12-23-1974 - Regular Meeting - MinutesMINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL
CITY OF WEST COVINA, CALIFORNIA
DECEMBE R 23, 1974.
The regular meeting of the City Council called to order at 7:30 P.M.
in the West Covina Council Chambers by Mayor Chester Shearer. The
f Pledge of Allegiance was led by Juli Rogers, Joanne Marchland and
Deanna Perez, members of the Caballo O'Wee Kiss gu ma group, adven-
ture level of Campfire Girls. The invocation was given by the
Reverend Don Helsel of the Shepherd of the Valley Lutheran Church.
ROT,T. CAT.T,
Present: Mayor Shearer; Councilmen: Browne, Miller,
Chappell, Tice
Others Present: George Aiassa, City Manager
George Wakefield, City Attorney
Lela Preston, City Clerk
Leonard Eliot, Controller
George Zimmerman, Public Service Director
Michael Miller, Planning Director
John Lippitt, City Engineer
Janet Williams, Administrative Analyst
Kevin Northcraft, Administrative Ass't.
Calvin Wetherbee, Fire Chief
Craig Meacham, Deputy Police Chief
Eric Cohen, Staff Reporter - Sentinel
Mark Landsbaum, Staff Reporter - S.G.V.D.T.
• Mayor Shearer welcomed members of Scout Troop 23 sponsored by the
Church of Jesus Christ Latter Day Saints; and introduced the new two
reporters - Eric Cohen of the Sentinel and Mark Landsbaum of San
Gabriel Valley Daily Tribune.
CHRISTMAS CAROLLERS The Mayor welcomed the West Covina All City
Band and carollers, who presented a short
Christmas program; Santa Claus made an
appearance along with the Christmas Bunny passing out filled
Santa Socks to those officials sitting at the podium. Council thanked
the West Covina All City Band.
RESOLUTION OF
COMMENDATION
Mayor Shearer: We have a former
Commissioner present
this evening to receive the little
accolade the city can bestow for the
many hours of dedication and service performed for the City - -
Buzz Bemoll, who served on the Recreation and Parks Commission
for about five years: (Presented to Mr. Bemoll on behalf of the
Council the resolution of commendation.)
APPROVAL OF MINUTES Motion by Councilman Browne, seconded by
Councilman Chappell and carried, to
approve minutes of the meeting of
December 9, 1974.
CONSENT CALENDAR Mayor Shearer explained the procedure of
the Consent Calendar items and asked if
there were any comments on any of the
following items:
CITY COUNCIL
CONSENT CALENDAR - Cont'd.
1. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS
a) Myer Blank,
136 S. Fircroft St.,
West Covina
• b) Mrs. R. Sutherland
314 S. Lark Ellen_ Ave.,
West Covina
c) Dr. Gilbert Mintz
910 S. Sunset Avenue
West Covina
d) Community Hospital of
San Gabriel
e) Del Haven Community Center
15302 E. Francisquito Ave.,
LaPuente
Page Two
12/ 2 3/ 74
Re blind spot in the vicinity of
Fircroft Street and Garvey Avenue.
(Refer to Staff)
Re loud hi-fi and stereo equipment
out of doors being a great disturb-
ance. (Withdrawn:' Refer'to Pages 3 and 4)
Re request for a Mail Order Business
License. (Approve subject to City
Attorney review)
Request for renewal of Charitable
Solicitation Business License for the
period from January 1 - March 31, 1975.
(Recommend approval).
Request permission to solicit for funds
to continue recreational, service,
cultural and educational programs from
January 6 to February 3, 1975.
(Approved in prior years; recommend
approval)
f) Walnut Valley Water Dist., Requesting Notices of any proceedings
relating to vacating or abandoning
streets for the purpose of checking
water district easements. (Receive and
file) .
2. PLANNING COMMISSION
Summary of Action December 18, 1974. (Accept and file)
3. RECREATION & PARKS COMM.
Summary of Action December 17, 1974. (Accept and file)
(Refer to City Manager Item #F-1 and F-6
for ACTION ITEMS)
4. PERSONNEL BOARD
Minutes November 12, 1974. (Receive and file)
(ACTION ITEMS of 12/12/74 meeting:
Refer to City Manager's Agenda and City
Attorney's Agenda. (Items #D-3,4,5,11
and F=2)
5. HUMAN RELATIONS COMM.
Summary of Action December 19, 1974. (Accept and file)
(Refer to City Manager Agenda Item F-3
for ACTION ITEM)
• 6. YOUTH ADVISORY COMMISSION
Minutes December 3 and 10, 1974.- (Receive and
file)
Summary of Action December 17, 1974. (Accept and file)
(Refer to Mayor's Agenda Item H-2 for
ACTION ITEM)
- 2 -
CITY COUNCIL
CONSENT CALENDAR - Cont'd.
7. ABC APPLICATION
a) John R. & Patricia F. Tuck
352 Covered Wagon Drive •
Diamond Bar, Ca.
Page Three
12/23/74
Chief of Police recommends NO PROTEST.
