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 -