08-27-1973 - Regular Meeting - MinutesMINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL
CITY OF WEST COVINA, CALIFORNIA
AUGUST 27, 1973.
The regular meeting of the City Council called to order at 7:33 P.M.
. in the West Covina Council Chambers by Mayor James Lloyd. The Pledge
of Allegiance was led by Mark Tillman of Hollencrest School, and
Cecil Houk of St. Christopher's School, both being members of Boy
Scout Troop 433. The invocation was given by Councilman Russ Nichols.
ROLL CALL
Present: Mayor Lloyd; Councilmen: Young, Nichols,
Shearer, Chappell
Others Present: George Aiassa, City Manager
Mark Allen, City Attorney
Lela Preston, City Clerk
George Zimmerman, Public Service Director
John Lippitt, City Engineer
Ramon Diaz, Ass't. Planning Director
Bert Yamasaki, Community Redev. Coordinator
Leonard Eliot, Controller,
Ken Larson, Administrative Analyst, Jr.,
Mark Volmert Administrative Analyst, Jr.,
Allen Sill, Chief of Police
Tom Mayer, President - W.C.C.E.A.
John Echeveste, Staff Reporter, S.G.V.D.T.
PRESENTATION Mayor Lloyd presented a Resolution of
Commendation to Mr. Kritz and Mr. Reinecke,
for their very fine performance in the
Edgewood High School 1973 Varsity Baseball Team C.I..F.'play offs.
Mr. Kritz advised that Ron Reinecke was the first baseman for the
team and will be the Captain next year.
Mayor Lloyd welcomed Juan Bueno, the young
man from Toluca who will be working with the City of West Covina for
a month.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
AUGUST 13, 1973. On motion made by Councilman Young, seconded
by Councilman Shearer and carried, minutes
approved.
CONSENT CALENDAR Mayor Lloyd explained the procedure of the
Consent Calendar items and asked if there
were comments by the audience or the
Council on any of the following items:
1. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS
a) SENATOR LAWRENCE E. WALSH RE Senate Bill 1275 proposing the
creation of a new transportation dis-
trict for the development of rapid
transit. (Council)
b) LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION Notice of Hearing on City of Covina
COMMISSION proposed Southerly Annexation No. 60
on 9/12/73. (Refer to Staff)
c) CAROUSEL ROLLER SKATING Request permission to solicit for funds
RINK for Muscular Dystrophy Association.
(Approved last year. Recommend approval)
- 1 -
i tis.
CITY COUNCIL Page Two
CONSENT CALENDAR - Cont'd. 8/27/73
2. PLANNING COMMISSION
a) SUMMARY OF ACTION August 15, 1973. (Accept and file)
(Informational - ZC #486 set for hearing
• 9/11/73. Tentative Tract Map No. 31855
relating to same will also appear on
9/11/73 agenda)
3. HUMAN RELATIONS COMMISSION
a) SUMMARY OF ACTION June 28, 1973. (Held over from 7/9/73)
(Regular meeting of 8/30/73 postponed.
4. CLAIM FOR DAMAGES FILED WITH CITY CLERK
a) HARRY L. SHEPPARD Re Police Unit backing into claimant's
1820 Walnut Creek Court car 7/30/73. (Deny and refer to City
West Covina Attorney and Insurance Carrier)
5. CITY TREASURER'S REPORT
MONTH OF JULY, 1973. (Accept and file)
6. TRAFFIC COMMITTEE MINUTES July 17, 1973. (Accept and file)
7. ANNUAL WATER REPORT Informational. (Receive and file)
.Councilman Shearer: Mr. Mayor, a question with regard to Item Ib,_
the hearing on the annexation north of the
freeway. The recommendation is to refer to
• Staff and I was wondering if we could eliminate having staff come back
with a report and just vote to recommend "no protest", unless someone
can enlighten me as to any possibility why we might protest this
annexation?
Mr. Aiassa: Councilman Shearer, the only reason we left
it to the llth is because we have a Council
meeting on the llth and I want to meet
with Mrs. Bonnell prior to that time, there is still a question with
regard to the sphere of influence.
Councilman Shearer: Right, there is still a question of the
sphere of influence but this Council has
already gone on record on this piece of pro-
perty accepting the recommendation of LAFCO - that it will be in the
sphere of influence of Covina, and for that reason I wondered why we
wanted to belabor the point by referring it to staff for an additional
report or further discussion. If there are two other gentlemen that
agree with me,I would move that we file "no protest".
Mayor Lloyd: I agree with you. We have already taken
a stand that we are interested in south of
the freeway.
Mr. Aiassa: The point is we haven't settled south of
• the freeway yet.
Councilman Shearer: But this is north of the freeway.
Mayor Lloyd: Well maybe we ought to give it to staff and
let'/them discuss it further. Are there any
further comments?
Councilman Shearer moved that on Annexation No. 601 City of Covina,
that No Protest be filed by the City of West Covina. Seconded by
Councilman Young.
- 2 -
I A
CITY COUNCIL Page Three
CONSENT CALENDAR - Cont'd. 8/27/73
Councilman Chappell: I think staff has made a recommendation here
and asked us to do something and I find no
fault in referring this over to our next
meeting and then making a decision.
• Mayor Lloyd: I think what the City Manager wanted to say
was that we are still in elements of negotia-
tion for other areas south of the freeway
and as long as we are in contention with other cities for these areas
or spheres of influence, if we keep all of it balanced out our chances
of getting that area south of the freeway are enhanced.
Councilman Chappell: He said not to give it away until we have too.
And right at the moment he is asking us not
to.
Motion carried on roll call vote as follows:
AYES: Young, Nichols, Shearer, Lloyd
NOES: Chappell
ABSENT: None
Motion by Councilman Chappell that the City Council accept Items 1
through 7 of the Consent Calendar for approval. Seconded.by Councilman
Young.
Councilman Young: Mr. Mayor, on the Planning Commission summary
of action, there is a matter commonly referred
to as the Meeker Development, a parcel of pro-
perty east of Barranca which has been under considerable discussion
• with regard to the Tentative Tract Map. I do note a couple of people in
the audience that were rather prominent at the hearings and I have had a
call with regard to one item that is on the agenda later this evening.
In passing this Consent Calendar we would not preclude a full discussion
with regard to the Tentative Tract Map? It is Item C, Page 4 of the
agenda.
Mr. Allen: I don't think by reviewing the action of the
City Attorney Planning Commission and accepting and filing
that report that you necessarily concur in
it and on the other item you can take whatever action you wish.
Councilman Nichols: Mr. Mayor - I wonder why it says on one
occasion it will appear on 9/11 and then in
the next couple of pages it appears on
tonight's agenda?
City. Clerk: It is a different tract, Mr. Nichols.
Councilman Nichols: Two tracts are involved?
City Clerk: Yes, the other one is different from the
Meeker development.
(Both Councilman Nichols and Councilman Young said they were confused
and asked for a clarification.)
• Mr. Zimmerman: The Tract which will be on the agenda of the
llth is Number 2 on the Planning Commission
bulletin; Number 1 is the Meeker Development
Tract and Number 2 is the Planned Residential Development on the corner
of Cameron and Azusa which will appear on the llth.
Motion carried.
GENERAL AGENDA ITEMS
AWARD OF BIDS
3 -
CITY COUNCIL
AWARD OF BIDS
Page Four
8/27/73
PROJECT NO. 125-7304 LOCATION: Gingrich Park
RESTROOMS and IRRIGATION Bids received in the Office of the City Clerk
SYSTEM up to 10:00 A.M. on Wednesday, August 8, 1973.
GINGRICH PARK Held over from August 13, 1973.
(Council reviewed Engineer's report.)
• The City Clerk stated the
to be valid bid proposals
Restrooms and Alternate C
Norman Phillips
Superior Sprinkler
Uranga Landscape
Roy C. Barnett
Parkview Landscape
& Sprinkler Co.
A.R. Gray Construction
following bids were received, opened and found
on Alternate A - Irrigation System, Alternate B
- A & B jointly:
BID A BID B BID C
331787.00 _
15,000.00 _ _
23, 391.00 _ _
32,100.00 32,800.00 641,000.00
19,368.00
- 28,000.00 _
Councilman Young: In light of the staff recommendation which
appears to be well thought out at this
point and having in mind Councilman Shearer's
comments about a restroom that cost more than a house, I think the
recommendation should be accepted and I would move therefore that
Council accept the low bid of Superior Sprinkler for the irrigation
system at Gingrich Park and authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to
execute contract agreement; and reject all bids for the restroom
facilities..
Seconded by Councilman Shearer.
Councilman Shearer: For the record, this is not the end of the
• Council's endeavors to construct restrooms
at Gingrich Park because staff has indicated
they will be checking other alternatives in order to provide the
facility.
PUBLIC WORKS
TRACT NO. 25512
STORM DRAIN IMPROVEMENTS
UMARK, INC.
Motion carried.
LOCATION: Amar Road, Temple Avenue to Azusa
Avenue.
(Council reviewed Engineer's report)
Mr. Zimmerman: Mr. Mayor and members of Council, the comple-
tion of the storm drain has now occurred and
the improvements constructed by the City and
the Flood Control District were found acceptable and on that basis
staff would recommend the acceptance by Council of the storm drain
improvements and the authorizing of the release of St. Paul Fire and
Marine Insurance Company Bond in the amount of $375,000.
Councilman Shearer and caSo moved by Councilman Young, seconded by
rried.
UMARK, INC., LOCATION: Between Lark Ellen Avenue and
WATER LINE EASEMENT Azusa Avenue, easterly of Tract No. 24006.
(Council reviewed'Engineer's report.)
Mr. Zimmerman: Mr. Mayor and members of Council, this is a
proposed water line connection in the Umark
development between Lark Ellen and Azusa to
complete a water line loop in the so-called 4-plex area. The line
itself will be installed by Umark, Inc., and 'an executed document
granting the necessary easement to the City Of -West Covina has been
received.
- 4 -
CITY COUNCIL Page Five
PUBLIC WKS.: Water Line Easement 8/27/73
RESOLUTION NO. 4775 The City Attorney presented:
ADOPTED "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF WEST COVINA ACCEPTING A CORPORATION
GRANT DEED FOR A WATER LINE EASEMENT EXECUTED
BY UMARK, INC., AND DIRECTING THE RECORDATION
• THEREOF."
Motion by Councilman Young, seconded by Councilman Shearer and carried,
to waive full reading of said Resolution.
Motion by Councilman Shearer, seconded by Councilman Young, to adopt
said Resolution and carried on roll call vote as follows:
AYES: Young, Nichols, Shearer, Chappell, Lloyd
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
PROJECT NO. SP-73013 LOCATION: Various throughout the City.
PLANS & SPECIFICATIONS (Council reviewed Engineer's report.)
STREET MAINTENANCE
PROGRAM
Mr. Zimmerman: Mr. Mayor and members of Council, this is the
follow up of your recent approval of the Five
Year Program of Public Works; it calls for
resurfacing of various streets at various locations in the City. The
cost of this is estiipdted at $128.1425; and the recommendation is that
you approve.the plans and specifications for the Street Maintenance
Program and authorize the City Engineer to call for bids.
So moved by Councilman Shearer., seconded by
• Councilman Young and carried.
STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS (Council reviewed Engineer's report)
FOR PUBLIC WORKS
CONSTRUCTION
Mr. Zimmerman: Mr. Mayor and members of Council, this is
the regular three year approval of the
standard specifications for public works
construction which are used areawise. Staff recommends that the
City Council review the Standard Specifications for Public Work Con-
struction, 1973 Edition, and hold over action on resolution of
adoption to the meeting of September 11, 1973.
So moved by Councilman Young, seconded by
Councilman Shearer and carried.
ORAL. COMMUNICATIONS
Harry Kaelin, Jr., I wish you gentlemen would speak up and
611 South St. Malo use your nicrophones so we can hear you.
West Covina
Mayor Lloyd: I think that is a valid complaint and we
will try harder. (Council agreed.)
• CITY ATTORNEY
ORDINANCE NO. 1235 The City Attorney presented:
ADOPTED "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
(Introduction and CITY OF WEST COVINA PROHIBITING THE
Adoption CONVERSION OF EXISTING APARTMENT BUILDINGS
Urgency Ordinance) INTO CONDOMINIUM OWNERSHIP, EXCEPT ON
AUTHORIZATION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
DURING A PERIOD OF STUDY OF CONDOMINIUM
DEVELOPMENT."
