05-24-1971 - Regular Meeting - MinutesMINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL
CITY OF WEST COVINA, CALIFORNIA
MAY 24, 1971.
The regular meeting of the'Ci;.y Council was called to order at
7:36 P.M. by Mayor Ken Chappell in the West Covina Council Chambers.
The Pledge of Allegiance was recited and the invocation was given by
Reverend Melvin Laven of Delhaven Christian Church, La Puente.
ROLL CALL
Present: Mayor Chappell; Councilmen Shearer, Nichols,
Young, Lloyd
Others Present: George Aiassa, City Manager
Lela Preston, City Clerk
George Wakefield, City Attorney
H. R. Fast, Ass't. City Manager
George Zimmerman, City Engineer
Richard Munsell, Planning Director
John Lippett, Ass't. City Engineer
Leonard : El iot',, Controller
Barry Konier, Park Superintendent
Ross Nammar, Administrative Assistant
Terry Brandt, Administrative Analyst
William Fowler, Director of Bldg. & Safety
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
MAY 10, 1971
On motion made by Councilman Young, second-
ed by Councilman Shearer and carried,
minutes approved as submitted. Council-
man Lloyd abstained from voting due to his
absence at the meeting.
1) COMMUNICATIONS
a) Los Angeles County Board
of Supervisors
b) City of El Monte
Resolution
c) LAFCO Notice
d) American Legion, West
Covina Post 790
0 e) Chamber of Commerce
f) E1 Monte U-Drive Corp.,
g) Mr. & Mrs. M.E. Taylor
1325 S. Glenn Alan
CONSENT CALENDAR
Opposes AB 1709 - Gas Tax Funds.
(Refer to Staff)
Re sales tax Revenue Reform.
(Refer to Staff)
Re hearing June 9, 1971, on Annexa-
tion (Rowland Area County Water Dis-
trict) (Refer to City Manager)
Request to sell Fireworks at 3
locations on July 1, 2, 3 and 4,
1971. (Approve, subject to Temporary
Use Permit Conditions)
Request City Council Sanction to
hold Annual Fireworks Show at
Mt. SAC on July 5, 1971. (Approve)
Re Outdoor Display of Vehicles for
rent, at Service Stations. (Receive
and File)
Request their names be removed from
Petition re Brutoco Tract (Refer to
Item A-1.
- 1 -
CITY COUNCIL - May 24, 1971.
Page Two
CONSENT
CALENDAR: Communications
- Cont'd.
h) Mike
Taylor's Letter
re Brutoco
Development. (Refer to
Item A -I)
i) Elmer
F. Deal
re Brutoco
Development. (Refer to
1319
S. Hollencrest Drive
Item A -I)
j) City
of Baldwin Park
Notice of
Zone Change, 15101 Badillo
Street (Refer
to Planning Department)
2) CLAIM FOR DAMAGES
a) Claim of Ian Smith & Betty Smith for Personal Injuries. Filed with
City Clerk on May 6, 1971. (Deny and refer to City Attorney)
b) Claim of Walter L. Robinson for car damages. (Deny and refer to
Insurance Carrier)
3) CITY TREASURER'S REPORT
APRIL 1971
4) PLANNING COMMISSION
SUMMARY OF ACTION
5) ADMINISTRATIVE ITEMS
a) Williams & Mocine
b) Cotton & Francisco
c) Frank Sata Progress
Payment
d) Police -Deeartment Radar
Use Progress Report
e) Police Department Regional
Law Enforcement Proposal
Report
f) Traffic Committee Minutes
May 18, 1971
g) Harrison Baker Statement
$700.00
h) Extension of Time to Meet
and Confer with Employee
Representatives
i) Broadwell Complaint
j) Declaration of Certain
Surplus Items
k) Extension of Employment
for Arthur Larson
6) RIGHT-OF-WAY APPRAISAL
FOR ACQUISITION
(Receive and File)
May 12 and 19, 1971. (Receive and
File)
Statement $1,252.00 . (Recommend
Approval.) (C.B.D.) '
Audit Contract re 1970-71 Fiscal
Year. (Recommend Approval)
Civic Center Parking Structure
Design. (Recommend Approval for
payment of $5, 643. 75)
(Receive and.File)
Motion by Councilman Young,. seconded by
Counc ilma.rf' Nichols-" .,rid car-r' ed �,, to with-
draw Item 5(e) from Consent Calendar for
discussion later.
(Receive and File)
re Cortez Park. (Recommend approv-
al)
Informational.
re Parking problem. (Approve staff
recommendation)
(Approve per staff recommendation)
(City Manager recommends approval.)
LOCATION: North Vincent Avenue
(City Engineer recommends acceptance.)
7) SOUTHEASTERLY ANNEXATION (The Villas)
DISTRICT NO. 213 Receive Certificate of Sufficiency of
signatures of registered voters on
petition for annexation. certified by
Registrar of Voters and City Clerk.
(Mayor Chappell stated the procedure with regard to the Consent
Calendar items and asked if there was any member of the audience that
wished to step forward and comment on any item. There being no one,
he then asked if any member of Council wished to discuss any item.)
2 -
CITY COUNCIL - Ma 24, 1971. Page Three
CONSENT CALENDAR - Co tId.
Councilman Nichols: Mr. Mayor, there are a couple of items that
I would like to have at least a question
answered by staff before voting. Item 7,
Southeasterly Annexation District No. 213 - I wondered why the number,
of signatures on the petitions are so significantly less than the
number;_ of registered voters in that area, when Council had been
informed that it was almost a:. unanimous wish of that area for the
annexing.
Mr. Aiassa: I think it is because there was not enough
time to secure all the signatures. We have
enough signatures to meet�the requirements.
Councilman Nichols: It is not an indication of the extent of the
sentiment?
Mr. Aiassa: No.
Councilman Nichols: On the item pertaining to the Traffic
Committee minutes, there is an item in
there regarding side yard parking on
Cameron Avenue adjacent to Lark Ellen Avenue for the consideration of
a turn pocket. In that this matter was an issue recently at Cameron
and Azusa and the Council had some hesitancy in blocking off residen-
tial parking and the turn pocket was a modification of the current
recommendations, I thought that perhaps this should be held over until
some time when the Council might comment on it, but if no other
Councilman has a concern,'.I,myself, would not request that it be held
out.
Councilman Shearer: Mr. Mayor - a comment. Lark Ellen and
Cameron is slightly different than Cameron -
Azusa. It is the side yard at Lark Ellen
and Cameron, whereas it was front yard parking at Lark Ellen and
Azusa.
Councilman Nichols: I stand corrected. Thank you.
Councilman Young: Mr. Mayor, I had questions on certain items
that are different from Councilman Nichols'
With respect to Item 2-(b) - this is a
claim for car damages. I notice he mentions a condition which I
wonder if the condition has been brought to the attention of the
appropriate City Department for investigation, irrespective of any
claim Mr. Robinson might have and Iif not, it should be.
Mr. Aiassa: Mr. Young, we do have a solution to the
problem and also the matter is going to be
reviewed with the City Attorney.
Councilman Young: How about the City Engineer?
Mr. Aiassa: Yes.
Councilman Young: With respect to Items 5 (k) and Item 6 -
• the only question I have is with regard
to the form of recommendation that we
pass. If we pass the City Manager's recommendation we don't really
approve it. If you read the recommendation,I believe you will see
what I mean. I take it we are approving Mr. Larson°s request?
Mr. Aiassa: Yes, Mr. Larson has only a short time in
office that this will apply, but for
Mr. Larson to continue his employment
with the City, Council must accept the recommendation of the City
Manager.
- 3 -
CITY COUNCIL - May 24, 1971. Page Four
CONSENT CALENDAR - Cont°d.
Councilman Young: On Item 6 we are accepting the recommenda-
tion of the City Engineer, is that correct?
(Answer: Yes) Then the only other question
I had related to Item 5 (e). This item seems to be sufficiently
. more important to methanto be a Consent Calendar item.
Councilman Nichols: I would certainly agree to that.
Councilman Young: And there are so many possibilities with
what the police are talking about.
Mr. Aiassa: Councilman Young�we can withdraw this from
the Consent Calendar and continue it on for
discussion.
So moved by Councilman Young, seconded by
Councilman Nichols and carried.
Motion by Councilman Nichols, seconded by Councilman Young, to approve
Consent Calendar items 1 through 71 e:xcept. 5.(e.)..:..-�.Mot:ionc.ca.rribd 'on -'roll
ca.11.. vote. -as follows:
AYES: Councilmen Shearer, Nichols, Young, Lloyd, Chappell.
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
8) ORDINANCE NO. 1165 The City Clerk 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. 452 - City Initiated.)
9) ORDINANCE NO. 1166 "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
ADOPTED CITY OF WEST COVINA ADDI�G PART 33 TO
CHAPTER 2 OF ARTICLE IX OF THE WEST COVINA
MUNICIPAL CODE CREATING THE CIVIC CENTER OVERLAY ZONE." (Amendment
No. 113)
10) ORDINANCE NO. 1167 "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
ADOPTED CITY OF WEST COVINA AMENDING SECTION 9231.5
OF THE WEST COVINA MUNICIPAL CODE, RELATING
TO FILING FEES." (Amendment No. 114)
Mayor Chappell: Hearing no objections). waive reading of
body of said Ordinances.
Motion by Councilman Shearer, seconded by Councilman Nichols, to...'a.do.p.t;
said Ordinances. Motion carried on roll call vote as follows:
AYES: Councilmen Shearer, Nichols, Young, Lloyd, Cha.pgell
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
11) RESOLUTION NO. 4360 The City Clerk presented:
ADOPTED "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF WEST COVINA COMMENDING RAYMOND H. WINDSOR
• FOR HIS SERVICES TO THE CITY."
12) RESOLUTION NO. 4361 "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
ADOPTED CITY OF WEST COVINA DECLARING ITS
INTENTION TO CALL A SPECIAL ANNEXATION
ELECTION AND FIXING A TIME AND PLACE FOR PROTESTS BY PROPERTY OWNERS."
(Southerly annexation District Number 213).
13) RESOLUTION NO. 4362 "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
ADOPTED CITY OF WEST COVINA DECLARING ITS INTENTION
TO VACATE A CERTAIN PORTION OF DUFF AVENUE."
CITY COUNCIL - May 24, 1971. Page Five
RESOLUTIONS - Cont'd.
14) RESOLUTION NO. 4363. "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF
ADOPTED THE CITY OF WEST COVINA APPROVING
THE FINAL SUBDIVISION MAP OF TRACT
NO. 30401, ACCEPTING AN AGREEMENT BY THE SUBDIVIDER AND SURETY BOND
TO SECURE THE SAME." (PCD No. 1 - Woodside Village).
15) RESOLUTION NO. 4364 "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF
ADOPTED THE CITY OF WEST COVINA APPROVING
THE FINAL SUBDIVISION MAP OF TRACT
NO. 25512, ACCEPTING AN AGREEMENT BY THE SUBDIVIDER AND SURETY BONDS
TO SECURE THE SAME." (PCD No. 1 - Woodside Village.)
16) RESOLUTION NO. 4365 "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
ADOPTED OF THE CITY OF WEST COVINA ACCEPTING
A CORPORATION GRANT DEED EXECUTED
BY WEST COVINA HOSPITALAINCORPORATED FOR MUNICIPAL PURPOSES AND
DIRECTING THE RECORDATION THEREOF." (Orange Avenue Off -Ramp.)
17) RESOLUTION NO. 4366 "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF
ADOPTED THE CITY OF WEST COVINA ACCEPTING A
CORPORATION QUIT -CLAIM DEED EXECUTED
BY WEST COVINA ENTERPRISESIINCORPORATED FOR MUNICIPAL PURPOSES AND
DIRECTING THE RECORDATION THEREOF." (Orange Avenue Off -Ramp)
18) RESOLUTION NO. 4367 "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF
ADOPTED THE CITY OF WEST COVINA CERTIFYING
TO THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT
OF PUBLIC WORKS, DIVISION OF HIGHWAYSIOF CERTAIN RIGHTS OF WAY
ACQUISITION BY THE CITY OF WEST COVINA PURSUANT TO VARIOUS FREEWAY
AGREEMENTS AND AUTHORIZING THE USE OF SAID RIGHTS OF WAY BY THE STATE
OF CALIFORNIA FOR FREEWAY PURPOSES AND APPURTENANCES THEREOF,"
(No. Pacific Avenue and Orange Avenue Off -Ramp.)
Mayor Chappell: Hearing no objections waive further reading
of the body of said Resolutions.
Councilman Shearer: A question,Mr. Mayor, with regard to the
hearing on the annexation. Can the
annexation proceedings be killed at the
time the protest hearing is held if a certain percentage protest?
Mr. Wakefield: Yes, if there is more than a majority
City Attorney protests of the owners of privately -owned
property, or a combination of owners of
privately -owned property and publicly -owned
property the City would be required to abandon the proceeding;
otherwise the City may proceed.
Motion by Councilman Young,,seconded by Councilman Lloyd, to..a.dopt
the foregoing Resolutions, item numbers 11 through 18, with the pro-
vision that the Resolution commending Raymond H. Windsor be perma-
plaqued.
Councilman Lloyd: Mr. Aiassa, weren't we going to - after our
somewhat halting start on these resolutions -
• have you done anything further .to improve the image
and spend less money?
Mr. Aiassa: Yes, we have about four other tentative
designs and are at present researching
as to the cost factor'.
Motion carried on roll call vote as follows:
AYES: Councilmen Shearer, Nichols, Young, Lloyd, _Cha.ppe'll:.
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
5 -
CITY COUNCIL - 5/24/71
AWARD OF BIDS
1) BID NO. 71-146
MAINTENANCE OF HEATING &
AIR CONDITIONING UNITS
The City
be valid
ACCO
Page Six
LOCATION: Civic Center
Bids received in the Office of the
City Clerk at 10:00 A.M. on
Wednesday, May 5, 1971. Held over
from 5/10/71.
Clerk stated 3 bids were received and checked and found to
bid proposals: 1-Yeas Contract 2-Yeas Contract
Per Month '`dtJi`
$ 500 $' 6 , OOO�C'
HOLBROOK REFRIGERATION $520
BEMAC
$681
$ 6 2140 Oar='
Per Month,
$ 550 , $13 ; 200.00
rN ^.
703.-58, $16,8.85.92
(Councilman Young questioned the need for a contract and exactly what
it covered. Mr. Aiassa explained it covered labor and materials on
the system for a 2 year period, a fully guaranteed maintenance and
preventive contract. Councilman Young felt that perhaps a 2 year
contract was a great incentive for the successful winner of the con-
tract to keep the units going with baling wire, etc., and picking up
the $12,000 over a two year period. Mr. Aiassa assured him that
this would be watched very carefully by staff.)
Motion by Councilman Young, seconded by Councilman Lloyd, to �a.•uth'orize
the Mayor and City Clerk to execute an agreement for the fully
guaranteed maintenance of the air conditioning and -heating system of
the City Hall and Police Buildings with the firm of Air Conditioning
Company, Inc., of Glendale, per the city Bid No. 71-146, for a period
of two years. Motion carried on roll call vote as follows:
AYES: Councilmen Shearer, Nichols, Young, Lloyd, ,Ch. ,'Ppel"-
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
2) BID NO. 71-138 Bids received and opened in the
FURNISHING TIRES FOR Office of the Purchasing Agent on
CITY VEHICLES Wednesday April 28, 1971 at
10:00 A.M. Held over from 5/10/71.
Mr. Aiassa: Staff has given you a written report and�as
the purchase is a substantial amount, I
would like the City Clerk to read the bid
results.
