01-14-1974 - Regular Meeting - MinutesMINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL
CITY OF WEST COVINA, CALIFORNIA
JANUARY 14, 19 �,3 : /-/
The regular meeting of the City Council called to order at 7:30 P.M.
in the West Covina Council Chambers by Mayor Jim Lloyd. The Pledge
of Allegiance was led by Cadets Margaret Spencer, Janice
and Sidney Ping of Girl Scout Troop #771. The invocation was
given by the Reverend Charles R. Simmons of the United Methodist
Church.
ROLL CALL
Present:
Mayor Lloyd; Councilmen: Young, Nichols,
Shearer, Chappell
Others Present: George Aiassa, City Manager
George WFlkefield, City Attorney
Lela Preston, City Clerk
George Zimmerman, Public Service Director
Leonard Eliot, Controller
Michael Miller, Planning Director
John Lippitt, City Engineer
William Fowler, Dir. of Bldg. & Safety
Clarence Markham, Administrative
Janet Williams, Administrative Interne
Mike McDonnell, Staff Reporter - S.G.V.D.T.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
December 3, 1973 Motion by Councilman Shearer, seconded by
(Adj. Reg. Mtg.) Councilman Young and carried, to approve
December 10, 1973 minutes of meetings.
December 19, 1973
CONSENT CALENDAR
Mayor Lloyd explained the procedure of the Consent Calendar items
and asked if there were comments on any of the following items:
1. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS
a) ASSEMBLYMAN JULIAN C. DIXON
63RD DISTRICT
b) COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
1973 GRAND JURY
Requests support of AB 594 which
would require a deposit on'beer
and soft drinks containers and
would also ban any metal contain-
ers so designed that part of con-
tainer is detachable without aid
of can opener. (Council)
Requests comments and recommenda-
tions in connection with study of
the problems of the aged. (Refer
to Staff)
c) BURT PINES, CITY ATTORNEY' Re a taxpayers' action in con -
FOR CITY OF LOS ANGELES nection with cities receiving
contract services from the County
of Los Angeles. (Council and
City Attorney)
d) SUPERVISOR PETER SCHABARUM Re schedule of meetings for City
Council to attend Board meetings
to become familiar with the
operations of the County Board of
CITY COUNCIL
CONSENT CALENDAR - Cont'd.
e) LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION
COMMISSION
f) MR. & MRS. JOSEPH C.PARTISE
201 N. Shadydale Avenue
West Covina
2. PLANNING COMMISSION
a) SUMMARY OF ACTION
b) SUMMARIES OF ACTION OF
ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW BD.
3. PERSONNEL BOARD
a) MINUTES
b) ACTION ITEM
4. HUMAN RELATIONS COMMISSION
SUMMARY OF ACTION
Page Two
1/14/74
Supervisors. (Council selection
of Representative.)
Notice of Public Hearing on
January 23, 1974, re Proposed
Easterly Annexation District
No. 75 to the City of Covina.
(Receive and file)
Re x-rated films and censorship.
(Receive and file)
January 2, 1974. (Accept and file)
1) Slight Modification No. 75 -
D.G. & A. DeNeve (Denied 12/10/73)
2) Slight Modification No. 76 -
Steve Novarro - (Denied 12/17/73.
Appealed by Applicant) (Refer to
Hearing Item B-3.)
December 4, 1974. (Receive and file)
From January 8, 1974 meeting;
(Refer to City Attorney Agenda Item
No. F-6)
December 20, 1973. (Receive and file)
5..CLAIMS FOR DAMAGES FILED WITH CITY CLERK
a) SAMUEL E. KLAY aka KLAYTOR Patten, Faith & Sandford, Attorneys
Re alleged wrongful and unlawful
arrest and seizure. ,(Deny and refer
to City Attorney and Insurance
Carrier)
b) LUCILLE BYNUM
819 N. Yaleton Avenue
West Covina
c) J. J. NEWBERRY CO.
6. ABC APPLICATION:
Manhar Ambalal Patel
227 S. Bandy Ave.,
#6, West Covina
Re _collision with Police Unit
12/11/73. (Deny and refer to City
Attorney and Insurance Carrier)
Application for Leave to Present
Late Claim re alleged damages in
connection with redevelopment within
the West Covina Fashion Plaza.
(Deny and refer to City Attorney)
Chief of Police requests
AUTHORIZATION TO PROTEST.
dba ROCKVIEW DAIRY
551 E. Vine Avenue
7. ACCEPTANCE OF IMPROVEMENTS AND/OR RELEASE OF BONDS
a) UNCLASSIFIED USE PERMIT LOCATION: Fairway Lane, N/O Garvey
NO. 174 - ACCEPT STREET Avenue.
IMPROVEMENTS Accept Street Improvements and
SUBURBAN WATER SYSTEMS authorize release of cash deposit
in the amount of $350. (Staff
- 2 -
CITY COUNCIL
CONSENT CALENDAR - Cont'd.
b) UNCLASSIFIED USE PERMIT
NO. 182
SAM MENLO
8. ADMINISTRATIVE ITEMS
Page Three
1/14/74
recommends acceptance and release.
LOCATION: South side of Cameron
Avenue, W/O Glendora.Avenue.
Accept sidewalk and street im-
provements and authorize release
of Pacific Employers Insurance
Company Performance Bond
No. M-147,920 in the amount of
$2,200. (Staff recommends
acceptance)
a) PROJECT NO. SP-73006 Location: Citrus Street, Cortez
INFORMATIONAL PROGRESS REPORT Street to Walnut Creek Wash.
(Receive and file Engineer's
report)
b) LOS ANGELES COUNTY FLOOD Construction schedule for 1974-
CONTROL DISTRICT 75. (Receive and file Engineer's
(INFORMATIONAL) report)
9. TRAFFIC COMMITTEE MINUTES
MINUTES
10. CITY TREASURER'S REPORT
December 18, 1973. (Accept and
File)
Month of November 1973.
(Receive and file)
Richard Smith Representing Fire Fighters. I would
Local 986 like to speak on Item 3(b); however it
Business Representative is also listed as City Attorney agenda
Teamsters Union-t:. item F-6 and if I may I would like to
speak on it at that time.
(Council had no objection to Item 3(b) being removed from the
Consent Calendar and referring.to City Attorney Item F-6 and
Mr. Smith's comments made at that time.) .
Charles E. Hamilton I am referring to an item within the
930 S. Holly Place Traffic Committee minutes. My son is the
West Covina boy that was struck on October 18 in
front of the West Covina High School in
the cross walk. I went by there
yesterday and almost three months have passed and I see no change
in any safety features between October 18 and the present time.
I had sent a letter to the Council requesting that a pedestrian
signal be installed at that area but so far I have had no response
from the Council in that regards. I am wondering.,if they are going
to do more.
Mayor Lloyd: We responded to the issue and I
. apologize, we should have responded to
you personally. Mr. Aiassa, do you
remember what action we took?
Mr. Aiassa: Yes, I believe the Traffic Committee
was going to do another evaluation
after we received Mr. Hamilton's letter
to see if there was a possibility of using other safety devices
and we are now still reviewing the study plan of what they can do.
- 3 -
CITY COUNCIL Page Four
CONSENT CALENDAR - CONT'D. 1/14/74
Mayor Lloyd: Mr. Aiassa, would you be so kind as to
remind me to get a letter back to this
gentleman, so he knows we are consider-
ing it. I apologize, we normally get a letter back to you letting
you know that we are considering it.
Mr. Hamilton: One of the items that I was told is
under consideration is the removal of
that cross walk rather than the
installation of the pedestrian signal.
Mayor Lloyd: Right and we understand what your
recommendation is, which is the installa-
tion of a traffic signal at that point.
Mr. Hamilton: A pedestrian signal.
Mayor Lloyd: Whether or not we do that there will be
a staff study and you will be afforded
an opportunity to come again and speak
if you so desire. In the meantime I am sorry we did not respond to
you personally by letter. In the meantime staff has it under con-
sideration and they will make a recommendation to this body. We
will not take any action regardless of what it may be - whether it
is to do what you ask or not do what you ask, in any event you will
have an opportunity to speak to it.
Councilman Nichols: Mr. Mayor - may I suggest that Mr. Aiassa
have the appropriate staff members involved
in this matter, contact this gentleman in
the next few days and invite him to come in and they go over with him
the progress that has been made so far and explain all of the meetings
that have taken place with the PTA and so on and are still going on,
so he can assure himself that Mayor Lloyd's statements are correct.
I think certainly as the fatherr:of this
youngster he is entitled to have a personal briefing from someone
in a responsible position that will relate to him those steps that
have gone on and are still going on at this time.
Mayor Lloyd: Mr. Aiassa - no problem? (Mr. Aiassa
indicated it would be handled.) Is there
anyone else that wishes to speak on any of
the Consent Calendar items?
Councilman Nichols: Mr. Mayor, one of the items on the
Consent. Calendar, 1(a), states only
"Council", which seems to request some
action from us. I, for one, am very much supportive of this con-
cept, one that has been implemented already in the State of Oregon
and indications are very successfully so. Essentially this is a
request for support by Senator Dixon of AB594, requesting that
the State of California enact legislation that would require a
deposit on beer and soft drinks containers and also ban those
containers that have bits of metal that can be separated from the
can and disposed of on our terrain. I think this matter is over-
due. I would like to ask the Council to respond to his communica-
tion to us in a supportive manner.
Councilman Shearer: Mr. Mayor, since' --the organization that
I supervise has the responsibility for
picking up a lot of these along the
highways I would certainly second Councilman Nichols' suggestion
and if he made a motion I would second it.
- 4 -
•
CITY COUNCIL
CONSENT CALENDAR - Cont'd.
Page Five
1/14/74
Councilman Young: Mr. Mayor, I have given this considerable
thought and my first reaction was
negative because I really dislike
measures that tend to interfere with the freedom of enterprise,
merchandising of products and so on, but at the same time we had
brought to our attention dramatically at this time that we bring a
halt to the economy that is based on waste and this is a waste
economy that is being merchandised. You measure those two compet-
ing interests and therefore I have to go along with Councilman
Nichols and Councilman Shearer.
Councilman Nichols: The one requirement being suggested in
this legislation that isn't being
restricted in terms of free enterprise
is the one which says let's stop making cans where you can pull the
top part off and throw it away on the ground and the other aspect
is a motivational type of thing which is simply to charge a deposit
on these vehicles.
Councilman Young:
It follows almost a reclamation in the
recycling of their use.
Councilman Nichols: Which is generally accepted as being a
very good thing to retrieve these alumi-
num cans and in fact we have many
recycling things in operation already. If the recipient wants to
throw away his 6(, or 10(, deposit or whatever it is that is still his
privilege and it forces him to pay for his right to be a litterbug.
Councilman Young: And it will give the kids a great
incentive to go out and make 5 or 10(,4.
Councilman Nichols: Absolutely and I have collected many a
bottle in my youth at a penny apiece and
found it very motivating - I think we
better get back to that attitude.
Motion by Councilman Nichols that the City Council go strongly on
record in favor of AB 594; seconded by Councilman Shearer.-.-,.,..',,
Councilman Chappell: Mr. Mayor, I was going to pointout one
thing on the pop top can - what would be
the next thing probably you could not
have pop top or screw cap bottles and I think maybe this is. getting
a little bit too restrictive. I agree with bottles being brought
back for reclamation but I just wonder how we could really enforce
that type of a restriction when perhaps the manufacturers are now
geared to that kind of process. So maybe we are getting a little
bit too restrictive here, but I certainly agree with the philosophy
of getting the bottles and cans back into that recycling position.
Councilman Nichols: I bet if you charged a penny a cap you
would not find caps lying around in this
town or any other place. In terms of
restrictiveness what you are saying in.effect is that in asking
a deposit on these items you are saying in effect by law of the
State that they belong to the manufacturer and there is a request
for a return at such and such a figure. If it would be considered
a restrictive act perhaps it is one of the restrictions we need
in our culture. I think it has a corollary value that begins to
impress upon our youngsters, who are many times the users of the
pop top cans, the concept that we do need.to save things, we do
need to put a value on things in our culture and the response to
that concept will involve no financial penalty on no one. Like you,
Councilman Chappell, I am much opposed to those kinds of restrictions
- 5 -
CITY COUNCIL Page Six
CONSENT CALENDAR - Cont'd. 1/14/74
that are without major purpose or that serve no good end, but I think
we are at the point in our own community, in California and in the
nation, that we have to start saying - Let's stop cluttering up our
atmosphere, our cities, and our States with these kinds of debris.
Motion carried on roll call vote as
follows: AYES: Young, Nichols, Shearer, Chappell, Lloyd
is NOES: None
ABSENT: None
Councilman Young.: Mr. Mayor, a further comment. I mentioned
this. -before in regard to the Consent
Calendar items that say "Council" or
"Council and City Attorney", and we pass the thing routinely and
we still actually haven't done anything. Item 1 (c) says "Council
and City Attorney", I think we ought to do something other than pass
it on the Consent Calendar. Likewise Item 1 (d). And I have a
question with regard to Item 5 (a).
First of all I would suggest that items 1
(c) and (d) be removed from the Consent Calendar and Item 5 (a)
contains a statement that the claim involved here was dismissed at
the arraignment of Mr. Klay or Mr. Klaytor because the complaining
witnesses were not present. Complaining witnesses are not supposed
to be present at the arraignment they only appear at the trials.
So it really doesn't make sense to me. I do have some familiarity
in these procedures, arraignments are not the place you expect wit-
nesses to be. So there must be something involved here other than
stated. I don't think it is actually worthy of a prolonged dis-
cussion at this time because the claim is made and they have to act
on it but I am not at all satisfied with the basis that has been
presented to us for doing that.
