will take for at least 30 days and right now we have a party that wants water service. • Councilman Shearer. Mr. Mayor, if I may continue. I have a feeling here which I hope is unfounded, that somebody is playing games with the City. In September we first talked about this and now we have a statement made that there is a man up there that wants water so we are now in effect having our hand forced into something and I am not making any accusations about Suburban or Umark, but it seems like we are in the middle and I hope one of these days we will not be holding the bag and forced into buying a water system that we don't want, because there are 20 people up there needing water and nobody wants to buy the system. Some of the correspondence I have seen that we received, it seems like there is a little gampmanship,_. going on with us being in the middle. I hope that doesn't occur. Mr. Aiassa: I don't think it will be a very large game until the PUC makes a conclusion. If they deny Suburban serving that area then we have a problem. Councilman Nichols: Mr. Mayor, along these lines I had a comment I was going to bring up during Council Committee reports, but I think now would be the logical time to do so. I have had somewhat the same concern that Councilman Shearer expresses and I have given it quite a bit of thought and it seems to me that it is correct that the big play initially has to be through the PUC, If they don't authorize ,Suburban Water Systems to serve the area the ball game as far as Suburban is concerned is over. If the PUC does ultimately say Byes you can serve this area' there is still this element of can they do it by buying the facilities, because they have to buy out the other company before they can get any authorization whatsoever and there is where I see a game going on that I can't play, that I don't understand and really don't have enough time or competency in depth to determine. I think the ultimate question I am going to be able to answer objectively as.a Councilman will be to determine whether somebody's offer is a fair offer, a reasonable offer, or whether somebody else is trying to put somebody out of business or whether they are trying to use the leverage of prolonging the negotiations to get some particular advantage with the City. At that time I think I am going to be hard- pressed to know how our alternative, or the City°s alternative is to go into the water business. So the thought I had and I just leave it as a thought this evening, that it might be in the interest of the Council to seek out some competent legal mind with a background in the water area and at the strategic and appropriate moment review the proposals that might be made or hanging fire, to serve as a consultant to the Council and to recommend then to the Council from a knowledgeable, impeccable standpoint, a proper dqurse of action. Because I have that feeling that this is going to be ultimately a major and "hot issue" for this Council to • resolve and %hen that time comes I think we should have the benefit of the best and highest type of advice we can get. I think for now all we can do is watch these things going on through the PUC® but the day is going to come when the Council will have to get back into it. I would hope that the Council would agree to seek some counsel. I know of one individual who served 6m this City Council and was in fact this City°s water expert and he is a man with the highest possible credentials in this community today; a former Mayor of the City and an attorney. Of course, I am.speaking of former Mayor .Krieger. He would be the type of person the Council might turn to and who would be able'to give the time necessary to 32 CITY COUNCIL 4/12/71 Page Thirty-three CITY MANAGER: Umark Water System counsel us, advise us as to these ultimate decisions when the time comes. Councilman Lloyd: Mr. Mayor, I don't really think that I am • any closer than anyone else to this and yet I get the feeling - - you know when you can remain calm and all about you you see the panic, perhaps you don't know the situation - - but I feel rather calm about it. I think we are moving along in relatively good styleaunder the mantle of the City we have asked Suburban Water, a private enterprise, to serve this area and the major problem we are facing is that Umark has negotiated with Rowland Heights Water Company and that scares me, because if Rowland Heights comes in then everybody is out, but of course they are entitled to negotiate with whomever they wish, but on the other hand they have indicated a willingness to work with the City. Their major concern seems to be, as I understand it, that Suburban would not be able to meet the financial obligation for that big 300 water pipe and the backbone system of the water company, and that this takes an expenditure of considerable funds. I have spoken to some of the people at Suburban and their problem is they don't want to put the dollars in right at this moment and perhaps they do not have them, because they don't feel they can meet`.thtt kind of expense. So the problem to them is one of economics, meaning do I have the cold hard cash to buy this already prepared system and what they are trying to achieve apparently is some sort of waiver of time or money or maybe a dedication of the system itself - that the small builder will give, but in this large development this apparently has not occurred since the large pipe runs for several miles down Azusa Avenue and as a result it involves considerable sums, in the millions. I think if we don't panic and don't get the pressured feeling that this thing will work itself out and that financial ability on the part of Suburban will be demonstrated and so long as we are in communication with Umark we are able to stop them from rushing out and entering into an agreement with some other agency, in this case Rowland Heights Water Company, which I am most concerned about, and it allows us to participate in the negotiations. I am not really concerned about it, I think when we get all through with it the City can end up with having its cake and eating it too. We can have an involvement with a water system in the City through Suburban Water having its employees operate it. So it appears to me we have the best of all possible worlds - but possibly then I don't understand the problem. Mr. Wakefield: Mr. Mayor, I had not intended to say anything, City Attorney I volunteered enough tonight, but I think the City Council needs to know also that the Examiner for the PUC who presided at the pre -hearing conference this afternoon indicated