Councilman Lloyd: Mr. Mayor - in reading the bids will the
staff also advise where these people are
located?
Mr. Eliot: Cooper Tire & Rubber:Company is located in
Controller Los Angeles; General Tire Service is in
West Covina; Goodyear Tire Service is in
West Covina; Five Bros.,Inc., is in Los Angeles and Bob Conlon°s Tire
Service is in Covina.
The City Clerk presented the bids as follows:
• Cooper Tire & Rubber Co.----------------------------$16,423.18
General Tire Service-------------------------------- 17,932.79
Goodyear Tire Service------------------------------- 19,972.77
Five Bros., Inc®------------------------------------20,239.73
Bob Conlon°s Tire Service ---------------------------- 20,570.64
Motion by Councilman Shearer, seconded by Councilman Young, that
City Council award an annual purchase order to Cooper Tire & Rubber
Co., per their bid dated April 2, 1971, beginning immediately and
terminating as of June 30, 1972.
Councilman Lloyd: Mr. Aiassa - I will reiterate my question
as per the purchase of cars and all the
- 6 -
CITY COUNCIL 5/24/71 Page Seven
AWARD OF BIDS: No. 71-138
other things, when a bid is. within a certain amount - and whether
this is close enough or not, I do not know - but why don't we
use a local vendor? We scream and holler about the economics of the
City, the tax base and then we promptly take the city°s business into
Los Angeles. I am sure they will do a.11right servicewise, but it
seems to me if an outfit is located in the City/and his bid is reason-
ably close that we would give the purchase to that person.
Mr. Aiassa: We did have a ruling from the City Attorney/
and the fact is that the bid must be given
to the lowest bidder. Mr. Wakefield?
Mr. Wakefield: The statute upon which our Municipal Code
City Attorney provisions are based requires that the
City advertise for bids for materials,
supplies and services where the amount is estimated to be in excess
of $3500.00 and the contract be awarded to the lowest responsible
bidder. The statute itself/and the Municipal Code provisions based
upon the statute,make no exception for local bidders except in the
single instance of a tie.bid,and the tie bid may be broken by
selecting the local bid.
Councilman Lloyd: The statute is a function of the State of
California Constitution?
Mr. Wakefield: It is a legislative requirement.
City Attorney
Councilman Lloyd: The requirement is laid on General Law
Cities, is that correct? (Answer: Yes)
What would be the case if we were a
Charter City?
Mr. Wakefield: The same rule applies,.simply because it is
City Attorney a matter of statewide concern. It would
be applicable to the Charter City also.
Councilman Shearer: Mr. Mayor - are these tires at this price,
delivered or picked up in Los Angeles?
Mr. Aiassa: The bid is FOB West Covina corporation yard.
Councilman Shearer: I would urge that all bids in the future
specify this,,so we don't have this problem
of determining if we have to pick it up is
it going to cost us more.
Mr. Aiassa: We will do so in the future.
Motion carried on roll call vote as follows:
AYES: Councilmen Shearer, Nichols, Young, Lloyd, :Cha:ppell_..
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
PUBLIC HEARINGS
• 1) ZONE CHANGE NO. 453 LOCATION: 821 S. Glendora Avenue.
PRECISE PLAN NO. 608 REQUEST: Approval of a change of
WEST COVINA TOYOTA zone from N-C (Neighborhood
Commercial) and R-A (Residential -
Agricultural) to S-C (Service -Commercial), and approval of a precise
plan of design for an auto dealership, on a rectangularly shaped
1.97 acre parcel. Recommended by Planning Commission Resolutions
Nos. 2336 and 2337.
Mr. Munsell, Planning Director, summarized Planning Commission
Resolutions Nos. 2336 and 2337; slides shown and explained;
conditions of the Precise Plan read and explained.
- 7 -
`CITY COUNCIL 5/24/71 Page Eight
PUB, HEARINGS: ZC #453 & PP #608
THIS IS THE TIME AND PLACE FOR THE PUBLIC HEARING ON ZONE CHANGE NO.
453 AND PRECISE PLAN NO. 608.
IN FAVOR
James Smith I am the Secretary and Treasurer of West
Costa Mesa Covina Toyota and all I would like to say
this evening is that we are in complete
agreement with the requirements of the Planning Department and
other City Departments with regard to the development of the
property. Thank you.
THERE BEING NO FURTHER PUBLIC TESTIMONY, FOR OR AGAINST, PUBLIC HEAR-
ING CLOSED. COUNCIL DISCUSSION.
Councilman Young: Mr. Mayor, I was present as the Council
liaison at the Planning Commission meeting
at which this matter was discussed. There
were speakers at that meeting on both sides of the issue, although
the overwhelming weight of community opinion in the immediate area
was thoroughly in favor of this development. There were a few
differences that did arise but were ironed out at the meeting and,
on the basis of that,,I think this should be approved as recommended
by the Planning Commission, and I would so move.
Seconded by Councilman Lloyd.
Councilman Nichols: A question. I am concerned to some degree
about one of the comments made by staff
in one of the provisions that have been
made, where the statement is the parking spaces for auto storage and
display of cars are not of standard size due to the small size of the
car. If these people sold out to - say Cadillac, well then we would
have a substandard agency in West Covina.
Mr. Munsell: The required parking spaces for visitors
cars are of standard size. The display
area is somewhat less than standard in
terms of turning area; however, even a Cadillac could be displayed
in the area. The storage area in the rear of the lot is marked off
for the somewhat smaller Toyota andishould a larger agency desire
this location,,he would just have fewer stalls and it would require
remarking the area. - This would not be our requirement but one
of the agency's, so we wouldn't anticipate this problem should a
supersize car desire this location in the future.
Councilman Shearer: Does this motion cover the sign variance?
All three items? That was not covered
in Mr. Munsell°s presentation, only the zone change and the precise
plan.
Mr. Wakefield: The variance application and the granting
City Attorney of that Variance by the Planning Commission
is not before the City Council this evening.
The Variance itself would not normally come before the Council in
the absence of an appeal or being called up by the Council. There
• are two items before you this evening, the zone change and the
consideration of the precise plan of design.
Councilman Young: I would hope my motion covers both the
zone change and the precise plan.
Mr. Wakefield: Yes, it is permissible for both to be in
City Attorney one motion.
Motion carried.
CITY COUNCIL 5/24/71 Page Nine
PUB. HEARINGS: ZC #453 & PP ##.608
Mayor Chappell: We certainly welcome this new auto agency
in our community and are looking forward
to a tremendous amount of sales, as we
love the revenue developed from auto agencies in the way of sales
taxes. Any citizens looking to buy an automobilelplease consider
. all agencies in West Covina and/if you are going to buy a Toyota,
specifically our West Covina Toyota.
Mr. Wakefield: Mr. Mayor and members of Council, the
City Attorney West Covina Toyota applicant hasjin a
letter addressed to the City Manager,
requested that if possible the Ordinance providing for the change of
zone be introduced this evening so that it will expedite their
opportunity to develop by approximately two weeks. If Council so
desires,I have the Ordinance prepared. (No objections.)
ORDINANCE
INTRODUCTION
COVINA MUNICIPAL CODE SO
Application No. 453 - West
Mayor Chappell:
The City Attorney presented:
"AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF WEST COVINA AMENDING THE WEST
AS TO REZONE CERTAIN PREMISES. (Zone Change
Covina Toyota)."
Hearing no objectionsP waive further reading
of the body of said Ordinance.
Motion by Councilman Shearer, seconded by Councilman Lloyd and
carried, t:b introduce said Ordinance.
2) 1971 SUPPLEMENTAL WEED LOCATION: Various throughout the
AND RUBBISH ABATEMENT City (per list attached to resolu-
PROGRAM - PROTEST tion). This date set'for hearing
HEARING ON PROPOSED WORK of protests or objections from
property owners and other interested
parties to Resolution of Intention No. 4354 adopted May 10, 1971.
Mayor Chappell: Madam City
of mailing?
Lela Preston: Yes, I do.
City Clerk
Clerk, do you have the affidavit
Motion by Councilman Shearer, seconded by Councilman Lloyd and
carried, to-::rece ive'-arid:. f ile.
Mayor Chappell: Madam City Clerk have you received any
written protests or objections against
performing this proposed work?
Lela Preston: No, I have not.
City Clerk
THIS IS THE TIME AND PLACE FOR THE PROTEST HEARING ON THE 1971
SUPPLEMENTAL WEED AND RUBBISH ABATEMENT PROGRAM.
James Earl Morton Representing 829 South Orange Avenue.
1045 Azusa Ave.; I have no complaint about mine, but what
Space 4 I would like to know is, you send a
contract cleaner in to clean up mine but
he never cleans up the lot next door to mine. He just cleans mine
and leaves. The place next door to mine hasn't been cleaned up for
at least 4 years. I know mine is a corner lot and can be seen, I
realize that, but there is -rubbish and cars parked on the lot next
to mine. The car has been there for 4 or 5 years, it has never been
moved. I was wondering why mine is cleaned up and not the one
next door.
Mayor Chappell: May we have that address?
- 9 -
0
•
CITY COUNCIL - 5/24/71
PUB. HEARINGS: WEED ABATEMENT PROGRAM
Page Ten
Mr. Morton: It is the lot south of 829 South Orange -
Mr. Gilmore's place.
Mayor Chappell: Mr. Aiassa; will you make note of that,
please?
Mr. Aiassa: Yes, I have.
Councilman Nichols: Mr. Mayor - wasn't it Mr. Gilmore that was
in last year and maintained that he
always maintains his property appropriately?
Mr. Morton: Yesihe was in the same night I was.
Mayor Chappell: Mr. Aiassa, was this one of the gentlemen
we left off the hook last year?
Mr. Fowler, I
Yesland of the two properties in question,
Director Bldg. & Safety Mr. Gilmore's is not on the list at this
time. However, Mr. Polk's property
immediately to the north has been put back on the list. Mr. Gilmore's
property at this time has not been deemed by staff -in examination, to
be ready for putting on the list.
Mayor Chappell: Staff has examined it recently? (Answer:
Yes.) Will you take another look at it
and report back to Council at our next
meeting?
Mr. Fowler: Yes, we will.
Mayor Chappell: Will that solve any of the problem -
Mr. Morton?
Mr. Morton: Well/I just wondered why his is never
done and they continue doing mine: His -.has
never been done for the past 4 years.
Mine was done last week for this year.
Mayor Chappell:
Fine. We thank you for bringing this to
our attention.
THERE BEING NO FURTHER PUBLIC TESTIMONY, PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED.
COUNCIL DISCUSSION.
Mr. Wakefield: Mr. Mayor, the motion that would be in
City Attorney order would be to authorize the City
Engineer to proceed with the abatement
of weeds and rubbish on those properties mentioned in the
Resolution of Intention No. 4354.
So moved by Councilman Shearer, seconded
by Councilman Lloyd.
Councilman Young: A question, Mr. Mayor. In making this
motion this does not preclude the adding
of any other properties, such as Gilmore's?
Mr. Wakefield: That is correct. This is a supplemental
City Attorney proceeding. Really a clean-up dEthe
remaining properties that were not included
in the original list for this fiscal year. There will be a new list
and a new year, which can include the Gilmore property, or others.
Motion carried.
- 10 -
CITY COUNCIL 5-24-71 Page Eleven
AWARD OF BIDS - Cont°d.
3) PROJECT NO. SP-70007 LOCATION: Lark Ellen Avenue from
STREET IMPROVEMENTS Amar Road northerly to join with
LARK ELLEN AVENUE the existing improvements of
Lark Ellen Avenue.
• Bids received in the Office of the City Clerk at 10:00 A.M. on
May 19, 1971. (Request to hold over to June 14, 1971.)
Motion by Councilman Young, seconded by Councilman Shearer and
carried, to..hold over to the meeting of June 14, 1971.
PUBLIC WORKS ITEMS
1) BRUTOCO DEVELOPMENT OF Councilman Young: Mr. Mayor, may I
TRACT NO. 29126 speak to a point
(Staff Report) of order? I take
it this is more or less the key
issue before us tonight, as far as
public hearings are concerned. This relates, as we all know, to the
development of the 57 acres adjacent to or near Galster Park. I
have been made aware of the fact since the last few Council meetings,
that there are many in the audience that desire to make additional
statements and who would like to make those statements prior to any
action being taken by the Council this evening. I submit that to the
chair, and it would be my thought that this item might be heard more
or less as a public hearing item, although it is not a public hearing/
per se.
I have been assured by the two
people that called me today at my office that additional testimony
will not be largely repetitious although some of it will be. I
would like to suggest that this item be heard as a public hearing item,
with an opportunity for the public to participate and then Council to
participate.
Mayor Chappell: In keeping with the Council policy
in the past�I was going to bring
that up if someone else on Council
did not. I would like the cpnsent of the rest of the Council. May
we have a motion from Council either in favor or opposition of,
allowing the audience to testify?
Motion by Councilman Young, seconded by Councilman Lloyd and
carried, that the audience be allowed to testify in the matter of the
Brutoco Development of Tract No. 29126.
THE CHAIR DECLARED A RECESS AT 8:30 P.M. COUNCIL RECONVENED AT
8:45 P.M.
(Mayor Chappell explained the procedure to be followed by those
wishing to make comments.)
Mr. Munsell, Planning Director, orally presented staff report as
prepared for the City Council, which included a backlog of facts
felt to be pertinent to the discussion that might be undertaken
tonight.1L A quick chronology of events: In November, 1962, zoning
and annexation ordinance was adopted by the City Council (initiated
by the Council); March 1963, the original Deed of Gift of Galster
Park to the City by Emil Galster; October 1963, the original
Tentative Tract 29126 was approved by the Planning Commission
covering the Brutoco_.DeVelopment Company's parcel as recently re -
discussed and approved; October 1963, original Tentative TA -act
29126 approved by City Council; May 1964, Tract 28049 was recorded
which includes Queen Summit Drive; October 1964, original Tentative
Tract 29126 was given a one-year time of extension; April 1965,
Tract 28988 was recorded which includes South Hills Drive; October
1965, Tentative Tract 29126 reapproved by Planning Commission;
- 11 -
CITY COUNCIL 5/24/71 Page Twelve
PUB. WKS.: Brutoco Development Tract #29126
July 1968, Tentative Tract 291261recreatio n lease with City and
Brutoco Development Company allowing the San Jose Little League to
plan two ball diamonds on the Brutoco property; April 1971,
revised Tract 29126 approved by City Council. This revision now
• intludes park dedication,which is a new feature to the subdivision
ordinance as of this year. Further, stating the written report
included f acts regarding Galster Park and was quite lengthy;
there was an aerial display of the park on the wall/and also we have
a map-^indibating all of the commercial zones in the City with a
summary of their status which will be presented, I hope, at your next
meeting. We have all of the multiple family zones in the City with a
status which is available to you tonight. Both of those maps are
now available to you."
Mayor Chappell: Does Council have any questims on staff's
presentation? If not, we will move on to
the oral portion.
ORAL COMMENTS
Sarah Webber The only reason I am appearing is because
1435 East Thackery somehow the name of the Girl Scouts has
West Covina been used in-canjunction with protesters
in this matter. It must be made very clear
that the official Girl Scout Organizations and Spanish Trails Girl
Scout Council take, no official position either for or against this
matter which is before the City Council. West -Covina Girl Scoutso-
as well as the Boy Scouts, are the recipients of a portion of Galster
Wilderness Park, which Mr. Galster donated for the purpose of provid-
ing camping experiences for boys.and girls. I have talked with
Mr. Galster personally about this.matter, and he -assures -me that he
would not support anything that would jeopardize this most generous
gift because he is so keenly aware of the crying need for this type
of facility in our community. Girl Scouts believe in the process of
law; therefore,we entrust this matter entirely to you. Thank you.