- 5 -
1 i
CITY COUNCIL Page Six
CITY ATTORNEY: ORD. #1235 8/27/73
Councilman Nichols: Mr. Mayor, is this an urgency ordinance?
Mayor Lloyd: Yes,it is.
• Councilman Nichols: For a matter of explanation this is the
unanimous request of the Planning Commission
to implement an Ordinance that would prevent
substandard conversions of apartment buildings in the City to condo-
miniums pending a period of time when the Commission could study it.
I think it is entirely appropriate and waive further reading of the
Ordinance.
Seconded by Councilman Chappell and carried.
Motion by Councilman Nichols to introduce and adopt said Ordinance;
seconded by Councilman Chappell.
Councilman Chappell: And Mr. Mayor, should there be a time limit
put on this rather than just "a period of
study." It seems to me we should pin it
down just a little tighter.
Mr. Allen: The time limit permitted by law and provid-
City Attorney ed here is four.,months. The City Council
is authorized after holding its own public
hearing to extend that for a period of 8 months and then following
that for an additional year. You must however in order to hold the
limitation beyond the four month period hold a public hearing. You
will probably find it is necessary to do that even if the staff
starts today and present a report to the Commission at its next
meeting. It is very difficult to meet the four month deadline, so you
may very well find yourselves holding a public hearing in a month or
two to determine whether to extend for the additional eight month
period.
Motion carried on roll call vote as follows:
AYES: Young, Nichols, Shearer, Chappell, Lloyd
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
PUBLIC HEARINGS
1973-74 WEED & RUBBISH LOCATION: Throughout the City.
ABATEMENT PROGRAM (Council reviewed Street Superintendent's
HEARING OF PROTESTS Report).
Mayor Lloyd advised that this is the time
and place for the hearing of protests or objections from owners and
other interested parties to the proposed program of weed and
rubbish abatement for 1973-74 set for this date by Resolution #4773
adopted August 13, 1973.
Mayor Lloyd: Madam City Clerk, do you have the Affidavit
of Mailing as required by law?
• City Clerk: Yes, I do.
Motion by Councilman Chappell, seconded by Councilman Shearer and
carried, to receive and file.
Mayor Lloyd: Madam City Clerk, have you received any
written protests or objections against the
performing of this work?
City Clerk: There was a notice of a change of address of
an owner and I have one notice from
Josephine Mort, she says: "The weeds at this
- 6 -
i !
CITY COUNCIL Page Seven
PUB. HEARINGS: 1973-74 Weed & Rubbish Abatement 8/27/73
address, 829 South Orange Avenue, West Covina, were mowed down on or
about July 10, 1973. If need be it will be mowed again before
October 8, 1973, I do not want the City in there before this date as
they have done in the past."
• Mayor Lloyd: Does anyone present have any verbal protests
or objections relative to this work?
City Clerk: Mr. Mayor, I have one more. It reads: "Due
to the fact this property is being offered
for sale it is being kept clean by the owner
through an independent contractor because of residing out of State.
Owner will be unable to attend the August 27th meeting." Signed,
Philip Adams, `a Montezuma Way, West Covina.
THERE BEING NO FURTHER PUBLIC TESTIMONY FOR OR AGAINST PUBLIC HEARING
CLOSED. COUNCIL DISCUSSION.
Councilman Nichols:_ Mr. Mayor, we have received two written
protests and in each case the property owner
or the agent of the property owner indicated
they did not feel the property was presently at this date in the
condition of requiring abatement. I would move that these two parcels,
829 South Orange Avenue and -..> Montezuma Way, be removed from
the current abatement program and staff be asked to investigate those
parcels. If conditions as stated by the owners are not true they can
be brought back in a supplemental abatement recommendation. I think
it would be fair to.the owners to give them the benefit of the doubt.
So my motion is to delete those two and await further investigation
• in regard to them.
Mr. Allen: Your motion is to allow the exception of
City Attorney those two parcels and that they be removed
from the abatement program?
Councilman Nichols: That is exactly what I said.
Seconded by Councilman Young.
Councilman Shearer: Mr. Aiassa, is it correct that at any time,
and I guess there are several hundred still
on the rolls if this motion passes, that
any time one of the owners decides to abate his own weeds we do not
decide to go ahead and do it again? If at the time of abatement the
lot is cleanlit is just passed over?
B
Mr. Aiassa: That is correct.
Motion carried.
Motion by Councilman Nichols, seconded by Councilman Young and carried,
to authorize the City Engineer to order the abatement of weeds and
rubbish on those properties described in Resolution of Intention
No. 4773.
• PLANNING COMMISSION
TENTATIVE TRACT ##31849 LOCATION: North of Cortez Street; south of
MEEKER DEVELOPMENT CO. Sunset Hill Drive; east of Barranca Street;
and west of Campana Flores Drive.
REQUEST: Approval of a Tentative Tract for a
9-10t subdivision on an irregularly shaped 3.8 + or - acre parcel in
Area District III of the R-A Zone. Recommended by Planning Commission
Resolution No. 2489.
- 7 -
1 }
CITY COUNCIL Page Eight
PLANNING COMMISSION: TT #31849 8/27/73
Mr. Zimmerman: Mr. Mayor and members of Council, we have the
usual presentation for a subdivision, which
will include a short report from staff and a
few slides. The public hearing was first held on this tract by the
.Planning Commission on August 1, 1973, and the plan approved for
recommendation to City Council was approved on August 15 and it did
require a modification be approved in the width of three lots -
after two sessions of public hearings evaluating two proposals for the
development;there was a great deal of public testimony at the
hearings and I see some of those people here tonight. The.Planning
Commission did recommend Alternative Number 1 for approval by the City
Council with the usual conditions. (Summarized Staff Report dated
August 1, 1973; slides shown and explained.)
THIS IS THE TIME AND PLACE FOR THOSE WHO WISHTO SPEAK.:TO: THE. COUNCIL
EITHER -IN FAVOR OR OPPOSITION TO THE PROPOSED TENTATIVE TRACT MAP
#31849.
Councilman Nichols: Mr. Mayor, a point of order. If the Council
opens this matter to a hearing situation
tonight, there has not been an appropriate
notification to proponents as well as the opponents. I wonder then
if it would not be correct that the proponent would have a legitimate
right to request of the Council an additional hearing situation where
their own comments could be presented.
Mayor Lloyd: I think you have a good point acid another
point is does the Council even want to open
this, I didn't ask that. What is your pleas-
ure, gentlemen?
Councilman Nichols: Mr. Mayor, let me finish my own comment. I
feel it would be aprropriate certainly for
any individual present tonight who had some
comments to make in regard to this matter to be allowed to do so under
an extension of Oral Communications, but to conduct it as a public
hearing under the normal public hearing procedures I believe we might
open ourselves to the concerns of the proponents who undoubtedly have
not been notified that this would be a hearing and would feel they
should have been notified.
Councilman Young: The only comment I would make is that I was
at both hearings and I think that personally
after all the evidence came in from both side:
I was highly persuaded that the Planning Commission took the correct
action. This is an area of very limited discretion either on the part
of the Planning, Commission or the City Council. The man is certainly
entitled to develop his property. There is no zone change required.
The only indulgence which is requested there appears to be ample pre-
cedent for, and these are rather slight variations in three lot sizes.
The variations are rather nominal in that you still have on all of the
lots an excess of the total square footage required by the particular
area zone that covers the property and it seems of the two possible
alternatives the one that would appear to preserve the balance of
least disturbance in the Community as it presently exists would be the
• one adopted by the Planning Commission. Although I recognize there is
some difference of opinion and there was difference of opinion in the
public testimony.
Mayor Lloyd: What I am really asking is should we go
forward - this is not a public hearing but
an oral presentation.
Councilman Young: I thought what I was saying might:.have-some
relevancy on that.
Mayor Lloyd: Indeed it does.
'CITY COUNCIL Page Nine
PLANNING COMMISSION: TT ##31849 8/27/73
Councilman..Young: Then I will finish in just a second. The only
comment I have heard since these hearings I
did get a call and I returned the call but was
not able to reach the person that called regarding some question of
omitting sidewalks in the area to help preserve the rural atmosphere
• that presently exists. I don't know what the answer to that would be
and I wanted to present that.
Mayor Lloyd: I have some very definite ideas on that
because I live in the area, probably a block
and a half away.
Councilman Young: After those hearings before the Planning
Commission it seemed like they did the only
reasonable thing that could be done under the
circumstances.
Councilman Chappell: My only question is with regard to the
remarks regarding sidewalks. Some of that
area.....
Mayor Lloyd: At this time all I really want to do is find
out if we should have the oral presentation
and then have Council comments afterwards?
Councilman Chappell: Fine.
Councilman Shearer:
I am always in favor if the citizens take the
time to come down and it is appropriate and
they want to speak I think we should allow
them the opportunity to
speak. However, I don't think we should make it
a requirement that the proponents
state their case and then the
opponents. For the sake
of time I would prefer to let those who have
something to say negatively
have their say and then let the proponents
rebut.
Mayor Lloyd:
Fine. I will listen to those who have some-
thing to say in opposition first.
Mrs. Richard Rodi
I live directly west of this property. My
3049 East Cortez
question right now - is there a legality as
West Covina
to whether we should be told about this hear-
ing? And I would like a ruling by the City
Attorney.
Mayor Lloyd:
I will answer that question. This is not a
hearing, this is a discussion. We are using
the hearing format somewhat altered. This is
not a hearing such as the one conducted by the Planning Commission.
Mrs. Rodi:
Even at the Planning Commission hearing people
within 300' were not notified.
Mayor Lloyd:
Madam City Clerk, were they notified?
City Clerk:
That is a Planning Commission function
but
they just notify the adjacent property
like
owners on a Tentative Tract Map. It is not
a zoning case where
they notify within 3001. (Mr. Zimmerman
verified this statement.)
Mrs. Rodi: Mr. Justi asked me to speak for him, he
couldn't come. He does face the property and
he is 30' away from it and he was not
notified of the Planning Commission meeting. He did speak of this at
the Planning Commission meeting and was told that no one would be
notifying him. He asked three questions about the Environmental pact
- 9 -
CITY COUNCIL
PLANNING COMMISSION: TT #31849
Page Ten
8/27/73
status such as a 300' no notification; a variance, a 300' no notification
and homeowners, no notification within 3001.
Now at this time I would like to ask for a
continuance of this proposal of this tract because no one was notified
• of it at all. I think we should have a definite right to be here when
it is discussed. Is there a legal.....
Mr. Allen: The State law expressly omits any requirement
City Attorney 'of a public notice for either a hearing
before the Planning Commission or the hearing
before the City Council. It is my understanding with regard to the
City's ordinances and this is based on the statement of the Planning
Director, I have not personally examined them, but the ordinances of the
City of West Covina do require that the Planning Commission notify
adjacent property owners and it is my understanding from the Planning
Director that in this particular case that ordinance was complied with.
I think it is certainly appropriate for the City Council to inquire
of the Planning Director if that is the case and it is appropriate for
the Council to consider any opposition that the persons present have to
the subdivision, but under the State law this is not a zoning variance
it is simply a division of land and under the present State law it does
not require any notice at all to the nearby property owners. Whether it
should or not is really beside the point at the moment.
Mrs. Rodi: Is the fact that some lots did not measure up
to 14,400 square feet, that they are not in
that amount, don't they have to have a
variance for that if someone makes an appeal for it or for the appro-
priate width required in the District - doesn't that have to have a
variance?
Mr. Allen: Maybe the Planning Director can be of greater
City Attorney assistance to you then I can on this, Mr.
Mayor. It is customary in setting standards it
the Subdivision Act you set the standards and if you deviate from those
standards you have legal cause.
Mr. Zimmerman: Mr. Mayor and members of Council, there is an
ordinance on the books for the City which
calls for the City Engineer to make the
recommendation regarding any variance of this particular type. In
other words a variance in the width of lots or a subdivision of this
nature and it does provide for approval of the Planning Commission on
recommendation of the City Engineer . Mr. Lippitt, the City Engineer,
has recommended that the Planning Commission and City Council accept the
variance from the lot widths from 90' to 82.5' and from 90' to 841. On
that basis the Planning Commission did act.
