Loading...
01-10-1972 - Regular Meeting - MinutesMINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL CITY OF WEST COVINA, CALIFORNIA JANUARY 10, 1972. The regular meeting of the City Council was called to order by Mayor Ken Chappell in the West Covina City Council Chambers at 7:31 P.M. The Pledge of Allegiance was given; and the invocation -was given by Rabbi Elisha Nattiv of Temple Shalom of West Covina. ROLL CALL Present: Mayor Chappell; Councilmen Shearer, Nichols, Young, Lloyd Others Present: CONSENT CALENDAR George Aiassa, City Manager Lela Preston, City Clerk George Wakefield, City Attorney H. R. Fast, AssBt. City Manager Richard Munsell, Planning Director George Zimmerman, City Engineer John Lippitt, Ass"t. City Engineer Bert Yamasaki, Ass°t. Planning Director Leonard Eliot, Controller (Mayor Chappell explained the procedure of the Consent Calendar items; and asked if there were any of the following items that Council or members of the public wished to discuss: 1. COMMUNICATIONS a) Independent Cities of Los Angeles County Resolution b) Frank Armi, Jr., c) Floyd L. Wakefield Assemblyman 52nd District d) Dept. of Housing & Community Develop. e) Veterans Addressing Service Re. SCAG concent. (Refer to Staff.) Re. establishing a poker and panguingue palace in West Covina. iRefer to City Attorney.) Re. AB 724, preventing aind eliminating racial and ethnic imbalance in schools. (Refer to Staff) Re. Section 19961, California Factory Built Housing Law, Health and Safety Code, Div. 13, Part 6. (Refer to Staff) Re. paint house numbers on curbs, (Refer to Staff) 2. PLAN.NING COMMISSION Summary of Action - Jan. 5, 1972. (Receive and file) San Jose School Planning Commission recommenda- Annexation tion re. school annexation. (Accept and File) (Refer to City Attorney Item E-#1) 3. PERSONNEL BOARD Minutes of December 7, 1971. (Receive and File) 4. YOUTH ADVISORY COMMISSION Summary of Action of Jan. 4, 1972. (Receive and file) CITY COUNCIL ' 1/10/72 Page Two CONSENT CALENDAR - Cont°d. 5. ABC APPLICATIONS Chief of Police Recommends NO PROTEST. a) Thomas James Taylor dba GESUNHEIT 4040 Badillo Circle, #29 0451-2 S. Glendora Ave. Baldwin Park, Calif. • b) Robert E. & Lois A. dba IN AND OUT MARKET Debartolo 516-18 S. Glendora Ave. 3237 Fenimore, Covina c) Allan Stephen Stein dba THE ISLANDER 201 S. Magnolia, Anaheim 2233 E. Garvey Avenue 6. CLAIMS FOR DAMAGES FILED WITH CITY CLERK a) Paul A. Loomis Re. Flood Damage. (Deny and refer 2259 E. Greenville Drive to Insurance Carrier) 7. MAIL ORDER BUSINESS LICENSE Mrs. Evelyn J. Spigelmire 8. RELEASE OF BONDS a) Tract No. 28919 Monument Bond Leadership Housing Sys. 9. FREEWAY WIDENING MONTHLY PROGRESS REPORT RE. mail order business license request. (Staff recommends approval. Location: Jennifer Street and Pass and Covina Road. Authorize release of Highlands Insurance Company Bond No. 905978 in the amount of $930. Monuments in place. Staff recommends release of bond. (Receive and File) Councilman Young: Mr. Mayor. I suppose any member of the Council would probably select item 1 (b) to be considered with the Emergency Ordinance before us for consideration later this evening regarding the establishing of a poker - paguingue palace in West Covina. I suggest we defer this matter. I think it might not be necessary to burden the City Attorney with this, it can be considered with the Emergency Ordinance appearing later this evening. Mayor Chappell: A motion is not necessary to hold the item. We will consider it later. Motion by Councilman Shearer, seconded by Councilman Lloyd, to approve Consent Calendar items 1 through 9 with the exception of Item 1 (b). Motion carried on roll call vote as follows: AYES: Councilmen Shearer, Nichols, Young, Lloyd, Chappell NOES: None ABSENT: None RESOLUTIONS FOR ADOPTION • RESOLUTION NO. 4501 The City Attorney presented: ADOPTED "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF WEST COVINA ACCEPTING A CORPORATION GRANT EXECUTED BY LARWIN MULTIHOUSING CORPORATION AND DIRECTING THE RECORDATION THEREOF. (Precise Plan No. 614). RESOLUTION NO. 4502 "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPTED OF THE CITY OF WEST COVINA ACCEPTING A CORPORATION GRANT 2 - U • CITY COUNCIL 1/10/72 RESOLUTIONS FOR ADOPTION - Cont'd. RESOLUTION NO. 4503 ADOPTED WARDE, HUSBAND AND WIFE, AND (Project No. SD-72013) Page Three DEED EXECUTED BY FREDRICKS DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION AND DIRECTING THE RECORDATION THEREOF. (Precise Plan No. 618) "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF WEST COVINA ACCEPTING A GRANT DEED EXECUTED BY FRANK C. WARDE AND ROSE MARY DIRECTING THE RECORDATION THEREOF. Motion by Councilman Young, seconded by Councilman Shearer and carried, to waive further reading of the body of said Resolutions. Motion by Councilman Shearer, seconded by Councilman Young, to adopt said Resolutions. Motion carried on roll call vote as follows: AYES: Councilmen Shearer, Nichols, Young, Lloyd, Chappell NOES: None ABSENT: None AWARD OF BIDS PROJECT NO. SD-72013 LOCATION: Easement between Queen STORM DRAIN IN EASEMENT Summit Drive and Hillward Avenue. Bids received in the Office of the City Clerk up to 10:00 A.M. Wednesday, January 5, 1972, and thereafter publicly opened and read. (Council reviewed Engineer's report.) City Clerk stated a total of eleven bids were received and reviewed. All bids were checked for errors and were determined to be valid bid proposals: Witon Construction Co. Inc., Larry Jacoby Silveri & Ruiz Const. Co., Stone Construction Co., Vido Samarzich Co., Crowell & Larson G. W. Shore Const. Co., Tony Pipe Line Construction Savala Construction Co., Tom Malloy Corporation City Construction Co., Alhambra $4,955.00 Pomona 4,960.00 Fullerton 5,165.00 Upland 5,555.00 Arcadia 5,750.00 Baldwin Park 5,890.00 Whittier 5,975.00 Los Angeles 6,330.00 Torrance 6,5,71.40 Gardena 7,770.00 Covina 9,293.00 Motion by Councilman Young to accept the bid of Witon Corporation Company, Incorporated, of Alhambra as presented at the bid opening on January 5, 1972, for the City Project SD 72013 and authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute an agreement with the said Witon Construction Company, Incorporated, for the work to be done; and to authorize the transfer of $6,000 which will include Engineering and Inspection Costs from Account No. 124. Seconded by Council- man Lloyd. (Councilman Lloyd questioned the difference in the bid figure and the request for the transfer of funds in the amount of $6,000.) Mr. Aiassa: Normally we transfer the funds prior to the bidding and this is why the confusion comes because the funds were already trans- ferred and we can only spend the amount authorized for the bid. This is strictly bookkeeping funding. - 3 - CITY COUNCIL 1/10/72 Page Four AWARD OF BIDS: PROJECT # SD-72013 Councilman Lloyd: In other words if it costs less you pay only that amount? Mr. Aiassa: Yes, and you .will get a report back on this item. • Motion carried on roll call vote as follows: AYES Councilmen Shearer, Nichols, Young, Lloyd, Chappell NOES: None ABSENT: None PUBLIC WORKS SUPPLEMENTAL WEED & LOCATION: Various throughout the City. RUBBISH ABATEMENT (Council reviews Engineer's report.) PROGRAM - 1971-172 Approve supplemental weed and rubbish abatement program according to list attached to resolution and set date of January 24, 1972, for protest hearing on the proposed abatement and rubbish removal. Motion by Councilman Lloyd, seconded by Councilman Young and carried, to approve 1971-72 Supplemental Weed and Rubbish Abate- ment Program. RESOLUTION NO. 4504 The City Attorney presented: ADOPTED "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF WEST COVINA DECLAR- ING ALL RUBBISH AND REFUSE UPON, AND ALL WEEDS GROWING UPON SPECIFIED STREETS AND PRIVATE PROPERTY WITHIN SAID CITY TO BE A PUBLIC NUISANCE AND DECLARING ITS INTENTION TO REMOVE AND ABATE THE SAME UNDER AND IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PRO- VISIONS OF TITLE 4, DIVISION 3, PART 2, CHAPTER 13, ARTICLE 2, OF THE GOVERNMENT CODE." Motion by Councilman Shearer, seconded by Councilman Young, and carried, to waive further reading of the body of said Resolution. Motion by Councilman Shearer, seconded by Councilman Young, to adopt said Resolution. Motion carried on roll call vote as follows: AYES: Councilmen Shearer, Nichols, Young, Lloyd, Chappell NOES: None ABSENT: None LAD 71-76 LIGHTING LOCATION: 3330 Holt Avenue and 3337 ASSESSMENT REFUND E. Virginia Avenue. DEL CERRO (Council reviewed Engineer's Report) Mayor Chappell: We are asked to authorize a refund in the amount of $78.88 to Joseph J. Del Cerro for overpayment to LAD 71-76, So moved by Councilman Lloyd, seconded by Councilman Young. Councilman Young: A question, Mr. Mayor. I notice from the written report presented to us that this • was reviewed by staff and the City's assessment engineer and apparently the assessment engineer agrees with the property owner. Is this a .Pandora's box type situation or is it unique? Mr. Aiassa: It is unique. Normally if we get a protest it is received at the time of the Protest Hearing, but once and awhile we have a situation of this kind. As you know we assess on a 3 year basis and this particular property is kind of an odd ball type of lot - 4 - • • CITY COUNCIL 1/10/72 PUBLIC WORKS: ASSESSMENT REFUND Page Five and the spreading of the assessments on the lot are a little complicating. Normally when we have the hearing if they have a grievance they appear at that time, but once and awhile they miss the notice and then appeal to us and if we feel it is an excessive assessment then we bring it to the Council's atten- tion. Councilman Young: I am glad to know we have that concern. Motion carried on roll call vote as follows: AYES: Councilmen Shearer, Nichols, Young, Lloyd, Chappell NOES: None ABSENT: None AZUSA AVENUE STREET LOCATION: Azusa Avenue south of Francisquito VACATION Avenue. (Council reviewed Engineer's report.) RESOLUTION NO. 4505 The City Attorney presented: ADOPTED "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF WEST COVINA DECLARING ITS INTENTION TO VACATE A CERTAIN PORTION OF AZUSA AVENUE SUBJECT TO THE RESERVATION AND EXCEPTION OF CERTAIN RIGHTS AND EASEMENTS." Councilman Nichols: Mr. Mayor, a comment, if I may. I would like to make the point for the record that we are not talking about giving. away a part of the nice 4-lane highway now known as Azusa Avenue, but that this is a portion that is no longer needed. Mayor Chappell: Yes, and