And with respect to Item 6 (a), that is
the ABC application at the location across the street from the
church I am an officer of and I know that church is in great
opposition to this application, so I would suppose then I have a
conflict of interest and I want that recorded that I am having no
participation in the discussion or voting of that particular item.
Councilman Nichols: Mr. Mayor - it is my understanding then
that Items c and d of the Written
Communications would be withheld from
the Consent Calendar and -.Council has already taken action on
Item 1(a). I would concur with Councilman Young that in terms of
Item 5(a) it would be desirable for our City Attorney to look at
this matter and provide some subsequent information for the Council
and I further concur with Councilman Young that the action tonight
should be a routine action.
Motion by Councilman Shearer that Council approve Consent Calendar
items 1 through 10 with the exception of Item 1(a) that has been
acted on, and Items 1(c) and (d) which have been withheld.
Seconded by Councilman Chappell. Motion carried on roll call vote
as follows: AYES: Nichols, Shearer, Chappell, Lloyd
• NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: Councilman Young - Item 5(a) only, voted
"aye" on balance of Consent Calendar.
ITEM 1(c) Mr. Wakefield: Mr. Mayor and members of City
Council, this particular
communication from the City
Attorney of the City of Los Angeles points out that the City
Council of. the City of Los Angeles has instructed the City Attorney
to bring an action against the County of Los Angeles in'Athe nature
- 6 -
r�
U
1
CITY COUNCIL
CONSENT CALENDAR - Cont'd.
Page Seven
1/14/74
of a taxpayers' action and a territorial relief seeking to
determine the validity primarily of those rates and charges
established by-'-' the County for Sheriff's services provided to con-
tract cities. (Explained) The City Attorney invites other cities
to file. similar actions or I suppose he would not be adverse to
intervening in the action.which the City of Los Angeles is bringing
to challenge this matter. As I see it the City of West Covina will
benefit from what determination is made in the action proposed to
be brought by the City of Los Angeles when that matter is finally
resolved by the Courts. It would be possible for the City of
West Covina either independently or concurrently with the City of
Los Angeles to join in and bring action to test this matter.
Councilman Nichols:
than is the City of West
participation of the City
us in some litigation and
encourage the City of Los
and direct that the Mayor
Covina's paternal support
In that the City of Los Angeles on the
surface of it is much more able
financially to test this kind of problem
Covina, I do not advocate a direct
of West Covina because it might involve
fees beyond our capability so I would
Angeles to proceed at their own expense
by letter indicate the City of West
of their efforts in this area.
Councilman Young: Mr. Mayor, I think that is a wise way to
go and in return we might get an
invitation to participate financially
which we can consider at that time, but
I agree and under those circumstances I move that we direc t that
the Mayor send such a letter and receive and file the communication.
Seconded by Councilman Nichols and
carried.
ITEM 1(d) Councilman Young: Mr. Mayor, with
regard to
Supervisor Schabarum's request of a
schedule of meetings for City Councils to attend Board meetings
I think West Covina certainly should be represented by as many
Councilmen as.possible, and I am sorry to say I will not be able
to go because of other requirements on that particular day.
Mayor Lloyd: Yes, I think it is an excellent idea
and Supervisor Schabarum has invited
us for a tour; however, Councilman
Shearer is down there and unless somebody really desires other than
he I would make a recommendation that he be our representative.
(Councilman Shearer indicated his willingness to attend;
Councilman Chappell indicated he would also attend.)
Mayor Lloyd: Mr. Aiassa, I think a response by letter
indicating that Mayor Pro tem Shearer
and Councilman Chappell will be our
representatives and will be in attendance, and include in that
letter our support of the program and the fact that some of the
rest.of us are unfortunately committed during the middle of the
day.
PRESENTATIONS
COMMENDATION PLAQUES
to
Samuel Sornborger
Damon Petta
John Q. Adams
Verne Cox
Chuck Stearns
Mayor Lloyd:
Commissions or
some of them h
period of time.
men personally
long service t
Each of these men
have served on
Boards in our City and
- 7 -
CITY COUNCIL Page Eight
Presentations 1/14/74
a tremendous job in a very difficult time and I think it is through
their personal efforts that we have done such a lot for the City of
West Covina. (Mayor presented plaques of Commendation to
Samuel Sornborger for serving on the Personnel Board; Chuck Stearns,
serving as advisor to the Youth Advisory Commission; Damon Petta
serving on the Recreation and Park Commission; John Q. Adams and
Verne Cox, serving on the Planning Commission.) I thank you all
very much.
(Comments followed by each Councilman commending each individual
receiving a plaque and giving some of the background history on
each man.)
PUBLIC HEARINGS
ZONE CHANGE APPLICATION LOCATION: NE corner Citrus Street and
NO. 487 - THE MAY STORES San Bernardino Freeway.
SHOPPING CENTERS, INC., REQUEST: Change of Zone from R-A
(Residential -Agricultural) to R-C
(Regional -Commercial) on a 1.28 acre
parcel used as off -ramp and now declared
surplus by State of California. Recommended by Planning Commission
Resolution No. 2504. (Proof of Publication on January 3, 1974.
received. Four notices mailed on 1/2/74)
Mayor Lloyd: Madam City Clerk, do we have proof of mailings?
City Clerk: Yes sir.
Mayor Lloyd: Have we received any communications?
City Clerk: None.
THIS IS THE TIME AND PLACE FOR THE PUBLIC HEARING ON ZONE CHANGE
APPLICATION NO. 487.
IN FAVOR
Hnay j ames bogis
Manager
Eastland Shopping Center
West Covina
(Sworn in by City Clerk)
Mr. Mayor and members of Council, we urge
you to grant us this Zone Change so that
we may better serve the people and the
City of West Covina. We-`Chank you for
allowing us to speak to you at this time.
THERE BEING NO FURTHER PUBLIC TESTIMONY PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED.
Motion by Councilman Young to approve the request; seconded by
Councilman Chappell and carried on roll call vote as follows:
AYES: Young, Nichols, Shearer, Chappell, Lloyd
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
UNCLASSIFIED USE PERMIT LOCATION: 2210 S. Azusa Avenue
NO. 71, REV. 5 (AMEND- REQUEST: Clarification of conditions
MENT) B.K.K. COMPANY set forth in Planning Commission
• Resolution No. 2311. Approve with
modifications by Planning Commission
Resolution No. 2503. Appealed by,Applicant on December 7, 1973.
(Proof of Publication on January 31 1974 received. Seventeen
Notices mailed on 1/2/74)
Mayor. Lloyd: Madam City Clerk, have we proof of publication?
City Clerk: Yes sir, and we have a communication from B.K.K.
dated January 14 addressed to the Honorable
City Council: "Gentlemen: Upon instructions
8 -
CITY COUNCIL Page Nine
PUB. HEARINGS: UUP #71, REV. 5 (Amend.) 1/14/74
of the Board of Directors of the applicant, the B.K.K. Company,
the appeal taken from the language and provisions of 6(a) of City
Planning Commission Resolution No. 2503 regarding Revision 5 of
Unclassified Use Permit No. 71 is, hereby abandoned and withdrawn."
THIS IS THE TIME AND PLACE FOR THE PUBLIC HEARING ON UNCLASSIFIED
USE PERMIT NO. 71, REV. 5 (Amendment).
Councilman Young: Mr. Mayor, a point of order. Is there a
staff report on this prior to testimony?
(Mr. Aiassa advised there was a Staff Report.)
Councilman Nichols: Excuse me, wasn't something read just
now that indicated the appeal was with-
drawn?
Mayor Lloyd: Yes.
Councilman Nichols: Well this was an appeal hearing and if
the applicant withdraws?
(Mayor requested that the letter be reread. City Clerk read letter
again. Mayor asked the City Attorney to speak to the request.)
Mr. Wakefield: Mr. Mayor and members of the City Council,
I think there are two problems involved
here which need at least a word of
explanation. In the first place in my opinion the applicant in
this particular situati(mn does not have a right to withdraw his
appeal. The applicant does have a right to withdraw his application
for an amendment to the Unclassified Use Permit which he now holds.
In other words.....
Mayor Lloyd: Excuse me for interrupting, Mr. :Wakefield,
but will you interpret the letter first.
I would like an interpretation of that
or am I missing what you are saying? Do you have a copy of the
letter?
Mr. Wakefield: No sir. (Copy provided City Attorney)
On the face of the letter the letter
seeks to withdraw the appeal taken from
the action of the Planning Commission in approving Resolution
2503. This in my opinion the applicant may not do. If the
applicant elects to the applicant may withdraw his applicaion for
amendments to Unclassified Use Permit No. 71, Rev. 5 in its
entirety and if he does that .....
Mayor Lloyd: Wait a minute. Isn't that what he asked?
Mr. Wakefield: No sir, he asked for permission to
withdraw his appeal from the action of
the Planning Commission.
. Mayor Lloyd: In total?
Mr. Wakefield: Yes sir.
Mayor Lloyd: Is that a total action situation?
Mr. Wakefield: That is a total action situation but
that he may not do.
Mayor Lloyd: No, you are missing the question. They
- 9 -
CITY COUNCIL Page Ten
PUB. HEARINGS: UUP #71, REV. 5 (Amend) 1/14/74
said something about Item 6 and I don't know what it is - are they
withdrawing the whole thing?
Mr. Wakefield: They either withdraw their application
for amendments to the Unclassified Use
Permit or they stand on their appeal
and the City Council must dispose of that appeal one way or the
other.
Mayor Lloyd: What item are they referring to,
Mr. Wakefield? I heard something about a
6.
Mr. Wakefield: The letter does refer to the language
of 6 (a) of the Planning Commissi?an
Resolution.
.Mayor Lloyd: Will you read what Item 6(a) says?
Councilman Young: Mr. Mayor, may I make a suggestion - why
don't we just let Mr. Wakefield finish
and get to his conclusion?
Mayor Lloyd: Okay. .May I ask you a question - do
you understand what he is talking about?
Councilman Young: Well I think so, but I would like to hear
his complete statement.
Mr. Wakefield: Mr. Mayor and members of City Council, the
Planning Commission adopted Resolution
2503 which approves certain amendments
to Unclassified Use Permit No. 71, Revision 5. UUP #71, Rev. 5 is
held by B.K.K. and what the applicants originally did was to appeal
from the action of the Planning Commission in including in , the
amendments certain provisions in Section 6(a) which made the
amendments to the permit -,-,ineffective until such time as the City
and the operator had agreed upon the land to be dedicated to the
City. At the time the appeal was filed I advised the applicant
that in my opinion they could not properly appeal from a single
section of the Unclassified Use Permit and the action of the Planning
Commission. That if they appeal6d:.a the entire matter was then
before the City Council.
As I interpret the action which the
B.K.K. requests this evening it is to withdraw their appeal iri an
effort apparently to leave the Planning Commission Resolution
2503 standing in the form in which it was adopted by the Planning
Commission. Under the City's Zoning Ordinances this may not be
done once an appeal'_'is taken from the action of the Planning
Commission in connection with the granting of an Unclassified Use
Permit. The action of the Planning Commission is t(sus:pended i-
in its entirety and is not effective for any purpose until the
action of the City Council, The City Council may ultimately approve
the action of the Planning Commission, may modify that action, or
adopt a new Unclassified Use Permit on the basis of the appeal
before it.
This means that if the applicant pro-
ceeds with his withdrawal this evening there is nothing that has
any effect in Resolution 2503. The only outstanding valid permit
is that permit which is issued previously under Unclassified Use
Permit No. 71, Rev. 5. Unless certain things are done pursuant
to that permit by February 4 the provisions of that permit cease
to be effective for any purpose. That means that the only valid
and outstanding permit which the applicant will hold after date
is the original Unclassified Use Permit as amended from time to
- 10 -
CITY COUNCIL Page Eleven
PUB. HEARINGS: UUP #71, REV. 5 (Amend.) 1/14/74
time which covers an area of approximately 130 acres as the landfill
site. If the applicant desires to withdraw his application for
amendments to Unclassified Use Permit No. 71, Rev. ;5 and to
withdraw it in its entirely he has that right and in that event
there will be nothing before the City Council. The Planning Com-
mission action in adopting Resolution 2503 will be ineffective for
any purpose.
Mayor Lloyd: I still do not understand, but go ahead
Councilman Shearer.
Councilman Shearer: I am not sure I do either, but before we
'
get into a long discourse between two
attorneys I would like to say
irrespective of the action of B.K.K. to appeal the decision of the
Planning Commission it was this Councilman's intent to call this
matter up. At a meeting in Mr. Aiassa's office on December 4th I
expressed this very openingly that it was my intention to call this
up at the meeting of.December loth. Mr. Winter and Mr. Weiss were
there, because I too was unhappy with some of the conditions of the
permit, different however, than those that B.K.K. was unhappy with.
I was specifically unhappy with the deletion of Item #38 that called
for an operational fee. Subsequent to that I was assured by a
representative of B.K.K. Company prior to the meeting of December 10
in this Chamber that they would prefer to appeal the action themselves.
With that understanding I said all right I have no ax to grind as to
who calls it up to allow this Council to deliberate. I was given
assurance by the City Attorney that the whole matter would be
available for discussion when it came up. Now I just feel an
attempt is being made here on the part of someone to bypass that
gentlemens' agreement.
Mayor Lloyd: Well I don't understand what was said.
Mr. Wakefield - in some lay terms would you clarify?
In other words you are saying they.cannot do what
they are asking .for?.
Mr. Wakefield: Yes, Mr. Mayor.
Mayor Lloyd: Is that open for discussion to them?