Mayor Chappell: Are you speaking as an officer?
Sarah Webber: I am speaking as a Board of Directors/ member.
Any questions I will.be answering as a
citizen.
Fred Sezard I have a copy of the General Plan from
1501 Pine Drive which I would like to quote something from.
West Covina "The goals and policies adopted by the
Blue Ribbon Committees under the General
Plan recognize that there will be drastic changes in some parts of
the City and also recognize that much of West Covina will remain
basically unchanged. Areas that remain unchanged need to be planned
for and directed so as to achieve the City's goals. The important
goal of the General Plan is the following: West Covina to remain
predominantly residential. The core area adjacent to the San
Bernardino Freeway needs some new retail sales, offices, high
density residential and cultural facilities' (and may I add this
is where this type of development belongs) 'The zoning and
. subdivision ordinance should be periodically reviewed and revised
to keep them updated." And that is exactly what we are precisely
asking for! I believe the Brutoco 57 acres are improperly zoned
today.
Robert LeClaire
1227 Hidden Valley
West Covina
saving it. Not so,
preserve the natural
City's General Plan
parcel
which is only
I am here tonight to explain how we can
Drive save Galster Park. Many people think, or
have been led to think, thanks to our local
newspaper, that we are making an issue of
When we say "Save Galster Park" we are out to
surroundings from multiple dwellings. Our
shows very low, low density except for this one
shown as medium. density. We are .-asking that the
.12
CITY COUNCIL - 5/24/71 Page Thirteen
PUB. WKS.: Brutoco Development Tract #29126
park not be surrounded with buildings as those on Amar Road. The
first order will probably be to level the hill. We are asking for
R-1 pased on preserving the present terrain, which will not detract
from the natural surroundings of the park. .In •due regard to our
Planning Commission I have prepared a slide to show about what we
• are talking about.
In 1962 ,a group of concerned citizens
fought for R-1 zoning and lost. In 1962 Mr. Galster sold 100 acres
of his 196 acres to Mr. Brutoca.o, In 1963, Mr. Galster donated 32 acres
to the City for a Wilderness Park, where the City has presently
spent almost $300,000. In 1964,,Mr. Bxutoca:o sold 43 acres of his
R-1 property. In 1971 Mr.Bs.utoca.6 has submitted the following plan
for his 57 acres. As you can see about 25 acres of this land will be
used for high density .MF-25 and 12 acres for MF-15. This will
completely close off the north exposure of the park. Access to this
park will be only through the apartments. Mr. Galster has expressed
a desire that his 60 acres also be zoned for apartments as the best
use for his land. If this becomes a fact,.it would only make it
easier for the first parcel to be approved for apartments, then we
would have the entire west boundary to the park blocked. We will end.
up with a West Covina version of New York's Central Park.
To be consistent with our General Plan,
which I would like to quote from - "The policies outlined in the
hill area report are intended to preserve the natural character of
the hills so far as possible and encourage a residential environment
which will enhance the hills and West Covina. The open space proposals
will help to preserve the character of the hills and create a special
environment and add to the recreational opportunities in West Covina."
We have one of the largest natural parks
in the whole of the San Gabriel Valley, used by all. Let's keep it
that way. Thank you.
A. N. Rulofson I am Secretary -Treasurer and Director of
the Galster Foundation. It is the largest
land owner adjacent to the Brutoco
Development. Footage of property owned by the Foundation is 837' on
the north line and approximately 2700, on the south line.
Mr. & Mrs. Galster acquired a 250 acre ranch in 1940, they developed
it into a beautiful country estate where they raised pure breed
cattle and fine horses. With the end of the war and the rapid
expansion of the San Gabriel Valley, Mr. Galster made plans at that
time to preserve at least a small portion of the ranch for public use.
In the 1950's the City of West Covina had the unique. -distinction of
being the fastest growing City in the United States.''It grew from
about-f-orty-five hundred in 1950 to fifty thousand plus in 1960. With
the addition of the Edison Company substation,it was determined that
a portion of the ranch joining the Edison structure should be set
aside for commercial use. The part in the center is part of a long-
range plan which Mr. Galster and the surrounding owners worked out
prior to 1962. Mr. and Mrs. Galster, many years ago, created the
Galster Foundation, a nonprofit organization, whose objectives would
be assistance to educational and youth activities. They, and the
Foundation, have made contributions over the past decade in excess of
one million dollars. Not'only has the City of West Covina been the
beneficiary in acquiring Wilderness Park,,but many colleges and youth
organizations have also benefited® The remaining lands owned by the
Foundation in its entirety, although Mr. Galster did retain a life
estate in his residency on top of the Hill, together with other .
assets owned by the Foundationimust be directed to charitable use,
preferably youth and education. Mr. Galster and the Directors and
Officers of the Foundation sincerely believe in the Master Plan for
this City and the zoning of this tract are the best fists for this
land.
It is our view that ever-increasing popula-
- 13 -
CITY COUNCIL - 5/24/71 Page Fourteen
PUB. WKS.: Brutoco Development Tract #29126
tion density - and we surely have proof during the decades of the
50°s and 60°s - increasing population density creates greater
problems of congestion and transportation.and results in ever-
increasing taxation and that community park areas and neighborhood
commercial centers become more and more important. It is our view
that this neighborhood simply cannot afford the luxury of this
beautiful Wilderness Park without having the additional tax base.
The park was given for the full use of the City to have a, nearby
commercial center,and the park was granted by the Galsters and
the Foundation for use of all the City. Surely those that travel the
freeway to enjoy the park will not mind a few blocks of greater
densitylor possibly local commercial/before entering the park.
Incidentallylthere is one entrance to the park and there will be
merely one side of the.park with the proposed tract.
Mr. Galster and the Foundation wish to
congratulate, particularly the West Covina Park Department - they
have done a grand job, and the City Manager and City Council for
the improvements made and he and the Foundation, are extremely
proud. In conclusion1I would like to make one statement. Those
who have =-opposed this,. -land use have adopted the statement 81Save
Galster Park" - thelr,by implication/claim, that Mr. Galster in
supporting zoning which he espoused in the beginning, more than 10
years ago, now seeks to destroy the park. That is the most
inconsistent thing possible. Mr. Galster and the Foundation favor
this present zoning/and Mr. Galster and the Foundation also favor
saving Galster Park. We are pleased that so many citizens have taken
an interest in the park. That so many have come forth to express
the view to save the park. That shows its success. We simply cannot
have the park without a better tax base. We must:f ace the fact of
ever increasing density. We, of the Foundation, favor the present
zoning. Thank you.
Dr. Leslie Greenbaum I have had a few people ask - "Save
1443 Alpine Drive Galster Park" - save it for what? The
West Covina answer is,, of course,, save it from.the'.Very
people who created the park, for they seem
bent, unknowingly, I am sure, on destroying the very purpose the
park was created for - that of a Wilderness Park. I would like to
read a letter from the National Wildlife Foundation, Washington, D.C.
addressed to the West Covina City Council: "Gentlemen: The National
Wildlife Federation has been asked by some of its associate members
to respond with comments relative to zoning and Galster Park. It
has been our experience across the Country that careful planning is
vital if wild areas or wilderness characteristics are to be kept in
their present state. A term related to wilderness is a buffer zone
which may have various meanings. It is significant thatthe term has
developed and it does mean that the land use pattern immediately to
or adjacent to wilderness or park areas is extremely important.:if"'"
the natural area is to be preserved. It is difficult to imagine that
an apartment complex close to Galster Park can be compatible with the
concepts of the park. Logic would indicate an apartment complex
could create numerous problems. From the standpoint of management,
parks of -a wilderness nature often have difficulty even with single
family dwelling developments, if said developments are adjacent to
the dedicated public lands. Long range planning indicates the need
for land uses that are compatible to the concepts of the park.
These points have been well documented in many'controversies across
the Country. (Signed) Thomas Kimball, Executive Director."
I would like to quote - "the absolutely
indisputable facts are that if every acre zoned for multiple houses
were to develop as presently zoned one out of every three living
units in this City would be multiple housing. Certainly,if there
is any land in West Covina presently zoned for apartments and
commercial that should not be allowed to develop as zoned, it
should be first and foremost - number 1: not in front of the one and
- 14 -
1.
CITY COUNCIL 5/24/71 Page Fifteen
PUB. WKS.: Brutoco Development Tract #29126
only unique wilderness park and secondly, not across from schools."
Thank you.
Joan Segard As a concerned citizen /I would like to give
1632 South Orange you my thoughts on this issue. I cannot
• West Covina understand how a park can be specifically
financed for camp grounds and over- night
stays for Girl and Boy Scouts and then to turn around and make the
area obsolete. I would like to quote from an article that appeared
in the May 1971 issue of the San Gabriel Valley Tribune which read:
"Mr. Galster said that he personally feels that the high density
apartments would be best for the 60 acres his Foundation owns too.
Galster also made it clear that his main concern is not the kind of
development which takes place on the land surrounding the park, but
that the development be of top quality construction with planning of
open spaces." I wonder how you can have plenty of open space when
you have high density complexes - 2000 people on the 57 acres the
Brutoco Development Company owns, and a few thousand more people
on the remaining acreage Galster owns? High density complexes
housing this many people directly in front of a wilderness park does
not make any sense to me. It is common knowledge that such complexes
attract traffic, dope, rape, perverts, etc., and,therefore,I would
not let my children go to or sleep in the park and be subjected to
such things. I also feel it necessary to call attention to the fact
that Mr.Brutoc.a.o,,, under a condition of building, had to give 3.4 acres
of land to the City. I have here the minutes of the Planning
Commission public hearing meeting on February 17, 1971, and I would
like to quote from Page 5 of these minutes..a statement regarding
Planning Department staff report,Tentative Tract 29126,dated
February 3, 1971. "The applicant, Brutoco Development Company,
wishes to record its exception to the staff recommendation that
applicant shall dedicate 3.4 acres of land for park and recreational
purposes." Mr.Brutoca.o appeared and took exception to this condition.
Mr.Brutoca,o. did not give this land willingly, as the paper here led to
believe it was. I hope that the Councilyin considering their decision,
will think of the children and people that use this park. Thank you.
Ken Peterson I have a letter from some experts in the
530 North Broadmoor wilderness area - the Wilderness Society
West Covina of Washington, D.C., Stewart Brandbord,
Executive Director - "°I am familiar with
the efforts of the citizens of West Covina to protect the aesthetic
and physical qualities of Galster Park by rezoning a 57 acre tract
adjacent to the park. I share your concern, that the erection of
3-story apartments and possible development of a commercial center
this close to a wilderness park would probably have a seriously
damaging effect, disturbing the wildlife within the park and the
atmosphere of peacefulness and quiet sought by people who go to the
park. The concentration of human beings in the vicinity and the
noise, speed and confusion which a shopping center or equivalent
commercial activity would produce, would all be contrary to the
objectives of the wilderness park. Considering how rare and
precious such natural areas have become in or near cities it is
worth every effort to avoid degrading them in every way., The
single family R-1 zoning classification which applies to all
areas bordering the park establishes a much lower density population
and has demonstrated its value as a buffer zone for the park. I
urge the Council to give careful consideration to the rezoning of
this tract and to give every support to you and other citizens who
are working to protect this area."
Alice Robertson I have a letter from the Defenders of
1439 Queen Summit Drive Wildlife, 2000 North Street, Washington,
West Covina D.C., addressed to the West Covina City
Council. "Gentlemen: It has been brought
to my attention that a 57 acre tract of land at the entrance of
Galster Wilderness Park will house not only a shopping center and
- 15 -
CITY COUNCIL 5/24/71 Page Sixteen
PUB. WKS.: Brutoco Development Tract #29126
professional building, but a high density apartment complex. If
this is true, I am,indeed, amazed and surprised. California citizens
have always had an excellent reputation in conservation matters. Your
State Park System'is one of the finest in the Country. However, your
State has suffered from many environmental disasters brought on
primarily by man's ignorance and lack of reverence of the land. Let
us hope that in the present situation we don't further decrease the
volume of our environment. There has been and still is,unfortunately,
throughout our Country a continuous downgrading of the quality of our
environment. As the City and sprawling suburbs continue to creep into
our prime agricultural lands, mountain valleys and our unspoiled
wild lands, the opportunity for preserving or conforming with
nature dwindles and the inhabitants of these giant metropolises become
less and less acquainted with natureland their children have even
fewer chances of experiencing their natural heritage. They have not
only lost contact with nature but the opportunity for contact was.
never there in the first place. This is tragic, for without a,
knowledge of the environment we can never hope to understand our
relationship to land and other living things. Therefore, it is
absolutely essential to preserve open space and.in particular,
those unspoilt areas closest to''the areas of human inhabitants..
Although the apartment complex would not physically intrude into the
wilderness park)it will exert a tremendous and possible irreversible
pressure. The hundreds of people living therejand not including those
who would come for shopping and other services1 would bring with them
an additional downgrading of the environment. Wilderness parks are
such because of several reasons. They offer quietness, a place where
a man can go to find solitude, relaxation and inspiration. The traffic
congestion and other sources of noise would destroy the wilderness
quality of quietness. These parks also offer the aesthetic qualities;
however this would be lost because of the high density apartments
and the general tacky appearance that so many shopping centers take on
over a short period of time. As a gateway to this wilderness park
I am certain that the citizens of West Covina could find a more
appropriate means of developing the area in keeping with the
wilderness ideal. Sincerely, WilliaT D. Cooper."
Karen Zemo I am representing approximately 145 people
North Yaleton of Del Norte School who are against the
building of these commercial buildings.,
I have petitions here that state people's. names and addresses,
mostly students of Del Norte School, that are against this.
Approximately 145 people feel the same way I doland I have come to
represent these people. When I was there and I stayed overnight I
had quiet and it was very peaceful and there were a lot of
animals surrounding the whole area. The buildings may not kill the
animals but they may frighten them. We all feel the animals there
are there to stay unfrightened and peaceful and to know they are safe
as long as they live. Thank you.
Lyle Taylor I am speaking on behalf of the Angeles
1434 E. Rio Verde Dr. Chapter of the Sierra Club. The matter of
West Covina Galster Park is of particular concern to
the Sierra Club, long involved with pre-
servation of our natirn°s wilderness resources and now dedicated more
explicitly to the urgent cause of preserving the living environment
of man.
Man's environment is threatened. The
quality of our future environment can be gauged in no better way
than by establishing the quality and quantity of available open
space. You, as a body, can act to protect the -quality of our living
environment by setting in motion plans to preserve in perpetuity
the open space of various kinds our community requires. A first
action of considerable urgency is to protect Galster Park.
Emil S. Galster gave to this community a
unique treasure. That treasure was land. Land is not just dirt, but
- 16 -
CITY COUNCIL 5/24/71 Page Seventeen
PUB. WKS.: Brutoco Development Tract #29126
is rather a living community of flora and fauna supported by the
existing air, water and minerals. When given, it was living. If
this land is to live into the future you gentlemen must act to
protect it. The 30 plus acres of Galster Wilderness Park/if
unbuffered from the encroachment of man1will die. It will die
• because the essential habitat values required by the native community
of plants and animals will be destroyed. Habitat values are those
values required by animals for rest, play, reproduction, and rearing
of young. Plantslas animals, adapt to prevailing conditions; change
the conditions abruptly and the community will be drastically altered.