Mr. Aiassa if you have the slide here you might show it. (Slide shown by staff and it was explained it is actually what is called a "paper°'street and there is no paving involved.) Motion by Councilman Shearer, seconded by Councilman Young and carried, to waive further reading of the body of said Resolution.. Motion by Councilman Shearer, seconded by Councilman Young, .to adopt said Resolution. Motion carried on roll call vote as follows: AYES: Councilmen Shearer, Nichols, Young, Lloyd, Chappell. NOES: None ABSENT: None Mayor Chappell: Mr Wakefield - we have set the date of February 14, 1972 for the protest hearing? Mr. Wakefield: Yes Mr. Mayor, that is provided for in the City Attorney Resolution. TRACT NO� 29126 LOCATION: East side of Azusa Avenue, INDEMNIFICATION southerly of Francisquito Avenue. AGREEMENT (Council reviewed Engineer's report.) BRUTOCO DEVELOP. CO. Mr. Aiassa: Mr. Mayor and members of Council, Mr. Zimmerman has been processing this matter and if there are any questions they can be related directly to Mr. Zimmerman. Mayor Chappell: Mr. Zimmerman, for the benefit of the audience and the Council you might comment on this. - 5 - CITY COUNCIL 1/10/72 Page Six PUBLIC WORKS: TRACT NO. 29126 Mr. Zimmerman: The tract involved is owned by Brutoco City Engineer Development Company and is located immediately aside the parcel of property you just saw on the slide shown that is to be vacated. It is easterly of Azusa Avenue and Galster Park and drains an area • going to the top of the Puente Hills. The matter was brought to our attention by a downstream property owner through his attorney at a -public hearing on the Brutoco .Development Company property. After consultation with the City Attorney and the owner of the tract, Mr. Brutocao, an arrangement was worked out whereby the City is indemnified in the event of any damaging floods. The agreement is in the amount of $25,000 and this sum of money will be held in trust in the name of the City on subject to call by the City until such time as the drainage is put in in conformance with the downstream drainage. Mayor Chappell: Where do we come up with the figure of $25,000. ? Mr. Wakefield: The $25,000 is simply an estimate of what City Attorney the potential liability of the City might be in the event of a serious flood. As you know the property which is being developed and the Batchelder property immediately below it is all unimproved. When the original Tentative Subdivision Map was filed it was pointed out by the Engineering Department that the present pipe that crossed the Brutoco property ends up approxi- mately into a drainage ditch that flows into the flood control channel and was inadequate in size to handle the increased run- off that would result from the development of the Brutoco property. Inasmuch as there have been no plans proposed for the development of the Batchelder property it seemed to me and the Engineering Department that the only basis upon which the Brutoco Development could proceed was upon the basis that the Brutoco Development Company would assume responsibility for any liability that might be incurred by the City in connection with the approval of the Subdivision Map or the approval of the drainage plans required in connection with the subdivision of the property. Again, to answer your specific question, the $25,000 is simply our best guess as to the maximum amount of the City°s liability in the event of a serious flooding of the Batcheld6rlVproperty resulting from the development of the Brutoco property itself. The Brutoco property is ---proposed to be developed in increments. The first increment will consist of multiple housing units. This.agreement recognizes, I think, the fact that the permanent drainage improvements will be constructed on the Brutoco property in connection with the .first increment; however, the anticipated run-off from this development will be less than. the total anticipated run-off when the entire property is developed, so we have made allowance for that fact in our calcu- lations. Obviously so it seems to me, Ithere will come a time when it will be to the advantage of the Brutoco Development Company and also the owners of the Batchelder property to con- struct an adequate drainage or make arrangements for the handling . of storm water from the .Brutoco property which will meet any anticipated flooding conditions. Until that time arrives, however, that is a private matter between .Mr. Batchelder and the Brutoco Development Company. This indemnity agreement and the cash deposit is designed to protect the interests of the City and insure whatever liability may arise is the liability of the Brutoco Development Company. Councilman Young: A question, Mr. Mayor. I take it the indemnity agreement .itself is entirely openended? In other words the $25,000 is a bond or cash deposit and if the City happens to be all wrong - 6 - • n CITY COUNCIL 1/10/72 PUBLIC WORKS: TRACT NO. 29126 Page Seven and the amount involved is $50,000 or $75,000 the indemnity agreement would cover the amount. This doesn't fix the liability of the Brutoco Development Company to the City? Mr. Wakefield: That is true. The Brutoco Development City Attorney Company assumes whatever liability may occur to the City. The $25,000, as you correctly indicated, is a cash bond and if the liability exceeds that amount the City would have to look to the Brutoco Development Company for reimbursement. Councilman Young: What we are dealing with essentially is that the development itself will bring about modifications in topography, etc., and from that we see some run-off of water in'absorption by - the Brutoco property. Mr. Wakefield: Yes, that is true. City Attorney Councilman Lloyd: Mr. Wakefield, shouldn't this have been posted before this? They have already started their development - we are not behind on that are we? Mr. Wakefield: Councilman Lloyd, I think it is correct City Attorney that the actual grading of the property was undertaken before the grading plans had actually been approved by the City and the grading permit issued. One of the reasons I think for the delay in the actual approval of the grading plans was my insistence that the indemnification agreement be prepared and executed before the City actually acted on those plans. But you are correct and it is my understanding the grading operation actually proceeded the issuance of a grading permit. Councilman Lloyd: we still have the right functions to make sure Mr. Wakefield: City Attorney Mr. Aiassa: There is no liability or intimation . that we were approving any grading plans they were involved in - - .in other words to our normal administrative staff this meets all the requirements of the City? Absolutely. Mr. Zimmerman, you could probably shed a little light on this. There .is a special bond. Mr. Zimmerman: Mr. Mayor and members of Council, there is indeed a special bond for the grading that has now started and is partially completed at this time. The grading is covered by a plan now signed by the City officials and there is a separate bond in addition to this indemnification agreement which covers the grading in the amount of approximately $160,000. That guarantees the grading will be properly done and in addition there will be other bonds covering the storm drainage, sewers and streets on the property itself. Councilman Lloyd: My only concern was whether we could go back after the thing if there were any problems, but Mr. Wakefield has already covered that. Councilman Young: One other point. I take it that this whole proposal is made in the face of the fact that litigation could develop between - 7 •- CITY COUNCIL 1/10/72 Page Eight PUBLIC WORKS: TRACT NO. 29126 Batchelder interests and Brutoco interests. Is that right? Mr. Wakefield: Yes, that is right. City Attorney . Councilman Young: Would the City itself be a defendant in this proceeding in light of the fact the Batchelder property being the lower property grade receives the run-off and the City has approved plans and all which bring about this run-off? Is that fair? Mr. Wakefield: That is a correct summary of the legal City Attorney situation. Unfortunately the law in California with respect to the obligation of a lower owner to accept run-off from an upper owner's property is uncertain to a degree, which makes it impossible to predict what the outcome will be. In effect what our Supreme Court has said, is it is a matter of equity that each owner has the right to develop and use his own property. If the upper owner unreasonably concentrates the flow of water and damages his lower neighbor then the upper owner is responsible for the damage caused. If the lower owner refuses to accept the water and the upper owner is unable to develop his property or put to additional expense by virtue of that development then the lower owner is responsible for that damage. It is one of those situations which involves really private rights between the two property owners, but in addition to all this the Courts have said that if the City approves of a plan that results in the damage to lower property the City may be responsible for that damage simply because the improvements involved are City improvements after they are accepted -,in connection with the Subdivision. In other words the streets in the Subdivision become City facilities. In this particular case there .is a 70" drain con- structed under Azusa Avenue, apparently constructed by the County before the property was within the City, and that drain in effect empties into a 30" pipe that crosses the Batchelder property and it seems to me it is apparent on its face that should the entire capacity of the 70" pipe be required that the 30" pipe would not handle the run-off. Councilman Young: It sounds like we are into a dangerous area, that we might be spending some money that we don°t anticipate with the construction of Azusa Avenue in the installation of a 70" drain because of the lack of foresight by the County individuals. Does this agreement basically undertake all of that including the construction of Azusa Avenue, into consideration and are we protected not only against whatever damages might result but against the legal expenses if the matter comes to litigation? Mr. Wakefield: Councilman Young, the agreement. is City Attorney fashioned to require the Brutoco Develop- ment Company to assume the entire liability for any damages that may result from the development of the Brutoco property. . Motion by Councilman Young, seconded