Councilman -Nichols: Mr. Mayor, we have before us an action of
the Planning Commission being appealed by
the applicant, and the applicant has
expressed a desire to withdraw the appeal, which in turn has been
ruled impossible by the City Attorney. Therefore, the matter is
still a hearing matter before the Council and I would assume should
follow normal hearing procedures, at least up to the point to
allowing the applicant to speak to the issue. I have no knowledge
at all of the concerns Councilman Shearer has spoken of or any part
of the behind the scenes manuevering or difficulties or whatever,
so I would only say I think we should get on with the hearing.
Councilman Young: Mr. Mayor, could I suggest that we hear
from Mr. Weiss.
• Mr. Weiss, Attorney Mr. Mayor and members of Council, and I
B.K.K. Company don't mean to speak out of turn, but I
would like to help interpret what we are
trying to do. Contrary to what Councilman Shearer said, we are not
sandbagging, this was not our intention. However, we started out
on this basis. We initially had a copy of Resolution 2503, which
is the Resolution that in part we appeal from. I believe that this
Council may have copies of the Resolution, Page 2, commencing at
line 11 reads as follows: "FINALLY RESOLVED, that the Secretary be
instructed to forward a copy of this Resolution to the applicant
CITY COUNCIL Page Twelve
PUB. HEARINGS: UUP #71. REV. 5 (Amend.) 1/14/74
and to the City Council, respectively, for their attention; and that
the Secretary advise the applicant that this decision or any part
thereof may be appealed to the City Council within twenty (20) days
after the date of the Planning Commission decision." And this is
of the Resolution itself.
Councilman Young: Mr. Mayor, a question of Mr. Weiss. What
is the position of B.K.K. at this point -
is B.K.K. satisfied with the Planning
_Commission Resolution as it stands and desires the City Council to
simply deny the appeal and approve the Planning Commission
Resolution, or does B.K.K. have some other position in the matter?
Mr. Weiss: What our position really is and if we
owe Councilman Shearer and apology we do
apologize because I was present at that
meeting and either Mr. Winter or myself said we would file an appeal
and that was our intention and we did appeal for the one specific
condition as provided for by law in the Resolution. Subsequently
we had a study session where things were discussed and what
evolved in that study session was not what anybody had in mind.
So we believe the.appropriate action at this date and what we would
_be satisfied with for getting things going is what we have suggested
that the appeal be withdrawn or denied, or whatever may be the
appropriate legalistic thing to do, a:.d thereafter that Resolution
2503 be approved and I would suggest to the Honorable Mayor and you
gentlemen,that an ad hoc Committee be appointed to study the whole
problem. The basic problems are there just isn't enough time between
meeting and meeting to find out what is really needed here to satisfy
not only our needs but the needs of the community. This is our
position.
Councilman Young: Is it your suggestion then that
Resolution 2503 - and I would agree with you
-v whatever has to be done legally - I suppose
you withdraw your abandonment of the appeal and the appeal would then
be he.ard by the Council and denied and then that would leave the
issue the concerns of Councilman Shearer's - is that where we would
be?.
Mr. Weiss: I don't think that leaves the issues of
Councilman Shearer's specifically before
this Council.
Mayor Lloyd: He wants all of the things brought up.
Councilman Shearer: Mr. Mayor, if I may have the floor again..
There was a concern expressed on the part
of the Planning Commission with regard to
certain items in the permit that had to do with primarily operational
fees, financial considerations, etc., and if you will refer back to
the hearings before the Planning Commission they specifically said
these are areas that are beyond the prevue of the Planning Com-
mission, however we recommend very strongly that these items be
considered by the Council. I was present at that hearing, and sub-
sequently I expressed that view at the meeting I referred to on
December 4th. Briefly stated my position in the matter is this -
• that I would like some condition in the use permit which over a
period of years would provide for funds to develop 583 acres as a
regional park. One of the conditions that was removed and will be
removed if we ratify Resolution 2503 which was spread in the old
Revision 4 was Item #38, which calls for an operational fee to be
settled on prior to this particular revision becoming effective.
Now if 2503 is passed that is forever gone and to negotiate from a
point of no point of backing there is not much point in negotiating.
If we allow this opportunity to pass then what we have done is said
- 12 -
CITY COUNCIL Page Thirteen
PUB. HEARINGS: UUP #71. REV. 5 (Amend.) 1/14/74
to the Company - you are free to operate on an expanded basis. And
it is my understanding if something isn't done very shortly they
are out of room and have to stop operation. If we give them
authority without some sort of an operational fee to build some
sort of a sinking fund to develop, then we are out of the ballgame.
I attempted to express this on December 4. I got the impression
that we were talking in the same vein and that is the reason that I
did not appeal because I felt this item would be up for discussion
this evening.
Mayor Lloyd: Mr. Wakefield, I have a couple of questions.
The first question I guess is - is Councilman
Shearer allowed to call that item up?
Mr. Wakefield: Mr. Mayor - the time for calling the item up or
the time for appeal by anyone other than the B.K.K.
Company has long since passed. -This is one of the
reasons why under our existing Ordinance it is impossible for the
appellant to withdraw his appeal because if he had the authority to
do that he would have the authority to preclude the determination
of the appeal by the City Council and would preclude the City
Council itself or any citizens that may have appealed the right to
participate in the ultimate resolution of the matter before the
City Council.
It is true,as Councilman Young has suggested, that
the City Council does have the authority to proceed to hear the
matter and to take any action which. you deem appropriate at the con-
clusion of the hearing, including the reaffirmation of the action of
the Planning Commission in approving Resolution 2503. I think it
is true as Councilman Shearer has indicated that the effect of an
appeal in a matter of this kind is to place before the Council the
entire matter. What the Resolution says is correct that an
applicant may appear from any portion of the action but once the
matter is appealed and the action is before the City Council the
City Council has the jurisdiction to dispose of it in its entirety
and this means that any part of the action of the Planning Commission
action may be considered and changed or affirmed by the City Council
as the circumstances may warrant as a result of your hearing of this
matter.
Councilman Nichols: Mr. Mayor, as I understand this matter,
what we have before us is a request to
appeal a portion, which the City
Attorney says the applicant does not have a right doing. The City
Attorney has said thenhowever with that appeal which must con-
stitute the whole,. the Council may then consider any portion thereof
at its own discretion. Unless I have heard it incorrectly I think if
the Council should deny the appeal and then not favorably consider
the Planning Commission Resolution that the status that would then
be achieved would be the status quo and would not, as you indicated
Councilman Shearer, create a situation with the ability to impose
conditions and changes upon expansion of the use, that this would
be lost forever. Unless I am misunderstanding, the Council would
have in its authority tonight to both deny the appeal and the
Resolution, which would then place the situation back in the status
• of its existence prior to any request for change and then all of
these concerns expressed would be in abeyance pending some
additional application or some additional recommendation. Is that
not essentially correct - Mr. Wakefield?
Mr. Wakefield: That is essentially correct. If I may
make one more attempt to restate the
matter. Insofar as the matter of appeal
before you tonight is concerned you have the choice of affirming
the action of the Planning Commission, amending that action in any
particular, or denying the appeal in its entirety. If you do any
- 13 -
CITY COUNCIL Page Fourteen
PUB. HEARINGS: UUP #71, REV. 5 (Amend) 1/14/74
of these things the only thing the applicant ends up with is the
Unclassified Use Permit that is granted by this City Council, and
if you don't grant an Unclassified Use Permit tonight or at some
future date then the applicant stands on the Unclassified Use
Permit No. 71, Rev. #51 which was issued to him some 19 or 20 months
ago.
In other words the Planning Commission action
ceases to be effective for any purpose. What the applicant
receives on the basis of this hearing is an Unclassified Use Permit
issued by the City Council and the City Council may put into that
Unclassified Use Permit whatever it finds to be appropriate as a
result of this hearing.
Councilman Young: Mr. Mayor - it disturbs me - Mr. 'Weiss brings
out a point here that they are told in the
Planning Commission Resolution they can appeal
in any part - so they appeal from a specific part and
Councilman Shearer had it in his mind to call up some other specific
part.:but he didn't do it. So I can see all kinds of due process
questions arising and protracted litigation over these issues and I
would really like to find a way that is procedurally correct and
agreeable by stipulation or otherwise by the City Council and the
applicant, that would give the applicant its hearing on what the
applicant wants. Any applicant certainly has the right to that,
including B.K.K. Company, and I would certainly like to see any
kind of commitments for revisions in the specific additional
aspects of this thing that are of concern to Council dealt with.
Maybe it means in some fashion scrapping this whole thing and
starting over.
Mayor Lloyd: The decision I am trying to come to and I need
the Council;"-s help as well as the City Attorney -
do we go forward with the hearing? That is
what Councilman Nichols says, is that what you are saying?
Councilman Young: Well we go forward with the hearing and let's
suppose we -grant what B_K.K. originally asked
for and they don't want that anymore. So
suppose we go forward with the hearing and incorporate changes
suggested by Councilman Shearer, then I can see the applicant
coming along with litigation to invalidate the Council action
in that respect for the simple reason their petition.would be nothing
was before the Council except what they brought before the Council
in reliance on the Resolution of the Planning Commission which was
forwarded to them. Now I would like to know where we stand on that.
Mayor Lloyd: You are talking about lines 8 and 9 -
Mr..Wakefield, will you respond to that.
Mr. Wakefield: Mr. Mayor, I think it is obvious in the
situation in which the matter now pends that
progress is best made by proceeding with the
hearing. If you end up by deciding that Section 6(a) in:_ the
Planning Commission Resolution.needs to be.modified that may be
done. If you decide that Section 38 of the Planning Commission
• Resolution which relates to fines and fees that may be done, but
when you are done it will be the action of the City Council approv-
ing whatever Unclassified Use Permit with such conditions attached
to it as you deem appropriate, that will be the final effective
action.
Mr. Weiss:
Mr. Mayor, before
I speak once more
came down here for
having derived our language from lines
the question is called, may
on our problem. Again we
an appeal - we appealed 6 (a)
8 and 9, page 2 of the
- 14 -
CITY COUNCIL Page Fifteen
'PUB. HEARINGS: UUP #71. REV. 5 (Amend.) 1/14/74
Planning Commission Resolution. We then in our appeal of
December 7, 1973 stated most distinctly that we were appealing from
a portion of the action and we specifically enumerated 6(a). I
would suggest that Mr. Young is correct that if this body goes for-
ward with a hearing on the proposed revision there is indeed a 14th
amendment due process problem and the reason is this, that the
'Supreme Court of the United States has said that in order for there
to be due process you must have the opportunity for and indeed a
. meaningful hearing. We have come here before this body not knowing
that we were going'to do anything other than 6(a). Granted,
Mr. Wakefield told me in a conversation this afternoon that he told
me at an earlier time that if we appealed part of it we appealed
all. I have no recollection of that. I don't doubt that he is
speaking the truth but I have no recollection of that. However, if
he did say it he said it prior to our reading of this Resolution.
The Resolution is there and I will quote again "and that the
Secretary advise the applicant that this decision or any,part thereof
be appealed::...... ".
Now I suggest to the Council that nowhere within
your sections of this City's Ordinance, 9216.4, does it say if you
come before this body with an appeal as to one portion that it then
throws everything open. If it said that, but it doesn't, nor does it
say we can't abandon it. And I would suggest that the Planning Com-
mission sits as a quasi judicial body and the lawyers sitting here,
muddying the water�;,know when you appeal aijudicial decision that is
to say you file your Notice of Appeal, which is really what our
appeal is, Notice of Appeal and the pleaing of the brief thereafter
follows and if you withdraw the lower court's decision stands. I
would suggest that is what happens here. When you go on and look at
Section 9216.13 entitled "City Councils' Decision and Findings"
subparagraph (a) "within 30 days announces its decision to approve,
modify, or deny." And I would suggest gentlemen that "modify" is the
key word. You can't modify something that is long gone. The filing
of the appeal doesn't in and of itself nullify that hearing that
everybody went to so much trouble to and for before the Planning
Commission. As Mr. Wakefield says, it suspends the hearing. What it
does, if you refer back to Section 9216.7.entitled"Effective Date of
Planning Commission Decision" - this says "the decision of the
Planning Commission shall become final and effective within 20 dajs
after adoptionaof the Resolution stating the decision unless
appealed to the City Council." If it is in fact appealed that
decision is suspended just.as in a judicial matter you can't enter
a final, for example, in a divorce. You can't act on a judgment
until an appeal is filed and bond goes with it, but when it is
withdrawn you are back at the end of the 20 days. In effect thatJ.is
what ha:s happened here.
Now from our standpoint we are concerned with
the whole thing, we are concerned that Councilman Shearer thinks
we are sandbagging. We didn't.
Councilman Shearer: That is a matter of opinion, Mr. Weiss.
Mr. Weiss: Sure and I apologize to you and I don't doubt
that you feel that way. We would like to see
2503 stand, The problem is a problem that is far deeper than we
• can cover here. It requires study. We worked long and hard with
staff before we got to -the Planning Commission and when we got to
the Planning Commission the whole thing was footless. We would
like to see B.K.K. in a situation where we can go forward and
what we would like to see is the Council appoint an ad hoc committee
comprised of members of this Council to work with us and staff to
study this and perhaps we,can reach a decision. There are a lot of
ways but certainly we don't want to do it in an unlawful fashion.
We don't want the courts to have to legislate for this City.
- 15 -
CITY COUNCIL Page Sixteen
PUB. HEARINGS: UUP #71, REV. 5 (Amend.) 1/14/74
Mayor Lloyd: Okay. I have another question of Mr. Wakefield.
If we do appoint a group to meet what is the
time interval,between now and the next Council
meeting, or can we do it at all?