(Note Staff Re ort) (Withdrawn. Refer to
Pages 3 and 4.f
dba BON VIE
340 N. Azusa Avenue
8. CLAIMS FOR DAMAGES FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK:
Brenda Lee Parker
2111 Rio Verde Drive
West Covina
9. CITY TREASURER
Claim for damages resulting from
traffic accident 9/17/74 between
bicycle and automobile. (Deny and
refer to City Attorney and Insurance
Carrier)
November 1974 Report. (Receive and
file)
10. TRAFFIC COMMITTEE MINUTES December 17, 1974. (Withdrawn. Refer., to Pages
4, 5 and 6)
Councilman Tice requested the withdrawal of Items I-b and 7;
Mayor Shearer requested Item 10 be withdrawn.
Motion by Councilman Browne, seconded by Councilman Chappell to approve
Consent Calendar items with the exception of Items 1-b, 7, and 10.
.Motion carried on roll call vote as follows:
AYES: Browne, Miller, Chappell, Tice, Shearer
NOES: None
• ABSENT: None
ITEM I-b Councilman Tice asked if the City's Noise Ordinance
would cover this complaint; Mr..Wakefield explained
its application in the residential areas of the City
are limited to the hours between 10 R.M. and 7 A.M., and from the
correspondence received it does not indicate whether the disturbance
that is complained about occurs during those hours or some earlier
period during the day. Further advised there is the general provision
underwhich the Police Department has operated under for a number of
years prior to the adoption of the Noise Ordinance, which is the
general nuisance provision and normally the Police Department only acts
in those instances in which the neighbor is complaining and is willing
to appear and file and sign the complaint that is required to initiate
action to control the matter through the courts. Mr..Aiassa advised
Council that this item has been referred to Staff and Council will
receive a report at the January 13th meeting.
ITEM 7 Councilman Tice said there were some conflicting
comments in the report and he would like more
information on it. (Explained)
Mayor Shearer: Councilman Tice, I think the recommendation of the
Police Department is on the basis of an investiga-
tion into the background of the applicant and this
indicates "no protest", however the Planning Department does point
• out that apparently this particular establishment when they got their
original license the serving of liquor was incidental to the
restaurant business and now it is 100% disbursement of liquor, which
is not allowed in the Neighborhood -Commercial zone. So the two items
are not really in conflict, they just cover two different areas of
concern. Mr. Wakefield, perhaps you can advise us on this one, as to
whether the problem of zoning is the proper basis of the protest.
- 3 -
CITY COUNCIL Page Four
CONSENT CALENDAR (Item 7) Cont'd. 12/23/74
Mr. Wakefield: Mr. Mayor, the item of zoning is normally
not a matter of protest; however, even if
the license should be issued the individual
cannot conduct his business operation in any zone in which it is not
authorized. So regardless of the action of the Alcoholic Beverage
Control Board the licensee still cannot conduct the kind of business
for which he is applying for the license in the zone in which his pro-
perty is located.
.Mayor Shearer: Isn't it trLe though on an abatement process
that the Alcoholic Beverage Board would have
a little bigger clout than the City - if the
license were granted what recourse would we have?
Mr. Wakefield: We would have the usual procedure problems
in enforcing our zoning ordinance, the
filing of a complaint with the District
Attorney's office and the issuance of a complaint to cease and desist
the violation and ultimately abatement action initiated by the City
Council in the civil courts. It is quite true under the circumstances
that exist here I think the Alcoholic Beverage Control Board should be
advised of the fact that the kind of license for which the applicant is
now applying may not be utilized in the premise for which he seeks it.
Mayor Shearer: Can we authorize that type of quasi protest
today? (Mr. Wakefield answered "yes".)
So moved by Councilman Tice, seconded by
Councilman Chappell and carried.
• Mayor Shearer:
t
We didn't dispose of Item I-b. A motion
to refer to staff would be in order.
So moved by Councilman Tice, seconded by
Councilman Chappell and carried.
ITEM 10 Mayor Shearer: There'z:0&r.e• 3 items that I
questioned of the Traffic
Committee minutes. The first two had to do
with crossing guards. ItemcI was a
recommendation recommending that the warrants by which the request for
crossing guards are assessed be changed to make them a little more
realistic. I am confused somewhat - the summary on the first page of
the Traffic Committee action is to hold over for further study, yet
in the text itself it says it is recommended that these be approved.
What is the recommendation to us?
Mr. Zimmerman: Mr. Mayor and members of Council, the actual
recommendation is as it is on the first
page. The report itself covers the
recommendation to the Traffic Committee and the first page indicates
the results of that recommendation. If Council would like we will
clarify that in future minutes to indicate this is the actual action.
In this case Council is not asked to take any action at all.
• Mayor Shearer: Item H has to do with a crossing guard
request and the recommendation is to
approve based on the standards that we have
not yet adopted, which is secondary to my main question. The crossing
guard is for Fairgrove and Toriopp�ah' and that would be for the children
crossing Fairgrove and the situation is such that we would share this
50-50 with the County and looking at a map of the city it seems to me
that all of the students crossing Fairgrove would come from unincorporat-
ed county territory yet the City is asked to fund the crossing guard
- 4 -
CITY COUNCIL Page Five
CONSENT CALENDAR (Item 10) Cont'd. 12/23/74
50/ because of where the city limits happen to be. This raises a
question in my mind. I realize the life of a student regardless of
where he lives is very precious, but whether or not the City should
be funding it on the basis of who owns half of the street or on the
•basis of where they pay their taxes .... I would suggest that this
matter be referred back to the County with an indication that the
citizens being served do not live in the City of West Covina, nor do
they pay taxes in the City of West Covina. I think that should be
considered.