An immediate requirement of protection is
to restrict the proposed Brutoco Development to places and density
that will shelter the park from noise pollution, undue light
pollution and mass invasion by man with the attendant littering and
resultant erosion that will result in ecological degradation and
destruction of the delicately balanced ecological system of the park.
In the long run, if this park - a public
asset of the City of West Covina ® is to survive all presently
undeveloped ridgelines visible from the park should desirably be
protected from development by easement agreements, acquisition,
or other means available to protect open space values. This is a
necessary action but�by itself his not sufficient to protect the
park's intrinsic values.
The National Recreation and Park Association
popularized a standard requirement of ten acres of open space per
thousand population to accomodate community requirements. West Covina,
as most communities of Southern California, falls far short of providing
ten acres of open space for each thousand of its citizens.
More recent studies have advanced a standard
of 78 acres per thousand population as more adequately providing for
open space needs of a region. Of this 78 acres of open space per
1,000 populationr.14 acres is identified as a requirement for public
parks and recreation under community control, as stated in "Space for
Survival" by Charles E. Little and John G. Mitchell. West Covina
requires more parks and the uniqueness of Galster Wilderness.Park
dictates that this irreplaceable public asset be protected so that
the increasingly scarce values of a wild kind may be passed on to
the future generations.
I thank you for this opportunity to present
this statement on behalf of the Angeles Chapter of the Sierra Club.
Steve Miller I am a student of Cal --Poly, Pomona. I
530 N. Yaleton represent no organization. I speak only
West Covina for myself and all other scouts who feel
like I do. First of all �.I, will present
to you all of the things the Scouting organization and individual
scouts have dorre for the park. 1 - they have, cleared all the
brush around the fences:`'fur a fire break; 2,- they stablized and
made many of the trails in the park; 3 - they have cleaned up the
areas.in the park removing the litter and trash; 4 - they have done
individual projects concerning nature preservation. One of the
things the park offers for the boys is a nature area for study and
observing the wildlife. It presents a campsite within the City
limits so there will be no great extent of travelling for the
scouts. So/if this area is lost they will lose: 1 - a nature area;
2 -an area easily accessible to scouts for the study of nature,:
the observing of animals; 3 - an area that would be to educate in
conservation and nature and which would be lost because of the
encroachment of civilization; and it also means the Hoy Scouts
would lose the possibility of these special merit badges which are
only possible in the wilderness area. They would lose nature,
wildlife ',management, soil and water conservation, conservation of 1
natural resources, cooking, bird study, insect life, biology and
botany merit badges. Thank you very much.
- 17 -
CITY COUNCIL 5/24/71 Page Eighteen
PUB. WKS.: Brutoco Development Tract #29126
Roland Robertson ; too would like to speak in favor of re-
1439 Queen'Summit Drive zoning this particular parcel of land.
West Covina I realize these decisions are extremely
difficult for City Council members to re-
solve. One of the problems is the fact that so many issues become
injected in the picture which really should not be a part of it.
. The only valid question is whether or not this is a good location
for this type of development: Let me emphasize that point. The
desirability of the location - this is the question! None of the
arguments in favor of this commercial -apartment complex that I have
heard or read in the paper suggest it is a'good location. I would
like to present the other side.
Very briefly, the other side of some of
the arguments I have heard® 1 - that the developer is a good man.
To this,,I have no doubt he is a good man and has done a lot for the
City, but this is obviously not the question. Argument No. 2 - that
the present zoning was done in 1962 and cannot be changed. To this✓
I say anything can be changed,otherwise,we would revert to a decision
made in 1937, or one in 1842 or 1776. Argument No. 3 - that the
developer has paid taxes on the land and will lose money if rezoned.
This does not appear to be true. He would just make a few dollars
less,but not actually lose money. Argument No. 4 - that one of our
most basic constitutional rights is that of property.. To this I
couldn't agree more, but the value of that property is determined by
other factors which involve other people's rights. So this idea of
property rights is not an absolute one�but relative. When our name
is written on a deed of a piece of property it does not -mean that .it
is ours to have and hold and with an inalienable right to do with it
as we please without regards to others® To support this point of
view,I will quote from a previms public meeting - Councilman Lloyd,
8-25-69; but first I would like to point out and make it clear to
this Council it is not intended to embarrass Councilman Lloyd. I am
only quoting because it helps my point of view.and I am sure he will
not mind. "Individual property rights - and perhaps I am very
presumptive in this area because I am dealing somewhat in the law -
individual property rights - does'an individual owning property
have the right to develop his property to the highest and best use?"
And the answer is an emphatic "no". And I am referring to the
Oakland zoning law, volume 1, page 4. The adoption of an Ordinance
changing property from one zone to another is a legislative act.
If there is a substantial reason supporting the adoption of the
ordinance,then the courts will not interfere. The real test is
whether or not the change of zone will promote the general welfare
of the City. And this is a matter committed to the individual
judgment of the members of City Council. Unfortunately, the West
Covina Council has inherited this problem and can't be blamed for
it; -but just once wouldn't it be refreshing if a decision that might
have political ramifications could be made because it is right?
Thank you.
Alan Rockman I am a senior at West Covina High School.
1309 W. Devers St. I would like to mention two -quotes' -out
West Covina of last Sunday's San Gabriel Valley
Tribune. They are: Mayor Chappell,
August 1969,"1 have seen parts of our community in the City of
West Covina where shopping centers have been built and they certainly
didn't improve the area they were built in. They certainly didn't
help the citizens there to provide for all the services they need."
Councilman Nichols, August 19, 1969 - "For our Planning staff to say
we need more apartments is exactly the same as in a depression one
would say we need more money, let's build more banks. The absolute
indisputable facts are that if every acre zoned for municipal
housing were to be allowed to develop as presently zoned, one out
of every three living units in this City would today be multiple
housing." Also, Councilman Shearer.in a campaign promise mentioned
that "nature itself teaches us that orderly development with
everything in its proper place is beautiful." I would like to say
CITY COUNCIL - 5/24/71 Page Nineteen
PUB. WKS.: Brutoco Development Tract 29126
in this age of ecological destruction it is a gpdsend to have a park
like Galster Park. It serves not only the citizens of West Covina but
the whole community -and the San Gabriel Valley as well. Any type of
construction would alter Galster Park. Animal life, if not destroyed,
• would be scattered to the four winds and nature undoubtedly curbed
or desolated. In conclusion.I might add that last year the citizens
of West Covina voted "no" to a shopping center at Azusa and.Cameron.
I guess seeing that this was done is an indication that we do not need
more shopping centers, but -what we do need is more Galster Parks -
"Save Galster Park". Thank you.
Jeff I haven't a speech. I think that Galster
315 W. Park should be saved because if you want to
West Covina get away it is not a very far walk,and if
you want to take your girlfriend up there
or something ..... I mean if you want to get away you can just walk
up there and walk around and look at the animals and stop, but if
you put all those houses in there it is just going to diminish.
Thank you.
Martin Miller I would like to speak about the scientific
530 North Yaleton aspects of Galster Park. As far as my
West Covina personal background,I have taught 20 years
in biology at a local high school nearby
and presently I will be serving my 17th summer as park ranger
naturalist in the. National Parks, so I feel more or less qualified
to refer to some of the science that is behind the wilderness areas.
Wilderness areas are hard enough to get in the first place, but the
most difficult part is to maintain them. I would like to point out
just a few basic psychological points in wilderness areas. (Slides
shown.) On your left we have a very typical - what we call a food
chain. This is quite elementary as far as basic biology. (Explained
fully with the use of the slide, the stages of plant and animal
food life.) The most important item is the small square mile, which
more or less represents the tract of land we are concerned with in
the Galster Park area. As far as food chain is concerned the most
important thing that few people realize is that animals and plants
do not really exist to a one-to-one relationship (explained fully.).
The most important thing,therefore,is the animals at the top they
have to go the farthest to get food Looking at the square mile,
we see that it is expanded to fourjj""a half miles by the anteaters
and other animals which eat animals and,in this case, which could
very well be birds eating insects, represented in an area of nine
square miles. What I am saying is that the creatures that live in
Galster Park area are not restricted to that region. This area
happens to represent one of the last vestiges of chaparral native to"
our Southern California area and because of the fact it is already
being squeezed due to the encroachment of civilization, a further
squeeze is going to completely seal its doom. I feel that most
of the areas we determine as wilderness areas suffer from the same
fate because of the encroachment of civilization. In conclusi(pl,,I
would like to say when we lose a piece of the wilderness, no*matter
how small it is, we lose a little bit of ourselves. I personally
feel the building of such a development as proposed will certainly
spell the doom of the last vestiges of wilderness in West Covina.
• Can we afford to lose it?
Tom Gillum Mr. Mayor and members of Council, first of
1728 Avington all I would like to commend you for giving
West Covina thW community the opportunity to express
themselves about their concern of Galster
Park. I gave it great thought before I came down here this evening]
because I can truly say I stand out here and understand the problem
you gentlemen are faced with, but I also feel I was part of the
Council at the time this decision was made to develop Galster Park
and invest the taxpayers'money in the area we are trying to develop
for a wilderness park. It concerns me greatly, the possibility of
- 19 -
CITY COUNCIL 5/24/71 Page Twenty
PUB. WKS.: Brutoco Development Tract 29126
the loss of the Park, and I don't mean the land itself, -but the
accessibility to it and the things that have been brought to you
this evening. I would like to say to all of you gentlemen I am
standing here somewhat as your conscience•because)two years ago,
I was presented with 5,000 signatures on a piece of zoning. At
• that time the citizens of this community had through their actions,
the opportunity to have a referendum election. Two of you
gentlemen spent considerable time and effort stating the fact that
you were opposed to commercial in a residential area. And)
gentlemen, I am asking all five of you to give it serious and long
consideration and I am standing here as your conscience and asking
you to reconsider, and consider the desires and wishes of the 5,000
signatures and the many, many people of this community that want to
protect Galster Park in its original concept as put forth.
Louis Brutoca•o I feel like that animal upon.top of that
1060 W. San BernardinoRdo pyramid, I think all those little animals
Covina are out to get me! First of all, I am not
going to be repetitious, staff did a report
and you know the history of the property. I do think we should
comment on some of the things said. A young lady commented about
the Planning Commission record in regard to our property, but if
you will take up the total minutes you will see that we spoke of
30 acres of land given to the City as part of a total general plan of
200 acres. It was more than any subdivider ever gave the City of
West Covina. I am not patting ourselves on the back 0or Mr. Galster;
all we did was prepare a plan that was suitable right from Merced
Avenue on when we started in 1964, to the top of the hills from
Azusa Avenue to the Hollenbeck Avenue extension. If you will look
at that area,,it is one of the prime areas of West Covina. Probably
the most important part you should consider at this time. That area
has been maintained that way because of a man like Mr. Galster. I
take a little credit for it and the part our Company played in it,
but for the most part he was resolute in keeping a good development
in that area. It is not necessary to bring to your attention but;
just to remind you, there are many problems immediately adjacent to
that area and still the area developed as a top -grade residential
community. That is the reason we were contesting the additional
park acreage demanded. We did concdde and give the baseball diamond
it was part of the requirement,even though our plan was 1960 and
you placed your park dedication plan in 1970�and we preceded you by
10 years and we are still way above on your requirements for parks.
As far as Mr. Galster°s,,statement on the
additional 60 acres of higher density, the point`'he is making s�•
in his opinion on planning even if additional apartments were
zoned to the higher density factor,it is good planning. As far as
Mr. Taylor's comments, I am in complete agreement with keeping
wilderness areas as much as possible, but when a wilderness area is
created by a set.of plans that only cover 200 acres these same people
that are worried about this wilderness area today-10 years ago
we were ahead of them. They are basically saying now retain this
area and that is exactly what we were planning to do years ago and
what we are trying to do today, in our overall plan to afford and
maintain this area. In the acreage donaited by Mr. Galster it was
• necessary to have this as part of the development. We did develop
the R-1 13,000 square foot properties to the north, where Mrs. Grumet
and some of the others live at this time, and then we step to an
R-2 area and then an R-3 area and then Wilderness_ Park.
Everyone that bought property was
aware of this. We didn't hide it,and no one ever did. They say
they didn't know when they bought and that is not a valid statement.
They knew very well the overall plan,and without the overall plan
there wouldn°t be a Galster Park.
The General Plan was adopted in 1969j
and in that plan you had hearings throughout the whole City. There
- 20 -
CITY COUNCIL 5-24-71 Page Twenty-one
PUB. WKS.: Brutoco Development Tract 29126
were a lot of oppp r:tunities 'for people to come up and discuss the
zoning on the Brutoco Development, or the Galster Park, or on the
Galster property, but nobody contested that zoning and the whole
City spoke. Now,when the whole City speaks in 1969 and says this
zoning is correct for that area with no objections, I think the
• Council itself would consider that and wonder what kind of action
are they trying to pull now? I think that is an important considera-
tion. Also/during this period of time that the property was first
zoned1we spent a substantial amount of money in subdivision design,
architectural plans and so forth in reliance of the existing zone.
We are now ready for development and as you realize, delays are
extremely costly and we wish to put into effect the plans made at
the beginning and known to any interested parties. As far as the
petitions are co ncernedjI have been told that they were gathered -
in fact people right in the area have not been approached
immediately adjacent to that property; some of the people who bought
from us were never asked, except in front of a supermarket or
someplace else. Sofas far as the validity of the petitions are
concerned,I would tend to question that.
Yesterday, as all of us are familiar with,
I noticed this ad in the paper. Again the people say "no" to a
Shopping Center -apartment complex, etc.,etc. Basically the zone,
as you know1has been zoned and the inference here is that we are
now trying to be zoned. The point I want to bring out is in this
ad it was stated "don't the above statements apply in 1971? Yes)
they do. They apply now as they did in 1969 when these people
made them." And,yes,they do; definitely they doias they did in
1969 when they were made; the only difference is they are trying to
give the impression that these statements were given on our property.
They were made on another piece of property, a property that was
never on the General -Plan, and that was turned down at least four
times and, as Mr..G llum:- has attested to here, he realizes himself
how much opposition the City had to it. So these statements you
can't take things out of context and put them onto other people's
property unless there is some other additional motive attached to
doing so. Therefore.,I suggest that this Council not be swayed by
militant pressure groups who use half truths to secure signatures
in trying to divide the City.
We admit that we have a financial interest
at stake. Our statements are true,and have been true since the
preparation of our original plansland we hope this Council will
not cause financial losses to us due to delay.. We are ready to
submit precise plans as soon as this issue is resolved. At that
time I am sure this same Council will want luxury apartments built,
as we do. These luxury apartments were planned from 1960 on. They
weren't planned now. We went ahead and said right from the beginning
that was what we were going to build. Part of this was Mr. Galster's
plan. I say to those opposing,if they would lend their finances to
buying another square foot of property and donate it to the City
or lend their efforts to building a better city, we would be happy
to have them join us. Thank you very much.
Carl Davis We have had a lot of conversation from
• 1329 East Harvest Moon citizens) and most of it has been from
West Covina citizens who have bought property in the
development that was built that was
originally the Brutoco property. These citizens knew when they
bought this that it was part of anoverall subdivision. That it was
some estate homes. That the property they were buying was going to
be adjacent to the wilderness park and to a subdivision that was
going to have apartments. These same citizens last year, some of
them used the same arguments against the zoning at Azusa and Cameron
that they are using now. They also said then we don't need the
zoning at Azusa and Cameron because we have the zoning at the end of
Francisquito at Azusa. Now they are saying take it away. I am
21 -
CITY COUNCIL 5/24/71 Page Twenty-two
PUB. WKS.: Brutoco Development Tract 29126
asking you as Councilmen to look at this from the overall concept,
view it as what is best for the citizens of the community of West
Covina. We have heard letters read this evening from the Wilderness
Society people in Washington, D.C., and they said this area could,
not would, become a problem if it was built. They talked about the
commercial area adjacent to the park,and they are not talking about
building a commercial area adjacent to the Wilderness park, it is
going to be some distance away. If any of you have ever had to walk
from Azusa Avenue up to the ball diamond, much less to Wilderness
Park, you know you huff and puff by the time you get up there.