.Mr. Wakefield: Mr. Mayor and members of Council, you have the
authority of course to continue this hearing to -
a date certain. If in the interval it is your
desire to -appoint a subcommittee of this City Council to meet with
the applicant and consider the matter you run a substantial risk
in this sense, that whatever action you take in this matter you must
take on the basis of the evidence submitted to you at a public hear-
ing and not upon the basis of what some individual Councilman or
Councilmen may hear or decide acting as a ad hoc committee of the
Council.
So you have the right to continue the matter
but I would urge against the use of a ad hoc committee as a means
of resolving the matter because simply in this case',what you decide
must be supported by the record of the public hearing.
Mayor Lloyd: You are suggesting we may not do that - then
the next question and final one is from a legal
point of view if we go forward with this hearing
would you say that we will not find some situation where in we are
in a court action?
Mr..Wakefield: That I do not know, Mr. Mayor, and I can't
answer that question.
Councilman Nichols: Mr. Mayor, with the chair's indulgence I find
this a highly irregular procedure whereby a
hearing item is before the Council and the
Council finds itself in a three way debate between counsel for the
applicant, City Attorney, and various sundry people with their own
legal expertise. I find no benefit in this kind of thing at all.
I find that I am only thoroughly confused about the whole mess
because I do not have this kind of legal mind. I find almost a
freesome attitude that no matter what kind of position we take now
as legislators we may be sitting irrevocably against the City
Attorney, or against B.K.K., or against the Almighty Himself. I
would much prefer that this Council approach this matter on a hear-
ing basis and make whatever determination we make in good conscience
here tonight and we not try and determine here our course of action
any further by hearing testimony from the attorneys.
Mayor Lloyd:
I find no fault with that. This is what you
recommended, Mr. Wakefield?
Mr. Wakefield:
Yes.
Mayor Lloyd:
We will go forward with the public hearing.
Councilman Young:
Mr. Mayor, one more question. I was delivered
a packet which contains all this material
�•
relating to this appeal. I was expected to
study and review this thoroughly before coming here this evening
and presumptively
that is exactly what I did with a good portion
of my weekend and
I arrive this evening for the hearing and was
advised the appeal
no longer exists. Now, Mr. Wakefield, in terms
of due process and
that sort of thing, does a court, for example,
have the right to
go on and hear the matter although it has been
requested that` -_it
be withdrawn? Does that tie the court's hands
at that point or can the court go ahead and consider the matter on
- 16 -
•
CITY COUNCIL
PUB. HEARING: UUP #71, REV. '5 (Amend.)
Page Seventeen
1/14/ 74
its preparation and consider any conditions it cares to make?
Mr. Wakefield: Mr. Mayor and members of Council, the City
Council is somewhat different than a court.
However, a court may permit a complaintant or
a person who files a complaint, referred to as the plaihtiff.--<nto
dismiss his cause of action if an answer has not been filed by the
defendant or defendants. If it has then it takes an action of the
court to dismiss the action. The plaintiff may dismiss his action
entirely or he may dismiss certain causes of action, but I don't
think really the situation is analogous to this matter at all.
Councilman Young: What I am driving at, Mr. Wakefield, is this -
do .you think it.'i�is within the prevue of the
City Council - we have an appeal that has been
made and at the very last hour it is withdrawn - are we within our
rights to proceed? In other words, to deny? I would like to offer
a motion that the request for the abandonment of the appeal be
denied and get a vote on that an proceed.
Mr. Wakefield: That would be entirely in order.
Seconded by Councilman
Shearer and
carried on
roll call vote:
AYES: Young, Nichols,
Shearer, Chappell, Lloyd
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
Mayor Lloyd:
Mr. Wakefield, I have
served a copy
which has
a similar set of directors
on it as
B.K.K. but
not entirely the same
and I think I
would be in
conflict and I
have given you the list of
those people.
Would I be
in conflict?
Mr. Wakefield: Yes, Mr. Mayor. I think you should not partici-
pate.in the discussion on this matter or vote on
its final resolution.
Mayor Lloyd: I will abstain. Now are..we in the midst of the
hearing?
Councilman Shearer: Mr. Mayor, not to muddy the waters anymore - -
Mr. Wakefield, you mentioned one alternate, I
believe you did earlier, that of rejecting
Resolution 2503 in its entirety, in which case UnclassifisEd Use
Permit 71, Rev. 5 unmodified would still stand. Did you give us
that as one of the alternates?
Mr. Wakefield: Yes sir.
Councilman Shearer: This would satisfy me. The concerns that I
raised because of the financial situation. I am
not sure what it would do with regard to the
applicant. Mr. Weiss, I do not want to belabor the point, call.it
due process, but I feel really it is an attempted.in-run. This
would satisfy my concern, leaving it as it stood before we tried
to ,trim;- tndown under this. revision. Revert back to the old
Revision 5 as it stood some months ago in which it include a
stipulation that the City Council can establish an operational fee
to assist the City in the development of this ultimately as a
recreational usage.
Councilman Young: Mr. Mayor, I keep hoping I will hear Mr. Weiss
offer a stipulation on behalf of his client.
- 17 -
CITY COUNCIL
PUB. HEARING:
Mayor Lloyd:
Page Eighteen
UUP #71. REV. 5 (Amend.) 1/14/74
We will, if that is what you want. Let's hear
from Mr. Weiss.
Mr. Weiss: I would suggest this, and do this primarily
because I feel badly, whether he believes it
or not, of Councilman Shearer's position.
I would be willing to stipulate on behalf of my client that (A) -
our appeal be withdrawn and (B) - that this Council have the power
to set°,`eC? -matters that are of concern to Councilman Shearer down
for hearing at a future date, so that those matters may be deemed to
be matters to be modified if after testimony being taken it is
determined they should be modified pertaining to items only covered
in Resolution 2503. In other words, I believe the operational fee
is of concern to Councilman Shearer, Item 38. That matter be left
open and we have a hearing on those matters Councilman Shearer is
specifically concerned on.
Our problem very frankly is this, if we take the
second alternative that Mr. Wakefield doesn't necessarily suggest
but suggests as a possibility and that is that we are back to old
5 that pre -dates 2503, gentlemen - we are out of business.
Councilman Young: Mr. Mayor, I would like to suggest this.
Number 1 - I think the concerns expressed by
Councilman Shearer are certainly legitimate con-
cerns for the entire Council. Therefore, I would like to see this
done in a more general way because I am sure we are all concerned with
the ultimate development and the charges in the meantime that might
bring this about. My suggestion is that we continue this hearing to
the next regular agenda in order that the stipulation be drawn up in
something less than the words offered from the podium just now. We
all know what the concern is now and I would think we are all agreed.
I would certainly agree that Mr. Weiss is offering a reasonable
approach to it, the very stipulation that we need should be worked
out to everyone's satisfaction and brought before us at the next
Council meeting.
Councilman Shearer: Legally - is it binding? That is my only concern.
Mayor Lloyd: Just extending it for two weeks....
Councilman Shearer: In that case that would be all right because
we have taken no action. But the stipulation
matter Mr. Weiss was talking about --if in fact
it does allow us later to modify 2503, this would satisfy my real
concerns.
Mr. Weiss: Mr. Mayor, if I may speak to that? I would
suggest that in accordance with 9216.7 of the.
Ordinance of this City that a statute of
limitation is set up and that is 20 days and insofar as thoseiitems
that concern Councilman Shearer on behalf of my client we would
waive the statute of limitation so that Councilman Shearer can
call the matter up only so far as those matters he has previously
expressed are of a concern to him.
• Councilman Nichols: Mr. Mayor. Again, Mr. Mayor, let me object to
the concept of negotiating the terms of a public
hearing once it is called by the Council,
debating with the applicant as to what conditions will apply for
this in order for this body to hold a public hearing. In all my
years on Council I have never faced a situation where we have had
to sit here for an hour and debate with counsel for the applicant
as to what terms should apply for this body to have a hearing,
where we have a City Attorney sitting with us who has given us
- 18 -
CITY COUNCIL Page Ninteen
PUB. HEARING: UUP #71. REV. 5. (Amend.) 1/14/74
reasonably clear advice from'-:'�he very beginning. I think it is
very bad procedure and I am strongly opposed to it as a concept.
Mr. Mayor - we have many suggestions before us. The hearing is in
the Council's hands at this time. The applicant has indicated a
desire to be cooperative and I am sure the applicant will be very
cooperative in all of the appropriate fashions. It seems to me it
is a very simple device,,.if the concerns of Council have not been
answered yet that this can be handled in all the routine ways we
have always handled things. As soon as we open the hearing the
Council has the power to extend the hearing. The implication of
20 days and the statute and all that sort of thing doesn't bear a
bit in terms of this Council's power to hear this matter and carry
it over and have enough time to look at this matter further, but
these things should be discussed in terms of the hearing situation
and not in terms of negotiating outside of the hearing.
Mayor Lloyd: What the chair was trying to do in defence of the
chair's listening to all of these people, Council-
man Nichols, that each of the people who had con-
cerns had asked to speak and at this point I concur with you we
should get on with the public hearing.
Councilman Nichols: My remarks were not designed to condemn the chair
but only to ask the chair to share my own per-
turbment over the debate that is going on in
relationship to the item before it.
Mayor Lloyd: Very well, I declare the PUBLIC HEARING OPEN.
Councilman Young: Excuse me, Mr. Mayor, a point of order. I agree
with Councilman Nichols' remarks that this is
unprecendented, certainly in the four years I have
been here. However, I do feel this discussion has been highly pro-
ductive at this point. It may not be as we have always done things
but I think it has gotten us strides forward on this whole problem
and what we have achieved primarily in.this discussion up to this
point is, Number 1 - and primarily, a commitment from the applicant
that does seem to satisfy a matter of crucial interest to this Council
as voiced by.Councilman Shearer; and Number 2 - it assures a method
of achieving that interest without running even the risk of litiga-
tion and the expense and delay and all of that involved, and this
has been a matter of complete concern all around. Nobody wants a
law suit if you can get around it and I am certainly willing to
spend an hour here in a give and take discussi(on to avoid that.
Now we have been offered the key stipulation and
I would like to move that that stipulation be accepted, be restated
for the public hearing and be accepted.
Mayor Lloyd: I don't think we can do that because I have
opened the public hearing - will you speak to
that Mr. Wakefield? In other words, we have
opened the public hearing, we have a man ready to address us, I had
a point of order which was an explanation and he now has made a
motion on it, I stopped any second. Can he make that motion?
• Mr. Wakefield: Mr. Mayor, I agree with what Councilman Nichols
has stated and I think in this particular kind
of a situation an applicant has no right to
stipulate one way or the other what the City Council may or may not
consider in connection with this appeal and I suppose this gets back
to our basic disagreement between Mr. Weiss and I as to what the
situation is that pends before the City Council. Now it is true
as Councilman Young asserts, if Mr. Weiss is in a position to say
- 19 -
7
C]
CITY COUNCIL
PUB. HEARING: UUP #71. REV. 5 (Amend.)
Page Twenty
1/14/74
on behalf of his client that his client has no objection to the
Council's consideration of the amendment to Section 38 of the
Unclassified Use Permit No. 711 Revisivm-51 then that does remove
the possibility of later argument and litigation on that score,
but whether that stipulation is made and given and accepted or not
it is still my opinion that the City Council has the authority to
consider and act upon a revision to Section 38 of the Unclassified
Use Permit as amended if it deems that to be appropriate.
Mayor Lloyd: Do I rule the motion out of order or do I allow
it to come before us? I still don't understand.
Mr. Wakefield: If I were in your shoes, Mr. Mayor, I think I
would permit the stipulation to be restated,
accepted and proceed with the hearing.
Mr. Robert Weiss (Sworn in by City Clerk)
Attorney Representing the former appellant - B.K.K.
Company. If I might address myself to the
stipulation. Because we again believe it would
be a violation of due process as provided for under the 14th Amend-
ment of the Constitution of the United States and a portion of the
laws of California and because we feel badly about Councilman
Shearer's position, he feels he has been sandbagged, we would offer
to stipulate as follows: that our appeal be withdrawn and that
Resolution 2503 be ratified subject however to the holding open of
those provisions of the original Revision 5 as amended that may
raise the question and problems in Councilman Shearer's thinking.
He referred specifically to Item 38 and there may have been other
items, and that we go forward at some future hearing to discuss those
matters by way of testimony.
Mayor Lloyd: We have the stipulation. Do we have to act on
it by way of motion, or just accept that,
Mr. Wakefield?
Councilman Nichols: Mr. -Mayor - again we have the attorney for the
applicant in advance of the Council hearing
tonight offer a stipulation subject to binding
the Council to conditions which are qualified as stipulations. In
other words an acceptance of the stipulation constitutes a vote of
the Council to condition.�'its decision in advance of the' -hearing.
It doesn't seem to make any sense to me at all. I think the applicant
has no right at all beyond the right if he wishes to stipulate but to
condition upon some action that has not been taken by the Council
pre -judges our consideration of the facts of the matter.
Mayor Lloyd: What I am trying to get it and obviously I am
doing a very bad job of chairing this meeting.
We are in the midst of a public hearing. We
opened the hearing and he was askedtto make this kind of a state-
ment, it was suggested that he do so, he did do so, I then asked
the City Attorney how we handle it or is it already on the record?
That is all I want to know.
Mr. Wakefield: Mr. Mayor - may I asked Mr. Weiss whether he
has any objection as a part of the hearing
on this matter for the City Council to consider
the provision of Section 38 of Planning Commission Resolution 2310
and make whatever changes are deemed desirable by the City Council
as a part of that consideration in Resolution 2503 as adopted by the
Planning Commission?
Mr. Weiss: I am not sure I understand what the question
was.
- 20 -
CITY COUNCIL Page Twenty-one
PUB.HEARING: UUP #71. REV. 5 (Amend.) 1/14/74
Mr. Wakefield: The question was - do you object to the City
Council as a part of its hearing now consider-
ing changes in Section 38 of the Unclassified
Use Permit as adopted by the Planning Commission in Resolution 2503?