John Lippitt Mr. Mayor, there is an agreement that the
City Engineer City has with the County for crossing guards
and it is based on the jurisdiction of where
the location is. I can see in the future if it wasn't clear cut and
all the students weren't- necessarily from the County at certain inter-
sections that it would be quite difficult in determining this. You would
have to go out and count each student from the County crossing the
intersections. So I think the County has felt and the agreement states
it depends on the jurisdiction of the intersection.
Mayor Shearer: I agree where there is a mixture there is no
point in trying to split hairs but where it
is clear that 100/ of the benefactors of the
crossing guard is County residents then I think that becomes questionable.
Do we have any situation in the City where the situation is the reverse?
Where the City gets all of the benefit and the County is paying half of
the cost?
. John Lippitt: I think there might be one coming up, it
depends on annexations, etc. I don't have
all that information, but we can report back
on this at your next meeting.
Mayor Shearer:,
Mr. Lippitt:
Mayor Shearer:
evaluation along the lines
financial situation of that
I would like to see a report along that line.
Also, do we have the money in the budget to
cover this type of item?
There is a budget for crossing guards and
I believe it is sufficient to cover this, I
am not sure, we would have to check.
I would like to introduce a motion that this
matter not only be referred back to the
Traffic Committee but to staff also for further
I pointed out plus a report as to the
particular budgeted account.
Seconded by Councilman Tice and carried.
Mayor Shearer: Item IT of the Traffic Committee minutes is a
request for limited parking on Vincent Avenue
near the Kentucky Fried Chicken place and one
statement: "Staff has spoken with Mr. Lehman's wife and she expressed a
willingness to leave notes on the vehicles requesting that they be
• parked elsewhere." I hope the City did not suggest this, or that her
notes imply it is sanctioned by the City to put notes on cars asking
people to park somewhere else. Did that idea come from her or from us?
It might be a great idea but it is a very questionable one in my mind
and if I got one and was in a bad mood I might just park there all day
next time.
Councilman Chappell: That is what they are doing now - parking and
getting on the bus and going to work.
' 11E
CITY COUNCIL Page Six
CONSENT CALENDAR (Item 10) Cont'd. 12/23/74
Mayor Shearer: Whose idea was it to leave notes on the cars
asking them to park elsewhere where they are
perfectly legally parked?
• Mr. Zimmerman: Mr. Mayor and members of Council, I do not
have that information but we would be glad
to return that information to Council at the
next meeting.
Mayor Shearer: I would hope that suggestions like this
don't.come from staff. I don't think leaving
notes on cars today will solve the parking
problem because tomorrow other cars will park there that didn't get the
notes yesterday. -If there truly is a problem in the business area in
regard to parking then I think the solution is as requested initially to
put up "no parking" signs. Is the Traffic Committee in a position to
recommend that, or would it have to be referred back to them? Their
recommendation is to wait and see if it works out and then come back.
Mr. Zimmerman: Mr. Mayor, positive action would include
authorization of Council to install the signs
and that would settle the question once and
for all.
(Discussion followed, with Councilmen Chappell, Browne and Tice, for the
posting of signs following the recommendation of the Traffic Committee.)
Motion by Councilman Chappell, seconded by Councilman Tice and carried,
that Vincent Avenue on the west side between South Garvey Avenue and
•West Covina Parkway be limited to two-hour parking between 7:00 A.M.
and 6:00 P.M.
Motion by Councilman Chappell, seconded by Councilman Tice and carried,
to accept and file the Traffic Committee minutes with the exception of
Items ':II and N.
HFARTNnS
UNCLASSIFIED USE PERMIT LOCATION: Southwest corner of Barranca
NO. 200 - VARIANCE NO. Street and Virginia Avenue.
210 - TENTATIVE TRACT REQUEST: Approval of an unclassified use
NO. 29868 - KEN WILSON permitand tentative tract in order to con-
(Barranca Vista) vert 85 rental apartments in the MF-20 Zone
to individually owned dwelling units
(condominiums), and a variance from certain
development standards of the Zoning
Ordinance of the City of West Covina.
Recommended by Planning Commission Resolution
No. 2562. Called up by City Council on
11/25/74.
Mayor Shearer: This item was recommended by the Planning
Commission and called up by City Council as
• is in accordance with the rules of the City
for further hearing. Apparently there is some question on the part of
the Council with regard to the recommendation by the Planning Commission.
Slides shown by Mr. Miller, Planning Director, and explaired as to
location, surrounding area, proposed changes to be made for conversion
from apartments to condominiums, etc. Summarized written Staff Report.
- 6 -
CITY COUNCIL Page Seven
HEARINGS: UUP #200, V #710, TT #29868 12/23/74
Mr. Miller: The study plan delivered to you in your packet is a
later plan that shows how the applicant would comply
with all the requirements of the Planning Commission
except those areas where they have been granted variances. The site has
85 units and under the Condominium Conversion Ordinance an unclassified
• use permit is required and compliance to the MF-20 zone is required except
in those areas of density and dwelling unit size. The dwelling units
exceed the requirements in our code in size and the density is approxi=
mately three times that normally permitted in Area District III.