by Mayor Chappell, and carried, to approve staff recommendation to approve indemnifica- tion agreement and the assignment of funds covering drainage from Tract No. 29126. HEARINGS ZONE CHANGE APPLICATION NO. 457 PRECISE PLAN NO. 613 T. W. ELLIS LOCATION: 280± feet of front- age on West Covina Parkway at Batelaan Avenue; 165± feet of frontage on Sunset Avenue; within the Civic Center Overlay 8 _ Zone. • CITY COUNCIL 1/10/72 PUBLIC HEARINGS: ZC #457 & PP #613 Page Nine REQUEST: Approval of a change of zone from C-2 (General Commercial) to R-C (Regional Commercial), and approval of a precise plan for office and retail uses on an irregularly shaped 91,000+ square foot parcel. Recommended by Planning Commission Resolution No. 2368. (Mr. Munsell, Planning Director, orally summarized Planning Commission Resolution no. 2368, recommending approval. Slides shown and explained of property location and surrounding properties and zoning. Elevations of proposed project shown and explained. Findings of facts for the recommendation were cited; also planning staff conditions were read and explained, along with Engineering Department requirements, Fire Department requirements and Building Department requirements.) Mr. Munsell: Basically the Planning Commission felt that this subject property is appropriate to be zoned Regional -Commercial. This development does conform both to the Regional -Commercial and the Civic Center Overlay Zone standards, and to the best of our knowledge this property is not within the Phase I Redevelopment Program. This was approved by the Planning Commission prior to the final adpption of the Ordinance making the Redevelopment Plan effective. At this time it is before the City Council in a normal zone change - precise plan review. The staff and Special Counsel did not feel it necessary to refer it to the Redevelopment Agency because the City Council and the Redevelopment Agency are the same body and the Civic Center Overlay Zone does provide the most stringent architectural controls that we have in any portion of the Ordinance and because of other design standards which we may be able to develop staff feels this alteration and modification to the existing precise plan on these premises will enhance the area and will conform with the redevelopment program as we envision it. So staff and the Special legal counsel feel it would be adequate for the City Council to review this as the City Council. This would complete staff°s presentation. .Mayor Chappell: Thank you, Mr. Munsell. THIS IS THE TIME AND PLACE FOR THE PUBLIC HEARING ON ZONE CHANGE #457 and PRECISE PLAN #613. IN FAVOR T<, W. Ellis (Informed the Council that he had no further remarks.) _ IN OPPOSITION Harry Kaelin (Swore in by City Clerk) 611 So. St. Malo The only opposition I have to this is that West Covina I heard the Planning Director say that the Planning Staff would make some decisions. I would like to see that stricken out so that the City Council, our elected officials, make the final decisions. Mayor Chappell: Thank you, Mr. Kaelin. Is there anyone else that wishes to speak? Since there is really no opposition in regard to the plan itself, there is no need for rebuttal. HEARING CLOSED. COUNCIL DISCUSSION. Mayor Chappell: Mr. Munsell, may we have a clarification of what .Mr. Kaelin was questioning? - 9 - CITY COUNCIL 1/1.0/72 PUBLIC HEARINGS: ZC #457 & PP #613 Page Ten Mr. Munsell: Yes, Mr. Mayor. There were several condi- tions that the Planning Commission established, one for example, that all mechanical equipment shall be screened suitable to the Planning Director prior to occupancy of the structures: This is an item that is a Building Department and a materials processing situation. The applicant did not, even though staff requested drawings of the remodeling, he did not supply them and rather than send back after a 6 months processing time, some of which was the City°s doing because of the Redevelopment Program,"rather than send it back for that minor detail it was determined that the staff could review and approve any plans such as to make sure that it conformed with the Redevelopment Program, .or the intent of the plan. We also had roof structure surfaces subject to the approval of the Planning Director. This is an item in the Civic Center Overlay Zone which calls for a specific treatment so that multiple story buildings that might be constructed in the Civic Center area would have something to look down at other than pea gravel and patched roofs with air conditioning equipment. The intent of the Planning Commission was that this item normally should have been included in the plan but that staff had an adequate understanding of the design control conditions the Commission wished to impose and the Commission felt that would be adequate for review. If the Council feels they wish to review it or would like the Planning Commission to review it, that can be changed without any problem. There is also a certified letter to be submitted accepting the various conditions in various situations in here to the Planning Director, some of which are to be approved by the City Attorney and City Engineer, and some by the Planning Director. Again, this is just a clerical matter, except to have the letter on hand and assure that it meets the legal requirements. Other than the latitude on the design element on the roof I don't know of any matter that is other than a policy matter. It is primarily one of making sure that all the paperwork and all of the elements of the plan have been complied with and that the applicant is on notice by this resolution that there are still elements he must comply with prior to getting his building permit. Mayor Chappell: Thank you. Are there any further questions? Councilman Nichols: One final word of clarification. I think the concern expressed is a legitimate one that a citizen might generate from what was read here tonight. Actually the Civic Center zones are very restrictive and require a great deal of attention to detail and we have had many dozens, perhaps hundreds of times, precise plans come before the Council where it included a recommendation that the Council approve the submission of elements of that plan to the approval of the Building Department, or the satisfaction of the .Fire Department, or to the approval of the Planning Director. Those are interpative approvals in terms of criteria and policies set down by the City Council. I think implicitly in that of course is the fact that any citizen that goes .into an administrative situation and feels as a result of the .interpreta•- tion at administrative level that a servant is preempting policy decisions, that person implicitly has the right to appeal. such decisions of the City Council. Adversely, if in every case where there is an administrative interpretation to occur this interpretation had to occur at the City Council level it would become over cumbersome upon us indeed. So as long as this recourse exists and the individual in fact is working only at the administrative level. in terms of existing ordinances•and regulations I feel. that these types of recommendations where delegated to staff are indeed appropriate. Councilman Young: Mr. Mayor, I think Councilman Nichols has summed it up very well. I don't think - 10 CITY COUNCIL 1/10/72 Page Eleven PUBLIC HEARINGS: ZC #4.57 & PP #613 that he would, nor would any of the Council, avoid an issue or that there was any intent along this line because it is cumbersome. I think we do recognize our own limitations as a lay body - which we are - and we do have a staff of professionals operating in what is characteristically a very strict law and I think the law itself is the policy and is adequate protection and this Council is certainly open to consider that policy if a situation arises. Councilman Nichols: A further comment that the only comments made including my own worthy one, were directed toward a particular concern expressed by a concerned citizen. There haven't been any comments on the plan itself and in that I think this is an exceptional opportunity to see the upgrading of an area close to the Civic Center, I think the developer of this project should be very greatly commended for being willing to invest to this extent in the future of our City and I am proud and pleased to see these types of plans coming forward, because it represents a very great commitment in a time of high costs and great risk. This matter came before the Planning Commission, was heard and the vote was unanimous and the staff recommendation was for approval and the restrictions are extensive, and I certainly favor the adoption of Precise Plan No. 613 and Zone Change Application No. 457, and I will so move. Seconded by Councilman Shearer and carried on roll call vote as follows: AYES: Councilmen Shearer, Nichols, Young, Lloyd, Chappell NOES: None ABSENT: None THE CHAIR CALLED A RECESS AT 8:30 P.M. COUNCIL RECONVENED AT 8:45 P.M. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Bobby Welch Mr. Mayor and members of Council, I have a 407 No. Estelle petition signed by a little over 1000 West Covina signatures and if you would like I will read the heading of the petition: "We, the undersigned concerned citizens wish to go on record as being in favor of the Redevelopment .Program of the West Covina Plaza Shopping Center with exception. We are aware of the daily need to build more modern and adequate facilities in order to attract more commercial businesses. However, in doing so we must not ignore the commercial need for recreational facilities in West Covina, both to our youth and families in our community.' 