that if the City entered into an agreement with Covina for Covina to supply the services that the City had originally negotiated with Suburban for, that the Commissioner would then recommend the dismissal of the application that Suburban has filed. So if the City enters into an agreement with Covina I think the hard cold fact is that so far as a temporary is agreement with Suburban is concerned during the life of the present contract between the City of West Covina and Umark Company there just ign°t any possibility that Suburban will be serving the requirements of the City in the providing of service and materials under a temporary arrangement. Now basically the problem stems from the fact that the staff attorneys for the PUC are very concern- ed about who will bear the ultimate responsibility for the serving of water to the Umark lands. They clearly understand that the City°s commitment is limited to approximately 11-1-71, that beyond that time there is no assurance that anyone presently on the scene will have the capacity or the ability to serve water to that area on a permanent basis, so the staff said in effect - we think the inquiry needs to be broadened at tht tir�6s'-_we-.need'to decide - 33 - CITY COUNCIL 4/12/71 Page Thirty-four CITY MANAGER: Umark Water System whether or not Suburban should broaden its application to be certificated as the Water Company to serve the area and this would result in a full blown hearing with days and weeks of evidence being taken by the Commission before a decision will be reached and actually it involves a long term commitment. The Examiner today, as Mr. Aiassa indicated, did not determine whether he would attempt to recommend to the PUC that they treat the limited application which is before the PUC as the authority for the Suburban Water Systems to serve limited services to the City of West Covina and if he does the staff attorney has indicated they would.not oppose whatever recommendation they made. However, on the other hand if he recommends that Suburban broaden its application we are many months away from a resolution of the matter. I didn't want there to be any misunderstanding about the step being recommended. I realize the practical necessity of supplying water immediately, but on the other hand once the City has entered into a.contract wth_Cbvina f.op these -,.limited services then further consideration of Suburban's offer to provide those limited services would be out of the question, simply because the Examiner would at that point in time recommend that Suburban's application be dismissed. Councilman Nichols: That wouldn't prejudice Suburban from submitting a new application for certification? Mr. Wakefield: No, but if that is done then that raises a whole host of problems of Suburban's financial ability to provide the service and acquire the Umark System and that is a matter the PUC will be called -upon to hear: and decide. Mr. Aiassa: I think the question the Council should realize is that tonight you are not adopting an agreement between Covina and West Covina. You are only authorizing the two attorneys to prepare an agreement. The time you will have to decide is on April 26th. But we should have these instruments available so when the crisis comes you can act because you must provide water service to that area. All we are doing is building a defense so that you can supply the service and have it available. Councilman Shearer: A question of the City Attorney. Was there any indication of how soon this referee might make his recommendation with regard to the two-alteinatives? Mr. Wakefield: No sir. The referee did state that the earliest in which a decision would be forthcoming from the PUC was in his opinion a minimum of 30 days. This is based on the assumption his recommendation would be to the PUC to treat it as an ex parte matter and decide without a further public hearing. Normally it takes approximately 30 days for the,PUC to act upon such a recommendation and another 20 days has to go by before the decision of the PUC is final. The referee did indicate if it was his determination that the application of Suburban should be broadened to include an application including at least that portion of the Umark property within the City of West Covina in its ' service area that the parties who had appeared at the proceeding • would be notified of that fact immediately. So I take it as a practical matter we will know soon which alternative he has selected and if he selects the ex parte recommendation route then it will be at least 30 days and possibly 50 days before we have a decision from PUC. Councilman Shearer: Would it be to our advantage to direct correspondence by you to him to request early action so by the 26th we will have some better information rather than be signing an agreement with Covina and - 34 - CITY COUNCIL 4/12/71 Page Thirty-five CITY MANAGER: Umark Water System slam the door in Suburban°s face. Mr. Wakefield: I attended the pre -hearing conference this City Attorney afternoon also and the Commissioner was asked specifically how long it would take before a decision would be forthcoming and he indicated that it would, in his opinion, be at least 30 days. I don't think a communication from me to him will expedite the matter simply because he has to make his report to the PUC and it gets on the regular agenda of the PUC and then the Commission acts upon it. That probably consumes approximately 30 days at a minimum. Councilman Shearer: Then from what I am hearing we will be in the water business with the City of Covina. We will be forced into it through no fault of ours or intent of ours. Mayor Chappell: We have a recommendation to authorize the City Attorney to work with the Covina City Attorney, and a second - are there any further comments? Motion carried. All voting in favor. TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 29126 Mr. Aiassa: You have a written staff BRUTOCO DEVELOPMENT CO. report and Mr. Munsell might elaborate on this, if you so desire. Councilman Nichols: Mr. Mayor, the hour is moving along and I wonder if all the Councilmen have had an opportunity to read and study the report and that probably further elaboration would shed more time than light on the subject. (Council agreed to forego further elaboration.) Councilman Shearer: Mr. Mayor, I have a couple of questions with regard to the park dedication. This term "double assessment" and requiring a change of an amendment of an ordinance to avoid "double assessment." I would like some explana- tion as to what that is, very brief. Mr. Munsell: The