Mrs. Rodi: There are two other lots, Lot 1 and 6, that
don't have the appropriate widths, and Lot
7 and 8 do not have the appropriate square
footage.
Mr. Zimmerman: The minimum square footage is met by all lots.
• Mrs. Rodi: 7 and 8?
Mayor Lloyd: Did you hear what he said?
Mrs. Rodi: Yes, I did.
Mr. Allen: Mr. Mayor, would you like to have Section
City Attorney 9104 read? (Yes) "Where any parcel of land
is of such size or shape or subject to such
title limitations of record or subject to such topographical conditions
or such dominating drainage problems where it is impossible or impracticz
10 -
CITY COUNCIL Page Eleven
PLANNING COMMISSION: TT #31849 8/27/73
in the case to perform fully to the provisins of this chapter or any
other applicable provision of the West Covina Municipal Code, the City
Engineer may recommend such modifications that may be necessary or
expedient for the proper development of such subject property. In each
case such modification by the City. Engineer shall be transmitted to the
Planning Commission and the City Council with the Tentative Map and a
written report setting forth such modifications and the reasons thereforE
I would assume that all of the standards on
widths of lots, depths of lots could be waived pursuant to this and
I guess even the size of lots could be waived, but it is my under-
standing from Mr. Zimmerman that in this particular case the lots all
conform to the size requirements.
Councilman Young: Apparently there is a difference of opinion
between some of the residents in the area and
the Planning Department on some questions
and apparently there is a desire that there be a full scale public
hearing. I don't think it should be precluded even though I have
expressed a predisposition, which certainly is not an arbitrary one.
I have heard all the hearings up to the present time, but I would sugges,
if we have the proper machinery to do this that this matter be called
up by the Council, set the time and appropriate notice be given as
required by our ordinance to the neighboring property owners. I am not
too concerned by Mr. Justi's point as such, this thing was heard.
If that legal technicality is important, I can't imagine why it would
be, because I can't imagine what could be said that wasn't said at
these hearings, but, nonetheless I would like to see full satisfaction
given to anyone interested in this property.
• Mayor Lloyd: Do you have any further comments, Mrs. Rodi?
Mrs. Rodi: No, I don't if you are going to hold a hear-
ing.
Mayor Lloyd: I haven't made a.ruling yet and the Council
hasn't spoken yet, so you are still in the
midst of your presentation. After you con-
clude I will call for Council discussion.
Mrs. Rodi: I am asking for a legal continuance and I did
ask for a legal ruling on this.
Mayor Lloyd: You have gotten the best of the abilities
that were present at this point.
Mrs. Rodi: Right. At this point if we don't get a
continuance would it be in order to file a
proper petition with the City Council for
notification?
Mr. Allen:
City Attorney
little you can do
certainly in order
the Council at any
to see what good a
evening.
Mrs. Rodi:
Mayor Lloyd:
If the Council acts this evening there is
little that the petition can operate on.
Once you approve the Tentative Map there is
to change the manner of the subdivision. It is
for any citizen or group of citizens to petition
time for any kind of relief, it is just difficult
petition would do if the Council should act this
and then at the conclusion
Well I would like to be told - I had some
remarks to make but I was going to wait
until Council ruled.
You have had the floor for over ten minutes
now so if you have a remark to make make it
of that I will ask the Council what they
CITY 'COUNCIL
PLANNING COMMISSION: TT #31849
Page Twelve
8/27/73
want. We are down to that point.
Councilman Young: What would be wrong with deciding right now
whether or not we would like to continue
it forward to a public hearing, say at our
. next regular meeting?
Mayor Lloyd: Is that your pleasure? Please sit down,
Mrs. Rodi.
Councilman Chappell: Mr. Mayor, one of her statements was that
these lots do not meet the minimum require-
ments. I have a footnote on my Tentative Map
that says "all lots meet minimum are of 14,400 square feet", are we
disputing this statement or what?
Mayor Lloyd: What Councilman Young wants is to give
these people an opportunity of .a full public
hearing which they are not getting, they
really are but aren't because it hasn't been announced. Do you want to
have a public hearing or do you want to conclude this this evening?
Councilman Chappell:
May I ask Councilman Young - wasn't this held
over for this reason by the Planning
Commission?
Councilman Young:
That is true but I think we have a
substantial number of citizens in the area
that wish to speak to Council.
Mayor Lloyd:
How many people wish to make a presentation
.
in opposition to this item? (Seven and all
but one lived in West Covina.)
Councilman Nichols:
Mr. Mayor, I am prepared to talk now. I don't
feel it should be carried over for another
hearing. I think if we are going to put this
in a direct perspective
that whether there were legal notices mailed
to individuals or not that
everybody out in that area knows full well
what the proposal is.
I received several. phone calls, I talked to
some of the people and
I know some of them very personally and I know
they talked to many other people and I believe it has been pretty well
passed around.
I think the fundamental issue is that many
people that have lived out there for many years have had a type and
quality of neighborhood of which they are very :"fond and that is
understandable. Many properties are of larger size and fundamentally
these individuals would like very much to see this land broken up into
acre size lots or larger to maintain the basic appearance of that area.
The proposal that has come before the Planning
Commission hearing that was held over and there was another hearing, it
was a proposal to develop that property in terms of the existing laws
of the City of West Covina. Now I think of other subdivision tracts that
. come before this City Council of many sizes, particularly where there
are street configurations or areas that do not lend themselves to
absolutely rectangular lots, require some lot sizes or lot frontages to
be somewhat slightly under or over the minimums, you get the cul-de-
sacs, the pie shaped lots, etc., and a particular development in many
of the areas of the City does not lend itself to the precise quality
footages in terms of the ordinances and in view of this there have been
conditions set for that. The issue that came to the'Planning Commission
and that is before the Council now - is this a legitimate, lawful
request for the development of land zoned for that use? If there is
anything in error it is that the City should not have zoned that pro-
perty in that area for the smaller acreages that are allotted;.a
- 12 -
CITY COUNCIL
PLANNING COMMISSION: TT #31849
Page Thirteen
8/27/73
0
•
•
developer has come in with a proposal for quality residences.in the area
We are not talking about dingbats in any sense of the word, we are not
talking about inferior footages, we are talking about 80, 90 and 1001;
he meets the requirements of law for each lot size and irrespective of
what our philosophies are and what we would like to have as a hopeful
thing, this application is a legitimate one and meets all lawful
requirements. This Council could turn that down, we could sit tight on
it, refuse to allow the development and another Council come up later
and someone comes in with a condominium development of a much less
desirable type and suddenly wham - on the vote of the Council in comes
a development that would be far less advantageous than quality homes in
that area.
So I personally feel that notice has been
given directly or indirectly. I spoke to two people about it a week
or ten days ago and told them if there were those concerns in that area
that they should certainly get around in that week or ten days and let
everyone know in the area so they might come and express their feelings.
Based on that and the two hearings that have been held before, I believe
we should consummate this tonight and take our responsibility and
approve the Map in keeping with the lawful authorization of the
Ordinance.
Mayor Lloyd: Obviously we are split on it and I would say
the majority of the Council appears to want
to hold the hearing tonight. So I am going to
afford you the three minutes to conclude your comments - Mrs. Rodi.
Councilman Young: Mr. Mayor, a point of order. May I offer a
motion?
Mayor Lloyd: I don't want a motion now - we have offered
these people an opportunity to make a pre-
sentation.
Councilman Young: Well I would like to have a vote on whether
or not to hold this over and I haven't heard
a vote. I would move that this matter be
held over to a public hearing calendar on the earliest possible agenda
and appropriate notice be given to the neighboring property owners.
Mayor Lloyd: I would say your motion is dying for the lack
of a second. Mrs. Rodi.
Mrs. Rodi: The planned houses in Lot Tract 31849 which is
bordered on the north by Sunset Hill Drive and
on the south by Cortez Street has been discuss-
ed at length by many citizens of West Covina and the County. During the
Tentative Tract hearing by the Planning Commission this room was nearly
filled by people who objected to tract houses in our neighborhood, and
who also signed a petition against tract housing. We have seen the two
plans presented for this area. The second plan was requested by
Commissioner Mayfield at the first hearing because of public
Opposition and nonconformity of the lots, and also to give the
Planning Commission an opportunity to study a better alternate plan,
which did not come to our attention as we expected.
.Six lots need variances; two in square footage
and the others in width requirements for the District. Plans are said
to conform with existing lots in our area, this is not true. North of
Sunset Hill the lots may be one-third of an acre but south the lots are
all one acre and plus. The houses and square footages quoted by
Mr. Meeker on August 5th are not in conformity with any of the houses
surrounding the area. In direct conflict of the 1990 Plan the houses
on Sunset Hill have garages that face the street. It isn't possible to
foresee a house directly off of Cortez that will not be either on a
Cliff or sitting in a lake during the rainy season. Cortez is usually
- 13 -
t
CITY COUNCIL Page Fourteen
PLANNING COMMISSION: TT $#31849 8/27/73
flooded during the rainy season and therefore we all have large set bac}
areas to our yards. I formerly asked for an indepth study of the
natural drainage that would be interrupted by this Tract. We have a
water problem on Cortez Street. There are no sewers on Cortez in our
area, the street is narrow and it is not what you may call a main
• thoroughfare such as Cameron. Cortez extends from Grand Avenue to Azusi
Avenue. We have two dead end streets a nd the County residents have
expressed their thorough negative feelings of being annexed to West Covi
because of our zoning and building. By giving affirmative feelings
towards this Tract you would be alienating them as done in the past by
permitting small houses and cul-de-sacs to be built.
Horses have been on our lots since twenty
years.or plus and I wanted to know if they will have to be moved. This
afternoon at the Planning Commission it was mentioned that the horses
or horse that was located 8' from the development that Mr. Meeker just
recently completed, would probably have to be moved because of public
health standards. This is on Sunset Hill. Mention was made the
development had been approved by the City and surrounding conditions
would be altered, such as the horse being moved and the tenants having
to plant foliage that buy these homes so'there .won't be erosion.
Thank you.
John Hall Mr. Mayor, Honorable Councilmen, I believe
3131 East Cortez when the City Attorney read the Ordinance
West Covina with regard to the slight modifications he
came up with the statement that the City
Engineer has the prerogative to recommend
this providing he gives reasons. I don't think any reasons were given
for the approval of the Tract Map other than the fact he recommended
• approval. I have not seen the recommendations that went to the
Planning Commission but if they are on file I would like
Mr. Zimmerman to read them.
Further, I don't know and maybe I.am very
confused on this, but the City Planning Commission never saw a map
which deleted the 6' of my property to the east. I n6tice on tonight's
map they have deleted it but you gentlemen are looking at a map which
the City Planning Commission never had and in the resolution at the
hearing it was stated that the 6' would be given back to me but it
never appeared in their motion. Also with regards to the 6' I am very
curious why the City Planning Department could accept and recommend
approval of a Tract Map which required an adjacent property owner to
donate land, approximately 2000 feet, to a city street which..I could
never utilize. This street is on the west side of my property and my
property faces on Cortez and there was no logical reason at all, yet
the City Planning Department recommended approval. At one time we
were known :as the City of Beautiful Homes, when you start taking pro-
perty away from people that are here and donating it to people who are
not here - - I really can't understand, it just doesn't make sense.
Mayor Lloyd: You have two questions now - are you through
with your presentation?
Mr. Hall: Yes. I want to find out if there had to be
reasons presented by the City Engineer -
number 11 in your slight modification
ordinance.
Mr. Allen: The last sentence says "each case of modifi-
City Attorney cation the City Engineer shall transmit to
the Planning Commission and City Council a
Tentative Map with a written report setting forth each modification
recommended and the reasons therefore."
Mayor Lloyd: Mr. Zimmerman, I know you already mentioned
- 14 -
CITY COUNCIL Page Fifteen
PLANNING COMMISSION: TT #31849 8/27/73
some of the reasons for cutting up the property but would you re-
iterate them very briefly?
• Mr. Zimmerman: Yes, Mr. Mayor. I can quote from the
memorandum from the City Engineer dated
July 27, 1973, which is in our file. It
says "the proposed Tract has 3 lots, 5, 6, and 9, which do not meet
the width requirements of 901. The lots however are deeper than
required thus providing a greater than the minimum area required.