'Therefore, we urge those employed officials to insure that the Holiday Stardust Bowl and its continuance be included. as part of the redevelopment program of the West Covina Plaza Shopping Center." These people who signed the petition - the names were gathered from different shopping centers - May Company, Cal Stores, Gemco and the South Hills Shopping Center and other centers in various neighborhoods in West Covina. Before having them sign we made sure they understood we were not against tearing down the bowling alley where it is at as long as it was relocated .in the vicinity© Mayor Chappell: Thank you very much for bringing in the petition. • CITY COUNCIL 1/10/72 ORAL COMMUNICATIONS _ I just want to bring back to the Councils' attention that when the CBD was brought up a few weeks ago this was one of the suggestions I brought up. I.didn't know I would like you to consider my name as I Harry Kaelin 611 So. St. Malo West Covina about the petition but being on the petition. CITY ATTORNEY i j Page Twelve ORDINANCE Mr. Wakefield: The City Council. will INTRODUCTION recall that the Local Agency Formaticn Com- mission authorized the City Council to proceed with the annexation of the San Jose School property without Notice of Hearing and election. The Planning Commission has approved of the annexation and that action was accepted by your body this ev�ning. The Ordinance introduction is the first step in the completion of the San Jose School property annexation. " AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF WEST COVINA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING THE ANNEXATION TO, INCORPORATING IN, AND MAKING A PART OF SAID CITY OF WEST COVINA, CERTAIN TERRITORY OUTSIDE THE SAID CITY AND CONTIGUOUS THERETO, KNOWN AS "SOUTHERLY ANNEXATION NO. 216." Motion by Councilman Young, seconded by Councilman Lloyd and carried, to waive further reading of the body of said Ordinance. Motion by Councilman Young, seconded by Councilman Nichols, to introduce said Ordinance. Councilman Lloyd: I don't quite understand what the object of this ball game is - does this benefit the City? Mr. Aiassa: This is the only school in the West Covina School District that is not in the City of West Covina. Councilman Lloyd: And considering we have how many in the City? Mr. Aiassa: We have 8 School Districts. Councilman Lloyd: In bringing in a school you don't raise any money for the tax rolls, so I wanted to know the advantage to the City? Mr. Aiassa: The only advantage is we utilize their facilities for our recreation programs. There is no financial gain when you absorb a governmental agency. Councilman Lloyd: Is there a gain to them? Mr. Aiassa: Yes. Mayor Chappell: We received a document from the School District requesting this because of the Fire and Police protection and that is why this has been going on. Councilman Lloyd: Well that is different, and I guess I missed it. Mayor Chappell: As. you know, our policy is we don't pursue an annexation unless we receive the request. - 12 CITY COUNCIL 1/10/72 CITY ATTORNEY: ORDINANCE INTRODUCTION Page Thirteen Motion carried on roll call vote as follows: AYES: Councilmen Shearer, Nichols, Young, Lloyd, Chappell NOES: None ABSENT: None ORDINANCE INTRODUCTION Mr. Wakefield. This item is and a proposed ADOPTION 'Ordinance for introduction and adoption as a Urgency Ordinance. Several weeks ago inquiry was made of the .Police Department and subsequently of the City Clerk's Office for the procedure to be followed to open a card room within the City of West Covina. In checking our Ordinance Code I was surprised to find we had no expressed provision which prohibited the playing of draw poker and other games such as panguinge within the City of West Covina. At the request of the City Manager and with the review of the Police Department I have prepared and submitted to you this evening an Ordinance which really is in three sections. The first section prohibits any gambling within the City or any game which is not really prohibited by State Law. The second section of the Ordinance prohibits the use of any place for the playing of any such game and the third section prohibits the playing or betting of such a game for money or anything of value within the City. The Chief of Police has submitted the Ordinance to the County Sheriff's Office for -their review and I received a letter .from him saying that the persons in the Sheriffs Office who reviewed this -Ordinance feel that this Ordinance should satisfy the needs of the Law Enforcement personnel within the City of West Covina. ORDINANCE N0..1181 "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE ADOPTED CITY OF WEST COV.TNA, ADDING SECTIONS 4119.2, 4119.3 AND 4119.4 TO THE WEST COVINA MUNICIPAL CODE, RELATING TO GAMBLING, AND .DECLARING THE URGENCY THEREOF, TO TAKE EFFECT I.MMEDIAT.ELY," Motion by Councilman Lloyd, seconded by Councilman Shearer and carried, to waive further reading of the body of said Ordinance. Councilman Shearer: Mr. Wakefield, I have always been under the impression up to now that such things as draw poker, etc.,, were illegal unless specifically allowed. I take it from this Mr. City Attorney that unless we have an -Ordinance that specifically bans them it is legal? I thought it was sort of the other way around, but this Ordinance is necessary in order to make it illegal? Mr. Wakefield: Yes, Councilman Shearer. What 330 of the penal code does is prohibit certain specific gambling games by name. Historically, Section 330 has not named the playing of draw poker and I think this goes back to the early history of our State where in the Mother Lode region and the more rural areas of the State of California card parlors .in the back of restaurants and pool parlors were a form of community recreation and draw poker was customarily one of the games that was played in those card rooms. So over the years the legislature has refused to make the playing of draw poker illegal. As you know the City of Gardena has adopted an elaborate system for licensing the playing the games of draw poker in that City. The only reason it is able to license and regulate the activity is because the game itself is not prohibited by State Law. So what this Ordinance does is to pick up the residual games which are not prohibited by law and makes them illegal in the City of West Covina, .- 13 - CITY COUNCIL 1/10/72 Page Fourteen CITY ATTORNEY: Ordinance No. 1181 Motion by Councilman Shearer, seconded by Councilman Young, to introduce and adopt Ordinance No. 1181. Motion carried on roll call vote as follows: AYES: Councilmen Shearer, Nichols, Young, Lloyd, Chappell NOES: None ABSENT: None Councilman Young: Mr. Mayor, with respect to Item 1 (b) which was held out at my request, may.I suggest that matter be handled by forward- ing the gentleman involved a copy of this Ordinance, and I so move. Seconded by Councilman Lloyd and carried. ORDINANCE NO. 1182 The City Attorney presented: ADOPTED "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF WEST COVINA, ADDING SECTION 7602.5 AND AMENDING SECTION 7606 OF THE WEST COVINA .MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO WATER FACILITIES AND SERVICE." Council will remember that this is the Ordinance that establishes a fee schedule for temporary services and also establishes a rate for temporary service of water in connection with the construction of buildings, residential structures and others. Motion by Councilman Lloyd, seconded by Councilman Shearer and carried, to waive further reading of the body of said Ordinance. Motion by Councilman Young, seconded by Councilman Shearer to adopt said Ordinance. Motion carried on roll call vote as follows: AYES: Councilmen Shearer, Nichols, Young, Lloyd, Chappell NOES: None ABSENT: None B.K.K. COMPANY Mr. Wakefield: I have one additional item - Mr. Mayor, with your permission. As I am sure you know, the City has been negotiating with the B.K.K. Company for the lease of certain lands which constitute a part of the B.K.K. Company lease property for the construction of a .Pony League Baseball Park and that sublease how now been approved by the B.K.K. Company and eXecuted by it and transmitted to the City Council for your approval and authorization for the Mayor to execute.. The sublease is for a term of 10 years beginning November 1, 1971. The property is being provided to the City rent free and without any obligation to pay for its use. The City is simply required to perform the grading and other necessary work for the development of the facility and is given the right to install electrical service, sewers and other facilities that may be necessary for the use of the property as a Pony League Baseball Park. The City does agree in the sublease to hold the B.K.K. Company free from liability arising out of the improvement of the property or its use by the public. Other than . that the City will be entitled to the use of the property if the sublease is approved for a term of 1.0 years. Councilman Shearer: Two questions concerning the wording of the sublease. Section 3, B.K.K. grants to the City the right to perform earth work, etc. Would this lease then allow the City .in turn to sub- lease to some other organization for the development of this facility or is it strictly the obligation of the City to provide the necessary improvements? Secondly, No. 5, the term "use as a public recreational facility", would this prohibit the City - 14 -. CITY COUNCIL 1/10/72 Page Fifteen CITY ATTORNEY: B.K.K. Sublease from granting usage or semi -usage to one particular organization who might be the one that would provide the improvements? Mr. Wakefield: Councilman Shearer, the sublease gives the City the authority to construct the improvements. The City could under the agreement either delegate that responsibility to another subject to the obligation of the City to supervise the work and to see that it was done in an appropriate fashion. The provision with respect to the use of the property as a public recreational facility is included at the request of the B.K.K. Company. The problem that arose in the negotiation of the lease was that the Company sought to enlist the support of the City in obtaining whatever property tax advantage might flow to the Company for the fact the City was permitted to use the property for public recreational purposes. As I explained to B.K.K. Company and their attorney, the fact that privately owned property is leased to a public entity for public use does not release the property owner from the obligation to pay property taxes, so I think that provision really as the law now stands serves no purpose. However, if the City elects to authorize the use of the property for a particular Pony League or a particular sponsoring agency or group it would still be a public use in the sense that same kinds of arrangements are made with respect to public park facilities and other publicly owned facilities. A specific group may have the right to use the properties at specified times but the public has the opportunity to witness the -games and take part in the activities as participants and spectators. So I think the limitation of the reference to the use of the facilities as a public recreational facility is a legally accurate description of the proposed use of the property. Councilman Shearer: I am presently a member of the Board of Directors of the