Subdivision Ordinance was amended to pro- vide reasonable park fees or dedications shortly after that amendment it was determined by the City Council that there were numerous multiple -family zoned parcels within the City that would never be subdivided and had not paid their fair share to park fees. Therefore, Ordinance No. 1144 was enacted to insure that these multiple -family zones would pay their fair share. In the process of enacting this Ordinance it was not anticipated that there would be a problem with the Subdivision Ordinance and this Ordinance being applied on the same p;ete of property, There now has come before us two parcels which will create this problem. One being the Brutoco Development and the other the 30 some acres at the north end of the Macco Subdivision. It was not the understanding or intent of Council to hit the developers with two assessments, so it was staff°s feeling in this analysis that it would not be unreasonable to modify the Ordinance to reflect this. Councilman Shearer: Then 3.4 acres is a fair assessment of the park dedication. Mr. Munsell: Yes it is, - 35 - CITY COUNCIL 4/12/71 Page Thirty-six CITY MANAGER. TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 29126 Councilman Shearer. Then that brings us to the big question of tonight - to cul-de-sac or not. We are offered good arguments on both sides. The Engineering, Fire, Police and the residents and we are given a couple of alternatives - extend the streets, extend one street, cul-de-sac both streets. I think there is another alternate that should be explored. I mentioneff-this brieflyDto the Planning Director and I am not sure how to proceed, perhaps the City Attorney can advise when I have finished. I think there is a possibility here that an architect could develop a plan that would satisfy everyone. One that would allow access through from Aroma Drive up into the hills and vice versa for the fire vehicles required to serve the area, particularly with the new location of Fire Station No. 6 which would be the closest fire station in the ultimate development to these homes on the hill. I think a system could be developed utilizing basically one of the two streets, either Sunset Hill or Hillward, not as a street but as an easement for emergency vehicles utilizing open space, perhaps access to parking or car ports within the MF-15 zone. Very similar to the solution the Planning Department came up with in Woodside Village to satisfy the Fire Department's requirement for fire access using walkways, etc. I am not about to design it or lay it out, but I sure think with some imagination a good architect could come up with the means of satisfying the access, not as a public street, denying it to through traffic either north or south, but still satisfying the requirement of emergency situations only. This is my feeling. I think there is another solution that can satisfy everyone. I don't know if I have any other support or not, but assuming I do I wouldn't know what kind of action would be necessary or whether this can be taken care of during an approval of the precise plan or whether if we approve one or both streets this evening this gives the developer the absolute right to construct the streets. The things I am talking about I believe would have to be in the precise plan stage and not the Tentative Tract stage. Mr. Brutoco has indicated that he has no strong feelings that these streets must go through. I think this proposal would work in his favor because it would allow him to use some of the area fie might have to dedicate for street purposes as open space and allow him to put an extra unit or two .in and still not violate the MF-15 zoning. Perhaps the City Attorney should answer my questionp in order to leave this avenue open what kind of action would be necessary? Mr. Wakefield. Councilman Shearer/ as I see the thing you are City Attorney suggesting it seems to me that the Tentative Tract would need to show the streets as they are ultimately proposed to be developed. At the time the City Council comes to consider and approve the final Tract Map the City could at that time accept the dedication of all or a part of the streets that are offered for dedication on the Final Map. What I am saying really is that if one or two of the streets - Hillward or the other street are to be used simply as a means of access for emergency services than obviously the entire width of the street would not need to be dedicated and the City could accept a more limited area at the time the Final Map was approved. Councilman Shearer. I was thinking more in the terms of an ease - rather than dedication, the concept I had in mind warn°t a street as such;:-.it-night".be a paseo arrangement like we have in Woodside Village, wide enough for the fire truck to get through but not designed for someone to use it to go down to the market, etc. Mr. Wakefield. Then I think the Tentative Tract Map should City Attorney offer to dedicate an easement for utility and emergency vehicle access along those portions of the road that are deemed desirable and necessary by the City 36 - CITY COUNCIL 4/12/71 Page Thirty-seven CITY MANAGER: TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 29126 so it wouldn't be shown on the Tentative Tract or Final Tract Map as a street but simply as an access route for easement and use of emergency vehicles. Councilman Nichols: It seems to me that the suggestion Councilman Shearer has has potential but is probably something that should be implemented at the • Precise Plan stage after you had already determined that you were not in fact going to extend the streets through. I think action tonight if it should be to terminate one or more streets could later be followed by some effort to modify that result in the Precise Plan requirement requiring some sort of access. My own feeling on the matter is tenuous in some respects and rather firm in others. A City Councilman always takes his conscience and self -direction in his own hands when he does battle with the Fire Department, the Police Department, the City Engineer, the Planning staff and the entire City professional family when they all array in separate recommendations, one can see that they have been loading and reloading their cannons in private and that the battle indeed will be great and damaging, but I think there are times when the Councilman has to take his life in his hands and do battle on the basis of saying that he doesn't think they are correct and that is the position I am taking tonight. Very brazen and possibly ill-advised, but that is my