Mr. Weiss: Mr. Wakefield and Mr. Mayor, I would object to
it at this time. As a matter of fact I think
we made our point plain, we:_"invo.lve ourselves
in any hearing now under protest because of our feeling concerning
the withdrawal of our appeal. But we have said this, if a study
group is to be made up for the purpose of pursuing Councilman Shearer's
concern so at some future hearing testimony may be taken on Section 38
we believe it only fair that 38 be held open, because again we don't
want him to think we tried to sandbag him.
Mayor Lloyd: Okay. At this moment I am about to take a
recess so that Mr. Wakefield and Mr. Weiss can
get together and then someone tell me where I am
going because at; -this point I -yam with Councilman Nichols, I don't
know where I am going. I am sure the chair has this prerogative and
I declare a recess.
COUNCIL RECESSED AT 8,:20 P.M. AND RECONVENED AT 8:35 P.M.
Mayor Lloyd: We are in the midst of a hearing of Unclassified
Use Permit No. 711 Revision 5 and those In Favor
of whatever it may be are now in the midst of
their presentation - Mr. Weiss.
Mr. Weiss: Mr. Mayor and members of Council, I take it then
that we are to withdraw our stipulation.
Mayor Lloyd: Mr. Wakefield, will you speak to that, please.
Mr. Wakefield: Mr. Mayor, I think the form in which the
stipulation was offered was not acceptance and
there is nothing before the City Council at the
moment.
Mayor Lloyd: Then we are going forward with the hearing.
Make the presentation.
Mr. Weiss: Mr. Mayor and members of Council, for the record
only, if I might again be heard to say, that
although we will very briefly go.forward
touching on the particular points only we do object to the hearing,
it being our position that we have followed the language of the
-Resolution and that is to say that we'Zhave abandoned our appeal
and that this Honorable body has no right to go forward with the
hearing beyond..' the area of what the appellant sought and the
appellant presently seeks nothing by way of the appeal. Therefore,
we will briefly present our protest.
Mayor Lloyd: I understand. Go forward.
Mr. Weiss: We had initially appealed Section 6(a) of 2503
and having filed that appeal it appeared at
that time to be thesingle item that was of
interest to us and we believed it to be. -the item that was of interest
to the Council. I was not aware that Councilman Shearer wanted to go
beyond -that particular point because it was not within my understand-
ing that any issues could be made or met beyond those that were
appealed. However, this was';the only thing we brought up, and
Number 6(a), (for those of you gentlemen who are not familiar with
the old permit) speaks to the ultimate disposition of the land.
- 21 -
CITY COUNCIL Page Twenty-two
PUB. HEARING: UUP #71, REV. 5 (Amend.) 1/14/74
Following the filing of our appeal we met with
Mr. Wakefield, Mr. Zimmerman and other gentlemen were present. Un-
fortunately Mr. .Aiassa was on vacation and was unable to be with us
and we discussed various possibilities. It apparently has been the
attitude and desire of the City to put itself in the position that
when the B.K.K. site is ultimately complete, some 30 years downthe
road, that a regional park will be created at that site and of course
''this -'-is very desirable for the community, no doubt about it, but one
always gets into the problem of how does the City or any other
governing body end up with land? It is our position that if you are
going to take our land you must pay for it. And we think anything
short of that is going to be an unconstitutional take and as all you
gentlemen know the constitution does provide that nothing of ours
may be taken without just compensation. We just don't permit that
in a constitutional country such as ours.
Now following this meeting we were given by
Mr. Wakefield, who was kind enough to send me a letter under cover of
January 4, 1974, and within this is the following: "The conditions
of approval of Unclassified Use Per No. 71, Revision 5 (Amended)
as approved by Resolution 2503 of the Planning Commission of the City
of West Covina are amended as follows..." and thereafter he suggests
certain things. I wonder if you gentlemen have a copy of this before
you? I know it was sent to Mr. Aiassa, Mr. Zimmerman and Mr. Eliot.
(Council acknowledged they had.) "#6: Disposition of Land. It is
intended that the entire 583 acres of the subject property will be
ultimately used as a regional park. In order to accomplish this the
operator shall acquire title to the 583 acres of land and within 6
months from the date of approval of the Unclassified Use Permit shall
grant to the City of West Covina by a separate document in a record-
able form an irrevocable option to purchase the entire 583 acres for
public park and recreation purposes at a price which shall be specified
in the option and which has been mutually agreed upon by the Council
of the City of West Covina and the operator prior to the execution of
the option. The option may be exercised by the City upon the completion
of the landfill. The time of the completion of the landfill shall be
established in accordance with Provision 5, Subsection D hereof.
Now let's stop here for a moment. Gentlemen, we
don't own the land. We are the tenants. We are the tenants of Home
Savings and we are the tenants that have an option that we may
exercise through the last of November of 1989. Now if I read this
paragraph correctly (and I believe I do) we are required within six
months to go out and spend two million dollars of our money so that
we may then within that period of time enter into a binding relation
with the City so that the City may, if the City wishes, buy the land.
This is our first point. Now think on it. We have to spend two
million dollars and the debt service on two million dollars at present
is in the vicinity of $2501000. It isn't there. Our net revenues
won't do that for us and it certainly won't do it for the City. Now
let's go a step further.
The next paragraph "The City Council shall by
its own Ordinance levy an operational fee on the Sanitary Landfill
use authorized by this permit. The fee shall be levied on the basis
of the number of cubic yards or tons of material disposed of in the
sanitary landfill and shall be payable by the operator on a
quarterly basis. The fee shall be fixed in an amount which the
City Council and operator agree will be sufficient to enable the City
to finance the acquisition of the 583 acre landfill site in accordance
with and at the time specified in the option referred to in the pre-
ceding paragraph." Now let's get the full input and meaning on it.
We must first within six months take our two million dollars and go
out and acquire the site and we must then agree upon the price we
will agree to sell it to the City and we must then agree on what the
City will tax us out of each dollar that we take, in of our.- dollars.
- 22 -
CITY COUNCIL Page Twenty-three
PUB. HEARING: UUP #71, REV. 5, (Amend.) 1/14/74
How much do we give the City so the City may set aside and ultimately
acquire our land with our dollars? Where is the constitutionality of
this? You are literally taking our land that we have not yet
acquired, that we must acquire from somebody else at a substantial
amount of money and thereafter pay you enough dollars so you may
acquire our land from us with our money. There is no other way to
slice it. This is most distinctly brought home when you go down to
Condition B of this letter which is Condition #7 amended to read:
"Ultimate Use Safety Clause. If for some unforeseen circumstances
during the term of this Unclassified Use Permit the landfillcoperation
is discontinued the City shall have the option to purchase the portion
of the site which has been filled up to the date of discontinuance
for regional park and recreational purposes. The option price shall
be determined by dividing the option price of the entire land (583
acres) established pursuant to....." So on and so forth, referring
to the preceding paragraph. The point being this again - we go out
and spend two million dollars to acquire the whole site and now let's
suggest for a moment returning to Section 7, if for some environmental
difficulty the courts close us down, if because the state of things
change and all we need to do is zap the rubbish like that and we don't
have to fill it in the ground - a number of things can happen - if
our site is partially filled only, if the City wishes the City then
having required us to spend two millionsdollars to acquire the entire
site the City may come to us and say - gentlemen, we want those four
acres you keep the remaining 579 acre acre hole in the ground.
We are back to the same situation, the dog
chasing his tail. We have offered to us a program that we cannot
live with simply because we can't go out and acquire and then maybe
sell a portion of it or none of it or maybe not even sell it but
give it away because it is suggested as follows - we are to pay for
this by agreeing on a tax that is to be levied upon us.
Assuming for the sake of this discussion and
disregarding what the mathematics of the figures may be, let's
assume the City takes 10(,4 out of every dollar that comes through.
By the language of Condition 36 as suggested to be amended,
Subsection B, "a schedule of prices which shall not exceed the
maximum prices which have been approved by the City Council plus
the amount of any operational fee established by the City Council
shall be posted at the entrance, etc.." Now what is said here is
this - whatever we are allowed by law, and by law I am speaking of
what this Honorable body permits us to charge the public, the
rubbish producing and dumping public, we are permitted to add
something to that and that something again is what we would pay to
the City for the City to acquire our property. We have to let you
gentlemen know we are in what my client refers to "as a very
delicate market." We don't know what we can charge today even
and because of what the market problems are, and our energy problems,
and problems where the trash disposer is going to dump his waste
materials and where he can do so most cheaply. Consequently just
because we have a desirable site for a landfill doesn't mean we
can raise this to anything we want.
.Let's assume:= for the. sake of argument that we
are able to raise this hypothetical figure of.$1..00 .to $1.10. That
. is our $1.10 - you can say - well you canPpass it on to thepublic.
Itiis our site although we are only the tenant. It is our
business. Where does the City acquire the right to let us raise
our fees so that portions of our fees - that are really ours for
our operation, may be taken from us by the City so we may have our
own money given back to us at some future .time so that our property
may be taken from us by the City.
We suggest this, gentlemen. When you are ready
for a park there you have the right of eminent domain. You may
23 -
s
CITY COUNCIL
PUB. HEARING: UUP #71, REV. 5 (Amend.)
condemn us. But we have a great deal of
where there can be anything other than a
something such as this, or by our trying
this where we simply must fund the sale
and we don't see giving in this instance
the City has taken our property from us
Page Twenty-four
1/14/74
trouble and we can't see
taking by the execution of
to agree to something like
of our property to give,
because if we give really
without compensation.
I think that Mr. Winter, who is really intimately
familiar with the operations of B.K.K. would have some comments.
Mr. Winter (Sworn in by the City Clerk)
BKK COMPANY I have very little to add Mr. Mayor and members
of the Council, to what the eloquent Mr. Weiss
has said, except I might expand on the area of
the market which sustains and supports sanitary landfills. The market
for any particular landfill extends out in all directions until that
line coincides with a cheaper line. The line consists of the disposal
fee and the transportation costs. Our nearest competitor is the County
operated landfill near the 605 and Pomona Freeways. We function about
51(,' a ton below our nearest competitor. We don't know what
motivates all of our customers. Some of them come from L.A. with a 14
ton load because they save $7.00. Now after the City, if it indeed `.
does impose a tax, that tax may be just sufficient to keep them away
from our door�,.and at that point you have dipped into our cash flow and
I don't:-.thihk it can then be considered as a tax. Other than that I
would like to ask Councilman Shearer if the State builds roads by
tolling them? Thank you.
THERE BEING NO FURTHER PUBLIC TESTIMONY FOR OR AGAINST PUBLIC HEARING
CLOSED. COUNCIL DISCUSSION.
Councilman Young: Mr. Mayor, is there a staff recommendation at all
on the issue spoken to by Mr. Weiss and Mr. Winter?
Mr. Aiassa: No, Councilman Young, I believe staff did make
their report and it is normally attached with the
Resolution and recommendation of the Planning
Commission. Council has a copy of that report and Resolution.
Councilman Shearer: I have a question or two of either one of the
gentlemen. I would like to clarify a number of
points. First off this is the recommendation
of the City ,Attorney, something he has referred to us and not the
opinion of any member of Council. In general doesn't the County San
District operate on the basis that the revenue they take in at the
entrance covers their operating expense as well as provides some sort
of revenue for the ultimate development of these sites as park sites?
Mr. Winter: The Sanitation District operates a non -tax paying
agency. The fact they don't pay any ad valorem
tax or revenue taxes allows them considerable
funding annually in their budgets that we don't enjoy as a private
operator. The San District operates under a Joint Powers Agreement
with the L.A. County of Supervisors. Under that agreement they have
borrowed County General Fund monies for part of their site acquisi-
tions and under that agreement the land, at least in unincorporated
areas, reverts to the County Parks Department for development and
operation. Does that answer your question?
Councilman Shearer: No sir. The question was is the land structure
charged based on these considerations of develop-
ment of these lands as parksites include not only
the costs of acquisition of the land but also the cost of planting
the grass or whatever is necessary - - is this considered when they
set their rate?
- 24 -
CITY COUNCIL
PUB. HEARING: UUP #71. REV. 5 (Amend.)
Page Twenty-five
1/14/74
Mr. Winter: I am perhaps not.qualified to answer your
question'sufficiently, but the San District
operates four different types of sites. They
are operating one that they are leasing from a subdivider, they are
operating one in conjunction with the City of Glendale and have
several of their own in unincorporated areas, and I am not that
familiar with their budgets.
Councilman Nichols: Mr. Mayor. I am not in agreement with the
Planning Commission Resolution which incor-
porates its own thinking following staff
recommendations. I am inclined to be somewhat sympathetic in that
sense with the B.K.K. Company in their thesis that an agreement to
the conditions herein would tend to impose an extreme financial
burden upon them and quite possibly make their operation unprofitable,
certainly in an era of high interest rates. And I am persuaded
somewhat by the nature of their agreement and its content that the
City of West Covina is asking for a larger supply of Golden Eggs
than the goose can lay and for that reason I am not prepared per-
sonally to support the Planning Commission recommendations. On the
other hand I think it should definitely be said that B.K.K. has been
aware from.,the very inception of the operation of this site in
West Covina that they had in spirit and in fact accepted an obligation
to the community of West Covina. I personally have sat in meetings
with Mr. Garzarian, Sr., when that verbal commitmenit was made.:to the
City of West Covina and therefore I think that any argument that comes
before this body now that holds exclusively that the conceptions held
in the Planning Commission Resolution are inadequate or bad involves a
change in the position of B.K.K. that would not be in the interests
of B.K.K. or the people of West Covina and I am probably much of the
opinion that B.K.K. at the appropriate time will recognize that there
is some common ground between the position that B.K.K. has taken tonight
and the recommendations that have come to the Council here from staff.