League that may be involved in this, should I abstain on the vote? Mr. Wakefield: Yes I would think that would be appro- priate. Mayor Chappell: Only people that are presently members of the Board would abstain? Mr. Wakefield: Yes, that is correct. Councilman Young: I have one question. There will be no expenditures whatsoever on this project without further presentation to the City Council so far as the expenditure of any public monies? Mr. Aiassa: Yes, that is true. Councilman Young: I will move approval of the agreement and also the appropriate signatures thereon by the .Mayor and City Clerk. . Seconded by Councilman Lloyd and carried. Councilman Shearer abstaining. THE CHAIR CALLED A RECESS OF THE CITY COUNCIL .MEETING AT 9:09 P.M. CITY COUNCIL RECONVENED AT 9:20 P.M. 15 -. CITY COUNCIL 1/10/72 CITY MANAGER Page Sixteen LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA Mr. Aiassa: The first item pertains CITIES° INSTITUTE OF to the League of EMPLOYER -EMPLOYEE California Cities' RELATIONS Institute on Employer - Employee Relations to be held at San Diego, February 2-4, 1972. This is an item that I would like to have authorization of the Council to send either myself or one of my assistants to attend and bring back the material that we may need. If Council authorizes this, the expense involved should not exceed $125.00, and it may be just for one day and not overnight. Mayor Chappell: Will they get enough out of it .in one day? Mr. Aiassa: I have attended one or two .in the past and I usually judge rather quickly on the first day whether we will have any valuable material on the second day. Councilman Lloyd moved that the City Manager and/or one of his staff assistants be authorized to attend the League of California Cities' Institute on Employer -Employee Relations at San Diego on February 2--4, 1972, and the expenditure for same not to exceed $125.00. Seconded by Councilman Young and carried on roll call. vote as follows: AYES: Councilmen Shearer, Nichols, Young, Lloyd, Chappell NOES: None ABSENT: None BREAKDOWN OF FINANCING Mr. Aiassa: Mr. Mayor and City FOR CBD CONSULTING Councilmen this is more SERVICES of an informational item to Council on the breakdown of the financing and if satisfactory it can be accepted and filed. Councilman Young: This breakdown I take it is in response to a question, which shows the Special Counsel is somewhat more expensive than. we originally anticipated. Mr. Aiassa: You are absolutely right, Councilman Young. At the first input we didn't know if the development would "fly" We also realized if it did we would have to .reduce the budget of. Williams & Mocine. In that budget we built a .reserve for this purpose. We had to have extra consultation for the CBD Develop- ment other than provided by Williams & Mocine. So we actually had a twofold protection. If one did not take place there would be no point in continuing the other. So we broke it down and if you remember when you approved the budget you approved a lump sum subject to the contract. Each one of the items .in the report you received will be reviewed and authorized by Council and will probably be appearing under your CBD agendas and by your next meeting we will probably be transferring a fixed amount of money which you will definitely keep control on. Motion by Councilman Young that the report be received and filed. Seconded by Councilman Lloyd and carried. CITY LIMIT RELOCATION Mr Aiassa: This item was a rather WITH CITY OF WALNUT long extended negotia- NOGALES STREET ACTION tion. I believe Mr. Zimmerman has been carrying the final battle. Mr. Chappell and I previously meet with Walnut°s .former Mayor and more recently have been negotiating with the City Administrator who in turn has been negotiating with his Council. And as per the written 16 - PA CITY COUNCIL 1/10/72 CITY MANAGER: CITY LIMIT RELOCATION CITY OF WALNUT Page Seventeen report the procedure to obtain final approval of this boundary is as follows: 1 - West Covina and the Walnut City Councils approve the revised boundary. 2 - City staffs to forward application to LAFCO for approval of that body. 3 - Upon approval of LAFCO, the two City Councils to pass formal resolutions of approval of the relocated boundary and forward them to the County Board of Supervisors,.which gives final approval to the change. The boundary change is being presented to the City of.West Covina City Council tonight and the City of Walnut Council on the 12th of January, after which the matter will be forwarded to LAFCO by each City. The only difficulty was we required pre -zoning of the northerly portion of the property because it made it more comparable to the land we were giving up. Also there are slivers of land going from one City to the other. The map you received shows what is being given up by Walnut and what. the City of West Covina is giving up. -.Nogales is a very important street because it not only improves our police protection but also our.:..Ifire pro- tection into the Galaxie Tract. It is being put in at;..the expense of Umark who made a commitment to Bren Company, but whave to do the legal proceedings as far as the location of the ground that it will locate on between the two cities. Councilman Young: A question. What is the status of the pre -zoning of this large green shaded area? Mr. Aiassa: We are making our condition to Walnut on the basis that we will not deliver our deeds until we receive theirs. That is tied in with the de -annexation and the re -annexation. None.of this will take place until the two Councils accept the boundary alignments. Councilman Lloyd: And: is it zoned now? I believe that is what Councilman Young is asking. Mr. Aiassa: Yes in the Citv of West Covina - the blue part is and we are giving that up. Councilman Young: What is the zoning on the large green part that we are taking in? Mr. Zimmerman: Mr. Mayor and members of Council, to the best of my knowledge this is gen- erally zoned agricultural at this time and is subject to being rezoned and proposed for rezoning in the general overall plan of Umark for their properties, but has not been given a higher zoning at this time because it is not considered for development yet. Councilman Young: Mr. Zimmerman: La Puente Road would be Councilman Young: Mr. Aiassa: What is the proposal - regional commercial? The parcel at the corner of .Amax and Nogales is now community -commercial. and the other down at Nogales and community -commercial also.. Who is making the requirement for re- zoning? I don°t.recall Council making it. This is why we want to talk it over with Council tonight. The equitable - 17 - 11 0 CITY COUNCIL 1/10/72 CITY MANAGER: CITY LIMIT RELOCATION CITY OF WALNUT Page .Eighteen exchange of land is based on this basis that unless it is rezoned we have to go back to the drafting board. The equitable values would not fall as originally submitted to Council. Councilman Young: Mr. Aiassa: they are pushing for the Is there involvement with Umark? The involvement .is with Umark. They own the property in Walnut and they would have to take the initiative and street. Councilman Young: I think the street is a very favorable thing. The City needs it, but this pre -zoning bothers me in the sense that I don't know what we will run into - if .Nogales High School, the patrons of the school have an interest in the use of that property and it is not far from the highly developed Galaxie Tract and with these various interests involved who hears those .interests and who resolves those interests? Mr. Aiassa: The Walnut City Council with the developer would have to initiate the zoning. Councilman Young: So Walnut City Council could rezone and if annexed they don't have to pick up the political tab. The West Covina City Council picks up the political, tab involved, if there is one. Mr. Aiassa: No, the change of land would not take place until that property is rezoned and the rezoning would have to be done through Umark through Walnut. The territory right now .is under the jurisdiction of Walnut. Mr. Wakefield: Mr. .Mayor and members of Council, perhaps I can shed a bit of light on the problem. Under the provisions of the State Law relating to the zoning of property, a City has the power to pre -.zone property. That is to follow the usual zoning procedures and decide by action of the Planning Commission and City Council what zoning properly contiguous to the City shall have. In the event the property is later annexed to the City it comes in subject to the zoning that has previously been placed upon that property. If pre -zoning does not occur than the property on its annexation to the City comes in with the zones that were applicable to .it in the area prior to its annexation to the City. In this particular case if the property is within the City of Walnut, the City of West Covina can bring .it in to the City on this change of boundary procedures with the zoning that is established for the property by the City of Walnut or the City of West Covina can pre -zone .it by action of its Planning Commission and City Council and when it is transferred to the City of West Covina it would then bear that zone. Councilman Young: Well then we are talking about our City Council. doing the pre -zoning. Mr. Aiassa: No, there are two alternatives. What Mr. Wakefield has given you. .is the second alternative, My recommendation to the Council .is that the owner and Walnut bring their proper zoning in and we accept that, zoning that; has been pre -zoned. We have one other alternative which we explored several months ago and that is we do not change any land and put all of Nogales in. the CITY COUNCIL 1/10/72 CITY MANAGER: CITY LIMIT RELOCATION CITY OF WALNUT Page Nineteen City of West Covina and let everything status quo. Councilman Young: Why can't we just make the trade, thereby widen the street down to • Gal.axie and then we do the zoning. It is going to be in West Covina and our headache. Why don't we do the zoning? Mr. Aiassa: I am a little more astute in dealing and trading and when I have a zoning and a precise plan approved and the developer ready to go I am sure not going to buy a package where there is no zoning and have to go through the whole procedure, and I feel that the zoning made the land attractive to the basis on which we are negotiating. And if we don't do the zoning of that property prior to coming to West Covina I just don't want to see another Azusa and Cameron. Councilman Young: Well you see I don't want to default to an Azusa and Cameron - which of course is the whole basis of the discussion. I think we discussed this before privately and I think it should be brought out in the open. I think in a sense this is what we are doing here. We let some other City Council do the very thing that in all liklihood put two of us on this Council, so we stick our heads in the sand and let it go by default. Somehow I am not comfortable with that feeling. Mr. Aiassa: I think you have a point but if you will gain zoned acreage that went through another City by an act of de - annexation and annexation - at Azusa and Cameron basically there was no trade. Councilman Young: But I am sitting here basically saying - look you guys do the political tough job down in Walnut and then, transfer it to us and nobody is politically responsible for it at that point. And political responsibility is the very essence of our system of government. Mr. Aiassa: The main issue, that may not have been brought to the attention of Council, is that Walnut has never had a serious problem as far as commercial zoning. Where they had their difficulties in referendum zoning is with the MF zones. Councilman Young: Yes, but we have had these,se.ri.ous problems and we are defaulting the problem. Mr. Aiassa: Yes, but it is vacant land,,. Councilman Young: I know it is but so .is Azusa and Cameron unfortunately. Mr. Aiassa: May I ask the Planning Director in the overall plan that was sub- mitted by Umark wasn't that area marked for commercial? Mr. Munsell: Yes, Mr. City .Manager and members of Council, the Planning Commission and the City Council did in fact review the entire Woodside Village Plan including'that portion in Walnut, demanding of the developer that he show us that portion .- 19 -, CITY COUNCIL 1/.10/72 Page Twenty CITY MANAGER: CITY LIMIT RELOCATION CITY OF WALNUT in Walnut so that we could better evaluate our Redevelopment Plan. I might also add that portion of the City shown adjacent to the green, a good portion is rezoned community -commercial under the Planned Community Development zone and some of the balance of that . green was proposed to be multiple -family densities and some of it has been approved as multiple -family densities in our .Planned Community .Development zone. So there already has been an evaluation there and it was discussed at public hearings. I might also add in discussions with Rowland Unified School District regarding commercial zoning across from Nogales High, it was indicated they would have no objections and staff went in very thoroughly with the Unified School District primarily because it was within three or four months following the election on the referendum on the Azusa -Cameron property. Rowland School District is not concerned particularly about the development across .from their high school., so for all practical purposes we valuated this property for the higher use than it now has on it, Those portions in West Covina have already been zoned appropriately and would be a logical extension of that which we have in the City now. Councilman Nichols: I think Councilman Young has raised an excellent point. I think all of us should behoove the warning implicit in his words. If, for instance, the Walnut City Council would entertain to rezone the property subject to a prior commitment by this Council to exchange on the basis of such zoning and if during the course of that effort the Walnut. Council should run into a very great deal of political. difficulty for any reason whatsoever among its citizenry, the citizenry would not only not be satisfied with the Council°s action but would be even more dissatisfied with the subsequent action to de -annex or load it on West Covina, and this Council would be in a very weak position indeed to say to those people - but we stood by innocently only with our little old offer to annex to the zoning. We, in fact, would become a party to the zoning as much as if the property were in West Covina. Hopefully there won't be any difficulty, but sometimes in these communities such difficulties arise.., They arise because people are concerned. This property is not in our City and we have no way of knowing the concerns of the citizens who live in that area. So to go into a bind, so to speak, in advance of knowing the po.l.iti.cal climate down there and the feel- ing of the citizens is a risky business .in terms of politics and very uncertain in terms of ethics. I have only one suggestion to make why don't we just sit by and allow the Walnut City Council to zone this property as this developer is in fact requesting, without this Council or this City making any advance commitment.. Whether the property comes into West Covina or stays .in Walnut. it is very obvious that the developer is going to seek some change of use or in fact zoning relief. If then that zoning does occur and if in fact the beliefs of staff are confirmed that the citizens in that area do not object to that change of zone and the School District does not object to it and it becomes a matter of record that they did not object to it, then this Council in good conscience can extend an offer of exchange based upon the existing zoning and we will not compromise our own value system and be indeed in a strong position to say later that we accepted the property properly zoned through all previous recourse and without objection. So my feeling on this matter is that we should not take ny action at this time and await Walnut and Umark°s action in achieving this proper zoning and. when in fact it is achieved we can move right ahead and the delay involved would be minor .indeed. 20 - CITY COUNCIL 1/10/72 CITY MANAGER: CITY LIMIT RELOCATION CITY OF WALNUT Mayor Chappell: Mr. Aiassa: • Nogales is being very present initial owner that the alternative put all of Nogales in have a time factor. Page Twenty-one It is a good suggestion. Any other questions? May I make just one comment, Mr. Mayor. I would like to add one additional comment and that is the street of heavily pushed by the developer or the of both parcels in West Covina and Walnut, and drawings of the plan also be taken that they West Covina and not shift .Land because we do Councilman Young: So we could end up with a through street whether or not we make the exchange? Mr. Aiassa: That is true. Originally when we negotiated at one time we were extend- ing the service of water into Walnut and at that time Mayor Chappell and I met with their representation and we told Umark we would try to give assistance in cooperation with the City of Walnut, so this is one reason for the procedure we are now following. The simplest procedure is for them to proceed all in West Covina. I just want to make the record clear that I am not trying to pull - as you would say Councilman Young: I didn't say it and no one here did. Mr. Aiassa: No, but the implications were quite obvious and what I am trying to bring out is that I tried to negotiate a flexible and acceptable plan that I can endorse and recommend as your City ,Manager that would be fair to West Covina and Walnut. Councilman Young: I think you are to be totally commended on this Mr. Aiassa, and no implication is intended. and I don't think you could do the job effectively if you had to sit and think of every political implication involved in the problems of being City .Manager, but ultimately the Council. has to think along that line. We are expected to, it .is our trust. I would even like to entertain the thought, if possible, of .leaving the existing blue area .in this map which is now .in West Covina programmed for a shift but leave it in and work out someway of purchasing the entire area in green. When it comes down to the zoning of it it is going to be in West Covina hopefully under the program presented - well then let my political neck hang out on it, but don't let me do it by default or subterfuge or anything else. There was absolutely no uncomplimentary remarks in my comments to anyone. Councilman .Nichols: I just wanted to clarify one point, a very essential point. Councilman Shearer was wondering why we just can't . go ahead and change this area into the City of West Covina as it is and later entertain a, change of zoning, and the point has to be reiterated again that the land to the north on a current comparison basis on terms of assessed value to the cities has a greater value now unless potentially the land to the south gains a greater potential use it would be an unfair trade and a loss of assessed value to West Covina. This is why .I state essentially the element of achieving this value is Walnut.°s responsibility, but if West Covina makes an offer now subject to the zoning then West Covina becomes a party to the zoning action. You cannot avoid it, even 21 - CITY COUNCIL 1/10/72 Page Twenty-two CITY MANAGER: CITY LIMIT RELOCATION CITY OF WALNUT though they may be maintaining a legal control of it at the moment because later the citizens can clearly say that West Covina only brought it in subject to that zoning and was in fact a party to it. This is why I indicated in my own feelings that. West Covina • should stay clear of this political entanglement with no offer whatsoever until that community has resolved the use of the land. If it achieves a value on that land through its own legal process and without duress from us that would be comparable to our blue area then in good conscience we could offer a trade, but in anyway that we become involved now we become a party to .it and if that area comes into our City at a later time those citizens can rightfully claim this Council was a party to it and can ask for that zoning to be reconsidered. We would be in an impossible position because we would have taken it into the City, true it is comparable based on the zoning that had been granted and we would be in exactly the same position we were on the Brutoco property just a short time ago where the Council felt itself in a moral position that it could not change the zoning. We can only avoid that if we stand clear on this matter, let it be resolved on terms of its zoning and bring it in as it is at that time. Councilman Shearer: I am not sure that I agree or disagree with what Councilman Nichols said. However, we have to .face the practicality of the other city°s position. They can sit by and do nothing, just as we sit by in this case and do nothing. The drive, the initiative to pursue this really lies with this Council, not with Walnut. The present development is in West Covina. The benefit to be derived