position. There is great ado being made here about the need for opening these streets up for access but at the same time there are staggering inconsistencies in this position. The same staff that is recommending to us that we must open these streets up has recently been vehemently recommending to us that we close off certain streets. An example of one most re-cently is the flap raised about closing the median strip left turn access'.into Michelle and the residents were complaining of the difficulty of getting into their area as a result and -staff went to great lengths to point out this will enhance the area because it prevented vehicles from having easy access to a residential area. So it tends to settle more upon one's own attitude on a particular issue sometimes than upon all of these hazards. We have many, many examples of streets in the City that are every -bit as locked in as this area, I can think of old streets in the City such as North Sunkist off of Garvey, if a fire truck ever turned in there by mistake or misdirection it might never get out again. That is a long, long cul-de-sac and one of the oldest and narrowest and we have lived with it for years. We have gone to great expense to hire, and train one of the best Communication Staffs in Southern California. Women who know every street and alley in this City and get on the horn and direct every police car- and fire engine right to the very faucet they need to reach. ,I am not frightened that we will have police cars and fire trucks,en masse going up the wrong streets and pigeon- holed in some area or street next to Galster Park, I believe our people show right now that they are able to run up into Hillward" and down that long cul-de-sac and service the area when necessary and I think they could continue to do so. I am not disputing that from the ideal planning standpoint and the best police • protection standpoint and the best fire service that all of these • streets shouldn't be opened, but the Council°s job is to try in its sometime faulty wisdom to determine in a compromise situation what is best for all of the people. I can't help but agree with Mrs. Wilner when she said that people will use these.streets. They 'will use them quite regularly, especially on.busy days and at rush times. I can't help but agree that.throwing streets open from a high density area and a commercial area to some -of our better residential areas is a definite disservice to those people, which will come back to the Council again and again. So for me the decision is weighing a•detriment on one hand and a detriment on the other and feeling - 37 - CITY COUNCIL 4/12/71 Page Thirty-eight CITY MANAGER: TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 29126 that the lesser of the two evils would be to close those streets off and not to provide access onto those streets from the area to the south. If Councilman Shearer°s concept could be implemented in terms of acquiring easement and access through the • Precise Plan then I would be all for it, because that would then meet the needs of the citizens for their privacy and the needs for the City°s concept and even improved and better access. But in trying to weigh all the virtues and looking at our community the way it is and what we live with -no(w very reasonably, I think we could live with that. Mt fn-itent.on would be to support the concept that the Tentative Tract approval would be made subject to the park recommendation as recommended, subject to the drainage recommendations and subject to the closing of both of the streets. Councilman Young: I have given a lot of thought to this and we are, of course, dealing with the competing interest of the adjacent residents and the developer of the property and the community as a whole, so I think we have three distinct interests involved. I have been made aware through our discussions that the zoning situation has existed for some 12 years and at that time there was practically no development anywhere near the area and perhaps the whole thing should be looked at again. I am speaking of the area that we tried not to speak in or have hearings in. I did, as you know, I sent you copies, after consulting the City Attorney about this whole zoning situation, and I see he sent copies of his reply to you as well. I would like to see this thing looked at. We have very heavy density here thrown right up against a fine residential area. I don't have any basic objection to some multiple development in there. I think there should be some room for some phasing. This might be causing the developer here in the audience to quake and tremble, but possibly phase into the single family in that district. I don't know about commercial in that location. I have driven by there a dozen times recently wondering where the customers will. come from. I suppose there will be customers but the area is somewhat remote from population except for the rather expensive development up above and whatever development is imported from the apartments when constructed. I would sincerely like to see the developer and the Planning Department get together and rethink the whole thing..in terms of the history that has developed in the past 12 years, which I think has materially changed that area. I think the planning might well be remade. As Mr. Wakefield pointed out if<._•: public necessity, convenience and general welfare would best be served by rezoning in that area in a manner more compatible with the surrounding area and I would be prepared to make that recommendation. I can't really go along with Mr. Shearer°s idea of using a grassed easement for emergency vehicles because of the possibility of running over children and the use of it by minibikes, etc., but probably that could be overcome. In the alternative to that I would like to offer that I would have to go along with Councilman Nichols and the second best choice of trying to balance the interests involved. Councilman Lloyd: I agree with the concept that Councilman • Shearer presented but not with the results. I don't think it is one that we will walk away with anybody being satisfied. However, as' -we -all...