Density is not a question in this particular instance as far as the
UUP is concerned. The four variances that were granted by the
Commission involved: 1 - the building height. There are 7 buildings
that have 3 stories in height, primarily because they have garage units
underneath them and it would be physically and economically unfeasible
to modify those structures. 2 - the second variance is for the building
at the south end of the project. The code requires that no building be
more than 200' in length and this particular building does exceed that
and again it would be physically and economically unfeasible to remove.
The additional two variances - one is for the width of the parking
spaces in certain garages. The code requires a 10' wide space inside a
garage, the applicant has provided a 9' wide space in a garage (62
spaces). The fourth variance is for the walking distance between the
garage and the unit-,) the requirement is 60' and the applicant has
approximately 24 that exceed the 60' requirement. In locating his
garages to provide the additional parking it was physically impossible
to locate the garages any closer to the units under this layout. The
Planning Commission recommended approval of the UUP and the variance
and the Tentative Tract subject to the conditions listed in the Staff
Report. Unless a Variance is granted for a particular reason other
•than those four that I mentioned all other requirements of the MF-20
zone would be met.
Mayor Jhearer: Mr. Miller, I would like a brief explanation as to
the rationale behind the ordinance covering conver-
sions, which is more restrictive for condominium
development than it is for the apartments. Obviously if it is a con-
version the apartments are there. The code coverage for buildings so
high and so long, etc., and they apparently met our requirements for
construction of the apartments. What is the criteria or the philosophy
that requires different requirements for a condominium?
Mr. Miller: The apartmers there now comply with the code at the
time built. The rationale behind having a more
stringent requirement for condominiums is based on
the fact that apartments are rental units, not home ownership type of
real estate which a condominium is. Certain amenities that are
normally found in single family residential projects are not expected
to be found in an apartment project. However, in the process of con-
verting to condominiums the rationale was they should be the same as
what a single family would be required to have. Basically it is the
idea of making this as nearly as possible comply or be equal to -what a
property owner would expect to find in a single family home.
THIS IS THE TIME AND PLACE FOR THE PUBLIC HEARING ON UNCLASSIFIED USE
PERMIT NO. 200, VARIANCE NO. 710, TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 29868.
• IN FAVOR
Ken Wilson (Sworn in by the City Clerk)
3844 Buenna Park Drive As a matter of clarification, I believe it
Studio City was stated at the Planning Commission hear-
ing by the office of the City Attorney
that we are dealing with waivers and not
variances, and the Planning Commission granted waivers. That is my
understanding and that of my engineer. May I have that clarified,
please.
- 7 -
CITY COUNCIL Page Eight
HEARINGS: UUP #200, V #710, TT #29868 12/23/74
Mr. Wakefield: Mr. Mayor and members of City Council, I think the
only problem arises with respect to the kind of
showing that is required to be made in connection
with a waiver as contrasted with that required for a variance.
•Essentially the two are the same. What we are doing is waiving
certain of the development standards attached to the MF zone.
Mayor Shearer; Would you briefly outline for us what showings
have to be made in order to give a waiver or
variance?
Mr. Wakefield: In either case the showings that must be made are
in this particular case the physical layout of the
property, the development that exists cannot comply
with the development standards if the conversion is to occur. In
other words, it is a hardship that is associated directly with the
property. Secondly, thatethb.re will be no prejudice to surrounding
property owners if the waivers are approved; and thirdly, that the
overall development is consistent with the City's General Plan.
Mr. Wilson: Thank you. The question was asked previously about
what is the philosophy of conversion versus apart-
ments. In L.A. City and County, for example, their
philosophy is if a building is okay as an apartment building it is okay
as a condominium. There is no difference in the development itself,
it is just a different form of ownership. In this case 85 individuals
each own a unit as opposed to one ownership owning 85 units. Also,
those two jurisdictions comply with Civil Code Section 1370, which
states: "Unless a contrary intent is clearly expressed local zoning
ordinances shall be treated between like_,"structures, lots or parcels
in like manner regardless of whether the ownership thereof is divided
by the sale of condominiums or into community apartments rather than
by leasing of apartments." In other words, if a structure is zoned
an office building, apartment building or industrial, it is also
zoned as a condominium. I think by requiring all of these waivers
and in addition the conditions of approval of the Tentative Map, is
contrary to the intent of Section 1370. To meet the conditions of
approval set by the Planning Commission will cost the buyers of these
units approximately $25510001 which is about $3,000 per unit.
I have agreed to acquire the adjacent land for open
space and to construct 28 garages there � and to increase the parking
to 2k spaces for each unit even though 20 of these 85 units are one
bedroom units of either 755 square feet or 875 square feet in size, so
in my opinion the required parking is way too much for the type of
units we are talking about here. If they were all 2 or 3 bedroom
units I could agree that 2k to 1 would be fair, even though in the
City of L.A. 11-4 to 1 is required.
I have agreed to build 41 - 11' wide garages in
.place of 9' wide open spaces. I have agreed to provide garage doors
and will also make them automatic garage doors, but there are two
conditions of approval which I feel are unfair to both myself and
the buyers of the units because of the cost that will have to be
• transferred to them without any increase in value. The first is
moving seven stairways 21. It is stated there are seven stairways
that encroach 21. The cost to move will be $61000. I think that is
an unnecessary expenditure and cost to the buyers. Secondly, we are
asked to widen 42 existing 9' wide spaces into 37 - 11' wide spaces.