from either City by the construction of Nogales, I am sure 80% .is West Covina and to a small extent Walnut. My feeling is we should go ahead and adopt the recommendation tonight, there is nothing .in the recommendation that ties any strings with regard to zoning , it only ackpow.ledges_the.improvement.bf'the alignment and the change of property and it will come back to us at a. later date once the City of Walnut agrees and we can then take action whether to pursue or not. We can't just sit back and say we are not taking a position because we have already this evening on the record said we don't want this unless it is commercial, property because there .is a dollar value involved. So in fact we are tying an invisible string to the situation. It is there, And we are going to be, as Councilman Young says, faced with the situation whether it is zoned yesterday and comes .into the City zoned, we as the West Covina Council will be faced with it. I would just as soon if we are going to be faced with it start from. scratch and not as we did with the Brutoco Development have a request to unzone something. In either way we are probably going to have a problem, but I would rather start from what it is now and go from there. Councilman Nichols: Except Councilman Shearer, if we make an offer to exchange subject to zoning and the next step has to be that and whether we formalize the agreement or not if we state that we want to exchange and then hold until the zoning occurs we will then . be in the position of being unable to respond to any opposition that may generate within that area. because it is in a different jurisdiction and we will have committed to annex despite such opposition that might arise and then. we will be forced to contend with that opposition after we have taken the property under a commitment to bring it in under that zoning. We will invite the mass opposition from the citizenry without the ability to cope with it, respond to it or weigh it. In other words we will be a party to a legislative action in fact without having the capability of sitting and hearing the protestants .in the situation. Perhaps there will be no opposition raised, perhaps the citizens - 22 - CITY COUNCIL 1/10/72 CITY MANAGER: CITY LIMIT RELOCATION CITY OF WALNUT Page Twenty-three will be elated that Walnut will rezone the land and in that event then we will have no problem. at all and they will be just as pleased to be in West Covina with that zoning, but should the citizenry in the area be in heavy opposition to this act, by our initial act here we are committing irrevocably our Council to a position of bringing that area in with that zoning despite any opposition and I just don't feel over the long haul that we need to invite that kind of action here. Councilman Shearer: Perhaps the City Attorney has given us the solution, perhaps we should take the approach of pre -zoning to application. Let us take the responsibility for the arguments, then if we do pre -zone or do not pre -zone then it is our decision and the annexation is dependent to what we say. Councilman Nichols: I don't object to that. Councilman Young: I would go for that. It is our political necks and something we live with. If there is citizen opposition I want to hear it and have a chance to vote on it.. Mr. Aiassa: I think the City Attorney should clear this matter. You are not dealing with territory that is unincorporated, you are dealing now with territory that is incorporated in a City. So really what you are trying to do is implying that you are having a hearong on another City°s area. Councilman Young: This is true but the other way around is we are simply strongarming the other City into rezoning. I want to hear what the opposition is to this proposed commercial area down here and I want a chance to vote on it and I don't get that chance if I just sit back. I have given up my vote. Mr. Aiassa: The only alternative left is that the developer who owns the land in both cities will have to take the initiative stand as to which of the two he wants to do and if he wants to initiate the zoning in Walnut as the Umark Development Company that is his prerogative and then after it is .rezoned the two lands will be equal and you will know whether there is applied pressure, political pressure or not. So I think my directive right now is that we direct Umark to proceed with an application to rezone this property through Walnut and then .if it doesn°t fly we will have to put all of Nogales in West Covina and .leave the boundaries as they are. Councilman Young: That is really saying the same thing anyhow. That is still putting the heat on in order to annex and to make a deal that we are the ultimate recipients of. Mr. Aiassa: No, that is his right. Councilman Young: Can I inquire of the City Attorney what would be the legality if the City of West Covina says to Walnut we would take this property over provided the pre -zoning hearings are held by West Covina. Couldn't we have our own hearings on it on that basis, if Walnut would go along?. - 23 - CITY COUNCIL 1/10/72 Page Twenty --four CITY MANAGER: CITY LIMIT RELOCATION CITY OF WALNUT Mr. Wakefield: Yes, the City Council has the authority City Attorney under law to pre --zone the property. To determine in advance of the time it becomes a part of the City of West Covina what zoning will, be applied to that property when it does become a part of the City. Here the exchange of the territory between two cities requires initially the approval of the LAFC and then the formal acquiescence on both cities' City Councils. At the conclusion of that step the matter is referred to the Board of Supervisors who are required to hold a public hearing to hear protests and decide whether or not the transfer and exchange of property shall be approved. If the Board finally approves the exchange then it becomes effective as if it were an annexation and a de -annexation. But when the property comes into the City of West Covina it will. either come in with the zoning as exists at the time and established by the City of Walnut, or it will come in with the zoning which the City of West Covina has placed on the property in advance of the tiansfe r Councilman Nichols: I think that is the answer. I think if we hold our own hearing we will satisfy the needs of the people and certainly we can offer an exchange subject to the right of holding a pre -zoning hearing on that portion to be exchanged and make our determination at the time of the hearing openly to determine whether or not it is in the interests of the people in that section. Mi. Aiassa: May I ask a technical question of our legal advisor? Who sends out the notices and where would the public hearing be held - being the property is located in Walnut? Mr. Wakefield: The public hearing would be held by City Attorney the City Council of the City of West Covina, but it would be upon the recommendation of the Planning Commission after it held the public hearing. The notices that are required in connection with a change of zone proceeding would be sent out in the same fashion as they are at the present time. Whether the property is within the City or not doesn't limit the right of the City to notify contiguous property owners that the property .is being considered for pre -zoning by the City of West Covina. Mi. Aiassa: Maybe I misunderstand you, but do you mean to imply that we have the authority to pre -zone territory in an incorporated city in an initiated hearing of territory that is incorporated in that City? Is that what you are saying? Mr. Wakefiled: Yes. City Attorney Councilman .Nichols: Just think Mi. Aiassa, after 20 years you are learning something new tonight. . Mr. Aiassa: After 20 years I get very doubtful of a lot of legal advice I have received over the years that got myself in a lot of troubles. Councilman Shearer: A question, Mr. Mayor. If the situation would evolve that we would decide in the best interests of the City not to rezone the property in green as commercial, is there anything that says legally that we cannot still exchange 39.4 acres of Walnut for 48.0 acres to Walnut even though it was not of - 24 - CITY COUNCIL 1/10/72 Page Twentya•five CITY MANAGER: CITY LIMIT RELOCATION CITY OF WALNUT like zoning or comparable assessed value? Mr. Wakefield: No sir, there is no legal limitation City Attorney upon the City Council in approving • an exchange of property. One piece may be completely developed and the other completely undeveloped. If the City Council determines it is in the interest of the City to make the exchange you have the authority to do that. It doesn't depend really on the comparative values of parcels involved. You are entitled to take into consideration the potential of the property and what may develop and act accordingly. Mr. Aiassa: Mr. Mayor, there .is only one element I would like to present to the Council so we don't misunderstand any of the facts. The property wanting to be annexed to Walnut is now zoned and a precise plan approved and anytime Bren Company can come in and get a building permit. So actually there is a dollar value and as a professional I say you are giving up quite a bit. That is all I can say. Councilman Young: Well sure we are in dollar value, but our responsibility goes far beyond dollar value. Mr. Aiassa: You have one more question to be answered and that is Umark has not intended to develop any property. The property that is now in the jurisdiction of the City of West Covina is under Bren Company who is the developer and is the one that has been building the units down at Amar and Azusa. Councilman .Nichols: Mr. Mayor, we can't decide tonight an eventuality that perhaps we would not see fit to amass such an area as commercial, that is a decision that would have to be made in the wisdom of the Council°s action at that time. I think we have hit upon however a course of action that I believe is satisfying to all of the Council here, which is to offer to make the exchange as recommended by staff subject to the right of West Covina to hold a pre annexation hearing„ a pre --zoning hearing for the particular parcel in question. That is all we can do now anyway and we must weigh the merits of that zoning„ the hearing comes after evidence is presented. So Mr. Mayor :I would offer a motion. Motion by Councilman Nichols that the City Council authorize the staff to offer to the City of Walnut an exchange as outlined herein subject to the right of West Covina to hold a pre -zoning