The high school student quoted Mr. Nichols as saying we have enough
zoning for apartments in the City. But when Mr. Nichols made that
statement he was talking about the zoning that we are talking about
here. This area was already zoned fog apartments and we didn't need
anymore because we had plenty at that time. The high school teacher
spoke about the ecology, but at the same time when he ended up .he
spoke of having it zoned not for apartments but for residential.
That will not solve the problem he is speaking of. He was using
one argument and cancelling it out with another one. Now/if we were
to ask each of these people here who seem to be concerned about
saving Galster Park, about the ecology movement and what they have
done since the ecology movement has come in - what they have done as
far as what cars they are driving, if they are all still driving
VW°s and Cadillacs - what they have done as far as detergents - you
would find that most of them have not been concerned enough to take a
little action within their homes. They are using the argument of
'Save Galster Park "strictly from their own personal interests as far
as their homes go. I submit to you gentlemen that this is a false
argument on their part�and they are just trying to use the ecology
movement for their own benefit. Thank you.
td Sezard I would like to rebut a few statements
1515 Alpine Drive made by gentlemen before me. I recently
West Covina purchased a home adjacent to the park,. and
both statements about the homeowners were
aware of this - well,, I never knew anything about it until I read .it
in the paper. I just wanted you to know nothing was told to me about
this issue.
Mrs. Sanford Grumet I have to discuss some of the statements
1445 Queen Summit Drive Mr.Brutocao made. He said originally,when
West Covina the zoning went in,there was no objection.
When we went door to door with petitions,
which we did, the original petitions came from the local residents,
that is why they were not given to you again. We went door to door
on Michelle and Mercedjand within that area we discovered that these
people had originally objected to the zoning and had presented
petitions at that time because they were disturbed about the zoning.
However, there were very few people living there at that time!
there were mostly cows, and they could not object to the zoning.
However, the people did object when the proposed land where our homes
are on right now, was to have been zoned for high rise apartments.
Those homes where we are living right now`*i&re=-to be high rise
apartments, these same people told us, and at that time they did
object because they did not feel the developer, or speculator, as
you will, did have the interest of the area at heart. Therefore,
• in this particular case the City Council did go along with the zoning,_
and our homes were built instead of apartments and I think you will
find that that does enhance the area much better than high rise
apartments.
As far as personal - I have sat and
listened that we are only concerned about our homes. This issue
has never come up in the entire presentation here. We, as city
citizens do have a much bigger issue here. We have put $309,000j
not just of the homeowners' money but of all our tax money/into that
park and that park is going to be ruined. You saw the presentation)
and you saw what will happen :when these high density apartments
- 22 -
•
0
CITY COUNCIL 5-24-71 Page Twenty-three
PUB. WKS.: Brutoco Development Tract 29126
go up. The accessibility to the park will no longer be valid and we
do have a large stake in it, moneywise and childrenwise. Those
apartments are going to have a beautiful backyard - - Galster Park.
Ana as far as the concern about apartments, Mr. Galster himself
came up with a petition to our area - and really that is quite a
hike for a younger man, because he was concerned about apartments
going up on the corner of Cameron and Azusa. He was not concerned
about the apartments going'in here which will eventually house five
thousand people, if what is projected goes on. But he came door to
door with a petition because he was concerned about that little area
of apartments going in. This is not the issue, the issue is the
park. All the rest of it is just minor discussion and red herrings.
We have a big stake in this park, all of us do. It is a unique park
and our children need it. Thank you.
Don Frankel It is a shame that these old men have to
1251 Auburn Drive huff and puff to get up to the ball fields;
West Covina they should really get themselves in better
shape. I only have a few comments to make.
I am not an expert and not going to give you any f act5, but I am
going to give you an opinion. The park is dead ecologically as far as
animals are concerned. It is a shame we spent all that money putting
all the paving in. We started to kill the park when we sent the first
bulldozer: up there. We should have had some expert in the Park
Department discuss with Mr. Galster not to spend all that money so it
wouldn't be developed, but stay a Wilderness Park. Something over
10/ of that land is pavedjand there -is not enough land or small animal
life left to support the so-called wilderness that these people want
in that area. That whole area is going to be developed somehow with
some buildings, with grass, with cement, asphalt and stucco and we are
not going to have a wilderness park unless all these people pitch in
and buy all that land for park, and I know they are not willing to do
that. We have to remember and I will repeat something that was said
before, when the issue at Azusa and Cameron came up we pointed to
Brutoco property saying that's sufficient zoning and it wasn't only
that property, this City Council went on record with the L.A. County
at a public hearing saying we had sufficient zoning across the
street from the Batchelder property saying that's fine that's where
we want the commercial zoningidon't put it on the Batchelder-rproperty.
L.A. County listened to you. That was your decision.
I think what these people ot}ght to do
before they make any statements is to wait for the Precise Plan for
Mr.Brutoca.o to present to you and then, if they have any objections
to what is being proposed on that property to make their comments
to you.
Don Richards I have come to speak as the President
West Covina of the Ecology Group and as a youth. we
back Galster Park 100/. I was told to
come and say that to you. We have problems as youths - our parents
say one thing,and our friends say another and we have to get
away somewhere to talk or think. Some people go to a library where
there is quiet,and they get the right atmosphere there to think it
out. Some people like to.go out in a boat. Myself, and others like
me,$like to go out to Galster Park and sat and reason it out. You
might argue the fact there isn't too much animal life, but if you
even have a freeway close by to you the noise from it, well you
can't really think. If we don't have this, what will we do?
How are we going to solve our problems if we don't get a fair shake?
Thank you.
Elaine Gillum
I would
like
to mention
a point brought
1719 E. Thackery St.
up about
the
validity of
the petition.
West Covina
I would
like
to say if our
legs were a
little faster
and we had
gotten out a
little bit more probably
you would
have
gotten three
times more
signatures I and we hardly covered any of the area in West Covina.
- 23 -
CITY COUNCIL 5/24/71 Page Twenty-four
PUB. WKS.: Brutoco Development Tract 29126
It seems like most of the people signed - I remember walking down
.Vine and I think one person said "no", and the rest of the people
signed. We always talked to people before we asked them to sign
the petition and give them more information than they knew about the
matter,.' It seemed strange to me that everyone wanted to sign the
• petition to save Galster Park. I just wanted to say,also,that it
seems like God made the world and I don't think there was any
concrete. Thank you.
Natalie Oliver I admire the poise of all these youngsters
905 S. Fircroft coming up here, because I am scared '.to death.
West Covina I would like to raise some questions that
have already been raised but to try and get
at some of the questions that have been raised and just accepted as
fact. I would also like to comment that it is my belief that people
who carried around petitions had to be 21. I felt those carrying
the petition around on my street were not 21 ands therefore not of
legal age to carry it.
The traffic noise - there are so many
cars that already travel on Azusa, that pass by West Covina as far
as shopping is concerned, I think that the additional noises
probably would not be that great in terms of cutting down the use and
worth of Galster Park. And it seems to be this worth that is the
concern. One person says that the whole apartments will cut off the
whole use of Galster Park - I question that. I question that crime
goes up just because there are apartments. I think well -planned
apartments and a well -planned commercial development enhance the
community by bringing in tax money, if well controlled. There is no
reason why people that live in a decent apartment take dope.
Last year/when the Azusa -Cameron shopping
center petition was going around,I was appalled at the expense
involved in the election. I was particularly appalled because very
little could be spent in trying to get people to vote in favor of the
tax increase for the schools. If West Covina has a value that will
attract people it has to rely on good schools; otherwise people that
you want in the City will not come in. I think the additional
commerce that could be brought in by this area that has been zoned
for so long for commercial, unlike Azusa -Cameron that was zoned
residential, that it would raise the tax base and give us more money
for schools. We simply cannot afford it. People voted down 2 to 1
last year on the school bonds. You are going to have dope and a lot
of other things if you can't keep schools in decent shape and the
people in them.
I also think the gentleman that referred
to the constitutionality of it was probably referring to the letter
I wrote to the San Gabriel Valley Tribune. I did not know about the
decision at the State of California level as far as this being a
legislative function that the Courts could not bypass. However, I
would say that it is quite different to deny a rezoning from residen-
tial R-1 to commercial, which would certainly upgrade properties
by hundreds of thousands of dollars ; it is quite different to try to
rezone commercial property that has been zoned for nearly 10 years,,,
. or more,as commercial development. I might also remind those in
favor of the R-1 development that it is those lovely residences
all along the shores of the Pacific that prevent many of us from
going to the beach except on very crowded beaches. So I don't think
R-1�' s any protection to a Wilderness Park.
Don Casler I have been on the same end of the fence
1733 Alaska that the proponents arejand I have been
West Covina on the same end as the opponents in many
instances during the time I have lived in
West Covina. I have both opposed bad legislation in the City,
land uses, and I have also sought to endorse land uses in the City
wherever I felt in my heart I was right. I certainly commend these
- 24 -
CITY COUNCIL 5/24/71 Page Twenty-five
PUB. WKS.: Brutoco Development Tract 29126
people here tonight in the manner in which they are presenting their
case. I think it is the highest degree of integrity.
I would like to say this, several people I
have spoken to about the petition they signed, were under some mis-
apprehension as to what exactly was going to happen to Galster Park.
Well,I made it clear to them as I saw the development and the land
uses, etc., - what my impression of these land uses would do to
Galster Park and I felt I did what I should do)and that was to inform
them of the facts. And�all of a sudden,they said this wasn't what
was told to them, we wouldn't have signed the petition had we known
this. Number 1, most of the people did not know this property
had already been scheduled for this development on the General Plan
of the City. I would like to point out something else. People here
have been saying that Galster Park should be a Wilderness Park and
nothing around it to infringe noisewise, debris, etc.,whatever you
want to call it, but on the General Plan there is a -school planned
for the northwest corner of Galster Park. It is on the General Plan,
approved, a schools and certainly there is going to be a lot of noise
from a school - is there not? The kids from high school won't be
able to take their girls up there when there is a school next door
and have peace and quiet, now will they? When we planned this
General Plan in 1969, thousands of hours were devoted by citizens
of West Covina in coming up with what they considered good solid
grass roots planning for the City. This area was considered as a
commercial -service area for the southern portion of West Covina,
south of the freeway location. A shopping center was decided thato
yes,it would be good in that area, it would certainly be better than
the Azusa -Cameron bit which had been pushed around by City Councils
for many years priorland if this had been developed which we had been
urging the developer to develop but�due to bad financing and lack of
monies he has been unable to over the years.but now it seems like it
is coming to a head, but this would then take the problem away from
that lack of servicing for the general area south of the Freeway,
which would then have a shopping center facility.
The only thing I have to say is that I
think we have to weigh this on fact, not emotion. Your decisions
were certainly made several years ago,and now we have to make it
again because Louie fell asleep at the wheel and didn't get his
renewal in for renewing the plan in time. I think if we look at
the facts on this, what the citizens in West Covina have done in the
past to developing the General Plan,and make your decision on the
basis of fact rather than emotion)I think you will have to go along
with it. You would really have to go along with it as zoned; it
would be a downright crime and a slap in the face to have a man pay
taxes on a piece of commercial property and high density use for all
these y�_ars, maintain it, weed abate;it etc., and then all of a
sudden take it away from him.
Phil Anderson GentlemeniI have no axe to grind, I am
1806 Jeannie Drive glad you are here. I would like to
LaPuente defend those that carried peitions -
and I hope I heard incorrectly, but I
resent those persons that carried petitions being referred to as
• militants. Thank you.
THERE BEING NO FURTHER PUBLIC COMMENTS, THE CHAIR CALLED A RECESS
AT 10:05 P.M. COUNCIL RECONVENED AT 10:17 P.M. COUNCIL DISCUSSION
FOLLOWED.
Mayor Chappell: Before the balance of the Council takes
their seats) I certainly want to express
our viewpoint as to the excellent manner
all of you have conducted yourselves this evening. You all, in my
mind , reacted in a very positive manner. I speak for the Council,
and we do thank you for your politeness and courtesy in limiting
your comments to three minutes.
- 25 -
CITY COUNCIL 5/24/71 Page Twenty-six
PUB. WKS.: Brutoco Development Tract 29126
Councilman Young: Mr. Mayor, perhaps it would be appropriate
if I commenced the discussion. I am not
sure that I deserve all of the credit for
bringing abbut�-.this exchange of ideas and thoughts this evening,
because I think this much interest would be an inevitable thing for
• community discussion,and this is certainly the proper forum. I
might say prior to my personal comments, that there was one other
person that wanted to testify that she would be opposed to another
shopping center that might deteriorate like others and that has
nothing to do with my point of view. Now everybody has been heard.
I think we have a situation here in which
it is obvious there is sufficient interest for a*study to be made by
the Planning Department, by planning experts within the City in light
of the current developments. I am sitting in this situation in
somewhat of a dual capacity, a legislative capacity and a judicial
capacity, and I am trying to make an ultimate determination that
brings the opposing elements as close together as possible. We are
not talking about a situation which is parallel to the Azusa -Cameron
situation, and I make this statement because, as we all know,,at
Azusa -Cameron we were discussing at that time whether or not to
change the existing zoning from R-1 to a commercial -apartment type
use. This situation is obviously diametrically opposite of that.
We are talking about rezoning in a downward fashion in terms of
economic figure; that is,reducing from multiple -commercial use down
to an R-1 type use; for that matter just buying the property and
using it for a park. The latter would be fine,but so far beyond our
capabilities that it is beyond further discussion.
In my opinion,the criteria for downgrading
zoning which I think is within the legislative power of the Council)
possibly depending on how that power is exercised, I think a greater
showing would have to be made, quite frankly, of the public necessity
and convenience being served, or public necessity being paramount
that this property be downgraded. I am not sure that we have had
testimony this evening which would justify such a downgrading even if
that issue were properly before us, which it isn't. We haven't really
defined what we are talking about in this sense. Several people
have mentioned the ecological aspects of Galster Park versus.the
surrounding developments/and another gentleman mentioned Galster Park
already being 10% concreted in and what have you/and that certain
of the ecological and wilderness aspects are inherently destroyed.
Well) we have two points of view which may or may not be capable of
reconciliation. Wilderness park -is that word of applying to a
wilderness, or is it a word we apply to a 30 acre park as opposed to
a 15 acre park or a 10 acre park, as Cameron Park and some of the
other parks. I don't know that that has been answered.
I have not felt in the community discussion
that has gone on - I have not personally been overly impressed by the
Galster Park argument,per se. I don't think that any kind of
development around the park will destroy the park. It will be there.
There is a lot of land there and the City has spent the money as
people said).on irrigation, and facilities to make the park convenient
for us and the like® and development around the park, I cannot say
at this point, would destroy Galster .Park. With these points in
mind�yet by the same token if practical use of the park is
eliminated by the development around the park then we need to know
about it and take that into consideration.