The following peculiar conditions exist for this Tract. No. 1 -
The reductions in lot dimension are less than 10%. If this were an
existing lot the Slight Modification Committee could approve building
upon this lot up to a 10%.reduction. No. 2 - The lots in question do
meet or exceed the other two criteria of area size and depth. No. 3 The shape of the Tract is peculiar in that the southeast corner is a
parcel of land 328' x 1641, which is not a part of the Tract. This
requires the construction of a cul-de-sac street approximately 350'
long, which in effect has benifiting frontage only on one side there-
fore requiring as many lots in the Tract as possible in order to make
the Tract economically practical. Recommendation: It is recommended
that the Planning Commission approve 'the reduced widths on 5, 6, and 9
and recommend this modification to the City Council."
Mr. Hall: Fine. Now are we here to give any and all
developers the highest possible density he
can get or are we here to try and work out
some sort of agreement between what is there and what could be there?
Mayor Lloyd: I will answer that, Mr. Hall. Mr. Zimmerman,
what is this zoned for?
Mr. Zimmerman: R-A, Area District III, which requires a
minimum lot area of 148400 square feet.
Mayor Lloyd: So that is the highest and best use, Mr. Hall.
We have no other way to go.
Mr. Hall:. By the same token we are having to create a
slight modification.
Mayor Lloyd: Which is in the City ordinances and what I am
trying to point out.is that they have done
their homework on the thing. I am not ready
to go into discussion on the thing but we have met your questions on it.
Do you have any other question?
Mr. Hall: The only other question is why the Planning
Department recommended approval of a.Tract
Map which causes me to donate 2000 square
feet and also causes me an illegal istuation on my house in that I
would not have a proper setback once I donated the land.
Mayor Lloyd: Have we asked Mr. Hall to donate this land?
Mr. Zimmerman: Mr. Mayor, the Tract can be planned as pro-
posed without dedication of Mr. Hall's pro-
perty.
Mr. Hall: Mr. Zimmerman, I agree with that but why did
the Planning Department originally
recommend......
Mayor Lloyd: That is not germane to the issue, Mr. Hall.
We are only dealing with what is. You have
not dedicated any land at the present moment,
is that true?
- 15 -
CITY COUNCIL Page Sixteen
PLANNING COMMISSION: TT #31849 8/27/73
Mr. Hall: No, I have not.
Mr. Allen: I think, Mr. Mayor, he cannot be required to
City Attorney in this subdivision.
• Mrs. John Hall I would like to state that my lack of confi-
3131 East Cortez dence in the City goes back 161 years. When
West Covina I first bought my property I inquired of the
City Planning Director what it was zoned and
I was informed at that time my property, 1
to 3 acres, all the way from Grand to Cortez was zoned - and at
that time this was not true. --- Industries had filed a big tract
map for the Schwartz ----- Development, so I must state to you that I
have had this long standing lack of confidence. Now in June when
one of your Planning Commissioners called me regarding a subdivider who
was interested in purchasing the back half of my property I must say I
was quite concerned. If this is a customary thing in the City we don't
know this. My husband subsequently called him and discussed this
matter with him, and it seems the aerial maps did indicate buying the
last half of our property would take out the middle of the swimming
pool and make it awful difficult for us and this offer was dropped.
As I understand it the possibility of buying the back half of my pro-
perty would have made the possibility of two cul-de-sacs off of Sunset
Hill and twelve lots.
My.question simply is that it is in my
opinion over a period of years that the City Planning Department
exists primarily for the benefit of subdividers.
U
Mayor Lloyd:
That is a question?
Mrs. Hall: That is a question - I should say that is a
statement. I feel the fact the Planning
Department did not - and I saw the map, it
was brought here and shown on the screen and it had 6' shown off of
our property and the fact this was suddenly brought to the attention
of my husband and we received a phone call not from the City but from
a former Planning Commissioner to inform us all of a sudden that they
didn't need the 6' - this is a rather strange way of operating the
City Planning Department. Thank you.
Peter Max I just want to say that I am kind of dismayec
3230 East Cortez at the fact that we are locked in by a set o:
West Covina laws that the residents in the community
are against and therefore it seems like it
is an inimitable thing that is going to happen to us and therefore we
the people who are supposed to govern have no 'say so. Thank you.
Dick Kriney We back up to this property. We purchased
426 South LaSerena Drive a home in that area due to the fact it is
West Covina rural and extremely elegant area, we feel.
The homes differ. There are no two homes'
alike in this area and I wondered if this
development goes through if the structure of the homes can be
altered so they will not appear so they look like a tract development.
• Each home with a distinct character is what we are after and if
sidewalks could be eliminated this would help Mr. Meeker financially
by not having to put them in and it would also be in conformance with
the rest of the property. Thank you.
Mayor Lloyd: I think that perhaps the developer will
respond to that when they come forward.
Harry J. Kaelin This is just an observation on my part.
611 South St. Malo You gentlemen sent Councilman Young to the
West Covina Planning Commission as a Council representa-
tive and I understand he attended both
- 16 -
CITY COUNCIL Page Seventeen
PLANNING COMMISSION: TT #31849 8/27/73
meetings at which there was a large crowd. He made a recommendation
to the rest of you gentlemen that this meeting be held over and be
made into an open -hearing. Tonight I have heard five people against
it and I don't know how many are for it, now are you going to listen
• to a local mandate or abide by the local law? You have the power to
rescind the Planning Commissions' recommendation. Let's not let this
be another Azusa/Cameron.
Mayor Lloyd: Is there anyone else in opposition? Or
anyone that wishes to speak in favor?
John Adams Mr. Mayor and members of the Council, I am
1600 W. Cameron Ave., representing the Meeker Development Company
West Covina and we are the engineers of record for the
proposed tract. I would be repetitive if I
made the same presentation I did at the previous two hearings. I would
simply point out at this time that we feel the proposed development is
consistent with the City's General Plan and with the majority of
developments in the area. I would point out that in that respect the
first subdivision in that area took place about 20 years ago. The
adjacent lots were divided between 18 to 20 years ago. Of those 13
lots, 9 were substandard as far as the present ordinance goes. All
of the lots in the proposed development meet the requirements of Area
District III so far as setbacks, lot depths, lot area. Again we are
asking and it was recommended that we receive a modification on 3
lot widths, the R-A properties along Cortez were developed under a
metes and bounds over a period of years, in fact since 1913 and were
developed without.the requirement for off -site improvements.
• We feel this development would be an asset,
particularly under the development of Mr. Meeker. I think he has
demonstrated this by his most recent development on Sunset Hill Drive.
Those houses are completed and are on the market and are selling in
the neighborhood of around $53,000 and undoubtedly these houses would
sell for more than this due to the escalation we are now experiencing
in building and developing. We feel again that the quality of the
homes are consistent with the homes in the area and in just doing a
brief research I understand this is anywhere from a $50,000 to
$69,000 neighborhood and those houses have pools and are landscaped
and I think when these homes are completed they will certainly be
of equal quality. We would request that you concur with the Planning
Commissions' recommendation and approve the first alternative.' We
feel this is most advantageous from the standpoint of those that live
in the community as well as for Mr. Meeker. Thank you.
Mayor Lloyd: Thank you, Mr. Adams. If there anyone else
in favor?
Mrs. Bert Bergman. Not in favor, gentlemen, but may I ask for
426 South Leaf Avenue Council to qualify some implications that
West Covina were given by the proponents, that the
conduct of the Planning Department or
Planning Commission was in effect bordering on collusion. Someone
said how certain people called them and someone else mentioned
"former". I personally believe that a person who no longer holds
an office is entitled to do what he wishes but I am not very clear
myself and perhaps others aren't either,whether it was in conjunction
with Planning Department action or whether everything was
appropriately handled.
Mayor Lloyd: Thank you, Mrs. Bergman. I will make that
inquiry. Is there anyone else that wishes
to speak in favor? Very well, then I will
start out by asking Mr. Aiassa what was the conduct by the Planning
Commission and the former Commissioner?
Mr. Aiassa: I wasn't present at the meeting or present
- 17 -
CITY COUNCIL Page Eighteen
PLANNING COMMISSION: TT #31849 8/27/73
when the conversation took place so I can't answer that.
Mayor Lloyd: Mr. Young you were at the meeting, can you
enlighten us?
• Councilman Young: Nothing came up at the public hearing along
that line. Mrs. Hall brought the issue
Department.... up a few minutes ago about the Planning
Mrs. Hall: No, a Planning Commissioner.
Councilman Young: A present Planning Commissioner?
Mrs. Hall: No, a Planning Commissioner in June.
Councilman Young: With regard to buying the lot and I think
that is the context of what she was talking
about and I don't know anything about that.
Councilman Nichols: Of course, I have no knowledge of this but I
would certainly say without any equivocation
at all, if in fact an existing Planning
Commissioner were contacting residents on behalf of a developer or as
an agent to determine the availability of land to create a package of
any sort I would certainly be most desirous of becoming aware of that
because I would consider it, on the face of what has been said here
this evening, as being a highly improper act. In that the
recommendations that.were ultimately acted upon by the Planning Com-
mission didn't include the elements involved in this allegation it does
• not bear substantially on the decision that the Council has before it
tonight, at least as I.understand it.
I would like to explore one area, Mr. Mayor,
some questions of staff and perhaps of the City Attorney. We are a
little bit at a handicap tonight, there is no question about it, we
have a very competent but nonetheless somewhat unversed substitute
Attorney tonight and our Planning Director per se is not with us
tonight and so some of these questions become a little bit tenuous
for us to pursue. The first question I have to ask is does the
Council have it within its authority to delete requirements imposed
by the Planning Commission which would include the requirement for
sidewalks within a subdivision?
Mr. Zimmerman: Mr. Mayor, may I speak to that issue?
At least to some of the physical characteris-
tics as opposed to the legal characteristics.
The street in question is not within the City limits, Cortez Street
in this area is in the County and I think that is a factor. The
requirement on the part of the Planning Commission was that the County
standards be met, whatever they may be.
Mayor Lloyd:
That doesn't include sidewalks, does it?
Mr. Zimmerman:
Mr. Lippitt, has that been checked out?
• John Lippitt
City Engineer
I inquired of the County what their
requirements would be and they were
reluctant to give them to me without a map
required the developer to
being submitted to them, which we have
do. I also
read yesterday in the paper
that the County is putting in sidewalks in the Cortez area......
Mayor Lloyd:
Putting in "a sidewalk" for the purpose of
getting children to school. This would be
west side of Barranca and
similar to the sidewalk situation on the
the north side of Cortez.
CITY COUNCIL Page Nineteen
PLANNING COMMISSION: TT ##31849 8/27/73
Mr. Lippitt: That is true.
Mayor Lloyd: And that is not comparable to the sidewalks
we have within the City.
• Councilman Nichols: For the record, are there other portions of
this subdivision where sidewalks are being
required that would lie within the City
limits of West Covina?
Mr. Zimmerman: Yes, the subdivision has cul-de-sac streets
within the area, the sidewalk would be
required on the side of the Meeker Develop-
ment; also Sunset Hill Drive would require sidewalks.
Councilman Nichols: Are there sidewalks at other locations on
Sunset Hill Drive?
Mr. Zimmerman: I don't believe there are.
Councilman Nichols: The thought I have, gentlemen, is this. I
think the one area of absolute legitimacy
would be the wishes of the people in the area
to maintain the basic environment of the area. There are some areas
in the City where there are no sidewalks and the people do not want
them and have been perfectly willing to arrange for their young people
to move to other locations without the benefit of sidewalks. The
Council's policy over the years has been to provide sidewalks where the
public demand sidewalks. Now if the Council in approving this map
• would delete the requirement of sidewalks the Council in effect might
well be mortgaging the General Fund of the City at some future time
where people moving into the tract one, two or, three years hence come
back to Council and say - we own these houses now and we have children
and we want to get them to school and here and there and we demand
that you put sidewalks in. And then we would be taxing you Mr. Hall
and all the citizens of the City to put in those sidewalks by taking
the money out of the General Fund.