Now that reduces our parking by five spaces and it costs an un-
believable $66,500 for those 37 spaces. That is about twice the
cost of building the spaces new. I think that does not provide value
CITY COUNCIL Page Nine
HEARINGS: UUP #200, V #710, TT #29868 12/23/74
to the project and because of the one bedroom units we should not
have to have that many 11' wide spaces and the cars being bought
today are much smaller than cars bought in the past, and when people
buy less expensive units they tend to have smaller cars. So I ask
isthat you waive those two unfair requirements, the 7 stairways and the
widening of the 9' wide spaces. If you can do that we can pass the
savings on to the buyers.
In summary, I cannot understand what the commotion
is by a small minority of homeowners or by anyone else connected with
the City because this project will benefit the City. There is a need
for lower priced housing in the City. People that own units do take
better care of the units than those that rent, even if they are the
same people. People who own participate in city activities, whereas
they wouldn't if they were transient rentals. There is less turnover
in an ownership situation than the rental situation and finally it
will probably bear a higher tax base for the City when this conversion
takes place.
Mayor Shearer: A question. Will the exterior maintenance be provid-
ed by some sort of Association? It will not be up to
each individual owner to keep up his front and back?
Mr..Wilson: That is correct. There will be an incorporated
Homeownership Corporation established. (Explained)
Also there will be a funding of the monthly mainten-
ance cost and a reserve established for the exterior upkeep of painting,
roof repairs, etc. In the apartment sitzation we have one owner that
keeps up the property whereas in the condominium situation we will have
• a funding for these maintenance factors and it should result in better
and more even maintenance of the property.
.Councilman Miller: Have you established a base price?
Mr. Wilson: This will depend a great deal on what the final
conditions of approval area. It was intended that the
average price for a 1275 square foot, 2 bedroom, 1% bath, townhouse with
a fireplace and beamed ceilings, dish washer and washer/dryer hookup would
be about $30,500 to $31,000. That is somewhere in the neighborhood of
$27 to $30 per square foot, whereas Aspen Village is selling somewhere
in the neighborhood of $40 per square foot. So we think it is a very
good buy and this includes a fixed up unit with new carpets, drapes,
painted, etc. But with these conditions of approval as they now stand
we will be forced to raise the price $31000 which may make it
economically unwise to proceed at this time.
.Councilman Miller: Will these units be sold to adults only or to
families?
Mr. Wilson: The CC&RS:�_ have not been established as yet. We
would work with the City in that regard. We have
not contemplated making restrictions; however, due
to the fact that the existing A_e;nantry' has only one or two with
children we feel it will be accompl_ished by selling to people without
• children as opposed to those with children, with the possible exception
of the 3 bedroom units which might have enough space for children.
Councilman Tice: Mr. Mayor, a question. In the sales price is there a
portion of the sales price that will be put in the
reserve fund because of the age of the units or are
they starting afresh?
Mr. Wilson: Starting afresh. There already has been some re-
furbishing taken place in the project. We would make
- 9 -
CITY COUNCIL
HEARINGS: UUP #200 , V #710 , TT' #2 9868
Page Ten
12/ 2 3/ 74
sure everything is mechanically in good condition and the roof is in
good condition, etc., and from that point on the Homeowners Association
would take over, and fund for the reserve. (Explained further)
•(Councilman Tice asked how old the units were and Mr. .Wilson said he
thought 8 years old; the Planning Director confirmed this was about
right.)
John Adams (Sworn in by the City Clerk)
1600 W. Cameron I am speaking tonight as the engineer for the
West Covina applicant. We prepared the Tentative Map and the
Plot Plan. I would also like to speak as a homeowner
in West Covina, living here for some 17 years and
living in the general area of this proposed conversion.
First of all I think it is important that a distinc-
tion be made between waivers and variances, and I certainly don't
intend to belabor this item, but the MF ordinance underwhich we are
working provides that the City Council or Planning Commission may grant
waivers from the development standards and this came up at the last
hearing before the Planning Commission by the City Attorney. 'I know
from experience that the word "variance" carries a connotation many
times of something that isn't right or something that you have to go
out of your way to compensate for. I would respectfully submit that
the MF ordinance does provide for waiversof development standards and
these are the things we are talking about tonight - development
standards.
I would briefly like to speak to the quality of the
• units. I submitted a set of the working drawings to the Building
Department and requested that they comment on those drawings from the
standpoint of compliance with the building code. I did not receive a
formal reply from the Building Department or the City, but did receive
a verbal comment that these units are of the highest quality as far as
construction goes and would conform in all respects to our present
building code as it relates to condominium type structures. In fact
they may exceed some of our present day workmanship that we see.
Recreational amenities that are now provided are equal to or exceed
those of any other apartment complex. There is a pool, a recreational
building, and the applicant has proposed in the open space an area for
tennis courts. I would respectfully submit that the amenities there
today are comparable with that of Aspen Village although not as new.
I think it is also important that some reference be
made to the size of the units. The MF ordinance underwhich we are
working requires the 3 bedroom units be at least of 800 square feet in
size. The 3 bedroom ranges from 1490 square feet to 1510 square feet.
Almost twice the size of the required units. I bring these up as some
of the positive factors for this proposal. The 2 bedroom units the
ordinance requires to be at least 650 square feet, they range in size
from 1165 to 1200 square feet. Again about twice the size of the
minimums. The 1 bedroom, the ordinance requires 500 square feet, and
these range from 755 to 845 square feet.