In looking over the history of this thing,
which I did just yesterday to greater length that ever before, thanks
to the city staff providing a good deal of background information,
past minutes and what have you, I am led to some questions as to the
legal power of the City in altering the zoning. Since the zoning
was placed on the property in a manner somewhat parallel to the Macco
Annexation which this Council undertook just after Mr. Shearer and I
joined the Council, and there were certain conditions on that annexa-
26 -
CITY COUNCIL 5/24/71 Page Twenty-seven
PUB. WKS.: Brutoco Development Tract 29126
tion which we could either accept or not annex. I don't know if
that was the fact in this case or not, but I would think it was and
I would defer to the City Attorney, but I would think it would have
some bearing on whether or not there is the power for the Council to
change the zoning. On thatjwe would have to remain open for further
study and research unless Mr. Wakefield happened to have anticipated
that problem and is prepared to answer tonight, which is somewhat
doubtful.
A further point of consideration and one
touched upon in some discussions that' -.I have had:with people like
Mrs. Grumet and others, the principal opposition appears to be to
the density of the population, not so much whether they are going
to be living there, and I am not quoting anybody but myself now, but
I would gather the density of population is a primary concern,
whether or not that population is housed in single family homes or
cluster housing, etc., may not be such a pressing issue, the
suggestion being there might be appropriate compromises available to
the staff working with the developer at the precise plan level.
These are not all,but some of the considerations in my mindrand with
these considerations in mind I can offer a motion at this time,
if there are no objections.
I would like to move that the Council
refer the issue of the Brutoco property of 57 acres back to the
Planning Department for its expertise and the Planning Commission
for study, taking into consideration the testimony given here this
evening, taking into consideration what the public necessity and
convenience does call for, and taking into consideration all other
relative f actors and recommend back to this Council appropriate
action as to whether or not to consider rezoning.
Seconded by Councilman Lloyd.
Mayor Chappell: We do have Mr. Sharfman here - the architect
that designed Galster Park, and if there is
no objection: by Council we could have him
come forward and give us his comments.
Councilman Nichols:
a proponent and could
not feel the same way.
Councilman Shearer:
I would object. I believe we have closed
off the public testimony/ and his testimony
or comments might be considered as that of
cYe:ate an unfair advantage over those who would
might be made at a later
I would suggest that if Councilman Young's
motion is successful in getting 3 votes
tonight, that Mr. Sharfman°s presentation
date.
Councilman Lloyd: I disagree with Councilman Young on the
basis that this is basically and funda-
mentally entirely different than the
Handler presentation. I maintained then,,and maintain now�that you
are involved in the development of land which has a tremendous
social impact and economic impact in our City. What it amounts to
is we have a developer who has a piece of land which he wishes to
develop and go forward with. He has that zoned. There is also no
question about it in my mind that this Council if�in its decision
goes forward and changes the zoning back, that this will have a
tremendous impact. Not a positive impact. I have already thought
of this from an economic point of view. There are people that are
going to judge how we have conducted ourselves in this community
as a result of a change of zoning. There is a certain quality to
zoning, once given, which is not normally taken back. There is no
doubt in my mind that this will have a tremendous effect.
- 27 -
CITY COUNCIL 5/24/71 Page Twenty-eight
PUB. WKS.: Brutoco Development Tract 29126
On the other hand,I don't blame
Mr.Brutocao for trying to develop his property. He has indicated a
desire to do so over a number of years." He has indicated some of
the things he would like to doh and obviously he has tremendous
monies involved in this development. Anything he would say in his
presentation is a reasonable thing because his dough is on the line
and he has already made a major step upward in the development of
his land. On the other hands.and this is where I feel the two pro-
perties are very similar, and I was of the opinion that an economic
base would be created by the development of a commercial situation
at Azusa - Cameron and I voted in that way. I got a very clear
picture of what was opposed in the five thousand signatures presented,
and we now come down to the legislative process. Do the people have
the right to make this kind of a decision? Should legislators be
responsive to people or to five thousand signatures and say okay,
if that is what you want that is what I am for, that is what I have
been elected for and I think the answer has to be "yes". I may dis-
agree with some of the things that are being done] but I said when
I ran for this office that I would agree and I would be responsive,
and in this case I discounted the five thousand signatures. No
doubt 'about that, I said they really don't mean that, but I really
do think they mean it at this point. I see the.s.ig:natures, they
are here. When someone comes up and tells me that people really
don't understand - well)I didn't think they understood before and
I don't think they understand now, but I think at this point that
I am required to be responsive to this type of an attitude and I am
prepared to carry forward and say let's review it. That is where I
stand.
Councilman Shearer: Mr. Mayor, this chair is kind of hot.
Firstf I can say If took am in favor of
saving Galster Park. It has been pointed
out to me just recently that there has been/since the park has been
in existence some 7 years, there have been two man -planted trees in
the park. One was planted last week by my wife and the Campfire
Girls. So our family is interested in the development of Galster
Park.
I am on the horns of a dilemma, this evening®
I am torn between the statement I made a year ago - ai ear to the
people, along with the statement I made of an eye to the future. So,
to elaborate a bit on that. One person this evening said the
main issue was saving Galster Park. Another person made the state-
ment the issue was not Galster Park but the location of the shopping
center, etc. I am going to speak in all honesty, I have been trained
all my life to be honest, I am going to state for both sides what I
consider to be the question this evening. So that both sides will
know what they will have to do if Councilman Young°s.motion is
successful in obtaining two more votes, to convince me one way or the
other, because I think that is what I owe to the people. To me, I
may be different than the others, and that is why we have five, but
to me the question here is not of saving Galster Park, because I
think if in the true sense we wanted to save Galster Park, as one of
the gentlemen mentioned - the man with the slide on the board with
the pyramid and the animal chain, etc., - if we truly wanted to
save Galster Park as a wilderness area, I don't think the citizens
of this community could afford it. It would have to go beyond the
9 square miles to support the animals at the top of the pyramid and
we are talking about 30 acres of land, less than 1/20th of a square
mile. So I don't think the issue is the saving.of Galster Park.
As Mr. Frankel said,from that standpoint the park may already have
been lost. It may have been lost when past Councils voted to spend
money in Galster Park, knowing full well what the zoning was. When
past Councils adopted)in 1969Jthe General Plan which indicated
apartments and shopping centers in front of Galster Park. Three of
those gentlemen are on the Council this evening and I am not trying
to intimidate, I am just stating the way I see it. If that was a
real issue at that time I wonder why,in their judgment they said -
- 28 -
CITY COUNCIL 5/24/71 Page Twenty-nine
PUB. WKS.: Brutoco Development Tract 29126
fine, let's go ahead. So maybe in fact Galster Parkias the true
definition of a wilderness area such as I frequent in the summers in
the high Sierras, back packing, leaving my car and hiking miles, maybe
the ''park is dead from that standpoint, but it is very much alive from
`other standpoints. So what is the issue as far as I am concerned?
• Morality. And before too many people shake their heads let me explain
what I mean by morality. This Council, the immediate past Council and
the previous Council, all made commitments with regard to this
development. Approval of the tentative tract map, acceptance of
annexation into the City, zoning, expenditure of $309,000 in City
funds to develop Galster Park, again knowing what the zoning was.
I't. wasn't until 1971, to my knowledge, that this objection was
raised. Granted in 1962, I have gone over the files, there was a
petition submitted and an objection to both the annexation and the
zoning. However, that is a commitment that past Councils made.
If we pursue this)I think we should consider perhaps to be fair with
the developer, allowing him to be annexed. Start from scratch, let
him go back to the County and then see what might develop. If you
wonder what might develop, I refer you to the northwest corner of
Azusa and Francisquito - the so-called apartment or motel developed
there. This zoning in regard to morality has been used a number of
times. It was used by myself and has been used by a number of
people I see in the audience, in opposing the Cameron -Azusa question.
We said - look.,we don't need this here because we have this over here
and now we turn around and say now that we have got you over here we
don't need you here either. In my mind with my set of moraliy
can't rationalize this to be logical.
In looking over the notes, the minutes in
1962, there was a statement made by Mr. Rulofson, apparently an
attorney for Mr. Galster - the statement was made at the conclusion
of Mr. Rulofson's remarks "at the adoption of this plan the City
will be deeded a 30 acre park", which tells me that at that time we
had sort of a package deal annexation to the City, zoning and
dedication of the park. Now we have the annexation, irrevocably,
except on the action of the Council, it cannot be reversed on the
part of the owner. We have the park and now we have had what we
want) and now some would have us want to take back the rest. I have
been quoted - I was never quoted in the newspaper before and I am
sorry it had to be done this way, but so be it that is why we are
here - with regard to the General Plan. My answer to that is the
General Plan shows the shopping center. If you want to call it high
density or medium density, MF-15 to MF-25. We could go on and on with
other items1but to me this is the issue. And I am going to have to
be convinced -"of that fact. Granted we have 5000+ signatures, more or
less, and I am not about to attack the validity of that because I
know how that offended me in the past few years when this Council
tried to attack the validity of a petition.
In answer to the lady's question - anyone
of any age can circulate petitions, the only requirement for the age
of 21 is for a legal referendum type petition.
I may eventually cast a vote that might be
unpopular, because I have been trained and I will continue to live
• my life one of honesty and morality by my definition. My vote
may nbt be popular but I have to live with myself -a lot longer than
I inay live in West Covina. We could question the legality but
I will leave that to Mr. Wakefield and the courts, if it comes to
that, and we could talk about the access into the park, about being
crowded and congested, and when I think of having to get there on
Azusa Avenue this is sort of immaterial because if anyone can ,
survive Azusa Avenue anyone can survive Aroma Drive with the minimum
amount of traffic in comparison. Perhaps the only solution is the
one we can't have. I will be willing to make a motion)if we feel
we can do it/to place on the ballot in West Covina a bond issue
sufficiently large to buy not only the 57 acres north of Galster�
- 29 -
CITY COUNCIL 5/24/71 Page Thirty
PUB. WKS.: Brutoco Development Tract 29126
because if we are going to take this tack then we can't stop there,
we have to go east and west and south of Galster Park and we are
talking about millions and millions of dollars. It°s great, I'm
all for open space as some of the young people indicated here, but
I have also in my life learned I have to be practical. The City
Council can't acquire by a motion and five votes here that this land
is going to remain vacant without buying it. Sosrunning down my list
of points that is my position on this question - before I will vote
to downgrade the zone on the property I have to be satisfied in my
mind that it is a right thing to do, a moral thing to do, and a
moral thing is not always a popular thing. I didn't decide to get
into politics to be popular necessarily; I don't consider that I have
a future in politics, I am not looking beyond where I am sitting here.
My career is elsewhere. So it has to be morally right and just because
it is legal - - I had a very close friend tell me the other day if it
is legalitis right)'or if it is legal it is correct. I don't agree
with that. There are many things in this world that happened that
are legal and)_to men transcend the bonds of morality. I will reserve
my decision on how I vote with regard to Mr. Young's motion until I
hear from some of the others.
Councilman Nichols: I would like to say at the outset that a
lady called me today and said that she hoped
I wouldn't become angry, that a particular
gentleman who was going to speak here tonight was a very gentle person
and that I had got the reputation of being the bad guy in this thing,
and please hold my temper down or it would be just terrible - - so I
have promised to do that. I am convinced that every human being in
this room who has made a commitment to look into this problem and
study it has done so with a sincere motivation and comes to the
Council with sincere beliefs. It could not be otherwise but what
this would be a very very controversial thing to decide. Basicallyi
I think the problem has to be resolved in my mind very similarly as
stated by Councilman Shearer.
The matter of commitment and honor on part
of a community and a city government. I would say to you in all
honesty, if I were sitting on the Council and this acreage came before
the Council today seeking to have put upon it this particular zoning
that I would oppose it. But this acreage came to the City.of
West Covina in 1962. It came as a package. I hate to use a word
that might again be misquoted or misunderstood, but it was a package
deal in effect at that time, before my day on the Council. These
gentlemen came to the City, they were in the County and they did not
have to come into the City of West Covina and they said this is what
we propose to build in West Covina,and if we can build this�and if
this plan is acceptable, as part of it we will dedicate this -park to
your City, and the City Council said - yesibrothers,you just give
us that park and we will give you that zoning. It is just as simple
as that. So those plans were given to the City, and then some bad
times came on and the East San Gabriel Valley had a lot of overbuild-
ing in 1964 and 1965 and then after that financing became a problem
and many developers, major developers, including Home Savings & Loam
couldn't get off the ground and these people couldn't get off the
ground either. During the 9 years since then this matter has come
back before the City Council several times. It has come back in
the renewal of the plot plans. Most importantlyl.it came back at the
time of the review of the General Plan which came before this entire
community, which had much, much publicity and which involved
multiple hearings before the Planning Commission and the City Council
and an expenditure of thousands and thousands of dollars to modernize
the City and update the General Plan of the City. That General Plan
was being updated on the basis of a petition of five thousand names
on it,signed and delivered to the Council by a homeowners' group in
about 1965,that said update your General Plan.
So we proceeded to do that�and in all those
hearings and during all that time no one ever raised an issue about
- 30 -
CITY COUNCIL 5/24/71 Page Thirty-one
PUB. WKS.: Brutoco Development Tract 29126
this land at any time. It was considered acceptable zoning at the
time it was implemented in the General Plan; it was published in
the General Plan�and it was adopted by the City in 1969.
• I cannot now, as your elected Councilman,
say that because of concerns that are being expressed that this
zoning must be denied. I can't say that this zoning should be
rezoned or turned back only on one basis, this property represents
approximately 10/ of the vacant multiple zoning in this City at the
present time - 10/ of it. Some seven thousand apartments could be
built in this City today on vacant land sitting all over the City,and
10/ could be built here. If the Council in its wisdom,or the city
staff through its determination,believe we can prevail in law then I
am much in favor of attempting to reduce the intensity in all land
that is vacant in West Covina, but I cannot believe that the answer
to this problem of ecology, of density, all the very valid
arguments that have been used here, is to go to one developer and say
let's take yours away and leave it with all the rest. So)again,
I cannot accept the motion to refer just this matter to staff. If there
is a motion at any time that would say let us refer all of your
vacant multiple and commercial zoning to the staff towards the goal
that we might reduce some of this density in our City, then I think
we would have done much more.
So I will vote against the motion on that
basis. I will vote against a motion that, singles: out this property
against all of the other acreages that have been given this kind of
zoning in all of these years since 1962. How can we be asked to take
from one man? Step back 9 years and leave all the other developers?
Or,,if you will speculators - - and leave them sit in our City with
hundreds of acres for this same purpose and take it away from one man.
Where is the morality of that ladies and gentlemen? Because we live
nearby? I cannot buy that)and I am very sorry but that is my position.
Mayor Chappell: When you speak fifth you sometimes haven't
too much to say,but I have a few things to say
that are a little repetitious after I asked
that you not be repetitiousIbut I think you want to hear what I have to
say. First of all) when this land was annexed into the City of West
Covina the zoning, as we referred to)was a package and this wasn't the
only time we have done this in West Covina® It was done on the Macco
Development and on various parcels all over the City. We have roughly
three parcels now that are asking to come into the City from the County
with zoning on it)and I am very certain that if something like this
would take place in our City you would see the end of West Covina as
far as development goes. No person would.come in and buy an acre, an
inch or a foot of land knowing full well when he paid $3., $4., $5.,
or $6., for it the City Council might�at a later date say you have had
it and reduce it to 80(� or 90(4, a foot through rezoning it. I have
talked to realtors in other parts of the State; I also was in
Sacramento and I talked to people knowledgeable about these things,
and I expressed to them what we were talking about here and West
Covina would be mud. There would no longer be any development of
any kind in West Covina, which might include single family residences
and that might not be bad when you think of when I moved into West
Covina before the freeway my boys could climb orange trees and things
like that, but we can't go back and so all we will do is stymie the
City. We have a Chamber of Commerce that spends untold number of
dollars each year trying to promote businesses to come to West Covina.