-said before, unfortunately we just don't have the right to vote 51/ for this and 49/ for that. We either say ages" or "no" and walk away from it and that unfortunately is where we are at at the present moment. I think the real problem that many of the people here are interested in is can this be reconsidered as a zoning matter and I believe it has been fairly evident to you that it will not be reconsidered on a zoning matter for several reasons. The developer has no intentions of bringing it back, which is one of the methods of rezoning propert3A and the other is that the CITY COUNCIL 4/12/71 Page Thirty-nine CITY MANAGER: TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 29126 Council will go forward and rezone in favor of a higher zoning which has been granted at one time or another. This can be done but certainly we would be involved in matters of litigation which could be prohibitively costly, plus the fact there is no inclination, as I see it, on the part of Council to involve themselves in it. Lastly we. have been talking about the inherent quality of the development and what will lend itself to the highest and best use and cur'.pl-anning 9taff.has indicated that this is the highest and best use. Of course we have a conflict of opinions. Mrs. Wilner says she definitely doesn't want any traffic up there and the homeowners have indicated that and then of course the .Eire Department and Chief 'Wetherbee who says that while he appreciates the right of security and the right of quiet, etc., his major problem is if somebody has a fire then'all these things go out the window and he is more interested in protecting the property and the life of people in jeopardy at that point. I really don't have a solution to it. I concur with the homeowners that are here and the way you feel about it because my street was just recently opened, as I stated last time, and I am unhappy about it. I recognize there is nothing I can do about it, I can't go back and change it - so I can't sit here and tell you that there will not be any automobiles on the street, I would be either terribly naive or lying through my teeth. I really don't think I am naive and I am not about to lie so this poses a problem. I want to find that solution which helps the greatest number of people. The developer, the City, the people that reside in the area. I am not going to try and tell the people owning homes that you will be happy with multiple dwellings - no way, because you won't. Where I live we have a 300 unit multiple dwelling and on top of that another unit of 85 or 100. I would have to at this point accept the obvious will of the Council and say we are going to go into this thing and now we are going to have to find those pro- tective devices which will satisfy you people commensurate with the needs of the City. So now I have come full circle and have to say that while I didn't agree with Councilman Shearer in the first place that everybody would be happy, I agreed that the happiest solution would probably be the one that he presented and I would have to go along with it. Councilman Shearer: I didn°t mean to imply that everyone would be happy because that would be naive or lying through my teeth because that is never going to happen, but I think everybody might be less than completely unhappy. Councilman Young: I think the Council could and has the power to initiate zoning studies in this area. Perhaps it even has a duty to if public necessity so dictates. I don't think this means litigation unless the Council acts in some arbitrary fashion. I don't think the Planning Department has said that this particular zoning is the highest and best use for this land. Some Planning Department may have,said it 12 years ago. I don't recall how the City was staffed at that time. I would like to reiterate that I think this • zoning should be looked at prior to the adoption of the Precise • Plano Councilman Nichols: As long as Councilman Young has pressed in with the issue seeking a more definitive response to his feeling I could only say I do not concur and could not concur for several reasons.al5dut.which I feel'-.very'.strongly. No matter what the law says or does not say I feel an individual is being deprived of a very substantial property right if in fact his property is down zoned to decrease the value immeasurably. As I stated before I have always tried to take what I think is essentially a correct and fair appvoach and 39 CITY COUNCIL 4/12/71 Page Forty CITY MANAGER: TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 29126 when a developer attempted to rezone property at Azusa and Cameron from R-1 to commercial after it developed in single family I felt as strongly as I do on this issue, that to rezone a man°s property after the property adjacent to it has developed in another fashion is simply putting the shoe on the other foot. ,It is a matter of philosophy. I think the greatest concern I have is that we have many parcels in the City with zoning on them and if the Council entertains a change that subject to existing and long standing zoning to downgrade that zoning and attempts to do that in one instance it faces the inevitable challenge that it will be expected and asked to do that in every single case where development on existing land is opposed by someone who is in an adjacent position. And believe me there is always opposition to development. If the feeling is that the zoning is improper, I could accept that as a feeling, but then I would have to say there are dozens and dozens of acres in the City improperly zoned worth millions and millions of dollars and undoubtedly we would be called upon to zone that to single family in an era when no single family residences are in fact going to be built. So I would not at all subscribe to that as a method of securing a solution to this problem. If there has been error and perhaps there has been, it occurred some 10 or 12 years ago and it has been allowed to lie unchallenged all these years by all the people involved. I don't think in 1971 is the time to attempt to change the basic zoning. I take the alternate approach in attempting to provide as adequate a buffer and as much protection for the adjacent area as we can and that is all we can do. Mayor Chappell: I have a couple of questions with regard to the baseball diamond. We are going to acquire 3.4 acres but there is also another ball field of 3.4 acres and it says here we will renew our contract until he decides to do some other developing of that property. If I read it right. I was under the impression that in our dealings that perhaps we were going to work out some sort of an arrangement on a long term lease with the potential purchase of that property at a later date rather than allowing it to go back when he has need for it. That is the first thing that bothers me with regard to the ball diamond. Secondly, we are in the process shortly of opening Hollenbeck Drive up to the northern part of our community and it would bring in a tremendous amount of traffic which