I was trying to think in my mind if there would
be some methodology whereby both the current wishes of the people in the
area might be observed and some hedging for the future and the thought
I have is that in lieu of the installation of sidewalks within the
tract within the City of West Covina that the City Council might
require the builder to post a bond to cover the cost of the sidewalks
and stipulate the bond would exist for a two or three year period of
time, and then have the City as soon as the tract is totally occuppied
notify the owners of those houses that this bond has been posted and
if the majority of the citizens in the area wish to have sidewalks then
the City would call for that project and utilize the bond posted and
if the, ultimate residents didn't want it then the bond posted would
be returned to the developer. That is the only alternative I can
think of where the ultimate occupants of that tract would have their
say which they are certainly going to be entitled to and where we
would be concurring somewhat with the wishes of the people. So if
that would be legally possible that would be my suggestion that we
• call for a bond and see how the future residents of the tract feel
with regard to sidewalks. Otherwise I would be prepared to approve
the plan as submitted.
Mayor Lloyd: For your information, Councilman Nichols,
we approved a tract over on the east side
of Grand, three or four years ago, which
did not have sidewalks and that was the area that belonged to
Dr. Clappett - is that correct, Mr. Zimmerman?
Mr. Zimmerman:
Yes sir.
- 19 -
`CITY COUNCIL
PLANNING COMMISSION: TT 031849 Page Twenty
8/27/73
Councilman Nichols: But there would be nothing wrong in calling
for a bond.
Mayor Lloyd: I am not in favor of it, but there is
nothing wrong with it.
• Councilman Nichols: "
We have gotten into situations where we
have not put sidewalks in and then two or
three years later the people come in and want
sidewalks - so where are we then?
Mayor Lloyd: Then you are without a sidewalk like the
rest of us are in the area.
Councilman Shearer: I have a number of comments to make and
maybe some question to ask. What looked like
item
certainly taking a number ofrattacks land equestions on the agenda is
ich I
can't answer. I do think some comment should bemade owith hregard to the
allegation regarding the impropriety of a member of staff or a
Planning Commissioner. Mr. Adams,:whom I think we all know is a former
member of the Planning Commission and is now employed by an engineering
firm here in West Covina, and I am not Mr. Adams attorney but I feel in
view of the fact that certain statements were made I think some comment
should be made, and if I am out of order Mr.
Adams,
Mr. Adams voluntarily requested that he not be reappointed to theise me.
Planning Commission due to the fact of his involvement with the local
engineering firm and this took place sometime in early June. I don't
know if he was the one that contacted the resident but I personally
see nothing improper in a member of the Planning Commission or the
• City Council calling with regard to the possible purchase of property.
Now if there was an offer or a deal that would be a different thing
but Mr. Adams at that time as a representative of Mr. Meeker, er, and he
inquired
if the property were for sale, which I don't consider improp
was no longer a member of the Planning Commission ad h approximately two months. nas not been for
I do have another question. We seem to be
nitpicking to a certain extent this evening. The first lady mentioned
two lots were substandard area size and I multiplied out by the
dimensions and I would have to agree unless there is an error on the
map, Mr. Adams, that lots 7 and 8 are indicated to be 152 x 94.7 which
comes out 14,384.41. Now there may be some hundreds of a foot left
off that would make it come up and if that is the case perhaps there
is another shortage of 5.6 square feet, which to me is insignificant
but might be a legal technicality that might sometime challenge this
and probably should be clarified before we take our action.
I don't consider the question before the
Council tonight to be one of whether we allow this piece of property
to be subdivided or not. The question is not "yes" or "no" but "how".
We have been shown Alternate 2 which meets all of the requirements of
the City in regard to size, width and depth of lot and it would be
Possible as I understand it in that case for this to be developed
without a variance and we wouldn't be in this type of a situation.
However, when we compare the two alternates, alternate 1 is more
• acceptable for several reasons. Number 1 it makes more sense with
regard to the shape of the - lot. I think it allows the property to
the west, which presently has horses, to have less of a chance of a
problem with regard to retaining horses with regard to the situation
of the lots side frontage versus rear frontage, etc. So on that
basis assuming we can resolve the question of 5.6 square feetwhether
this is a variance problem or not ,
, I think Alternate 1 is preferable
to Alternate 2. And since our choice isn't "yes" or "no" but "how",
my support goes. to Alternate 1.
Mayor Lloyd: Mr. Adams - were you the man that contacted
Mr. Hall?
- 20 -
`CITY COUNCIL Page Twenty -on(
PLANNING COMMISSION: TT #31849 8/27/73
Mr. Adams: Yes. And as far as the lot size the
Tentative Map was made prior to the time
we did a Boundary Survey which is one of the
technical procedures you go through after you do obtain a map. The
map has now been calculated and the minimum lot will have 14,409 square
• feet, the average lots.size will be 14,850 square feet, which is 450
square feet more than the minimum, and the largest lot would be
around 16,000 square feet.
Councilman Shearer: So the dimensions given here are not the
same?
c
Mr. Adams: They are all tentative and are always tenta-
tive until such time as we do a precise
boundary survey.
Councilman Shearer: I think that is where the confusion arose.
Somebody did the same thing I did and came
up with 5.6 square feet short.
Mr. Adams: In regard to the other reference made, and I
thought I explained this at the Planning
Commission meeting, we were doing the
Tentative Map studies again without the benefit of a boundary survey
and we didn't know precisely where the boundary was and you can only
do this after you do a survey. As you can see on the Tentative Map
we had on the layout this lot 9 contiguous to Mr. Hall's boundary as
one of the lots with 841. I have known Mr. Hall for many years and I
joined the firm shortly after they started the study and I called
John and he wasn't there and I talked to Barbara and asked if they
• would be interested in selling any piece of their property, the purpose
was we felt we would be short insofar as getting all lots to 901.
As it turned out we did a boundary survey and we were able to get this
lot layout where we did have three lots in a configuration where we
could not meet the 90' widths. So that was the only purpose of my
contacting the Hall's to see whether they would be interested in
selling a piece of their property_in case it was necessary in order to
get the lot layout.
Mayor Lloyd: I believe also, Mr. Adams, that it would be
fair in your position to indicate that you
and I had spoken prior to your termination
on the Planning Commission and you had indicated you felt there might
be come conflict.
Mr. Adams: Well I don't keep a dairy but I believe it
was sometime in early June when I talked
to you about my desire not to remain on the Planning Commission and
I so expressed it in a letter to the City Council.
Mayor Lloyd: I think that clarifies your position. A
man pursues these things in his normal
business and I don't believe there is any
impropriety in that. Are there any further comments by Council?
Councilman Young: I believe I said everything I had to say
• earlier. The real significant opposition
goes to the fact that this long vacant
property appears about to be developed and there is very little we can
do about it. If we deny the Tract Map the developer can go right into
court and get one and cram it down our throat legally. We have very
limited discretion there. I think what little discretion we do have.
is being properly applied in upholding the Planning Commissions'
action, so I intend to vote that way. I am*sorry we couldn't have the
full hearing, but so be it.
- 21 -
•
•
CITY COUNCIL Page Twenty-two
PLANNING COMMISSION: TT #31849 8/27/73
Councilman Nichols: I am still hung up a bit on the sidewalk
concept and I think that might be an area
where we have some jurisdiction and if
there are precedents then .I will back away from the bond because
you are quite familiar with that general neighborhood, Mr. Mayor,
and.I would like to see the thing fly.
I would move that the Meeker Development
Company Tentative Tract Map No. 31849 be approved as recommended by
the Planning Commission with the exception that sidewalks within
and under control of the City of West Covina be deleted from the
requirements.
Seconded by Councilman Young.
Councilman Shearer: Would that mean sidewalks throughout or
only those on Sunset Hill and possibly
those on Cortez?
Mr. Zimmerman: The sidewalks on Cortez would be under the
jurisdiction of the County because it is
outside of the City limits. On the cul-de-
sac it would be the intention to install sidewalks according to the
Planning Commission requirements.
Councilman Shearer: In answer to my question - the maker of the
motion - would that include the deletion
of all sidewalks including those within the
tract on the cul-de-sac?
Councilman Nichols: Yes, it would include the deletion of
sidewalks under the jurisdiction of this
Council.
Councilman Young: Mr. Mayor. On that sidewalk issue as I
view it, just to be clear to the residents,
I view this if Council passes this motion
that the sidewalks then are to be within the discretion of the
developer. In other words I don't think we are prohiting the
installation of sidewalks by this motion - is that correct?
Councilman Nichols: The motion removes the requirement for'side-
walks and it is in response to all input that
the Council has received and the Planning
Commission has received from those citizens of the area who have
spoken up and have stated they are primarily concerned with keeping a
rural atmosphere in the area. Based upon their wishes the motion
follows. We may live to regret it in terms of later demands by
other citizens for sidewalks but that may never come. But at the
present time we are attempting to respond both to an obligation to
approve a map that meets all requirements of the law and respond to
the wishes of the residents in the area to the extent that we can
legally respond.
Councilman Young: I don't think the motion prohibits the
installation of sidewalks.
Councilman Nichols: The motion doesn't intend to prohibit, it
intends to not make it a requirement.
Mayor Lloyd: First of all I recognize that all of you
here this evening are not wildly excited
about twelve houses being installed in this
area of the City. This is a very democratic process and I appreciate
very much your participating and listening in this legislative action,
- 22 -
CITY COUNCIL Page Twenty-three
PLANNING COMMISSION: TT #31849 8/27/73
which is really a very integral part of this function and probably the
prime function of this Council. I believe everyone has been given an
opportunity to speak on this subject which is very important to those
who live in the immediate area. Whether you agree or disagree with.
. what has gone forward at least they have been afforded that opportunity
to speak in an open forum, which is very important.
I happen to live in the area. I know
Mr. Meeker and I know he is a good builder and I am favorably disposed
to what he is trying to do. I can review the options very quickly.
One could be condominiums, multiple housing, cluster housing - it could
be many things which are not necessarily bad but I don't think they
would be in the spirit and intent of the area. The only thing we
could put.in that area is a single family dwelling and that is what he
is proposing to do and he is doing it in acceptance of what the area
already has and I find no fault with it and will support the motion.
Therefore I will call for a roll call vote - Mrs. Preston?
Councilman Chappell: Mr. Mayor, I will not cast a ballot on this
due to the fact a member of the Walsh-Forkett
Engineering firm has spoken, although he is
not the developer and I do not insure the developer and don't even
know the gentleman, but I do insure Walsh-Forkett and therefore as in
the past when Walsh-Forkett items come up I have declined to vote and
do so at this time.
Motion carried on roll call vote as follows:
AYES: Young, Nichols, Shearer, Lloyd
NOES: None
• ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: Chappell
Mr. Allen: Mr. Mayor, was that a motion to simply delete
City Attorney the requirements of the sidewalks?
Councilman Nichols: It was a motion to approve with the deletion
of the requirement of the sidewalks within
the City of West Covina.
THE CHAIR CALLED A RECESS AT 9:16 P.M. COUNCIL RECONVENED AT 9:30 P.M.
CITY ATTORNEY - Cont'd.
MEMORANDUMS OF UNDERSTANDING a).West Covina City Employees Assoc.
b) West Covina Police Officers Relief
Assoc.
c) West Covina Firemen's Assoc., a unit
of the Public Employees Union, Div.
of Teamsters Local 986, Internationa
Brotherhood of Teamsters.
Mr. Aiassa: You have received in your packets a signed
Memorandum of Understanding with the West
Covina City Employees Association which was agreed to at the last
• Council meeting and tonight we have signed agreements with the
West Covina Police Officers Association and the Firemen's Association.
These agreements are officially signed on behalf of the City Management
and the proper officials of the three Associations and are submitted
for Council consideration.
Councilman Young: I think perhaps it should be stated at the
outset that these agreements have been re-
viewed by the Council and that we have had
executive sessions for that purpose and have gone over it rather
thoroughly and as far as I am concerned I feel the negotiations have
- 23 -
CITY COUNCIL Page Twenty-four
CITY ATTORNEY. Memorandums of Understanding 8/27/73
been conducted in a very responsible and productive fashion, productive
in the sense of making some appropriate realignment of salaries and
productive in the sense that I think we have demonstrated this year a
far greater understanding of the meet and confer process and I would
• hope that we can improve on this in the future and I think we will.