So my own position in this matter is that I don't think it should be
unequivocably terminated this evening because that would in fact
work an impossible hardship upon an operation which is in fact
contributing to the well being of the community. On the other hand
I don't think the Planning Commission recommendation should be denied
outright because I think inherent in that Resolution are most of the
outlets that ultimately must result in an agreement in the City of
West Covina with the B.K.K. Company. So my own --position at the
appropriate time would be to support a motion or to move in support of
a motion, or vote in support of a motion to hold this hearing over
with the',!,hearing portion closed,for 30 days or until the first regular
Council meeting in the month of February which, if I am, --,correct,, would
hold all circumstances in their present situation allowing this
company to operate under existing regulations for that period
enabling staff to review its position and to join further discussions
with B.K.K. and hopefully to come back before Council at that time
with agreements that could result in recommendations to the Council
that all parties could in good faith accept and that would be in the
interest of all.
Councilman Young: Mr. Mayor, I feel there is much merit in
Councilman Nichols' points. I am sure B.K.K.
is in that business because it is a profitable
• business and I have no objection to a businessman making a legitimate
profit and I appreciate the candor of the presentation made by
Mr. Weiss in that respect. He is not talking about the great service
really, he is talking about a business in very businesslike terms.
It is obvious that B.K.K. has certain options on the land and
somewhere in these options that extend over a good number of years
there would appear to be a time and place for appropriate compromise
here. The assignment of options I suppose is a possibility and
of course without the Unclassified Use Permit there is nothing, so
the City certainly has some leverage which would always I trust be
exercised in a reasonable fashion, but for the moment I think we have
- 25 -
CITY COUNCIL Page Twenty-six
PUB. HEARING: UUP #71. REV. 5 (Amend.) 1/14/74
spent an awful lot of time on this issue and I think Councilman Nichols
has made a very reasonable suggestion.
Mayor Lloyd: Is that a motion?
Councilman Young: I will make that a motion.
Mr. Wakefield: Mr. Mayor, the Unclassified Use Permit Revision 5
expires on February 4, 1974 and if you continue
the matter until the llth the existing permit
will have expired and B.K.K. will have nothing.
Councilman Young: Mr. Wakefield is essentially saying we have to
take action before the 28th of January;
therefore I would like to withdraw the motion.
Mayor Lloyd: There was no second, so there is no problem.
Councilman Nichols: Mr. Mayor, a question of Mr. Wakefield. Is it
within the purview of the Council to extend the
existing Unclassified Use Permit on a month to
month basis or is that not proper? Is it legally possible to extend
the Unclassified Use Permit on a period of less than a year or
whatever the minimum is in the Ordinance?
Mr. Wakefield: Yes, the one year period simply refers to the
period of time within which the Unclassified Use
Permit must be exercised.
Councilman Nichols: The reason I ask that question is because I think
again it would not serve the interest of reasonable
consideration to create such a pressure in�termsodf
time that this must be accepted within two weeks time. I don't want to
extend it indefinitely but I think two weeks is an awful short time to
allow these things to be pursued. The thinking I had was perhaps the
Council has the capability of holding this matter over for the full
thirty day period and extending the use permit to coincide to that
period of time.
Councilman Shearer: Mr. Mayor, I would like to clarify a point or two.
The things I believe Mr. Weiss was commenting on
and objecting to were not part of Planning
Commission Resolution 2503 as passed by the Planning Commission. The
provisions that Mr. Weiss was discussing and I will agree with him,
perhaps for the first time this evening, that they are a little
stern, they are a little harsh and if I were in his position I would
be objecting to them also, but these were not a part of the Planning
Commissions' conditions. -These were suggestions by staff and the
City:Pttorney to revise those sections that had been appealed to
incorporate some of my concerns so that everybody would be happy, and
as it turned out nobody is happy. I was wondering if the B.K.K.
representatives would object that if Resolution 2503 was adopted with
Condition 38 A and B of the original incorporated as a part of that
Resolution - would that get us moving along? Or would you prefer
to have sometime to consider that between now and two weeks?
. Mr. Weiss: I will try and answer. We are almost back in
the same soup. You are asking us, Councilman,
to stipulate at this time really and I don't
think we can do that. The latter language of the Operational Fee
which reads "the amount of this fee shall be sufficient to cover the
entire cost of inspection, enforcement of this Unclassified Use
Permit and an additional amount of be used to assist in the
financing and development of the ultimate park and recreational use",
and I would say - no sir - we would respectfully decline;?:hat
suggestion.
26 -
CITY COUNCIL
PUB. HEARING: UUP #71. REV. 5, (Amend.)
Page Twenty-seven
1/14/74
Councilman Shearer: Perhaps I am the, f&1- 1rk,4uy here because I raised
the question about an hour and a half ago.
Mr. Weiss: You raised it properly, sir.
Councilman Shearer: My concern , and if it is only,one out of five
then we can drop the thing and everybody is
happy, and that is part of our system. But my
concern as well as I can state it was that we make some provision
today, in 1974, that in 1990 or whenever, probably when all of us
have passed on, that there be some funds available. Perhaps not
free and clear but some funds that the City Council at that time can
utilize to assist in the development of those acreages rather than
have 583 acres and have five men in 1990 sitting there asking how are
we going to raise the 'money - we have on the Master Plan what is
development for a regienal.,,park:1;but we have not made any provisions
over the years from the user of that facility; and that is why I
asked the question of Mr. Winter - over the years doesn't the user
or operator of the County San District set their fees so with current
income there is money available to be set aside for the ultimate
development of the intent of that area being set up as a park. And
that was why I raised the whole question because when I saw that
Section 38 was to be dropped there went the whole option of the City
of setting maybe a 5(4, a ton, not 51i,'.
It is not my inapt to price B.K.K. out of busi-
ness because then nobody is happy and everybody suffers. So if we
don't avail ourselves of that opportunity now it is lost. Maybe it
is best to hold it over two weeks, we have held it over now since
1970-71, since Revision 5 was first passed. That is what I am trying
to get. Now if there is not a consensus on the Council to proceed on
this matter then let's drop it right here.
Councilman Young: I like the idea of working towards the kind of
situation that Councilman Shearer is talking
about and obviously working on it in an
atmosphere of appropriate compromise with everyone involved. I
don't think we should ask B.K.K. to give us the land and develop it
for us but on the other hand I think that something should be done at
an appropriate time. The word used in this language here is "assist"
it doesn't say do the whole thing, so there may be some basis for
compromise.
Mayor Lloyd: Is there further discussion? Could I have a
motion?
Councilman Nichols: Yes, Mr. Mayor. I would move that the matter
before us of the appeal be denied.
Seconded by Councilman Young.
Councilman ,Shearer: A question, Mr. Mayor. If the matter of appeal
is denied, Mr. .Wakefield, does that automati-
cally ratify 2503?
Mr. Wakefield: ,Xoa-n. my opinion, Mr. Mayor and members of the
City Council. If the appeal is denied then
Resolution 2503 ceases to be effective for any
purpose. The only basis upon which Resolution 2503 can be effective
is for the City Council to grant Unclassified Use Permit No. 71,
Revision 5 as amended by the Planning Commission with the City Council
itself taking the action to approve the revised permit.
Councilman Shearer: So if we deny the appeal we haven't passed the
Resolution and we are nowhere.
- 27 -
CITY COUNCIL Page Twenty-eight
PUB. HEARINGS: UUP #71, REV. 5 (Amend.) 1/14/74
Mr. Wakefield: In my opinion that is correct.
Councilman Nichols: Mr. Mayor, may I speak? I may have made a
motion that I did not intend to make. If I am
hearing Mr..W�kefield correctly then in effect
B.K.K. Company would very shortly be without any legal authorization
for operation, whatever. -I would like to withdraw that motion.
Councilman Young: I will consent to the withdrawal.
Mayor Lloyd: On the motion that was made and on-l:the floor
we can vote it out and start over again.
Motion failed, four votes "naye" and one
abstention by Mayor Lloyd.
Motion by Councilman Nichols that the matter of Planning Commission
Resolution 2503 and the appeal thereof be held over until the next
regular Council meeting of January 28, 1974. Seconded by Councilman
Young and carried on roll call vote as follows:
AYES: Young, Nichols, Shearer, Chappell
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: Lloyd
Councilman Nichols: Mr. Mayor - one final observation. I intimated
this and I would like there to be no confusion
in terms of my own point of view on these
matters. I think B.K.K. does have a very significant responsibility
to the City of West Covina in terms of helping and that ultimately
the proper use of that land can be provided for the benefit of all
citizens. The use of that land is unique in that pit__ is probably
the only use in West Covina which in fact may destroy the land for
any other private or productive type of use at all. And when the
West Covina City Council speaking for 70,000 residents made a
commitment to allow this type of operation on that land in my judgment
that conveyed a very heavy degree of responsibility on the operators to
help this community insure itself that a fine and productive use of
that land would continue, and if I personally become thoroughly con-
vinced that the commitments made in the past that B.K.K. Company
wasn't prepared to fulfill I will be very unhappy indeed and will be
much inclined to resort to some other redress that is now available
to us.
SLIGHT MODIFICATION NO. 76 LOCATION: 1248 S. Montezuma Way
STEVE NOVARRO REQUEST: Reduction of required side yard
setbacks from 10 fee to 8 feet for con-
struction of a single family dwelling and
attached garage on an existing unimproved
lot. Denied by Administrative Review
Board on December 17, 1973. Appealed by
Applicant on December 27, 1973. (No
publication necessary. Six notices mailed
on 1/2/74)
THIS IS THE TIME AND PLACE FOR THE PUBLIC HEARING ON SLIGHT MODIFICA-
TION NO. 76.
Mr. Miller: Mr. Mayor and members of Council, to be brief,
the staff report is fairly explicit in what the
intention was by the applicant, Mr. Novarro,
and I think states fairly the decision made by the Administrative
Review Board in denying the Slight Modification. I do point out
that we did make an error in the examination of some setbacks but
in further examination we find that those we could survey of the
CITY COUNCIL Page Twenty-nine
PUB. HEARING:. SM NO. 76
1/14/74
homes in that area that'had been built under the County as well as the
City standards, only four homes..,,.had Variances on for setbacks less
than required by code. One of those is a required front setback that
had been reduced and three others are
side
tyard
setbacks
city's annexation.
and
all
three
of those were done under the County prior
I point out in the staff report that the granting
of a privilege or the denying of a right to a property owner enjoyed
by other property owners within Othe vicinity has not been demonstrated
because the vast majority of the residences constructed in that area
do comply or exceed the required side setback of 100'. With that
recommendation
brief explanation and the staff report before y
ou thewould be to uphold the decision of Slight Modification No. 76 and
deny it.
IN FAVOR
Steve Novarro (Sworn in by City Clerk)
329 No. Monterey Mr.Mayor and members of the City Council, getting
Alhambra back to the original request, my reason for ask-
ing for this is that Lot 24 is smaller than many
of the other lots in the area. I feel by decreasing the side set
backs to 8 " which is evidently what they were in the County, the
home would not only be more functional but better looking from the
front elevation for the simple fact it would be 4' wider. Others in
the same area do have reduced setbacks. According to Mr. Miller there
are only four, .one front setback and three side setbacks. I have
pictures here oftlehavest four stated onuses I lookeat hat have the pictures thetmeasurementsuced
side setbacks and
(Pictures given to City Council)
The staff report did indicate that the adjacent
homes both came up to West Covina required sa setbacks which they
thedid.
The house on the east side of. my property is
y
property line and the house on the west side is 8'. I have talked
to the neighbors on the west side, their name is Mitchell, and this
particularly affects them more than anybody else because that is the
longest side of my property and they have no objection. This is
not in an area where I am setting amongst other vacant lots. You
are not setting a precedent. I am in an area where the adjacent
lots do have reduced setbacks and I am really not asking for anything
more than the neighbors in that vicinity already have. .That is all
I am asking for. Thank you.
IN OPPOSITION
Dr. Ben Rupstein Mr. Mayor and members of the Council, I am
1303 Golden Vista representing the homeowners group in the area
West Covina in question and as you are probably well aware
the area has for many years been a part of the
County until relatively recently when annexed to West Covina. One
of the consolidating points in getting the Villa area annexed to the
City it was understood by the homeowners of the area that some of the
"slip shod" manner in which some of these hillside Variances were
handled in the past would not occur again. It was one of the facets
we utilized in getting the area annexed to West Covina.
The Homeowners' Group is in accord and agreement
• with the Administrative Review Board's decision of 12/17/73 and we
believe the City of West Covina has a Hillside Ordinance and we know
it probably isn't as rigid as the people in the area would like it
to be when compared with Hillside Ordinances in other cities but we
do feel a Variance under the present Ordinancehas
tometthe testfora
of a Variance by cause and we ask that the a p srequest
Variance be denied on that basis. We also have within the area
filed in the Recorder's Office on February 19, 1965 a declaration
of Covenants and Restrictions for that area which covers practically
- 29 -
CITY COUNCIL Page Thirty
PUB.HEARING: SM NO. 76 1/14/74
all the areas discussed here and others and it is a part of those
Covenants and Restrictions that any variation from these setbacks
would also have to receive the Architectural Committee's approval
in that area and -,these are part of the requirements of any lot buyer
in the area and to date no request has been made to the Committee or
the Homeowners' Group and the Homeowners' Group has met as a group
and are against this modification by Variance. Thank you.