the streets in that area are not built to handle. It doesn't appear to me it was intended to handle a tremendous amount of traffic. I am concerned with the traffic you will have coming out of this project up into the residential areas where streets are not built to handle this amount of traffic. I don't believe we are going to have our children run over daily, but it certainly would be a complicating situation. So I would stand on closing the streets, cul-de-sating of those streets, but still looking at Councilman Shearer°s idea of maybe someway closing some of those streets off to through traffic, but I wonder how the police cars in making their daily checks on a regular basis would operate and actually not have streets open to the public as well as to public vehicles . but open for emergency use? But if someone has some ideas and can figure something out I would be interested in it, because I believe our police could perform a better job if there was access, and also the fire department, but rather than over congest our residential streets,I am not ready to do that at this time, I would support basically the plan of cul-de-sacing those streets with the idea of studying Councilman Shearer°s suggestion. So we now have five different ideas - can we have some sort of a motion? Councilman Nichols: It seems to me that the suggestion for studying of further possible access is something that should--actually-follow. (Councilman Nichols offered a motion which was not completed due to confusion with regard to various sections of the Staff report in regard to the recommendations.) �ar�� CITY COUNCIL 4/12/71 CITY MANAGER: TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 29126 Page Forty-one Motion by Councilman Shearer that the Tentative Tract Map 29126 be approved subject to recommendatimis in the staff report dated April 12, 1971: Recommendations A - B - C - D = E and F, and Choice c, which staff is not recommending but one we are recommending and approving. Seconded by Councilman Nichols. Councilman Lloyd: Would you explain to me how do the Little League people get into their tract? Do they have to cut their own roads? They are still going over private property - is that correct? Mr. Munsell: The access along--Ar6ma Drive at the time of any Final Tract Map,- would have to be dedicated at least as showing certain phases so there would be a street alignment. Councilman Lloyd: But at the present moment there is no access? Other than the present path they are using. Mr. Munsell: Are you talking to the last ball diamond or the site itself? Councilman Lloyd: Well to the last and second one - both. Councilman Shearer: Mr. Munsell's recommendation A covers the dedication of the 3.4 acres and it includes in this a statement: "...access to Aroma Drive shall be considered an eventual requirement for the road to be dedicated for park purposes...." So it would seem to me it is covered. Mr. Aiassa: I think Mr. Lloyd is asking who will put the street in. Mr. Munsell: Aroma Drive will be completed by the developer at such time as he comes in with his Final Tract Map. We will then have an alignment for Aroma Drive for a street back to the location of where the ball diamonds are. (Explained further with the use of the displayed map.) Councilman Lloyd: Okay. Now my question is this. Councilman Shearer, in your motion what provision do you have that negotiations will be completed for the two ball diamonds, and the other item is - is there any proviso in there for police and fire access or is that now just cul-de-saced? Councilman Shearer: The motion covers only one ball diamond. That is all that can be expected from the developer. 3.4 acres. Unfortunately two ball diamonds do not fit in 3.4 acres, I wish they did. Then we would have that problem solved. The other ball diamond will be up to future negotiations. Mayor Chappell: Under recommendations - Be it says that the City Council will renew the lease on the most westerly ball diamond. Councilman Shearer: But that is just temporary. Councilman Nichols: We can't make long term agreements. Councilman Shearer: My suggestion with regard to the access I think it is understood that there is somewhat of an agreement and that it would have to be taken up at the submittal of the Precise Plan. ® 4�- CITY COUNCIL 4/12/71 Page Forty-two CITY MANAGER: TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 29126 Councilman Lloyd: Yes, but once we go through with this plan then the developer is a free agent and he doesn't have to negotiate anything. Is that right, Mr. Munsell? • Mr. Munsell: That is correct. Councilman Shearer: He still has to submit a Precise Plan and if we turn it down subject to... Councilman Lloyd: Welly am l_. being reasonable or unreasonable - I don't know. Councilman Nichols: He is dedicating all the park land required free to the City - 3.4 acres, and we indicated we have absolute control on the Precise Plan to the development and if there is any feasible way to provide emergency vehicle access we can do so through the Precise Plan. We have provided for a lock off of the streets to protect the residential area and I think we have done a tremendous amount. I don't know what more we can do here. Motion carried on roll call vote as follows: AYES: Councilmen Shearer, Nichols, Mayor Chappell NOES: Councilman Young, Lloyd ABSENT: None SENATE BILL NO. 333 Mr. Aiassa: You do have a staff (Staff Report) report on this and perhaps Mr. Wakefield can elaborate. Mr. Wakefield: Senate Bill 333 establishes a separate procedure City Attorney for meeting and conferring with the so-called Safety Employees of a City. At the present time Safety Employees are considered as a part of the total number of employees of the City. The same statutory provisions are applicable to them as are applicable to the general city employees. Senate Bill 333 also prohibits strikes by Safety .Employees and provides for the compulsory arbitration of impasses that may be reached in the negotiation procedures. There are two basic policy objections to the bill that have been expressed generally by members of City Councils and other public agencies and the first is that it is a mistake to fragment city employees into separate categories,that the procedures applicable to city employees solely should apply to all city employees. The second is that the city employees whether they be fire, police or general, do not have a right to strike under existing California Law, so the requirement that is added to Senate Bill 333 really is no requirement at all and to provide for compulsory arbitration of disputes