This will all stop. West Covina will die on the vine. If you don't
think that is true,let us change this zoning and we will find out
very quickly.
The taxpayers of the City do not pay the way
of the City. They never have) and I don't think they ever will.
Property taxes pay only a small percentage and every two or three years
we put out a little flier that indicates this. The money comes from
the commercial type developments® which means they pay for our Police
- 31 -
CITY COUNCIL 5/24/71 Page Thirty-one "A"
PUB. WKS.: Brutoco Development Tract 29126
and our Fire Department, etc. We may complain about spending
$300,000 on this park] but have any of you ever looked on how much
we spend just for cleaning Cameron in front of West Covina High
School? If you want to get some eye opening shocks just look at that
• figure. $300,000 is a lot of money to me and the members of this
Council, but when it.comes to doing anything any more the economy we
are living in, we don't get very much for $300,000. I think we have
a terrific park up there. My boys have camped in Cortez Park�and I
didn't realize the trouble we were asking for when we camped there
with all that development around that park, and I don't think the
Wilderness Park in this area is being jeopardized one bit in the
respect of the boys and girls using that campground. I just can't see
it. You cant tell me a commercial development will harm that park
any more than, say, a Planned Residential Development bringing in some
896'peaple that could be brought in on that property if we rezoned it.
Those people are going to build houses, have dogs and the whole bit;
that Valley is going to be covered with some type of residences.
That will hurt that park just as well as this commercial -apartment
house development will hurt the park, if so. I don't believe it.
That park was built for a lot more than two thousand people.
LaPuente people are interested in it, Walnut people are interested,
Hacienda Heights people are interested and if that is the case we
had better close that park down because it is going to get some
usage.
Let's talk terminology - Wilderness Park, and
Mr. Galster may not agree with me on this but it is an incorrect
definition for this park. It is a nature park. Just as soon as you
have a bulldozer in, put a restroom injand some streets.and other
types of improvements you no'longer have a Wilderness Park, and I am
sure some of the ecologists might agree with that, and then they may
not. We do not have a Wilderness Park, but we are developing an
outstanding nature park. For our scouts to continue to get their
merit badges. The plans are,.if a plant dies we will replace it as
time goes by, We will keep that park going, we have spent a lot of
money there not to have that philosophy for the future. And in
talking about terminology, another thing, in West Covina high
density is 45 units to the acre or more, medium is 25 and low is 15.
The constant usage of "high density" is not correct terminology. This
is just a play of words. It is higher density than the area I live
in or where you livejunless you live in apartments, but I would say
this City will cut the life line the minute we start rezoning
property back to anything other than what has been granted on it when
annexed to this City. I will vote against this motion.
Councilman Lloyd: Councilman Young indi.catedjas a proponent
of the motion that he would like the right
to speak last so he', will - speak after me. I
don't totally agree with the good Mayor; he used some of the logic
that I used last time when we were talking about the Handler property,
and I do se E-- these as the same. I would like to remind Council that
you have to be somewhat consistent in this whole thing. I think if
you talk tax base, that's fine', that is a very logical way to go and
I find no fault with that; I have been talking tax base all along
the line. We talk about the development of property and I think
Councilman Nichols is righ-�if you talk about reducing one,,perhaps
we should talk about reducing the others. I recognize the dangers.
On the other hand/what are we doing to develop these things? We -
talk about them all of a sudden becoming critically important and yet
the property stood idle for 9 years. That) again, ':is they. pr.ogerty... owner Is
decision and there is no doubt in my mind that the decision) -especially
from an economic point of view and a business point of view.,�is a very
sound one. I also say the dynamics of the communi't-y have changed in
that period of time and this is one of the thingW- we are asked to
look at - the dynamics of change. So I ask you people before voting
on it) to at least take a look at it. Study it, You can then agree
it shouldn't be changed - fine, I am not going to argue the point then.
- 31A -
CITY' COUNCIL 5/24/71 Page Thirty-two
PUBoWKS.: Brutoco Development Tract 29126
But I think we ought to send it back to staff for further study.
Councilman Shearer: I would like to comment on that. I feel that
I would be somewhat dishonest if I would vote
to study it,with the feelings that I have. I
think this would only prolong the issue,and is not fair to the
people who might take hope on a "yes" vote on my part when I know
in all probability with the conscience I have, petitions notwith-
standing, so I don't think that would be honest with the people that
have come out here tonight, taking their time and their efforts, for
me to prolong this any further, so I am going to vote in opposition
to the motion.
Mayor Chappell: In answer to Councilman Lloyd regarding the
tax base and my statement. My statement was
not on this particular property. My
statement was made in regard to the Handler property, but there
wouldn't be a great deal of revenue coming out of a grocery store
complex and I will make the same statement here, that there will not
be a great deal of tax coming out of the development of this one; but
I say in the entire city of West Covina this will stymie us at every
turn in the development of our City if it is reversed. Everyone wanting
to come into West Covina will stop and go somewhere else, until the
time we can get 85e, land and beg companies to come back into our City
to develop, - but I don't think we could last that long if that were
the case.
I haven't changed my position on Azusa and
Cameron one bit. I took a stand almost 15 years ago,.and when that plan
was developed R-1 people bought around it assuming it was going to be
R-1,and then attempts were made throughout the years to zone that
to something else and I wasn't willing to accept it. By the same
token,I.might comment that I live in this very development and before
buying I tried and did find out what the vacant land was zoned for.
I don't think you invest $40,000 or $50,000 in your home on the
chance the property next to you is going to be residential. In fact)
I think one is obligated if you have enough money to buy a $40;000
or $50,000 home you will do a lot of looking around to see what is
in your neighborhood,and I think probably those that did purchase in
our area did do that for the most part. Those that didn't I really
am sorry because they should have and it probably is a real shock to
them to find out there is such a development planned.
Let me tell you some more things the Council
did when we were reviewing the tract map submitted by Brutoco. There
were streets coming into this development from our residential homes.
This council received about a thousand + signatures basically asking
us to please close these streets off and cul-de-sac them to protect
the homeowners nice homes from the traffic generating out of the
apartment complex and out of the shopping center. We knew when we
voted to close those streets off we were going to create a little
more traffic down in that area,and we discounted this to protect the
homeowners. Let me tell you the dilemma, the Council has. Back in
June of 1970 we received a letter from one of the members in the .
audience tonight - "considering the reports of large sums of money
spent for improvement of Galster Park why hasn't South Hills Drive,
a City Street,been extended down to Galster Park?" We -actually
studied thatiand in the same letter it was stated Mr.Br.utoca.o
allowed his property to become a little messy. I, as the Mayor,
wrote Mr.Bx.utoca.o a letter and asked him to clean it upyand I think
those of you who passed it lately noticed it was really cleaned up.
But the lady that wrote this letter was first one of the leaders of
cul-de-saccing the streets and now is one of the leaders of saving
Galster Park. Councilmen are in a real spot in -trying to helpyand
we really do consider what people want. Now this is less than a
year ago that she asked us to open the streets upyand not too long
ago we were asked violently by the same person to cul-de-sac the
street, and we did that.
- 32 -
CITY COUNCIL 5-24-71 Page Thirty-three
PUB.. WKS.: Brutoco Development Tract 29126
We are receptive to the community when they
aak'for anything that is really legitimate. To date - the three
years I have been on the Council I have found every cle4i:timate_
=r.eques't.made. has been granted where possible. I -hope you all.
accept what I am saying as fact. and, if you don't, it is all in the
minutes which can be provided to you and you can see testimony after
testimony in that we have done just that.
Councilman Young: Just briefly, Mr. Mayor. I thought I had
presented a rather innocuous motion because
I felt if I had made a motion to rezone the
property to R-1 it would surely go down to defeat,and properly so,,
on the basis of the information we have. The expert opinion is
opinion largely from outside the area which may not take into con-
sideration that people may not have actually looked at the property,
and yet look at what we have?. We have at this point in my opinion,
not a very good tentative tract plan because of this cul-de-saccing
problem. It was my hope that the study itself might produce, to say
the least some compromising all the way around on the part of all
concerned with respect to the development of that property which
would come nearer to bringing -about a community agreement, more than
we have been able to up to this moment. I think the points made by
Councilman Shearer and Councilman Nichols and yours,.. Mr. Mayor,
are points which would certainly probably be taken into consideration
by the Planning Department and Planning Commission in making a study
of this land. This is only part of the issue. If the study
determined a compelling necessity on the total of this community
to rezone or make compromises, then so be it. This is what I see.
Unlike - well,I won't say unlike Councilman Lloyd; --I am impressed
by five thousand signatures, or ten thousand or whatever,
signatures of people impress me and I wi11 be as responsive to that
as my conscience will allow: If my conscience will not allow me to
be responsive, then so be it, I will vote my conscience. But in this
situation I think certainly at this point no disservice will be done
to anyone if we look at it further, and out of this might welircome
the prospect of a closer rapport and now we are about to preclude
even the chance of that happening.
Councilman Lloyd: Call for the question, Mr. Mayor.
Motion failed on roll call vote as follows:
AYES: Councilmen Lloyd, Young
NOES: Councilmen Shearer, Nichols, Chappell
ABSENT: None
THE CHAIR CALLED A RECESS AT 11:10 P.M. COUNCIL RECONVENED AT
11:30 P.M.
TRACT NO. 29126 LOCATION: East side of Azusa Avenue adjacent
PARK DEDICATION to Galster Park.
GRANT OF EASEMENT (Council reviewed Engineer's report.)
Motion by Councilman Shearer, seconded by Councilman Nichols and
carried,to. a.cce_pt Engineer's report; and further to a.cce'pt _ agreement
with Brutoco Development Company for access road to and from Galster
Park, and to._a.uthoriz�e the Mayor and City Clerk to execute said agree-
ment.
RESOLUTION NO. 4368 The City Attorney presented:
ADOPTED "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF WEST COVINA ACCEPTING A CORPORATION
GRANT DEED EXECUTED BY BRUTOCO DEVELOPMENT COMPANY FOR PARKS AND
RECREATION PURPOSES DIRECTING THE RECORDATION THEREOF.°
RESOLUTION NO. 4369 J'A RESOLUTION.- OF.- THE. , C.ITY. COUNCIL OF. THE.; . ..
ADOPTED CITY OF WEST COVINA ACCEPTING A GRANT OF
EASEMENT EXECUTED BY BRUTOCO DEVELOPMENT
33 -
a
CITY COUNCIL 5/24/71 Page Thirty-four
PUB. WKS: Tract No. 29126 - Park Dedication
FOR INGRESS AND EGRESS PURPOSES AND DIRECTING THE RECORDATION THEREOF."
Mayor Chappell:
Hearing no objections waive full reading of
resolutions.
ft Motion by Councilman Shearer, seconded by Councilman Nichols, that
said Resolutions be adopted.
Councilman Shearer: Mr. Mayor, before voting I wanted for the
record in view of what we have just gone
through and if because of some unforeseen
turn of events I would be in favor of revoking this.
Motion carried on roll call vote as follows:
AYES: Councilmen Shearer, Nichols, Young, Lloyd, Cha.ppell
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
PLANNING COMMISSION
PALM VIEW PARK MASTER PLAN (Held over from April 26 and May 10,
APPROVAL 1971.)
Mr. Sharfman, Architect (In summary)
Armstrong & Sharfman This is the last of three plans that
we were requested to develop the
schematics and in the case of Palm
View Park, which is proposed to be a Community Park, the site
dictated a very simple solution. The present acreage does not permit
the full development to the standards required by staff so we have
actually two plans, one on the existing.site with the school below -
and the other plan shows what can be done when the additional
acreage,if acquired (plan displayed on board.) (Mr. Sharfman then
explained what can be done in the way of recreation facilities on
the present land; and what would be removed from that portion and
placed on the additional acreage when acquired, along with the
other items that would be added to the Community Park., The plan
as presently presented to you has been reviewed by staff at all levels.
One further comment, through the cooperation of Rowland School we are
hoping that a portion of the area between the school and the park will
be open, thus allowing for larger areas of open play. (Explained the
parking areas and the entrances to the park.)
Councilman Young: Mr. Mayor, this is the second time I have
seen this presentation. I think I was at
the Recreation and Parks Commission meeting
when it was presented to them and it was certainly enthusiastically
received. . I think I would agree with their recommendation to Council.
Mayor Chappell: How are we on the acquisition of this Land?
Mr. Aiassa: We have nothing planned for Palm View; at
this time we are working on Cortez.
Mayor Chappell: Thank you, Mr. Sharfman; We -appreciate your
. coming out the first night,.Eout of
sick bed and it has been a long evening. We
thank you very much for staying with us.
Motion by Councilman Lloyd, seconded by Councilman Shearer, to::a:cd6pt'
the plan for Palm View Park as presented.
Councilman Nichols: It seems to me that we ought to familiarize
ourselves with what we are talking about in
terms of cost to expand this park before we
make a commitment to establish this plan in our ultimate aspirations.
- 34 -
CITY COUNCIL 5/24/71 Page Thirty-five
PLAN. COM: Palm View Park Plan
As the City Manager indicated there is nothing presently on the Board
that might give us any hope that we might acquire the land in the
foreseeable future. I think the implementation of that plan without
some additional land might result in some cramping of that park that
would be less than desirable. I would like to see the Council hold
off the adoption of it as a Master Plan until such time as i§taff.'..
could give us a rough estimate in terms of money to implement it,
because we might in fact find at some date that we just can't do it.
Mr. Aiassa:
Mr. Sharfman, did you create any cost figures?
Mr. Sharfman: No, Mr. Aiassa. In this case there were no
cost estimates developed, as in, for example,
Cortez, where we went into many, many more
specifics for good reason. The fact is that a very large part of the
park plan, almost all of it, can be achieved within the existing site
and)therefore)it really would require a whole series of incremental
cost estimates to be workable. I think it is a matter of staff to
decide on an interim basis whether any particular element of the plan
is needed and what it would cost working towards the long view,
because by the time you get to that acquisition of land, while this
serves as a guide for development, but by the time you get really
under wa.y the cost figures won't mean anything This is just a guide
for a precise plan.
Councilman Nichols: If this park were to be developed according
to your schematics and no additional land
were acquired would that development plan
be in:the concept of your development plan in the limited acreage?
Mr. Sharfman: No, I think I would want to at some point
take a look at providing the baseball facility
in another location, because while it is
designed to allow the dual use there is a great deal that is being
imposed on the land. If everything happened and you still wanted to
keep the baseball there,I think things are too close. The idea was
to do it and then remove the baseball. You would have too t�.ig'ht 'a
park if you didn't do it. This plan allows a great deal of flexibility,
but there would be no basis for a cost estimate unless you had
priorities and I think your priorities will be constantly changing.
Councilman Nichols: What you are saying then is that the City
government will have an opportunity at any
point here to stop and reorient this program
if.say in 3 or five years hence we weren't able to -develop the land?
Mr. Sharfman: Yes, that is the great feature of it.
Councilman Nichols: All.right, I certainly will withdraw my
opposition to it.
Motion carried.
CITY ATTORNEY
RESOLUTION NO. 4370 The City Attorney presented:
ADOPTED "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF WEST COVINA, A MUNICIPAL CORPORATION TO
CONDEMN CERTAIN PROPERTY FOR PUBLIC STREET AND HIGHWAY PURPOSES."