• Speaking to the matter of need.. I am very confident
if the applicant is able to market these units at the price he
planned on they would be demanded for - a big.demand for quality units
such as these. The closest thing in our City to it is Aspen Village
which is now under construction and as you may know those units are
selling new from around $421000 to $46,000, and size wise they are
really not much bigger than these units.
MOM
CITY COUNCIL Page Eleven
HEARINGS: UUP ##200 , V #710 , TT #2 9868 12/2 3/ 74
The questions on the four waivers, the building
height of 3 stories. I think this may be a matter of interpretation.
I am familiar firsthand with the kind of condominiums we are seeing
today and in many many instances they are exactly the same concept
•as we have at Barranca Vista. They have tucked under parking and in
many cases subterranean parking has been dropped down below grade, so
it is the same concept, the parking is underneath the units, the units
consist of 2 stories above the garages. I submit that is exactly the
concept of Barranca Vista and I say it is a very modern and very
acceptable concept.
In summary, if this proposal is approved I think the
City will end up with an upgraded quality structure for single family
ownership and I think you would be doing this community a great service
if that kind of housing is provided for someone nowadays that wants to
buy a home and can only pay somewhere in the lower $301000 to mid
$301000 for a home. Thank you, very much.
IN OPPOSITION
Mrs. Aldrich A. Tucker (Sworn in by City Clerk)
West Covina (In summary ) Read from a prepared written
statement setting forth a brief summary of
what transpired at previous Planning Com-
mission hearings - October 2, 16, November 6 and 20th. Set forth
homeowners' objections to proposed conversion. Called Council's
attention to these points: There has been no demonstrated need for
the conversion, the apartments are fully:occupied;l- and are located in
an area of high quality homes; the proposal is still substandard and
• require variances;`f,it is easy to set standards and then make
variances. If the `original standards are not appropriate for the
entire City then it is recommended that the code be revised. Pointed
out that what Council does here tonight will be a pattern for the
future of West Covina.
Albert J. Galin (Sworn in by the City Clerk)
3511 East Cortez (In summary) Spoke to the matter of the
West Covina width of the garages and that as apartments
President - East Hills the garages can be assigned according to car
Homeowners' Assoc. needs but under condominiums this is not
easy to do. Homeowners' Association feels
it is wrong at this time to start whacking
away at this overall concept. Pointed out that no hardship has been
shown at any of the hearings, which is a necessary requirement to
variances. Spoke to the matter of maintenance saying this only worked
out well if all units were sold and everyone puts their money into the
pocket, whereas these apartments have been beautifully maintained.
Pointed out that Mr. Wilson mentioned an increased tax base for the
City, but what was probably meant was that they are under assessed now
and he failed to mention the homeowners exemption which would tend to
take away from the tax base. These apartments have been filled all the
time; there_.! awe, been no vacancies. Respectfully requested that the
Council consider this very carefully and not try to circumvent what is a
fine condominium ordinance of less than a year's standing and well
• thought out.
Daniel F.-Keefe (Sworn in by the City Clerk)
750 So. LaSerena Drive (In summary) (Lived in West Covina for
West Covina the past 8 years) Objected to the in-
appropriate conversion of the apartment
housing to a condominium, the taking of a
brand new ordinance and jacking it around to fit some need - felt it
was just a tax dodge effort. Stated condominiums in general are not
what you can call fast movers in the real estate business. They are
mv�
CITY COUNCIL Page Twelve
HEARINGS: UUP #200, V #710, TT #29868 12/23/74
frankly very hard to sell. On new sales the developer frequently
resorts to what is considered gimmick financing methods. (Explained)
"Ihave seen everyone of you people at candidates forums, coffee
klatches and what have you and every time you were at these gatherings
•I stood up and asked you how you felt on the protection of conversion
of that property in that area and in each case you always protested
very vehemently that type of a situation would be strongly defended.
Now you have all been elected by the several hundred elected voters in
that area as well as other voters in the city and I would like to
see actions speak as loud as words. I think you have all given us
verbal commitments prior to election. Thank you."
REBUTTAL
Ken Wilson First as to Mrs. Tucker. She made a comment - 100/
occupancy means there is a need for apartment
building. Actually the 100% occupancy is due to the
refurbishment that took place in the last 6 months. As a matter of
fact according to the current owner last year at this time the vacancy
at that pafticular property was over 20% but we went through a
refurbishment program and now have a 100% occupancy. As to her
comment that open space is too far away from the majority of the units
to be meaningful - we intend to make that open space meaningful by
putting a tennis court in there and actually it is better to have a
tennis court in the area that would be away from the windows of the
occupants, which makes it a very nice location. As to her comment
regarding the gathering of signatures, my signature gatherer who spent
less than one day out in the field, again told me today that no one
turned down signing the petition. As a matter of fact we submitted
• 20 signatures of homeowners adjacent to the property and not as far
away as some indicated.z
As to Mr. Galin - he says that we cannot adjust the
parking spaces in a condominium situation whereas we can in an apart-
ment situation and as a matter of fact we can adjust the parking
situation. We do not need to give titlbein fee to parking spaces. We
can adjust the parking spaces according to the requirements of the
homeowners and we will do that. He says in essence if units are not
sold then the monthly maintenance budget may not be sufficient to bower
the monthly maintenance. That is not correct because if units are not
sold the developer must fund the monthly maintenance with the same
price that the same unit would be if it were sold. He says the con-
version ordinance is well thought out, but I submit the conversion
ordinance consists of only two sentences tacked on to the end of the
condominium ordinance stating a waiver of density in square footage
requirements.