as a means of avoiding strikes simply means the Council is giving up its ultimate authority to resolve disputes and placing that authority in the hands of non- elected arbitrators whose decision will be binding upon the City. This means the budgetary control which you currently have would be passed over to a third party in the sense that you would be obligated to accept whatever findings are made in the settlement of impasses so far as police and firemen are concerned. Mr. Aiassa: This bill will be heard before the Senate Committee on April 23rd. I think the Council should take formal action by Resolution and send it to all the representatives in our area;_ and also other representatives on the Senate Committee. Councilman Nichols: I rather have the opinion that Resolutions are literally flooding this State and largely lost in their effect by the sheer volume, A 0 • CITY COUNCIL 4/12/71 CITY MANAGER: SENATE BILL NO. 333 Page Forty-three and I think a simply prepared letter stating our opposition signed by the Mayor addressed to every representative is something they would read and react to much more quickly than they ever will to any of these resolutions. Councilman Young: I second that motion. Mr. Aiassa: The only thing is I would like a resolution to Bud Carpenter of the League of California Cities so he has a formalized action of the Council. Councilman Nichols: Do that)too)just for a spare tire. Mayor Chappell: Is that about the best way we can get to them now - Councilman Lloyd, I see you shaking your head. (Councilman Lloyd answered "Yes".) Motion carried. RESOLUTION NO. 4345 The City Attorney presented: ADOPTED "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF WEST COVINA EXPRESSING ITS OPPOSITION TO SENATE BILL 333." Mayor Chappell: Hearing no objections, waive further reading of the body of said Resolution. Motion by Councilman Nichols, seconded by Councilman Young, adopting said Resolution. Motion carried on roll call vote as follows: AYES: Councilmen Shearer, Nichols, Young, Lloyd, Mayor Chappell NOES: None' ABSENT: None FREEWAY WIDENING Motion by Councilman Young, seconded by PROGRESS REPORT Councilman Lloyd and carried, receiving and filing progress report. CITY OF WEST COVINA Motion by Councilman Lloyd, seconded 1969-70 AUDIT REPORT by Councilman Young and carried, accepting 1969-70 Audit Report. AMERICAN FREEDOM Mr. Aiassa: There is a staff report FROM HUNGER FOUNDATION on this and recommenda- PARADE REQUEST tion along with other pertinent material. Motion by Councilman Nichols, seconded by Councilman Young, that permission be granted subject to the conditions enumerated at the bottom of the report to the City Council, dated April 9, 1971. Councilman Lloyd: What is the date? Mr. Aiassa: May 8th. Mayor Chappell: I don't see anything in here but they were asking to use some parks for rest areas and use of our parking lot - has that been considered? Mr. Aiassa: Yes, staff met with Rosemary Rapp. Councilman Shearer: Mr. Mayor, there was -some concern about legal action and there seems to be quite a list of people involved - I assume misdemeano.•r type charges. Can someone tell me what these people are charged - 43 - 4. CITY COUNCIL 4/12/71 CITY MANAGER: AMERICAN FREEDOM MARCH Page Forty-four with - it looks like they are all members of the organization, like the whole Board. Ross Nammar: In getting in touch with the City Administrative Assistant Attorney°s office in Los Angeles, • evidently in the Valley they had a March last year and the National Foundation made an agreement, as they are doing with the local chapter, that the monies will be turned over to the National Foundation and then they will fund the various projects that are sponsored and the people �'_.,�corganized the march have refused to turn the money in to the Foundation. The permit was issued by the Public Services Division in Los Angeles to the Foundation and not by the local chapter and this is in violation of the Los Angeles City Ordinance and that is what they are charged with, violation of the ordinance itself. The money has been dispensed with by the local Chapter and they have been dropped from the National Chapter. Councilman Shearer: Are these people on this page representatives of the local Chapter or the National Chapter? Ross Nammar: The local Chapter with the exception of Mrs. Rosemary Rapp because the City of Los Angeles issued the permit under her name and she wasn't able to present to them the proof of the funds and the disbursement. Motion carried. MAY CONFERENCE Mr. Aiassa: One further item. Will the Council please advise me as to who is going to the conference in May. I have one commitment. Mayor Chappell: I elan to go. Mr. Aiassa: That will be two. CITY CLERK ABC APPLICATIONS: Arthur N. and Judith Burke dba Hodson°s 113 S. Meadow Road ) Liquor Wm. A. and Anna Ivins ) 227 S. Glendora 10721 Mildred St., E1 Monte ) Avenue Charles F-. and''Edith M. Ricci ) 351'S."Armel.Drive; Covina„ ) Motion by Councilman:Ybung, seconded by Councilman Lloyd, and carried, that no protests be filed. CLAIMS FOR DAMAGES a) Reoyerefn Ci yfRrnia Edison Co., CAUSED BY CITY -OWNED BACKHOE ...b) Dr. Donald L. Courts, Diamond Bar Deny and refer to Insurance Carrier Motion by Councilman Young, seconded by Councilman Lloyd and carried, referring Item (a)to the City Manager. Motion by Councilman Lloyd, seconded by Councilman Nichols and carried, deifying ­ Itefti.(b) and referring 'to :the City ° s insurance carrier. MAYOR'S REPORTS PROCLAMATIONS: International Spring Fair Week - April 26 to May 23, 1971 - 44 - CITY COUNCIL 4/12/71 Page Forty-five MAYOR'S REPORTS: PROCLAMATIONS - Cont°d. Career Guidance Week - April 11-17, 1971. California Ecology Week - April 18-24, 1971. Clean-up, Paint -up, Fix -up Week - May 19-25, 1971. Mayor Chappell: If there are no objections I will so proclaim. ( No objections.) Councilman Lloyd: Mr. Mayor, I have no objections but I have a question. In regard to the Clean-up, Paint -up, Fix -up week have arrangements been made with the West Covina Disposal Company and the dump and is everybody in agreement? Mr. Aiassa: Yes. Councilman Lloyd: I heard there was some unhappiness over it last year. Mr. Aiassa: The problem last year was the B.K.K., because of the items being:brought in - they have a contract with Home Savings that they have to pay for all items hauled in and so they have had to obtain a waiver from Home Savings. This has all been worked out now. Mayor Chappell: One further item. Senator Cranston visited our City today. The City Manager took him on a tour of the City Hall and the Chief of Police took him on a tour of the Police Facility. That was the extent of has visit to West Covina. COUNCIL COMMITTEE REPORTS Councilman Shearer: At the meeting of March 15th we brought up the recommendation of honoring a Senior Citizen in this community. The decision at that time was to hold open and this is shortly due. I was wondering if action had been taken or if anyone has a suggestion of another name: I would hate to see us not have the opportunity to submit a name. Mayor Chappell: No one has submitted another name. Mr. Aiassa, has anything been done or are we still waiting? Councilman Lloyd: We took action the last time, I thought. Councilman Shearer: My minutes don't indicate that: "I would like to leave this open for a short period of time...." but I will not belabor the point if the letter went out.