There is one paragraph in one of these
memorandums which I think is worthy of some mention. It is unfortu-
nate that it is necessary to have a paragraph like this and this
relates to an agreement that no punitive action written or otherwise
shall be taken against any member of any particular Association for
any alleged activities relating to salary negotiations for the fiscal
year 1973-74. This is the Police Association Agreement and I am sure
this paragraph relates to an alleged slowdown in police activities.
I am somewhat reluctant to accept this as a member of the City Council,
as a member of the policy making body of this City, without getting
into whether or not there was in fact a slowdown. There was certain
strong indications of some substantial modifications in police
services for a period of time. I would say if we just really want to
go on record and say ,if anything of this nature should occur in the
future during the course of negotiations that I certainly would not
consider it in any future time' anything less than the strongest possible
measures being taken. If.this requires punitive measures than so be it.
I would not want my own vote in favor of this agreement to be
considered as a precedent, that I was endorsing now or in the future
any kind of tactics of a slowdown nature or otherwise, as a part of
the negotiating process. I feel that in public employment at any
point that the public employee, including the City Councilmen,
including the City Manager, including the Board of Supervisors,
• including the Governor, the State Legislature, Congress, the
President, and anyone else in public service, anytime that we con-
ceive of our jobs as anything other than of service and approach it
any other way then we are approaching government by oppression and
where we do at any time less than our very best efforts, particularly
as a part of the negotiating process, then we are falling short.
So I am glad we got through that crisis, if indeed there was a crisis,
and I hope that it won't occur and I don't believe it will because I
think we are all arriving at a far better understanding of the new
process that has developed in the last three or four years. We are
seeing it work rather smoothly this year and in the future it will
work more smoothly and therefore I can accept these agreements and
would offer whatever motion is appropriate.
Would that motion be to receive and file
and instruct the City Attorney to prepare the appropriate
implementing measures. (City Attorney said "yes".) I so move.
Seconded by Councilman Shearer.
Councilman Shearer: I intend to vote in favor of all three of
these memorandums on the basis of a
total package rather than on a point by
point basis; as Councilman Young has stated very well in regard ,to
one item there are a number of other things if you disect the
agreements that I personally would not agree with at this point.
• So my vote is for the package and again not necessarily meaning
that I endorse every one of the points 100%. I recognize in
a negotiating process there is some give and take. In some cases
you have to give a little bit in order to reach a mutual under-
standing; so my vote is for the package rather than for every
specific point.
Councilman Chappell: I can only agree with Councilman Young in
his statement. I think that this Council
has acted in good faith throughout the
years in relationship with the employees. I think we did allow
24 -
CITY COUNCIL Page Twenty-five
CITY ATTORNE.Y:. Memorandums of Understanding 8/27/73
0
U
ourselves to get a little behind the norm 'on the average and because
of things like revenue sharing we can look much closer this year at
coming back and placing ourselves in the area that we would like our
employees to be in relationship to their pay and in relationship to
other communities. So taking what Councilman Young has said to heart
I know we will be doing our share of maintaining a good position with
our employees and naturally expect no less than a job well done at
the end of this year.
Mayor Lloyd: I concur with the remarks made. I was very
much conerned with.the activities engaged
in by some of the employees of the City.
At least alleged, and that they even felt it necessary to consider
such activity was rather astonishing to me. On the other hand I
hope we have gone by that type of activity and that we are able
indeed to meet the spirit of the law, which is to meet and confer,
which means we will try and work out and compromise.our problems
so we can do what we all came here to do in the first place, which
was not to further our own ends but to give service to the people of
West Covina and that is precisely why we are here and why,I am pleased
to be part of the program which means that this Council has done its
utmost, at least in the years I have been here and I am sure
Councilman Nichols would say the same in the years he has been here,
to see to it that the employees of this City are given every
opportunity. I think some of the things that don't show has been
the attitude of the Council, another thing that has not shown is the
very building in which the people that work in this City have to work
in. It is superior.to any other situation of any cities surrounding
us, up to and including Pomona, and I have been in all of them.
I think we have a whale of a fine situation here and I am pleased
to have this opportunity.
I am going to vote favorably with regards
to the letters of agreement as submitted, so unless there is any
other comment I will call for a roll call vote.
Motion carried on roll call vote as follows:
AYES: Young, Nichols, Shearer, Chappell, Lloyd
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
RESOLUTION NO. 4776 The City Attorney presented:
ADOPTED "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF WEST COVINA AMENDING RESOLUTION
NO. 1277 RELATING TO CLASSES AND COMPENSA-
TION OF POSITIONS WITHIN THE WEST COVINA
CITY SERVICE, ESTABLISHING HOURS OF WORK,
ATTENDANCE, LEAVES OF ABSENCE, AND OTHER
RELATED MATTERS, EFFECTIVE AS OF JULY 1
OF THIS YEAR."
Motion by Councilman Chappell, seconded by Councilman Shearer and
carried, to waive further reading of said Resolution.
Motion by Councilman Shearer, seconded by Councilman Chappell, to
adopt said Resolution and carried on roll call vote as follows:
AYES: Young, Nichols, Shearer, Chappell, Lloyd
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
Mr. Allen: Mr. Mayor, I have another Resolution, which
will become operative on January 1, 1974.
RESOLUTION NO. 4777 "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
ADOPTED CITY OF WEST COVINA AMENDING RESOLUTION
NO. 1277 RELATING TO 'CLASSIFICATIONS. AND. --COM-
PENSATION. O.F..POSIT.IONS WI.THIN.THE WEST..COVINA
- 25 -
CITY COUNCIL
CITY ATTORNEY: RESOLUTION NO. 4777
Page Twenty-six
8/27/73
CITY SERVICE, ESTABLISHING HOURS OF WORK, ATTENDANCE, LEAVE OF ABSENCE
AND OTHER RELATED MATTERS."
Motion by Councilman Chappell, seconded by Councilman Shearer and
carried, to waive further reading of said Resolution.
• Motion by Councilman Chappell, seconded by Councilman Shearer, to
adopt said Resolution and carried on roll call vote as follows:
AYES: Young, Nichols, Shearer, Chappell, Lloy
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
Councilman Nichols: Mr. Mayor, there is one item on the City
Manager's agenda which is closely correlated
to the items just covered, on salary matters.
Perhaps Council would like to discuss it at this time.
Mayor Lloyd: Very well - J3 of the City Manager's agenda
will be considered.
Councilman .Young: Mr. Mayor, I concur in what has just been
said but I was wondering about this one
other Resolution regarding Department Head
and flat rate positions and salaries.
Mayor Lloyd: Yes, we will consider that item right now
and then consider Item J3.
RESOLUTION NO. 4.778 The City Manager presented:
ADOPTED "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
• CITY OF WEST COVINA AMENDING RESOLUTION
NO. 1277RELATING TO DEPARTMENT HEADS AND
FLAT RATE POSITION SALARIES."
Motion by Councilman Chappell, seconded by Councilman Shearer and
carried, to waive further reading of said Resolution.
Motion by Councilman Chappell, seconded by Councilman Shearer to
adopt said Resolution and carried on roll call vote as follows:
AYES: Young, Nichols, Shearer, Chappell, Lloy
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
CITY MANAGER
1973-74 TAX RATE Councilman Nichols: Mr. Mayor, we have a
RESOLUTIONS total.of five
Resolutions for
adoption. I would like to speak to the
setting of the tax rate for the City for the coming year. The.
Council has agonized long and hard, beginning back in the early
days of our budget hearings, relative to the best way to use the
monies we have available to us and some of the funds that have come
to the City in recent months have come through the so-called
Federal Revenue Sharing sources and all of us have a very great con-
cern if we come to depend on.those funds exclusively for ongoing
operations that at some near future point the name of the ball game
might be changed and those funds be withdrawn and the City would
find itself in a tremendously difficult situation in attempting to
maintain its operations. Particularly this is true because of
certain new limitations imposed on the City, namely those through
the SB 90 Act, that places functional tax ceilings on local tax..
levies. Council has analyzed the funds we have and I think
personally we have been very prudent in our expenditures. I believe
we have somewhere in the neighborhood of $7501000 that are available
to us through the various grant areas. I feel we not only owe our
employees in the City of West Covina the opportunity to share when
we can in.our ability to pay fair salaries but we also owe a totally
- 26 -
CITY COUNCIL
CITY MANAGER: Tax Rate Resolutions
Page Twenty-seven
8/27/73
•
n
U
balanced program in the use of these monies. I think all of you
probably share that feeling with me, therefore I would like to
offer a motion to the Council tonight that would involve what I
feel would be an appropriate use and judicious use of some portion
of those extra funds, one being the use of funds that would be
necessary to supplement budgeted reserves in order to pay the
salary raises and benefit raises agreed upon here tonight and the
other aspect of that is I think we need to continue our leadership
here in the East San Gabriel Valley in terms of holding the Municipal
tax rates to the lowest possible level rather than increase them.
And, as we have maintained the lowest functional tax rate in the
East San Gabriel Valley of any City even approaching this size, I think
we should try and continue that now into the coming year, so I would
offer the following motion for Council consideration:
That the Council direct staff to request a
tax rate for general purposes under Number 3b of the Resolutions of
$1.30 for the fiscal year 1973-74, which would represent a reduction
of 3� in the existing property tax rate. This motion is made with
the understanding, if there is concurrence, that it would involve
a later transfer of funds in the neighborhood of $1501000 in order
that the tax reduction as well as the additional employee costs
could be absorbed from reserve funds.
So the motion is for a General Fund tax
rate of $1.30 for the 1973-74 year.
Seconded by Councilman Chappell, and carried
on roll call vote as follows:
AYES: Young, Nichols, Shearer, Chappell, Lloyd
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
Mr. Allen:
City Attorney
total rate of $1.30. This
resolutions of your packet
to decide where to reduce
intention is what?
Mayor Lloyd:
Mr. Aiassa:
Mr. Mayor,) I think
but I don't think
General Fund rate
will require that
be amended. And
the money from and
Revenue sharing.
I understood the motion
you really mean a
of $1.30, you meant a
the first two
the problem is we have
I would assume your
Mr. Mayor, I would like the City Controller
to comment as to where we will take the 3�
off.
Mr. Eliot: The suggestion is that it come from the
General Fund because that is where the
transfers ultimately go back to you.in
end. The other funds are pretty well based on budgetary considerations
so therefore I suggest the General Fund should be cut 3(,.
Mr. Allen:. That would make the General Fund 64.83?
Mr. Eliot: That is correct.
Councilman Nichols: Of course there was the understanding that
you would be returning to us with a
transfer recommendation to cover the expenses
indicated.
Mayor Lloyd: Mr. Eliot, you do understand that that
encompasses the thought that out of revenue
sharing funds will come those funds
necessary to meet the obligations permitted this evening with regard
to salaries, etc.?
27 -
• CITY COUNCIL
Page Twenty-eight
CITY MANAGER: Tax Rate Resolutions 8/27/73
Mr. Eliot:
That is understood.
Mayor Lloyd:
And that there will be a 3e, reduction in the
tax rate?
• Mr. Eliot:
That is understood.
Mr. Allen:
Mr. Mayor, may I inquire what number will go
in instead of $11022,726? Perhaps Council
can go forward while Mr. Eliot is recalculat-
ing.
Councilman Nichols:
Mr. Mayor, we have additional resolutions -
is it necessary that all these other resolu-
tions be read separately?
Councilman Shearer:
I would request that Items C, D and E be
considered separately.
RESOLUTION NO..4779
Mayor Lloyd presented Item J(c):
ADOPTED
"A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF WEST COVINA FIXING THE AMOUNT OF MONEY
NECESSARY TO BE RAISED BY TAXATION FOR THE
FISCAL YEAR BEGINNING JULY 1, 1973 FOR THE
WEST COVINA SEWER MAINTENANCE DISTRICT, AND
FIXING RATES OF TAXES AND LEVYING TAXES FOR
THE FISCAL YEAR BEGINNING JULY 1, 1973 FOR
SAID SEWER MAINTENANCE DISTRICT."
Motion by Councilman
Chappell, seconded by Councilman Shearer and
carried to waive further
reading of said Resolution.