As to Mr. Keefe - he says this conversion is a tax
dodge and I vehemently disagree with that. He says we will use
mickey mouse financing and I don't think he is advised to know what
we will do and since he doesn't know I deny that. As to his comment
to youy' vote, my way or I won't vote for you, I have no comment on
that.
In conclusion, our price will be governed by the
• cost based on the conditions of approval. The more conditions the
higher our price will have to be to cover the costs. Again I point
out that the protestors to the conversion are by far the minority
people in the area, as we pointed out in obtaining the signatures
in a one day period. Thank you.
John Adams: Mr. Mayor and members of Council, Mrs. Tucker -
the size of the units is a factor, the MF ordinance
is very specific in calling out the minimum size of
units for a conversion and as I pointed out these units are about
- 12 -
CITY COUNCIL Page Thirteen
HEARINGS: UUP #200, V #710, TT #29868 12/23/74
twice the size of those called for in the MF ordinance as minimum sizes.
As far as the showing of hardship, again I make reference to the four
waivers to conform 100/ we would have to take one story off of seven
units to make them two story units. I submit this is a hardship to make
•one story buildings out of two story buildings. We would have to cut one
building in half and I think this could be classified as a hardship. To
locate the garages so everything fits nicely 60' apart we would have to
rearrange all the structures on the site and I think this is an
impossibility as well as a hardship, and to make some 62.,st;?lls 10, wide
instead of 9' wide, we would have to destroy the stTuctural.,integrity
of those units. I don't have a big stick to waive before you, gentlemen,
and I would not do it under any circumstances. I would ask you to
simply consider the items we are talking about - the waivers - and rely
on your own good judgment. Thank you, very much.
Mayor Shearer: One question - Mr. Adams. The parking spaces in
question - are these the ones referred to as the
tuck under parking?
Mr. Adams: That is correct. Some of them can be modified by
making some structural changes but the partitions
extend all the way up through the units and you
couldn't change this without destroying the structure.
THERE BEING NO FURTHER PUBLIC TESTIMONY, PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED. COUNCIL
DISCUSSION`FOLLOWING A RECESS CALLED BY THE MAYOR AT 9:04 P.M. COUNCIL
RECONVENED AT 9:11 P.M.
Councilman Browne: Mr. Mayor - with regard to the Condominium
• Ordinance, when first proposed to write
such in the City I sat on the Planning
Commission and was charged with assisting and writing such an
Ordinance along with a Conversion Ordinance. We spent many long
hours drafting the Ordinance specifically so we could protect
homeowners in certain areas in the instance of development of
condominiums. We also took into consideration the conversion
situation in apartments not only to protect surrounding homeowners
in single family residences, but to protect buyers of units converted
to condominiums. This was all considered and we tightened the
ordinance to the degree where we felt we had a compatible and well
written ordinance.
On October 2 we had the request by
the applicant - Ken Wilson - to convert Barranca Vista to a
condominium. I think testimony has been given by Mrs. Tucker and
Mr. Galin relative to staff's position taken at the time. The
Ordinance states very specifically the type of conversion permitted
by municipal code. In this case there were numerous Variances or
Waivers presented for consideration. At that time staff took a
staunch stand - quoting "The proposed conversion at this particular
location is not necessary or desirable to provide service or
facilities which will contribute to the general well being of the
vicinity - - - - because of the many differences which exist and
are substandard to the condominium regulations and further such
substandard facilities could be injurious in the long run to the
• city and the general vicinity." As time went on there were
negotiations back and forth through the Planning Department and the
Planning Commission relating to the acquisition of additional
property to provide more parking, create more open space, to overcome
some of the deficiencies in garages and after all of this we are
still faced with four definite variances (and they are variances
and not waivers); it is stated very specifically in the resolution
passed by the Planning Commission that these are variances.
We have Variances in the height of the buildings, the length of the
building, the deficiency in parking spaces and in the widths and
we are also being asked to consider the financial cost of some of the
- 13 -
CITY COUNCIL Page Fourteen
HEARINGS: UUP #200, V #710, TT #29868 12/23/74
conditions being imposed; and the applicant is speaking to additional
considerations at this time over and beyond those given by the
Planning Commission. And this in itself would change the presenta-
tion insofar as it was made to the Planning Commission. I feel that
•in the testimony given to us tonight, the apartments are harmonious
to the community and by the applicant's own statement he did have a
factor of vacancy previously and by his own admission he rectified
this by refurbishingihe apartments. The applicant has pointed out
the financial costs involved, however it is not up to the City Council
to delve into the monetary aspects of the units and we are by no
means able to give considerations to the amount of money spent and
what the units will sell for. We are asked to consider if it is
right for the area? Does it comply with the 9, month old ordinance?
Do the people in the area want it? Mr. Keefe spoke out tonight
saying that he had broached this question with several of us sitting
up here and I don't know whether he is trying totntmdat:e me or
not, but I will say that I will support any ordinance that I helped
to write - and I will stand on that.
I don't think it has been shown or proved tonight
that there is a need and I don't think we should start setting
precedents. This would only open Pandora's Box and help to bring
in other lesser units of which we have numerous and we bore this
in mind when we wrote the ordinance to specifically forego this.