Doug Watts. (Sworn in by City Clerk)
1249 Montezuma Way I was at the first meeting and I stated at that
West Covina time that I didn't think it was fair that one
person was able to come up and say "no, I don't
like this" speaking for the area up there. So this time two of us
up there set out and got a petition. We didn't by any means cover
the whole area, but the two of us saw fifteen people and every person
we did see signed this petition against a Variance being done and
as you will notice on there the addresses of 12441 1252, 1249 and 1255,
these are the four lots that surround the lot in.,question. We all feel
the restrictions put on the lots we have all of us built by, we have
all lived by and found no problems.
The lot Mr. Novarro is looking at is a very
beautiful lot,but I don't think it is ideally situated for a large
house because the lot is small. I looked at this lot prior to
buying one across the street and would have.preferred that lot to the
one I bought but my houselfawould-.-cnot fit on it so I got a lot that
my house would fit on.
I think that any motion by the Council or action
putting any deviation in from the restrictions there would be very
bad for this area because we all have an investment to protect and
none of the restrictions we find are too hard to keep.
REBUTTAL
Mr. Movarro: As far as the petition goes I don't think these
people really understood what I am asking for.
I am asking for a side setback that decreases by
20%, which is one of the requirements for a Slight Modification, it
really is not going to hurt a thing. It is not going to be a
deterrant to the area, it is going to be a better looking house than
it will be if I have to have 10' setbacks, and I will have a bigger
backyard because of it. If I havetto squeeze the house in naturally
it has to go back towards the back. I wouldn't have bought in the
area if I didn't think it was a nice area and I am not going to do
something there to harm the area. I am living in the house, I am
not speculating with it - naturally I am concerned with the ultimate
outcome of the sale of it also. These people in the area do have
houses with decreased setbacks and I am not asking for a 5' setback
when everyone else has 101, I am just asking for something that
everyone else has. I think that pretty well covers it. Thank you.
THERE BEING NO FURTHER PUBLIC TESTIMONY PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED.
COUNCIL DISCUSSION.
Councilman Young: Mr. Mayor, I am sympathetic with Mr. Novarro's
• presentation certainly but I think that if this
Variance is granted we are setting a precedent.
This to my knowledge is the first time this area has come to our
attention for the purpose of Variances since it has been annexed.
I think the key showing for a Variance is not shown. I don't think
there has been a showing of genuine hardship or a denial of the use
of the property in the absence of a Variance, which to me are key
points. There is a showing of some inconvenience involved which will
require some modification perhaps of the design Mr. Novarro has
which can probably be made. So that it comes down in my thinking
once again of not getting into the CC&R's on file, which is their
- 30 -
CITY COUNCIL
PUB. HEARING: SM NO. 76
Page Thirty-one
1/14/74
problem, but we do have the Ordinance and the requirements and that
Ordinance is worthy of integrity and if we start varying Ordinances
purely as an accommodation we might as well not have an Ordinance.
I would be prepared to support the denial part of the recommendation.
Councilman Shearer: Mr. Mayor, I have one point to add. In addition
to the hardship I notice in reading the staff
report that Mr. Novarro indicated at the
Administrative Review Board hearing that he has not yet got plans,
so apparently the detailed layout of his house has not been finalized.
.So it seems.•"w=.o me it might just be a matter of inconvenience to tell
his architect to make it 10' less and instead of having a 2800 square
foot home he might have to concede for a smaller home or a smaller
backyard. I don't see that the conditions of the Variance has been
met nor that there is a hardship.
Motion by Councilman Shearer that the action of the Administrative
Review Board be upheld; seconded by Councilman Young and carried on
roll call vote as follows:
AYES: Young, Nichols, Shearer, Chappell, Lloyd
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
PUBLIC WORKS
SUPPLEMENTAL WEED AND LOCATION: Various throughout the City.
RUBBISH ABATEMENT PROGRAM Council reviewed Engineer's Report.
1973-74 Request: Approve Supplemental Weed and
Rubbish Abatement Program for 1973-74
accordingt, o list attached to Resolution
setting date of January 281 1974 for
protest hearing on the proposed abate-
ment and rubbish removal by adoption of
a Resolution.
Mr. Zimmerman: Mr. Mayor, the Council has been given the list
of Supplemental Weed Abatement. This would be
the usual thing we do regularly at this time
and we recommend approval of the Resolution.
RESOLUTION NO. 4819 The City Attorney presented:
ADOPTED "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF WEST COVINA DECLARING ALL RUBBISH
AND REFUSE UPON, AND ALL WEEDS GROWING
UPON SPECIFIED STREETS AND PRIVATE PRO-
PERTY WITHIN SAID CITY TO BE A PUBLIC
NUISANCE AND DECLARING ITS INTENTION
TO REMOVE AND ABATE THE SAME UNDER AND
IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF
TITLE 4, DIVISION 3, PART 2, CHAPTER 13,
ARTICLE 2, OF THE GOVERNMENT CODE."
Motion by Councilman Shearer, seconded by Councilman Chappell and
carried, to waive further reading of said Resolution.
Motion by Councilman -Shearer, seconded by Councilman Chappell and
• carried on roll vot:o adopt said Resolution:
AYES: Young, Nichols, Shearer, Chappell, Lloyd
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
- 31 -
CITY COUNCIL
PUB. WKS.• Cont'd.
FREEWAY IRRIGATION SYSTEM
CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION
Page Thirty-two
1/14/74
LOCATION: Northerly terminus of
Butterfield Road, at South Frontage Road.
Council reviewed Engineer's Report.
RESOLUTION NO. 4820 The City Attorney presented:
ADOPTED "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF WEST COVINA ACCEPTING A DIRECTOR'S
DEED EXECUTED BY THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA,
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION."
Motion by Councilman Young, seconded by Councilman Shearer and carried,
to waive further reading of said Resolution.
Motion by Councilman Young, seconded by Councilman Shearer, to adopt
said Resolution and carried on roll call vote as follows:
AYES: Young, Nichols, Chappell, Lloyd..
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: Shearer
TRANSFER OF STORM DRAINS LOCATIONS: 1) MTD 339 - W/S of Azusa
TO LOS ANGELES COUNTY Avenue, from Amar Road to BKK;
FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT 2) MTD 341 - Amar Road from Lark Ellen
MISCELLANEOUS TRANSFER Avenue to Brentwood Drive, and Brentwood
DRAINS 33,°., 341 AND 362 Drive N/O Amar Rd; 3) MTD - 362 - Lark
Ellen Avenue north of Amar Road, includ-
ing Tract 24006.
Council reviewed Engineer's Report.
RESOLUTION NO. 4821 The City Attorney presented:
ADOPTED "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF WEST COVINA, CALIFORNIA, REQUEST
ING THEBOARDOF SUPERVISORS OF THE
LOS ANGELES COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT
OF THE,STATE OF CALIFORNIA TO ACCEPT ON
BEHALF OF SAID DISTRICT A TRANSFER AND
CONVEYANCE OF STORM DRAIN IMPROVEMENTS
AND DRAINAGE SYSTEM KNOWN AS MISCELLANEOUS
TRANSFER DRAIN NO. MTD 339, IN THE CITY OF
WEST COVINA FOR FUTURE OPERATION, MAINTEN-
ANCE, REPAIR AND IMPROVEMENT, AND AUTHORIZ-
ING THE TRANSFER AND CONVEYANCE THEREOF.
RESOLUTION NO. 4822 "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
ADOPTED CITY OF WEST COVINA, CALIFORNIA, REQUESTING
THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF THE LOS ANGELES
COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT OF THE STATE
OF CALIFORNIA TO ACCEPT ON BEHALF OF SAID
DISTRICT A TRANSFER AND CONVEYANCE OF STORM
DRAIN IMPROVEMENTS AND DRAINAGE SYSTEM
KNOWN AS MISCELLANEOUS TRANSFER DRAIN
NO. 341, IN THE CITY OF WEST COVINA FOR
FUTURE OPERATION, MAINTENANCE, REPAIR AND
IMPROVEMENT, AND AUTHORIZING THE TRANSFER
AND CONVEYANCE THEREOF."
• RESOLUTION NO. 4823 "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
ADOPTED CITY OF WEST COVINA, CALIFORNIA, REQUESTING
THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF THE LOS ANGELES
COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT OF THE STATE
OF CALIFORNIA TO ACCEPT ON BEHALF OF SAID
DISTRICT A TRANSFER AND CONVEYANCE OF STORM
DRAIN IMPROVEMENTS AND DRAINAGE SYSTEM
KNOWN AS MISCELLANEOUS TRANSFER DRAIN
NO. 362, IN THE CITY OF WEST COVINA FOR
- 32 -
CITY COUNCIL Page Thirty-three
PUB. WKS: Cont'd. 1/14/74
FUTURE OPERATION, MAINTENANCE, REPAIR AND
IMPROVEMENT, AND AUTHORIZING THE, TRANSFER AND
CONVEYANCE THEREOF."
.Motion by Councilman Shearer to waive further reading of the fore-
going Resolutions. .Seconded by Councilman Chappell and carried.
Motion by Councilman Shearer to adopt the foregoing Resolutions.
Seconded by Councilman Chappell and carried on roll call vote as
follows: AYES: Young, Nichols, Shearer, Chappell, Lloyd
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
PROJECT NO. UE-1563-1 LOCATION: Nogales Street, Valley Blvd.
LOCAL AGENCY STATE to Pomona Freeway.
AGREEMENT NO. UE-714-4 Council reviewed Engineer's report.
RESOLUTION NO. 4824 The City Attorney presented:
ADOPTED "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF WEST COVINA APPROVING A CERTAIN
CONTRACT AND AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION
THEREOF."
Motion by Councilman Shearer, seconded by Councilman Chappell 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
PROJECT NO. SP-73006 LOCATION: West side of Citrus Street,
OTIS D. and between Cortez Street and Walnut Creek
GERTRUDE L. HARBERT Wash.
Council reviewed Engineer's Report.
RESOLUTION NO. 4825 The City Attorney presented:
ADOPTED "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF WEST COVINA ACCEPTING A GRANT
DEED EXECUTED BY OTIS D. AND GERTRUDE L.
HARBERT AND DIRECTING THE RECORDATION
THEREOF . "
Motion by Councilman Young, seconded by Councilman Shearer and
carried, to waive further reading of said Resolution.
Motion by Councilman Young, 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
TRAFFIC SIGNAL ENERGY Mr. Aiassa: Mr. Mayor, this was a
REPORT follow-up report
• suggested by Council.
Motion by Councilman Shearer to approve recommendation of the Staff
Report dated January 10, 1974; seconded by Councilman Chappell and
carried.
HOLLY PLACE WIDENING LOCATION: Holly Place, Cameron Avenue
to 230 southerly.
Council reviewed Engineer's report.
- 33 -
CITY COUNCIL
PUB. WKS: Cont'd.
Page Thirty-four
1/14/74
Motion by Councilman Shearer to direct staff to attempt to
negotiate with property owner to obtain a right-of-way easement at
no cost to the City; and authorize construction of temporary pavement
by City forces, if easement is obtained. Seconded by Councilman
Chappell and carried.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
Mr. Bom Mr. Mayor and members of the Council, as
Representing you all remember the City was incorporated
West Covina Beautiful in February, 1923, which means the
birthday of the City is coming up again
next month. As you are also aware West Covina Beautiful over the years,
including last year, has organized the annual Birthday Balls. So this
year again our Board has started making preparations for such a ball.
This year it will be rather a simple event; nothing like last year.
We will have some entertainment, good food, drinks and dancing.
This will be on February 23, a Saturday. We have already secured the
place, it will be in the Bainbridge Club at California Avenue and
Bainbridge Avenue. Of course w67_will send out personal invitations
to all of you and to members of the City Staff, members of West Covina
Beautiful and other residents. When the invitations go out it is
also always announced as the West Covina Annual Birthday Ball and we
would just like_,,t.o have your concurrence to announce it again as the
West Covina Annual Birthday Ball. I hope that most of you will have
sometime to join us for a few hours and have pleasure with us. Thank
you, Mr. Mayor.
Motion by Councilman Young that February 23, 1974, be declared the
night of.the West Covina Annual Birthday Ball under the auspices of
West Covina Beautiful. Seconded by Councilman Chappell and carried.
CITY ATTORNEY
RESOLUTION NO. 4826 The City Attorney presented:
ADOPTED "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF WEST COVINA AMENDING RESOLUTION
NO. 43291 ADOPTED MARCH 221 1971,
ESTABLISHING THE YOUTH ADVISORY COMMISSION."
Motion by Councilman Young, seconded by Councilman Chappell and carried,
to waive further reading of said Resolution.
Motion by Councilman Chappell, seconded by Councilman Shearer,to adopt
said Resolution.
Councilman Shearer: Mr. Mayor - a comment. We have discussed
this in the past and my concern was
answered in some amendment I thought until
I received the schedule that we are going to start on tomorrow
evening of interviews for our Youth Commission. A question was
raised in my mind - we have only a schedule listing 19 applicants and
being somewhat interested in how these things fall I took the time to
sort them out. The Resolution states that an appointee to the
Commission must either be a sophomore or a junior at the time of
appointment, so if we eliminate the seniors that were definitely
seniors listed in our packet we don't come up with enough applicants
to fill the seven seats and seven alternates, if we eliminice
seniors. I assume we have seniors scheduled for tomorrow night.
I_ wonder if perhaps.we are adopting a Resolution that we might have
a little difficulty in fulfilling because if you look at the distri-
bution seven of the eligible juniors and seniors all come from one
high school and while they live in West Covina the high school is
located in Covina. If we are limited to these appointees we are
going to have a little bit of an inbalance of Commissioners and
Alternates. I wonder if this is an indication of a lack of interest
or what. - 34 -
CITY COUNCIL
CITY ATTORNEY - Cont'd.