Motion by Councilman
Shearer, seconded by Councilman Chappell, to adopt
said Resolution and
carried on roll call vote as follows:
AYES: Young, Nichols, Shearer, Chappell, Lloyd
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
RESOLUTION NO. 4780
Mayor Lloyd presented Item J(d):
ADOPTED
"A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF WEST COVINA FIXING THE AMOUNT OF MONEY
NECESSARY TO BE RAISED BY TAXATION FOR THE
FISCAL YEAR BEGINNING JULY 1, 1973 FOR THE
WOODSIDE VILLAGE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 1,
CITY OF WEST COVINA, AND FIXING RATES OF TAX-
ES FOR SAID MAINTENANCE DISTRICT AND LEVYING
TAXES FOR THE FISCAL YEAR BEGINNING JULY 1,
1973 FOR SAID MAINTENANCE DISTRICT."
Motion by Councilman Chappell, seconded by Councilman Nichols and
carried to waive further reading of said Resolution.
Motion by Councilman Chappell, seconded by Councilman Nichols to adopt
said Resolution.
0 Mr. Aiassa:
Mr. Mayor, a question of Mr. Eliot. Which
one of these two will be rate be the same?
Mr. Eliot: I believe the Woodside Maintenance -District
tax rate as shown on the proposed resolution
is predicated on your taking some action on
the prior recommendation to vote the increased maintenance cost from
some source other than the property tax rate. The rate here is identi-
cal to that of last year, 75(,' per hundred.
Councilman Young: Mr. Mayor, as far as I am concerned I felt the
City staff made a very good analysis of the pro-
CITY COUNCIL Page Twenty-nine
CITY MANAGER: Tax Rate Resolutions 8/27/73
blem and..I, am prepared to accept their recommendation.
Mayor Lloyd: Well we now have Item J(d) on the floor and are
ready for adoption of the motion and the point
• brought out previously was that Item J(2) was
applicable to this. We either have to vote on the motion, amend it or
do something to it.
Councilman Shearer: That is the reason, Mr. Mayor, that I asked that
Items D and E be handled separately. Staff has
presented basically three alternates with regard
to the financing of the problem that we have developed in Woodside
Village. One is to increase the tax rate, which was the original
intent of the City I believe, at least it was my original intent when I
voted on this Assessment District, that the total cost would be borne
by those people who benefit. The second alternate was to borrow money
from the City to finance those people over what you might call lean
years, and the third was to use revenue sharing money. The staff
recommendation is that money be loaned from the General Fund to the
Maintenance District until such time, I believe the.wording is "that
such funds.be repaid to the General Fund account with surplus revenues
from increased valuation of Maintenance Districts I and II." Can
someone on staff give me some idea as to when we might see this repay-
ment?
Mr. Eliot: Mr. Mayor and members of Council, I must admit
that we cannot forecast with any degree of
accuracy the time of repayment because repayment
is predicated on further development within that tract of land. We
• know we had certain anticipations originally in terms of development
but those did not come forth as expected, therefore I don't think our
tract record has been very good. At the present time all we can say is
the ultimate development of that parcel as originally planned would
enable it to carry itself as far as Maintenance District costs are
concerned and to repay it, but as far as timing is concerned we are at
a loss to state that.
Councilman Shearer:. Isn't it likely then if development takes place
at the slow rate that it has been you will be
faced next year with the same problem of having
to loan more money and eventually we would come face to face with the
fact that perhaps in order to repay it we are going to be in the same
situation we are in tonight, having to raise considerably the tax rate
in order to repay and then the alternate is we don't do it and we end
up paying out of the Geneeral Fund of all the taxpayers of the City for
a situation that only benefits a smaller group.
Mr. Eliot: That is a definite possibility. If the rate of
development does not proceed rapidly that you
will be faked with the question again next year
and the Council at that time would have an opportunity to review the
problem and make a decision in light of the facts at that time.
Councilman Shearer: One further question. When the Maintenance
• Districts were set up is there anything in the
wording other than the fact the Maintenance
District itself would be self-supporting? Was there any implication
when these Districts were setup that the general taxpayers of West
Covina at anytime would be called on to subsidize maybe even
temporarily this situation?
Mr. Eliot: Again I would have to say "no" there was no
commitment at all on behalf of the Planning
Commission or the City Council to carry this
District through General Fund revenues, that it was the full intent of
all parties at all times that it should be self-sustaining; however
it didn't turn out that way.
- 29 -
'CITY' COUNCIL Page Thirty
CITY MANAGER: Tax Rate Resolutions 8/27/73
Councilman Shearer: Where would we get $15,000 to loan to the Main-
tenance District? We have already been told:
numerous times that our reserve is almost dry,
there has been a recommendation from staff that some of the Revenue
Sharing Funds be set aside as a reserve fund. Do we have $151000 other
• than revenue sharing money to make this loan to the Maintenance District?
Mr. Eliot: It is a matter of bookkeeping - yes, there is
sufficient funds at this time to advance $15,000
from the General FunrJ' however the General Fund
in itself is rather anemic and we would want it to be increased to a
larger amount. So anytime the Council would deem it proper to increase
the General Fund it would be increased at a sum large enough to cover
the $15,000 eventually - I would hope so anyway.
Councilman Shearer: I am not in favor of this recommendation. I know
I won't make any friends in Woodside Village but
I think the original intent of Council was that
this District be self-supporting; I think the fact that it hasn't turned
out to be that way as I indicated in the budget session I would hope
that the developer would see fit to provide.some relief down there and
up to this time he has not, but he does have to come in for some more
approvals and we will see what happens then. But I don't see all of
West Covina being:called on even for one year to subsidize this so I
will vote in opposition to the loaning of money and I would support
the increased tax rate which is calling it as it is and that was the
original intent.
Councilman Nichols: - I appreciate very much what Councilman Shearer
is saying and I am not antagonistic to his view.
• I have given a lot of thought to this particular
problem and I think if we consider ourselves to be representatives of
all of the City of West Covina and I am sure we are, that we then have
to say in fact that we have sort of committed the citizens of West Covina
to some degree of responsibility for those areas that we have taken into
our City and allowed to develop. The -fact that some citizens pay taxes
that directly benefit only certain other citizens of West Covina is not
a precedent in terms of that sort of thing. In fact we regularly
here budget and appropriate money for improvements in various sections
of the City, costs of which are far in excess of earlier improvements
that were made in other areas of West Covina. Park development is one
example of that. So in many instances relatively few citizens might
receive the benefit of improvements for which many citizens pay. On
the other hand I certainly would not expect that item for item would we
heavily or significantly subsidize specific areas where they were
originally constituted to be self-supporting, so tonight I am going to
vote to advance these funds with the stipulation that this will be the
only year that I will do this. My vote will be one of good faith and
an effort on my part representing all West Covinans to attempt to help
out the citizens in that particular area for this year, but if another
year goes by and the prognosis is still somewhat dim then I.would
assure Councilman Shearer that my answer would be identical to his and
some other answer will have to be forthcoming other than constant
subsidization of this type of thing. I will support it on a one year
only basis with the understanding it is to be repaid.
• Councilman Shearer: I might do the same thing but I can't guarantee
that I will be around next year and with this
vote I might not be but you will.
Councilman Young: I am somewhat in Councilman Shearer's shoes
myself but I can't take real serious issue at
all with the points that Councilman Shearer
makes, but I feel as I said earlier, that the
staff recommendation is the only feasible one in light of the fact that
any area of the City is of general interest to the entire City and
Woodside Village has taken a few lumps and I think it behooves the
- 30 -
•
•
l l
CITY COUNCIL
CITY MANAGER: Tax Rate Resolutions
Page Thirty-one
8/27/73
City to help restore morale down there and build some new morale there
and I don't think this is an enormous burden for one year and I don't
care to go so far as to make a commitment with regard to next year. I
might well make this commitment for another year if circumstances so
demand it. I will go along with Councilman Nichols' position.
Motion by Councilman Nichols that the City Council approve the transfer
of $151483 from the City's General,Fund surplus account to maintain
District #1 and District #2 accounts, with the condition that such
funds would be repaid to the General Fund account with surplus revenues
from increased valuation of Maintenance District #1 and #2. Seconded
by Councilman Young.
Councilman Shearer: I don't want to belabor the point but I would
point out one thing, that this is not the only
place in West Covina where we have, or at least
do not have the potential for a Maintenance District of this type.
Recently we approved a development on the west side of Azusa Avenue,
the extension of Aroma Drive, and I believe at that time it was set
up for a Maintenance District or the possibility of a Maintenance
District. The other night at the Commission hearing on the question of
Cameron and Azusa discussion touched on the possibility of forming a
Maintenance District there to guarantee perpetual maintenance of the
condominium development and I am sure that we may see these more and
more as we move into the area of cluster housing and condominium type
situations and I am not as concerned with the one time one year but
the possibility that this thing could snowball where in effect we are
maintaining the back yards and front yards of people within the
community. So with that I will vote "no" when it comes time to vote.
Motion carried on roll call vote as follows:
AYES: Young, Nichols, Chappell, Lloyd
NOES: Shearer
ABSENT: None
RESOLUTION NO. 4781 Mayor Lloyd presented Item J(e):
ADOPTED "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF WEST COVINA FIXING THE AMOUNT OF MONEY
NECESSARY TO BE RAISED BY TAXATION FOR THE FISCAL
YEAR BEGINNING JULY 1, 1973 FOR THE WOODSIDE
VILLAGE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 2, CITY OF WEST
COVINA, AND FIXING RATES OF TAXES FOR SAID MAIN-
TENANCE DISTRICT DISTRICT AND LEVYING TAXES FOR
THE FISCAL YEAR BEGINNING JULY 11, 1973 FOR SAID
MAINTENANCE DISTRICT."
Motion by Councilman Chappell, seconded by Councilman Shearer and
carried, to waive further reading of said Resolution.
Motion by Councilman Young, seconded.by Councilman Nichols, to adopt
said Resolution and carried on roll call vote as follows:
AYES: Young, Nichols, Chappell, Lloyd
NOES: Shearer
ABSENT: None
RESOLUTION NO. 4782 Mr. Eliot:
ADOPTED
be $9771493.
Mr. Mayor, in place of the
$11022,726 to be raised in the
General Fund the amount would
The City Attorney presented Item J(a):
"A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF WEST COVINA FIXING THE AMOUNT OF MONEY
NECESSARY TO BE RAISED BY TAXATION FOR THE FIS-
CAL YEAR BEGINNING JULY 1, 1973."
- 31 -
CIJrY*,• COUNCIL Page Thirty-two
CITY MGR: Tax Rate Resolutions 1 8/27/73
Motion by Councilman Chappell, seconded by Councilman Shearer and carried,
to waive further reading of said Resolution.
Motion by Councilman Chappell, seconded by Councilman Shearer, to adopt
said Resolution and carried on roll call vote as follows:
AYES: Young, Nichols, Shearer, Chappell, Lloyd
• NOES: None
ABSENT: None
RESOLUTION NO. 4783 The City Attorney presented Item J(b):
ADOPTED "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
WEST COVINA FIXING THE RATES OF TAXES AND LEVYING
TAXES FOR THE FISCAL YEAR BEGINNING JULY 11 1973."
Motion by Councilman Chappell, seconded by Councilman Shearer and carried,
to waive further reading of said Resolution.
Motion by Councilman Chappell, seconded by Councilman Shearer, to adopt
said Resolution and carried on roll call vote as follows:
AYES: Young, Nichols, Shearer, Chappell, Lloyd
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
(THE CHAIR CALLED A RECESS OF THE COUNCIL MEETING AT 10:10 P.M. FOR THE
PURPOSE OF CONDUCTING THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MEETING. COUNCIL
RECONVENED AT 10:20 P.M.) ,,
REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT Motion by Councilman Chappell that City Council
PLAN FOR EASTLAND authorize up to $48000 from Account No. 741.5 as
SHOPPING CENTER advance to Redevelopment Agency in connection with
.extension of Special Counsel Eugene Jacobs' con-
tract for legal services to implement a Redevelopment Project Plan for
• Eastland Shopping Center. Seconded by Councilman Young.
Councilman Young: This relates to the activity two weeks ago by the
Redevelopment Agency in regard to the Eastland
Area - we need, I take it, the service of Mr. Jacobs
at this point to determine whether or not we can have a redevelopment
project in that area?
Mr. Aiassa: He will basically determine the boundaries of the
redevelopment area as to what should be included
or not be included.