` Also with regard to the Rocket Club. I think it is a very worthwhile organization but last year we had a large fire and we have had a fire this year. In fact we have had 3 fires so the Fire Chief tells me in spite of all the precautions taken. When you have rocket launchings in an area with heavy brush you are playing with fire, so I would like an investigation and report made. I would like the comments of the Fire Chief and the Recreation & Parks Department. I think the City might be in a little embarrassing position if we allow this organization to function during the dry season and then have a major fire burning in Galster Park. It is a recognized situation in the National Forests that certain areas are closed during the dry season because of possible adverse results. Our dry season is rapidly approaching and this year it is extra dry because we haven't had an appreciable amount of rain for 6 months. Mr. Aiassa: The Fire Chief just told me he met with the Recreation & Parks Department and they have already taken it under consideration and they have advised him that there will be no further rocket launchings. - 45 - 41 • • i CITY COUNCIL 4/12/71 Page Forty-six COUNCIL COMMITTEE REPORTS - Cont'd. Mayor Chappell: I was informed today that it was the last firing because of the very dry weather. So they have already knocked it off for the year. I guess they are going to fire on the school grounds with a smaller charge. Councilman Nichols: Mr. Aiassa, a minor matter. Someone was using the Council chairs and are taking the leather off of the arms, at least on my chair. It looks like a very nervous Commissioner of some sort. Would you have your staff check chairs and Commissioners. I would also like to have a copy of the map on the new annexation area which was divided into three areas. I somehow lost mine. It seems to me I recall that there is some city control over the number of Carnivals and Circuses and Fairs shopping centers should have and my recollection was that was turned over for handling at the City Clerk level. Is that correct, Mrs. Preston? Lela Preston: There is a Committee of the Planning Director... City Clerk Councilman Nichols: Well/ it just seems to me that the West Covina Plaza has just one big circus all year long and as commented earlier this evening by a Councilman, I don't think it promotes, I think it demotes. I would like a report back on what our city requirements are and how the West Covina Plaza has been comparing to those requirements with regard to numbers of carnivals, etc., in the parking lot. I have received comments from individuals and I think it is a problem. The last item. Two things came across my desk recently. One, a staff member indicated that he had attended a freeway hearing in :Orange and had indicated by note that the freeway route met the needs of the City as expressed on its General Plan, and then a communication came from the Chamber where the Chamber indicated it was most anxious to work with the City in urging the rapid adoption of the freeway route through the City of West Covina. in terms of the route the City of West Covina was supporting, I think the record ought to reflect that the City Council, to my knowledge, has never gone on record either favoring or opposing conceptionally the location of the freeway called the Huntington Beach Freeway in the City at all. I could be mistaken but I think the only action the Council engaged in was to follow up on the Planning Commission hearings and accept certain of the proposed choices or alternate routes as being the preferred routes of those being submitted by the State of California to the City of West Covina. The City of West Covina also looked at other alternatives and reviewed them as possible alternatives but I have no memory of the Council ever per se taking a vote and saying we are for the Huntington Beach Freeway coming into the City. There is a lot of opposition generated in the south of the City at the present time running all the way up into the City of Industry and there are great and concerned movements afoot in the Country that may bear on the routing of a freeway and I think before very long the Council may wish to look again at its own position. I bring it up tonight to request of staff a research of Council action and to confirm or -correct me in my belief that the Council itself has not taken an actual position on the philosophy, or accepted or opposed the exact implementation of a freeway system. Also so our new Councilmen can be aware of the firm commitments the Council has or has not made in case this again becomes an issue in the City. Councilman Young: Gentlemen.I placed a letter before you which I propose to sign and hand over to a young man - 4_6 - 4 • i CITY COUNCIL 4/12/71 Page Forty-seven COUNCIL COMMITTEE REPORTS - Cont'd. named Robert Walker,- his family are clients of our office. He w0ars short hair and is a nice young man. They are collecting letters for their horse back riding and if you have no objections I will sign it; but if you have objections�I certainly won't use the West Covina letterhead. Mayor Chappell: I have no objections. Are there any objections? Motion by Councilman Lloyd, seconded by Councilman Shearer and carried, approving Councilman Young's letter to Freedom Freeway. DEMANDS Motion by Councilman Young, seconded by Councilman Shearer, approving demands totalling $417,026.13 as listed on demand sheets C769 through 773. This total includes payroll. Motion carried on roll call vote as follows: AYES: Councilmen Shearer, Nichols, Young, Lloyd, Mayor Chappell NOES: None ABSENT: None ADJOURNMENT Motion by Councilman Nichols, seconded by Councilman Shearer and carried, adjourning meeting at 12:10 A.M. ATTEST: CITY CLERK APPROVED: MAYOR - 47 -