Page Thirty-five
1/14/74
I am prepared to go ahead and pass the Resolution but we may find it
one that' is difficult to comply with.
Councilman Nichols: I thought the original one said that the
Alternates would be the younger ones and they
then would come on into full service..
(Councilman Shearer. read Section 1,eEstablishing Youth Commission.-)
Councilman Shearer: The intent there was, the appointments being
made in April, I believe, that they would be
the majority of the time Seniors, and if we
appoint Seniors in April and they then depart to college we have to
deal with that problem. So this was an attempt to eliminate that
eventuality, so then we find ourselves with this one. If we eliminate
the ineligible ones then we don't have enough left. Maybe that is a
problem we should take up tomorrow night.
Mayor Lloyd: It does pose a problem and I agree with you the
intent of course was to bring those people back
such as Lyn Giles and Brenda Thompson and these
girls are both Seniors, and if we enact this we can at least appoint
them in the initial phases and then swing around by April and start
over again, in order to get this thing rolling. Can we do that?
Mr. Aiassa: Mr. Mayor - I have one suggestion - it might be
preferable to have Council carry this
Resolution over because you are not going to
make your appointments until the 28th. Review your candidates
tomorrow night and see what it looks like and then maybe you can get
some of this resolved before adopting the resolution on the 28th and
then make amendments to 'it.
Councilman Young: That may be a good idea. Or the words "wherever
possible" may resolve the issues raised. If not,
those words should be inserted elsewhere in the
Resolution so we reserve sufficient flexibility in light of the
uniqueness of this program anyhow.
Mayor Lloyd: That makes sense to me. Mr. Wakefield -we have a
Resolution to adopt, will you help us out?
Mr. Wakefield: I think if we simply insert the word "Senior"
so the second sentence of Section 1 reads:
"members of the Youth Advisory Commission shall
be Seniors, Sophomores or Juniors in .high:-s.Ghool at the time of
their appointment...." and then leave the Alternates either Sophomores
or Juniors at the time of their appointment.
Mayor Lloyd: If that is satisfactory may I have a motion to
amend the Resolution.
Motion by Councilman Shearer that the wording in the third paragraph,
Section 1, be amended to read: "Members of the Youth Advisory
Commission shall be Sophomores, Juniors or Seniors in high school at
the time of their appointment." Seconded by Councilman Young and
• carried.
Motion to adopt resolution carried on roll call
vote as follows: AYES: Young, Nichols, Shearer, Chappell, Lloyd
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
- 35 -
CITY COUNCIL
CITY ATTORNEY - Cont'd.
Page Thirty-six
1/14/74
RESOLUTION NO. 4827 The City Attorney presented:
ADOPTED "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF WEST COVINA REQUESTING ASSESS-
MENT INFORMATION FROM THE 1974-75
ASSESSMENT ROLL."
Motion by Councilman Shearer, seconded by Councilman Young, to waive
further reading of said Resolution. Motion carried.
Motion by Councilman Shearer, seconded by Councilman Chappell, to
adopt said Resolution. Motion carried on roll call vote as follows:
AYES: Young, Nichols, Shearer, Chappell, Lloyd
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
WILLIAMS & MOCINE Mr. Wakefield: Mr. Mayor and members of
SUPPLEMENTAL the Council, this is the
AGREEMENT amended contract with Williams & Mocine to pro-
vide for the study of the area immediately to the
west of the Central Business District Redevelop-
ment Area.
Motion by Councilman Chappell, seconded by Councilman Shearer and
carried, to approve.
ADOPTION OF NEW Mr. Wakefield: Council has a staff report
CONSTRUCTION CODES on this, Mr. Mayor and
members of the Council, and the appropriate action
would be simply to instruct the City Attorney to
prepare the necessary ordinance and set for public hearing for the
adoption of the codes as amended regulating construction in the City
of West Covina.
.So moved by Councilman Chappell, seconded by
Councilman Shearer and carried.
REPORT ON VENDING Mr. Wakefield: Mr. Mayor and members of
MACHINES BUSINESS Council, last year you
LICENSE FEES will recall there was
,some question raised with respect to the provi-
sions of our Business License Ordinance as they
relate:- to coin operated vending machhes. This report simply reviews
and points up the problem raised by the operators but really doesn't
recommend any solution to the problem. I guess there are really two
alternatives available to the City Council, either leave the
Ordinance as it is or accede to the request of the operators and
amend the Ordinance to provide for a single gross receipts levy
upon the total business operations of the operators within the City
without regard to the total number of machines he has.
Councilman Young: Mr. Mayor, I rather hate to see us get -.into
another lengthy discussion tonight - is this
an item that needs to be taken care of
tonight?
Mr. Wakefield: No sir.
Councilman Young: I would like to express an opinion and say that
I think basically when you are taxing a vending
machine the appropriate basis for the. tax is
revenue. I think that is especially true of vending machines. A
vending machine is a convenience to whomever is a customer of it.
I don't know if you want to get into a discussion on this tonight
or not, but I felt some of the complaints were well taken by the
vending machine operators.
Mayor Lloyd: Let's have a motion to hold it over.
- 36 -
CITY COUNCIL
CITY ATTORNEY - Cont'd.
Page Thirty-seven
1/14/74
Motion by Councilman Young to hold over the item relating to Vending
Machine Business License Fees; seconded by Councilman Shearer and
carried.
RESOLUTION RE
APPRENTICE FIREMAN
is' RESOLUTION The City Attorney presented:
HELD OVER "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL.OF THE CITY OF
WEST COVINA AMENDING CERTAIN PROVISIONS OF
RESOLUTION NO. 1277 RELATING TO A CERTAIN
AUTHORIZED POSITION AND SALARY. (Apprentice
Fireman)
Motion by Councilman Shearer, seconded by Councilman Chappell and
carried, to waive further reading of said Resolution.
Motion by Councilman Shearer, seconded by Councilman Chappell,�:td adopt
saidiRdsolution.
(Mayor Lloyd called on Mr. Smith to speak as he had previously
requested.)
Mr. R. Smith, (Representing the Fire Fighters Association)
Business Representative Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I have a letter here
Teamster's Union which reads: "Honorable Council: On behalf
of the Fire Fighters of West Covina the
Public Employees' Union, Teamster's Union Local 986, wishes to go on
record in opposition to the Apprentice Fireman program as now proposed
by management. The decision to oppose is based on an overwhelming
membership vote taken on Thursday, January 10, 1974. However, based
on the 4 to 1 vote of your Personnel Board to approve the program and
revise job specifications for the position,..of Apprentice Fireman without
our suggested modifications to improve the program it is the desire of
the membership to cooperate in the implementation of the program.
Further, it is the intent of the membership to police the augumentation
of the program so it stays within the perimeters outlined in the policy.'
'We believe that if the City proceeds with
the Aprrenticeship program it should follow along.the lines as similar
programs in the private sector. That is the Apprenticeship will be a
training function and not to be used to lower salaries. This point is
of major concern to your Fire Fighters who wish to further the career
service but at the same time feel this could evolve into a manning
function to the detriment of the Fire Department. The Public
Employees' Union -';.As confident the Honorable Council will take all
our. concerns now and in.the future into consideration as the program
evolves. (Signed: Public Employees' Union, Local 980."
Since that vote was taken and the letter
was written it has come to our attention that the Paramedic Program
which was supposed to be on the agenda tonight according to our
understanding from the Personnel Board last Tuesday did not appear on
the agenda tonight. Now this heightens our fear with regard to the
Apprenticeship program, so we would ask that this be held up until
the Paramedic program is brought to the City Council and passed by the
City Council. That"is.an additional development since the Personnel
Board meeting of last Tuesday.
Mayor Lloyd: Were you told this was to be an agenda item
tonight?
Mr. Smith: Yes, that was our understanding at the meeting
Tuesday night. We were told that by the
Personnel Board members. -
- 37 -
CITY COUNCIL
CITY ATTORNEY - Cont'd.
Page Thirty-eight
1/14/74
Mayor Lloyd:
That doesn't mean it will be on the agenda tonight,
it would appear in the normal manner. I don't
believe there is any unusual procedure that has
been taken and
it would be not necessarily in order that the Board
would know when
an item would appear only that they could recommend
its appearance
on the agenda.
.Mr. Smith:
We believe the thrust of their vote to override
our objections and pass the program as presented
was based largely on the fact that the Apprentice-
ship program was
going hand and glove with the Paramedic Program and
this probably influenced
to a great extent the 4 to 1 vote. And now
the Personnel Board
is not here and the Paramedic Program is not here
either.
Councilman Young: Mr. Mayor, could we simply inquire if there is
knowledge when the Paramedic Program is going
to be presented?
Mr. Aiassa: Yes, January 28th.
Councilman Young: I see no objection to holding this over to the
28th.
Mayor. L1o.yd.:_.., _ We need , a substitute motion then - is that
correct, Mr..Wakefield? (Answered: Yes)
':'Substitute.:.mo,tiorii..by CouncIl.man Young that this matter be deferred until
January 28, 1974. Seconded by Councilman Chappell and carried.
CITY COUNCIL MEETING RECESSED BY THE MAYOR AT 11 P.M. FOR THE PURPOSE
OF CONDUCTING THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MEETING. COUNCIL RECONVENED AT
11:07 P.M.
CITY MANAGER
ITT LEASE Motion by Councilman Shearer to approve the Lease
(Staff Report) Agreement between the City of West Covina and the
International Telephone and Telegraph Corporation,
Communications Equipment and Systems Division,
and authorize the Mayor to execute said Lease
Agreement. Seconded by Councilman Young and
carried on roll call vote as follows:
AYES: Young, Nichols, Shearer, Chappell, Lloyd
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
TESTIMONIAL DINNER
SUPERVISOR
PETER SCHABARUM The City Attorney presented:
RESOLUTION #4828 "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF WEST COVINA HONORING SUPERVISOR PETER F.
SCHABARUM FOR HIS CONTRIBUTION TO THE
DEVELOPMENT OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY."
• Motion by Councilman Shearer, seconded by Councilman Chappell and
carried, to waive further 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
MBM
CITY COUNCIL
CITY MANAGER - Cont'd.
1974 PARK & RECREATIONAL
BOND ACT (Informational
Report)
Page Thirty-nine
1/14/74
Motion by Councilman Young to receive and
file. Seconded by Councilman Shearer and
carried.
YOUTH ADVISORY Motion by Councilman Shearer, seconded by
COMMISSION Councilman Chappell, to authorize funds in the
amount of $125.00 be transferred from the
-Commission's Meetings Account (#744.5.49) to
the Youth Advisory Commissions' Salaries Account (#744.5.10) to
provide sufficient funding for the duration of the 1973-74 fiscal
year to cover the added salary expense of two additional
Commission members and seven paid alternates. Motion carried on
roll call vote as follows:
AYES: Young, Nichols, Shearer, Chappell, Lloyd
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
MAYOR'S REPORTS
PROCLAMATION Mayor Lloyd: If there are no objections I
will; -(proclaim "March of Dimes
Healthy Baby Week" - January 20/26/74.
(No objections, so proclaimed)
COUNCILMEN'S REPORTS/COMMENTS
RESOLUTION NO. 4829 The City Attorney presented:
ADOPTED "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF WESTgCOVINA COMMENDING THE STUDENTS
AND PHYSICAL EDUCATION STAFF OF RINCON
INTERMEDIATE SCHOOL."
Motion by Councilman Shearer, seconded by Councilman Chappell and
carried, to waive further reading of said Resolution.
Motion by Councilman Shearer, seconded by Councilman Chappell, to
adopt said Resolution. Motion carried on roll call vote as follows:
AYES: Young, Nichols, Shearer, Chappell, Lloyd
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
Councilman Chappell: Just a brief comment. I did attend the
meeting in San Diego as the Mayor asked
and the City Council so graciously let
me do it on Employee Negotiations. I think there are some things
we should have decisions made on and very shortly. I think we can do
it in an Executive Session - is that correct, Mr. Wakefield?
Mr. Wakefield: Yes sir.
Councilman Chappell: I think there are some things that can be pointed
out for the good of the City and also for the
good of the employees and when.that meeting is
called I will present�:them.
• DEMANDS Motion by Councilman Shearer to approve Demands
totalling $2,733,667.6.7 as listed on Demand
Sheets C856A, C932 through 9381, and B604A through
609A. (Again I have a point of note of the above
total $1,600,000 is the transfer of funds to short term time funds)
Seconded by Councilman Young and carried on roll call vote as follows:
AYES: Young, Nichols, Shearer, Chappell, Lloyd
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
- 39 -
CITY COUNCIL
Page Forty
1/14/74
Councilman Chappell: Mr. Mayor, one other comment. Mr. Eliot
accompanied me to San Diego - the
Council should be aware he was also
there.
Councilman Young: I would hate to make a point on this
at this hour of the night, Mr. Mayor,
but I seriously question, if we are
going to have a report on a meeting that took place in San Diego
whether it would be proper in an Executive Session. I think it
would be proper in an open session. Only and if there were really
some specific implicating factors and confidentiality seemed to
be crucial to their effectiveness and then that should be so stated
and perhaps be the subject of: an Executive Session.
Mayor. Lloyd: I.believe the City Attorney commented on
that.
Councilman Young: Yes, but I disagree with him on that and
it is rather late tonight.
Councilman Chappell: Mr: Mayor, I can at the next meeting make
some general statements but the things
that are specific are things that the
Council has to make some decisions on. If you want to make them out
here be my guest, but I really don't want to. I can make some
comments at the next meeting - the hour.is late for that now.
ADJOURNMENT Motion by Councilman Shearer, seconded by
Councilman Young and carried, to adjourn
this meeting at 11:17 P.M. to 4:30 P.M.
January 151 1974.
APPROVED:
MAYOR
ATTEST•
CITY CLERK