•
Councilman Young: What I was wondering, we are coming in the back
door here - it seems to me the City Council should
adopt a policy first that they want redevelopment
in that area before we spend a lot of money on it. This is the point I
raised at the last meeting of the Redevelopment Agency meeting. I don't
think we developed that policy yet and I think there are questions in the
minds of some of the people as to the appropriateness of it. I think that
policy should be determined before we start spending money.
Mr. Aiassa: Mr. Mayor, I will try and answer that. As you
remember at the last meeting we had a letter
addressed to us by the President of May Company and attached to it
was an Economic Survey report that they paid for at their own expense
to assure us that it could qualify for redevelopment under a Redevelop-
ment Agency.
Now what we are trying to determine is whether
the economics are there to assure us that this redevelopment can be
done on the same basis as the Plaza. Without that we cannot go forward
because we have no grounds to lay anything down on.
Councilman Young: I don't want to spend a lot of money and then
see a decision made against it - well for
example the situation in the Eastland Area is
quite different than the situation we faced
in the Plaza. One major difference is we have only
MIPM
CITY COUNCIL Page Thirty-three
CITY MGR.: Eastland Shopping Center Redev. Project 8/27/73
r"]
C1
•
one land owner in the Eastland Area and that land owner is operating a
very successful enterprise but it does foresee some threats yet that
land owner may be very capable without City assistance of any kind to
bring about the corrections that are needed or desired by them to main-
tain and upgrade the facility. I don't want to get in the situation of
just automatically forming redevelopment areas just because somebody
wants it and it will benefit them. I can see a big difference here in
the Plaza area where you have a multitude of land owners. I don•'t
think it could have been done there without the power of eminent domain
which is the major advantage to the Agency. That is what I think ought
to be explored and considered before we spend a lot of money on it.
If Mr. Jacobs' services are necessary as a preliminary to those con-
siderations, fine, then I will vote in favor of it, and if not then I
think we should make that consideration first.
Mr. Aiassa: The services he will render I think are the key
services. As you will remember when we put
together the Plaza Area his service included not
only what size the project area should be or how extensive but also
the economic possibilities to the City and what our legal position is
to assist or support or do anything in particular in that area.
Mayor Lloyd: I would like to enter this, Councilman Young, if
I may? I think the answer to this is if we are
going to go forward with the May Company we have
to find some area which makes it more palatable to them to put the risk
capital in they are going to have to put in. And one of the ways to
make the deal a little sweeter is to offer them the opportunity and
of course they are distressed because they are developing all over and
one of the ways of holding their attention in the West Covina area, which
I think is very critically important is the methodology we are using
which I think in my opinion is both legally and morally right and I think
that morality is what you are questioning.
Councilman Young: Yes, there is definite morality involved. It
could be interpretated in that situation from
one point of view as an economic blight area
and if you want more sales tax revenue you have to do this but whether
it is really needed or not from the standpoint of the businessmen ....
Mayor Lloyd:
I concur.
Councilman Young: I say that only hypothetically because we haven't
explored it. You said something definitive just
now and I appreciate it. The other aspect of it
is, and I can see where an expert's assistance might be needed because
these things are under increasing attacks by other agencies that depend
on assessed evaluation for their revenue and that certainly is a vital
consideration.
Mayor Lloyd: Overtures have been made. I am sure.you are
referring to the Covina Valley School System,
and as I understand from Mr. Aiassa; a meeting
has been set up with Mr. Newman, Dr. Jones and Mr. Maxim, and we will
also have to meet with MT. SAC representatives. So these agencies
that are depending on the same source of revenue as we are, will be
apprised of the fact and will be brought in.
Councilman Nichols: I think the concerns raised tonight are appro-
priate and I don't think in my own mind that
the redevelopment of the Eastland Area is the
same ball game as the redevelopment of the Plaza Area for many
reasons.. Primarily the one that has been mentioned, the redevelopment
of the Plaza area could not have occurred had not the City played the
role that it has played. Of course, we don't know yet the delineation
of boundaries or of the ownerships that might extend beyond'.the
immediate area but I think a municipality has to give very careful
MXW
CITY COUNCIL Page Thirty-fo
CITY MGR • Eastland Shopping Center Redev. Project 8/27/73
•
•
•
thought before utlizing its capability of tax support, so to speak, for
the benefit of a single developer anywhere whatsoever. The May
Company and May Stores and Montomery Ward's are not small time
operators and they have already invested in the May Company development
a great many million dollars and if they don't have enough foresight to
reinvest in their own property and their own holdings when.the time
comes - well it is a legitimate question to say to what extent should
the municipality motivate this? So I think the most important
result of the comments made here tonight is to convey for the record
that the Council is not overwhelmingly eager to rush off onto a new
white horse and charge across the freeway, that we need to be shown
some other things that we have not been shown and that we need to
talk further about this before we commit our City to the freezing of
another big chunk of our taxpayers for any sort of a development; but
I don't think the initial move here tonight is essentially premature
as long as what has been said has been said. I think the additional
input that we will get from this research will put us in a better
position to.formulate the ultimate judgments. So as long as staff
understands that, as the community understands that, that we are still
exploring and not committed as a total body yet to moving into this
direction then I think the expenditure of these dollars for this
further look and further report back to us would be in order and I will
support it on that basis.
Motion carried on roll call vote as follows:
AYES: Young, Nichols, Shearer, Chappell, Lloyd
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
WOODSIDE VILLAGE Motion by Councilman Young, seconded by
MAINTENANCE DISTRICTS Councilman Nichols and carried, to receive
I and 2 BUDGETS and file report.
CALIFORNIA BICENTENNIAL Mr. Aiassa: This refers to the communi-
DISPATCH cation we received and it
was referred back to us and we would like
to have Council consideration as to how they
feel about the Staff Report. We have made some suggestions and
comments. Our suggestion is to have the appointment of a local
BiCentennial Committee to see if we can put some of these things
together.
Councilman Nichols: I am not over anxious to move into this
myself.
Councilman Young: I think we should move into it but not
tonight. So I would move that the matter
be continued to the next regular meeting of
Council.
Seconded by Councilman Chappell and carried.
FINAL REPORT ON CIVIC
CENTER PARKING STRUCTURE
ITT PROGRESS REPORT
MAYOR'S REPORTS
Motion by Councilman Shearer, seconded by
Councilman Chappell and carried, to receive
and file.
Motion by Councilman Shearer, seconded by
Councilman Chappell and carried, to receive
and file report.
PROCLAMATIONS: Mayor Lloyd: If there are no objection:
by Council, I will procla:
"Weight Watchers Month"
September, 1973; and "Union Label Week" September 3/9, 1973.
(No objections.)
- 34 -
CITY COUNCIL
COUNCILMEN'S REPORTS/COMMENTS
Page Thirty-five
8/27/73
Councilman Young: Just a question, Mr. Mayor. I received on the
desk here tonight a letter from Bill Lancaster
addressed to Mr. Aiassa regarding Assembly Bill
1588. My recollection is that we might pick up $16,000 or so...
• Mr. Aiassa: Closer to $121000.
Councilman Young: Well we will take that! It says here that we
have to do something apparently by September 1
to take advantage of this. This letter is
dated August 24th and addressed to Mr. Aiassa. (Read letter.)
Mr. Aiassa: What we are doing is we have to justify the
specific tax which I think leans towards the
library as one of the services we get under
contract and that is not in our tax bill. This bill in essence is
really a bill that helps contract cities and we are just lucky that we
do have a library contract.
Councilman Young: What I am concerned about - is there any action
necessary by Council?
Mr. Aiassa: Not from Council, only from staff.
Mayor Lloyd: I think Councilman Young ought to continue his
comments by telling us how it was to have
married off his daughter on Saturday.
Councilman Young: It was great!
Mayor Lloyd: And I think we ought to extend our very best
• wishes to the couple.
Councilman Shearer: While on this subject, and I am not disputing
the wisdom of Mr. Aiassa, but in glancing over
this it seems like the City has to assume the
taxing. The Library District now taxes X cents to support the library
district and the City has to levy that tax rather than the District in
order to get credit for it in funded revenue sharing. If this is
correct then it would seem to me it would require Council action.
Mr. Aiassa: It is a technical question and we have been trying
to find some answer and as a matter of fact
Mr. Allen is going to advise us by Wednesday.
The question mark came because the library is a separate district
with its own power and its own administration and Mr. Lancaster in
his communication to us indicated this is a feasibility or
possibility and I don't have a fixed answer right now as to the legal
ramifications. As Mr. Shearer stated, we can't assume the taxing for
the library because it is a separate district within the City and yet
it is the same thing as a contract city where they don't levy any
taxes yet they contract for.the services.
Councilman Nichols: Perhaps staff can look into this like first thing
tomorrow.
• Mr. Aiassa: Yes, that is my responsibility.
Councilman Shearer: I assume the September 1 requirement is because
we are required by September 1 to set our tax
rate.
Mr. Allen: Mr. Mayor and members of Council, the bill was a
City Attorney compromise in the legislature and it just
reached the Governor a lot later than everybody
anticipated and it was signed in late August with a deadline for
filing the first of September. Mr. Terzian has done some work in
- 35 -
f� a
CITY COUNCIL
COUNCILMEN'S REPORTS/COMMENTS
Page Thirty-six
8/27/73
LJ
•
•
connection with the City of Rolling Hills Estates which is a con-
tract city and gets all of their services by contract. I have not
done any work in connection with it but I will try and get an answer
for Mr. Aiassa.
Councilman Shearer: Well I guess no one knows and I assume if
something comes up and we have to take action
before September 1 that a special meeting can
be called.
Mayor Lloyd: Mr. Aiassa, can you do that?
Mr. Aiassa: Absolutely.
Councilman Chappell: Mr. Mayor, as I mentioned before I will not be
at the next City Council meeting. .And as you
all know our City Manager's son was married this
past week and we also wish he and his bride the very best of everything
Also one of our citizens, a young man - Jim Cox - signed a contract
with a professional baseball league recently and perhaps a letter from
the Mayor to him would be in order. I believe he also played basket-
ball?
Mayor Lloyd: Yes, I know the young man. We will certainly do
that and I thank you for pointing out that
Mark Aiassa did get married yesterday. The City
Council takes this opportunity to wish he and his bride the:very best.
Mr. Aiassa: Thank you. It was a very small private wedding.
CITY MANAGER Mr. Aiassa: Mr. Mayor, I have one additional
VACATION item - I would like to take a
vacation starting Wednesday and I will be back
on Tuesday following Labor Day.
Motion by Councilman Young that the City Manager go in peace; seconded
by Councilman Chappell and carried.
Mr. Aiassa: And Mr. Eliot, being that he has a new assign-
ment and a new position, will be the Acting
City Manager in my absence.
Councilman Chappell: What have we decided on the Paramedic Program?
Aren't we setting the budget tonight in one
way or the other?
Mr. Zimmerman: Mr. Mayor and members of Council, we are still
studying the matter.
Mayor Lloyd: Would you say in the next two meeting you would
have something to report to us?
Mr. Aiassa: Yes, we will try and have a report for you by
the llth.
Councilman Young: Mr. Mayor, it was my understanding that you took
the necessary steps to assure a place in the
next training program?
Mayor Lloyd: Yes, we have indeed.
Councilman Young: So we are in no manner precluding this and we
are hoping for assistance from the Federal
Government on the program.
Mayor Lloyd: Yes and we seem to be in a little trouble right
now.
- 36 -
ro At
CITY COUNCIL Page Thirty-seven
PARAMEDIC PROGRAM 8/27/73
Councilman Nichols: And of course that program is not until April, so
we have considerable time yet.
Mayor Lloyd: Yes. Does that answer your question, Mr. Chappell?
• Councilman Chappell: Yes. I just don't want us to forget about it.
Mayor Lloyd: The will of the Council I think has been more than
expressed on this. Mr. Aiassa, will you bring us a
report within the next month? (Answered: Yes)
DEMANDS Motion by Councilman Shearer to approve Demands
.totalling $554,955.22 as listed on Demand Sheets
C903 through 905 and B588A. Seconded by
Councilman Young and carried on roll call vote
as follows:
AYES: Young, Nichols, Shearer, Chappell, Lloyd
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ADJOURNMENT On motion by Councilman Young, seconded by
Councilman Shearer and carried, meeting adjourned
at 10:45 P.M.
APPROVED:
• MAYOR
ATTEST:
CITY CLERK
•
- 37 -