hearing and pre -zone the parcel in the southern regions of the exchange area. Seconded by Councilman Young and carried on roll call vote as follows: AYES: Councilmen Shearer, Nichols, Young, Chappell NOES: Councilman Lloyd ABSENT: None . Mr. Aiassa: Mr. Mayor, I have only one direction on this and I will allow the City Attorney to address a letter to the City Council of Walnut on this.. I don't want to be involved in any legal hassle. MAYOR'S REPORTS PASADENA Mayor Chappell: You received a copy RESOLUT:IO:N NO. 1226 of the Resolution from the City of Pasadena u.rLxing the 25 _, CITY COU.NC.IL 1/10/72 Page Twenty-six MAYOR'S REPORTS Board of Supervisors of the County of Los Angeles to submit charter amendments to the voters pertaining to its prevailing wage provision. A little background on this so you will understand what is going on. Seventy-five Mayors met with the Supervisors regarding the prevail- ing wage schedule they are using and how it affects their cities and we asked the Supervisors to cut down on 15 to 17/ pay raises annually, which in the past they have been voting. They explained to us this was impossible due to a provision of their charter that they must pay prevailing wages, but it had nothing to do with fringe benefits. So at that time it was thought that the Super- visors would put in a change to their charter and put it before the voting public and we found out just recently in a meeting with Supervisor Dorn that they want us to ask them to do this and they will then carry the ball but they don't want to start it. So what is happening is that most all cities throughout the County have decided that we would ask the Supervisors to submit charter changes to the public and ask them how they feel about the pre- vailing wage provision, which as you know is sometimes up to 40% of an employee's income in fringe benefits versus 22 to 24/ in private enterprise. So that is the purpose of this and I am requesting through the chair that you consider the resolution and pass on it so we can send it to the supervisors advising them that we too would like them to give the voters the opportunity to change this charter amendment. RESOLUTION NO. 4560 The City Attorney presented: ADOPTED "°A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF WEST COVINA URGING THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES TO SUBMIT APPROPRIATE CHARTER AMENDMENTS TO THE VOTERS PERTAINING TO ITS PREVAILING WAGE PROVISIONS." Motion by Councilman Nichols, seconded by Councilman Lloyd and carried, to waive further reading of the body of said Resolution. Motion by Councilman Nichols, seconded by Councilman Lloyds to adopt said Resolution. Councilman Shearer: Mr. Mayor, a comment, It seems to me the Board of Supervisors sort of in effect here "copped out". Number 1, it is strange to me and I really have no objection to paying prevailing wages, but it seems strange to me that the County Board of Supervisors says this sort of ties our hands, when I believe the County Sheriff and the County Fire Department are the highest paid and I don't know on what basis they establish wages when they are always higher than anyone else. I think that in itself is a "cop out". And secondly, when the Chairman of the Board says if you ask us to do it then I will do it - I think that is a "cop out' But I will vote for doing it. Mayor Chappell: I think you are absolutely right and we figured that was their basis last year for not doing it, so we figured we would touch all the bases this year and see what they do. They still may not do it, but we are requesting they put it on the ballot and let the citizens make the decision. Motion carried on roll call vote as follows: AYES: Councilmen Shearers Nichols, Young, Lloyds Chappell NOES. None ABSENT: None PROCLAMATIONS Mayor Chappell: I have been requested to proclaim "Bridal Week" January 30 to February 5, 1972. If there are no objections _, 26 Page Twenty-seven U • CITY COUNCIL, 1/10/72 MAYOR'S REPORTS I will so proclaim. (No objections.) I am also asked to proclaim National Foundation March of Dimes month to fight against birth defects the month of January, 1972. Hearing no objections I will so proclaim. COUNCIL COMMITTEE Councilman'Lloyd: Mr. Mayor, I have REPORTS nothing, but I would appreciate hearing on the Reapportionrnentr Commission - what presentation you and Mr. Aiassa made. I am personally very interested and I think it particularly affects our City in the fact I have seen several plans which would cut the City of West Covina into four parts. I do believe that representative government is somehow better when everybody pulls in the same boat, so I would very much be interested in hearing the report. Mayor Chappell: Lieutenant Governor Reinecke and his group had a hearing and on behalf of the City of West Covina I appeared requesting that we have representation of one Assemblyman, one State Senator and if at all possible, one Congressman. They explained to me they had no control and were not hearing the congressional end of it but they would take the recommendations of one Assemblyman and one State Senator - and by the way we were not alone in this. It is unbelievable the number of cities in our County that are split up. We have three now and. -the plan is four. It is absolutely ridiculous. And speaking about getting anything done in Sacramento - it is almost impossible under the circumstances we now have. They took it under advisement. As a little sideline - when we started to speak, Secretary of State Brown walked out of the hearing until we had all completed our testimony and then he came back in. I don't know what that means but I was hoping he could hear our real plea because this isn't good government. I understand from reading the newspapers he figures the Commission as established will not do any good anyway. This is on the record,we have submitted letters and this is what happened and I understand it will go to the Supreme Court if the Supreme Court takes it under advisement. Councilman Lloyd: Well Mr. Mayor, in order to support what you have already done he asks here for some written testimony? Mayor Chappell: Yes. I submitted that at the time. It was my prepared text. Councilman Lloyd: Well since that august body is presumably still in session I would make a motion that the City Council of the City of West Covina once again re -iterate the position of the Mayor as presented December 22nd with regard to reapportion- ment. Seconded by Councilman Nichols and carried. Mr. Wakefield: Mr. Mayor and members of City Council, if you would like to take just a moment I would be glad to give you my version of the legal situation as I see it. I have been asked by the City of Downey to file a petition in the State Supreme Court in the Brown action and seek to intervene on behalf of that City, because they like the City of West Covina feel aggrieved because their City has been cut up into four Assembly Districts in - 27 - CITY COUNCIL 1./10/72 Page Twenty-eight the reapportionment plans approved by the Senate and Assembly but vetoed by the Governor. There are three actions presently pending in the State Supreme Courts The first is an action brought by the legislature against the Reinecke Commission seeking to have the Supreme Court declare that the Reapportionment Commission as pro- vided for in our constitution is not valid and the Reapportionment Commission does not have the authority to adopt a reapportionment plan for the State of California. The second action is an action brought by Secretary of,State Brown against the Governor in which he seeks to have the Supreme Court adopt as the Courts plan the reapportionment plans for the Senate and the Assembly that were passed by the legislature but vetoed by the Governor. The third action is brought by 31 incumbent Congressmen seeking to have the Court approve the plan for the apportionment of Congressional Districts which was also adopted by the legislature. My personal. conviction after studying the matter is that there probably is a basis for the Supreme Court to implement the legislatively approved Congressional reapportionment plan, simply because the State of California is entitled to five additional Congressmen and if the election proceeds on the basis of the present apportionment there would be no alternative but for those five Congressmen to be elected at large, that is throughout the State of California. The Congressmen, who akre petitioners .in that action contend that the Federal Law, a law passed by the Congress requires the election of Congressmen by Districts. This is based upon an inference from the Federal Law .rather than by any specific provision, but the present plans for the reapportionment for the Senate and Assembly .Districts I think without question disregards what our Courts have described as community of interests,'and I think the plans are constitutionally suspect for that reason and this is the position which we are urging before the Supreme Court, hoping the court will essentially order the elections for Senate and Assemblymen to proceed on the basis of existing law under the legislature itself to adopt a more equitable and a more adequate reapportionment plan than the two that are being urged on the Court now. Mayor Chappell: It is all a little confusing, isn°t it? Mr. Wakefield.* Yes, it .is. Councilman Young: Mr. Mayor, we have in our audience this evening a personal. representative of Senator - his secretary Miss Welch. Perhaps she can carry some of this back to our Senator. Aside from that :I note tomorrow I am supposed to attend the Recreation & Parks Commission meeting at .10 A.M., and there is no way I can. Mr. Aiassa: Councilman Lloyd: the School Board meeting. Mr. Aiassa: We will so advise them,. Mr. Mayor, I have also notified the staff that .I will not be in town tomorrow and I was supposed to attend We will notify the alternate. DEMANDS Motion by Councilman Young to approve Demands reportedly totalling $467,617.94 as listed on Demand Sheets C786 through 788. This total includes payroll, but in .fact adding up to $477,552A6; the difference being a figure of $9,934.52 as carried on Page C 786. Seconded by Councilman Shearer and carried on roll call. CITY COUNCIL 1/10/72 Page Twenty-nine vote as follows: AYES: Councilmen Shearer, Nichols, Young, Lloyd, Chappell NOES: None ABSENT: None ADJOURNMENT ATTEST: City Clerk Motion by Councilman Lloyd, seconded by Councilman Young and carried, to adjourn meeting at 10:20 P.M. APPROVED: MAYOR - 29 -