Mr. Wakefield: I might.just comment that in the light of
recent developments the City Council, if it
elects to proceed to adopt this Resolution, may do so, but I would
not think it appropriate to file any condemnation action until
further instructions from the City Council in reference to this parti-
cular matter.
- 35 -
CITY COUNCIL 5/24/71 Page Thirty-six
CITY ATTORNEY: RES. NO. 4370
Mayor Chappell: Hearing no objections waive further reading
of the body of said Resolution.
Motion by Councilman Shearer, seconded by Councilman Nichols, to:adopt
said Resolution.
10 Councilman Shearer: I am not sure I understood "further instruc-
tions from the City Council" - am I getting
into an area I shouldn't be pursuing?
Mr Wakefield: No, Councilman Shearer, but there has been
some discussion as to whether or not now is
the time to actually proceed to file the
condemnation action in connection with this particular acquisition.
My comment was simply to indicate to City Council the adoption of the
Resolution of Public Necessity and Convenience was not final
instructions for me to proceed with the filing of condemnation proceed-
ings.
Councilman Shearer: It will only be a matter of timing then?
Mr. Wakefield: That is correct.
Motion carried on roll call vote as follows:
AYES: Councilmen Shearer, Nichols, Young, Lloyd, Cha:.pperl=:-
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
CONDEMNATION OF Mr. Wakefield: Mr. Mayor and members of
REMAINING PARCELS FOR Council, there are approxi-
FREEWAY WIDENING mately 6 small parcels of
property on Vincent Avenue
that are required in connection with the freeway widening program
which have not yet been acquired. These parcels are approximately
51 in width and they are parcels along Vincent Avenue north of the
freeway and generally between Workman Avenue and the freeway itself.
The staff is now in the process of negotiating for the acquisition
of these parcels. It seemed prudent to suggest to the City Council
that in order to meet the time schedule of the Division of Highways
with reference to the availability of the right-of-way that you might
wish at this time again to adopt a Resolution of Public Necessity.
and Convenience which would authorize the filing of the condemnation
action and taking of the immediate possession of any parcel which
staff is not successful in concluding in its negotiations. I have
such a Resolution prepared and would be glad to read the title if
it is your desire that I do so.
Mayor Chappell: Yes, please do so.
RESOLUTION NO. 4371 The City Attorney presented:
ADOPTED "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF WEST COVINA, A MUNICIPAL CORPORA-
TION, TO CONDEMN CERTAIN PROPERTY FOR
PUBLIC STREET AND HIGHWAY PURPOSES."
• Mayor Chappell: Hearing no objections waive further reading
of the body of said Resolution.
Motion by Councilman Shearer, seconded by Councilman Young,,t;o adopt_,
said Resolution. Motion carried on roll call vote as follows:
AYES: Councilmen Shearer, Nichols, Young, Lloyd, :Cha.ppell
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
- 36 -
CITY COUNCIL 5/24/71
CITY 'ATTORNEY - Cont' d.
Page Thirty-seven
INCREASE IN TRANSIENT Mr. Wakefield: This is a proposal to
OCCUPANCY TAX increase the hotel -
motel tax from 5% to
6%. I have been advised that there are some other changes in the
Ordinance that are desirable and I would request that this item be
continued until your next regular meeting.
So moved by Councilman Lloyd, seconded by
Councilman Young and carried.
Councilman Young: Mr. Mayor, a question. This increase in
transient occupancy tax surprised me a
little bit without any background informa-
tion in the folder as to who proposed it and why, and I wondered if
we might have some background information given to us,in our packet
so we would be more versatile on this question at our next meeting.
Mayor Chappell: Mr. Aiassa, will you supply that for us?
(Answer: Yes.)
CITY MANAGER
YELLOW CAB COMPANY Mr. Aiassa: City Council does have a
REQUEST FOR RATE very complete written
INCREASE report on this item. We
have met with the representatives of the Cab
Company. I have only one stipulation, that if
we do allow this raise that we have at least a 9,0 to 120 day trial
period, to see if there are any complaints or outright hardship cases.
The other item requested by the applicant is the removal of the $2.00
licensing fee of individual taxi cab operators. We do not feel it
should be granted but that the Ordinance should be left as it is now.
written because it gives us some regulation and stipulation of who is
riding in the City and who is not.
Councilman Young: What is the expense of the special licensing?
Mr. Aiassa: It is just $2.00 per driv(r for one year, but
it gives us control in identification of the
operators.
Councilman Young: The reason I ask. Our office has a lawsuit
pending against this company. We represent
a client injured by one of the taxi cabs.
It was a hit -run type of accident. If the taxi cab company carried,
uninsured motorist coverage we have a good case but as it is we have
a big headache, there is nothing in the law that requires that type
of insurance and I don't think this Council could impose it because
it is probably pre-empted by the State law, but it is a problem.
It would have been far greater protection in this case than a special
license;that is why I wondered about the expense.
Mr. Aiassa: I believe as part of our Ordinance require-
ments they have to have all the things
• required of them that can be required.
Mayor Chappell: Will you please look into that situation,
Mr. Aiassa?
Councilman Young: This happened to be the City of El Monte
and their Ordinance isn't even up-to-date,
as far as the State Law is concerned.
Mr. Aiassa: We actually inspect the vehicles and keep tab
on the operators?
- 37 -
16
CITY COUNCIL 5/24/71 Page Thirty-eight
CITY MGR: Yellow Cab,Rute Increase Request
Mr. Aiassa: A police investigation check-up once a year.
Mayor Chappell: Mr. Aiassa,you want this approved for a 90
day trial period?
* Mr. Aiassa: Yes.
Councilman Lloyd accepted that as a motion,
a 90 day trial period on the rate increase. Seconded by Councilman
Nichols and carried.
Councilman Young: What is the percentage of increase - has
anybody figure:a that out?
Councilman Shearer: It would depend on how long you ride.
Mr. Aiassa: The actual rate increase varies. The thing
that hurts the cabs is the waiting time.
People have a tendency to abuse this. I think
that is why they wanted the fee'of $7.001, it used to be $5.00. At
night, many times they go out to the Pickering Tract and come back
empty, so that is quite a haul. We have had no complaints directly
with their cab operation; they have been trying to maintain a neat
operation.
AUTHORIZATI.ON.:TO-SI.GN Mr. Aiassa: This refers to the contract
CONTRACT. WITH for the CBD redevelopment
STONE & YOUNGBERG FOR bond consultant. The fee
C.B.D. DEVELOPMENT will be based on the basis
on which the consultant
develops the projects. You do have a written report on this including
the proposal from Stone & Youngberg, the firm that did the Civic
Center for use and they did give very good service.
Councilman Lloyd: What is this all leading to?
Mr. Aiassa: This is a potential bond issue for the CBD
area. If J. C. Penney gives us the green
light then we will go into the construction
and financing of a public parking area.
Councilman Lloyd: Why do we want to do this now - do we have
something on the line? Do we have a
J. C. Penney on the line or someone else?
Mr. Aiassa: I am supposed to get an answer approximately
the 18th to 23rd of June. If it is °,go",,
there is a lot of necessary and quick action
to be undertaken by staff and with this recommendation from City
Council we can go ahead with the staff functions necessary for the
preliminaries and we are not obligating the City.
Councilman Lloyd: Then there are no funds involved at this time
in this action?
. Mr. Aiassa: No funds are involved.
Motion by Councilman Lloyd to 'duth'oriz_e the contract with Stone &
Youngberg for CBD redevelopment as long as no funds are involved
in this action. Seconded by Councilman Young.
Councilman Young: Is this a tight situation which would
appropriately be a staff— hiring function)
or more appropriately a matter that would be
bid?
CITY COUNCIL 5/24/71 Page Thirty-nine
CITY MANAGER: CBD REDEVELOPMENT Bond Consultant
Mr. Wakefield: The question,,as I understand it)is whether
City Attorney or not this was the kind of service contract
which would normally be the subject of
competitive bidding or a professional service type contract. I think
•it,is clearly the latter type in the sense that a contract of this
kind could only be negotiated by someone skilled in redevelopment
matters, because it takes a certain expertise in the field to prepare
the necessary data and take your chances on the ultimate success of
the bond venture.
Motion carried.
WATER CONTRACT WITH Mr. Aiassa: You have a written summary
UMARK of the water contract with
Umark, there are several
approaches that we can take.
Mayor Chappell: How long will this take?
Mr. Aiassa: It depends on how Council wants to move.
If we accept items A and Bowe are in business.
Councilman Nichols: I have read the material, nothing has changed
in terms of the basic ingredients. The issue
has been before the Council, all of us
are familiar with it, I would be prepared to move on it. I have a
comment to make that might bear and represent some sort of shift of
position, I guess. I would like to say when this matter first came
up and we talked about West Covina going into the water business on
a temporary basis I said that was a way of side-stepping into the
water business; well,I think we stepped into. And I think there is
no practical way now for Council to take any other decision than
direct staff to proceed. Suburban has had its time at bat and it
so happens that Umark has very unique leverage with the two public
agencies, one on each side of them, and they have very neatly played
one element against the other to achieve what they feel will be in
their best interests and if West Covina does not move now�it will not
help Suburban at all. It will only go someplace else. Soyalthough I
fought a good battle as long as I could)I think it is now proper to
indicate that the choice really now is between West Covina and the
Rowland Area Water District. and I said at' the onset'- if that choice
came then I would shift my position and advocate West Covina
negotiating for those facilities. An improved situation such as an
offer of 6/ interest is very gratifying and certain other aspects of
it,and I am prepared to vote for a motion that would accept the
recommendation of A and B.
Motion by Councilman Lloyd, seconded by Councilman Shearer, that
Council accept (a) the water agreement for Umark lands as amended and
authorize the City Manager to present it to Umark for their approval,
disapproval or alteration. The final agreement to be returned to
Council at their meeting of June 14, 1971, for execution; and (b)
to'authorize the City Manager to retain the services of Ken Mullen as
a consultant on an hourly basis as presented in his former proposal.
Councilman Young: A question. Suppose that you successfully
negotiate this contract then we own the
system and then suppose we want to get rid
of it. We can sell it to Suburban or Rowland or who ever wants to
buy it?
Mr. Aiassa: Yes, I am sure Mr. Wakefield will substan-
tia to that; we will have to sell it to the
highest bidder.
Councilman Young: I think that item 5.11 should specify some
specifics because we could argue for quite a,
39 -
CITY COUNCIL 5/24/71 Page Forty
CITY MGR.: Water Contract with Umark
:while about what extraordinary expense means and what it doesn't.
Mr. Wakefield: Yes, I think it is a vague term at best and
City Attorney it was intended to be that way at that time,
but I think now probably it would be more
• appropriate to tie it down.
(Further discussion followed that this item should be spelled out more
definitely; Council agreed.)
Councilman Shearer: We will see this agreement again?
Mr. Wakefield: Yes, this is only giving instructions to
City Attorney negotiate.
Motion carried.
LEGISLATIVE BILLS Mr. Aiassa: I would like to have per-
mission from Council to phone
Council members on any of the
bills that become "hot" issues. We have two or three of them, one is
Annexation AB8113 and the Motor Vehicle In -lieu tax SB565, also a few
other bills which we do not know whether they will die in process or
get to the floor for a vote. I would like to have a little leeway
with Council so if and when these bills come up I can quickly
telephone Council, advise you of the bill and poll your reactions.
I can't wait from one meeting to the next because there is too much
time elapsed.
Councilman Shearer: I have no objection to this, but my concern
is once the Council is polled and reaches a
decision, how do you get this information
to the appropriate legislators?
Mr. Aiassa: We will follow through on the same procedure
as before. If it is on the floor and a matter
of time, either the City Manager or the Mayor
will phone the proper legislator. The other method is by telegram,
and the third is by a night letter if we have time.
Motion by Councilman Lloyd, seconded by Councilman Young and carried,
to.a,ut.hor.ize the City Manager to poll the City Council on emergency
legisla.t ibn.
REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR
CITY MANAGER TO ATTEND
ONE -DAY MEETING OF THE
LEAGUE OF CALIF. .CITIES
LEAGUE COMMITTEE ON
REVENUES & TAXATION
Councilman Lloyd:
Mr. Mayor, a
question. How
much money do you
need Mr. Aiassa?
Mr. Aiassa: About $65.00.
Motion by Councilman Lloydto a.uth®r-ize the City Manager to attend
the one -day session of the League Committee on revenues and
taxation to be held June 25, 1971 in Sacramento, and to'. a.uthor.ize
the expenditure of not more than $65.00. Seconded by Councilman
Young and carried on roll call vote as follows:
AYES: Councilmen Shearer, Nichols, Young, Lloyd, Gha,:p.pehl-
NOE S : None
ABSENT: None
THE CHAIR CALLED AN EXECUTIVE SESSION AT 12:05 A.M. re PENDING
LITIGATION ON THE CALIFORNIA OFF -RAMP. COUNCIL RECONVENED AT
12:22 A.M.
MAYOR'S REPORTS
COMMITTEE APPOINTMENTS Mayor Chappell: City Council is making the
following reappointments
- 40 -
CITY COUNCIL 5/24/71 Page Forty-one
MAYOR'S REPORTS - Committee Appointments
to our various Commissions: Betty Plesko and Joan Wilson, Recreation
and Park Commission; Nevin Browne, Planning Commission; Ed Cano,
Human Relations Commission and Herb Tice, Personnel Board.
Our congratulations to Mr. Nevin Browne, who is in the audience tonight,
• on his reappointment.
PROCLAMATION
Mayor Chappell: If there are no objections,
I will proclaim "Hope Sunday"
June 6, 1971. (No objections.)
COUNCIL COMMITTEE REPORTS Councilman Shearer: One item. I
would like staff
to look up what Ordinance, if any, prohibits the riding of motorbikes
of any kind on the trails of city parks. I would like that looked up
so some day I might call the Police Department and report it, we have
quite a problem with people riding around the parks.
Councilman Lloyd: As some of you are aware, my wonderful con-
cept for merging the City of Covina and West
Covina has come up again and I submitted a
piece of paper to the editor of the Tribune as a result of his
request. I would like at this point to ask that we again write a
letter to the City Council of Covina again asking for a meeting of
any kind, whether it is regarding a merger, public safety, or just
sitting down and shaking hands and seeing if we can talk to one
another. It seems as though we are unable to do so at the present
moment because I believe we have asked for that.
Mayor Chappell: Yes,I have asked for it several times in the
person of Mayor Haven, but due to the
illness of their City Manager they were not
able to do so. Mr. Aiassa and I will attempt to set up a meeting
very shortly - again.
Councilman Lloyd: A1so,I was up at the League of California
Cities meeting and as you know I went up
there on business on behalf of the City.
The major item that is coming through is the problem of taxation or
revenue raising. I think these things are probably the most important
items..on the minds of the people who are currently serving legislators
throughout the cities. I think another thing of great concern is the
raising of regional governments. Mr. Carpenter spoke at some length
on this and what the effect will be on the cities.
DEMANDS Motion by Councilman Young, seconded by
Councilman Shearer,to approve demands
totalling $1,045,318.20 as listed on demand sheets B471 and C781
through C 783 This total includes payroll and time deposits..,
Motion carried on roll call vote as follows:
AYES: Councilmen Shearer, Nichols, Young, Lloyd, Chappell
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
,ADJOURNMENT Motion by Councilman Lloyd, seconded by
Councilman Young and carried, to adjourn
li meeting at 12:28 A.M. Next regular meeting
June 14, 1971.
APPROVED:
MAYOR
ATTEST:
CITY CLERK
- 41 -