Variances are to be granted only where there are extentuating cir-
cumstances and hardships.and once you overlook this it is like
opening Pandora's Box and once started it becomes an ongoing thing.
In this instance I am going to stand my ground,
•I am going to uphold the ordinance and recommend that my colleagues
take into consideration the .evidence, using their better judgment.
I know how I am going to vote.
Councilman Tice: Mr. Mayor, one comment. I think the philosophy
of setting up that kind of an ordinance was given
earlier and that to me more or less blends in
with the single family resident type of approach. I know there are
exceptions to density, etc., from the standpoint of that point alone
I cannot honestly uphold the waivers. I don't see a need for it in
that particular area. -It is not consistent with the homes in that
area from the standpoint of cost. I am afraid I will have to deny
this request.
Councilman Chappell: Mr. Mayor - I will not be allowed to vote
on this because I have a conflict of
interest here.
Councilman Miller: I have looked into this quite heavily and
in detail. Tonight I got the impression
there might be consideration for two other
variances. I feel variances are always nonsidered and needed on an
individual basis and because it is shown that there is a hardship in
that individual's case. With all the evidence given, ideas and
thoughts stated , and any question of possibly some extra added
• variances at this time, I will take the stand to uphold the current
ordinance until further compliance can be made to justify all these
variances and those that are further being requested and not before
me at this time.
Mayor Shearer: I count three votes against it, so it will
not be passed, but I would like to make a
few comments. Regardless of our action
tonight that building is still going to be 3 stories and regardless of
- 14 -
CITY COUNCIL
HEARINGS: UUP #200, V #710, TT #29868
Page Fifteen
12/ 2 3/ 74
our action the parking stalls are still going to be 9' wide, the
building is still going to be 200' long, so I have to ask myself
what is going to be different whether or not we vote "aye" or "nay"?
Obviously, as Mr. Adams pointed out, the developer is not going to
take one floor off his building, or chop it in half, so the complex
will continue in its physical form and that is what the variance is
for, for a change in physical form. The only difference that I can
see is the type of ownership and the potential maintenance.
I do not recall ever making a commitment to anyone
not to vote for a conversion, because in the first place the
ordinance we are discussing tonight was passed after I was elected to
office. I did make a commitment however to always vote to protect
the best interests in my opinion of the citizens. So the only
difference I can see is the manner in which maintenance will be provid-
ed.
To me the concept of the condominium approach of
single family residences is hardly met in a project with density of
this type. That to me is quite a far step away from the concept of
a condominium. Mr. Wakefield outlined three items for us that would
have to be met to grant variances: Herd§hip,. for one thing. That
hardship is only brought about by the.desires of the developer wanting
to do something other than he was originally allowed to do when the
zoning was made. So I consider that a self-induced hardship.
2 - No prejudice to the surrounding area. I think the concept here
is bringing down or being detrimental to the neighborhood. I think
under one ownership the chances of maintaining the level of mainten-
ance and high quality is much better for a number of reasons than it
• would be with 85 owners. So for those two reasons and not because I
made a commitment to anyone because I did not! I am going to vote along
with the majority. What would be the proper motion - Mr. Wakefield?
Mr..Wakefield: Mr. Mayor, the proper motion would be to instruct
the City Attorney to prepare the necessary resolution
denying Unclassified Use Permit #200 and Variance
#710.
So moved by Councilman Browne, seconded by
Mayor Shearer and carried; Councilman Chappell abstaining.
VARIANCE NO. 711 LOCATION: 2525 E. Workman Avenue.
QUIEL BROS. SIGN CO. REQUEST: Approval of a variance to con -
(Mandy Williams Olds) struct a freestanding pole sign. Denied
by Planning Commission Resolution No.
2563. Called by City Council on 11/25/74.
Appealed by Applicant on 12/4/74.
Slides shown of the site location; present sign pointed out and
explained in detail as to visibility from various angles, by
Mr. Miller, Planning Director. Slides shown and explained of
various other dealerships signs as to height, visibility, size, etc.
Mayor Shearer: Is it correct, Mr. Miller, that there are
• three things being requested: 1 - the
height; 2 - the square footage, and 3 -
the present signing on the roof that was to come down?
Mr. Miller: Mr. Mayor, there are two Variances
involved. One, is the height. The
applicant is requesting 421, the code permits 351. The second is
area. It is related to the existing sign that the applicant
desires to retain as well as the proposed sign and in adding the
two tog'ther the sign area exceeds the size permitted by code. If
- 15 -
CITY COUNCIL
HEARINGS: V #711
Page Sixteen
12/2 3/ 74
the existing Oldsmobile sign were removed or reduced to approximately
86' in area the signage would comply with code as far as area.
(Explained)
THIS IS THE TIME AND PLACE FOR THE PUBLIC TESTIMONY ON VARIANCE NO. 711.
• IN FAVOR
Carl Welsh (Sworn in by the City Clerk)
272 So. Wells St., In the immediate area we have signs that
San Bernardino were put up prior to the ordinance, which
I realize, but right around the corner
there is Reynolds Buick with a 44' sign that can be seen at a lesser
height. The reason we are asking for this height is because of other
signs in the area obstructing the view. Carl's sign is 27' high and
we are trying to bring the bottom of our sign to a point that will be
seen without obstruction. (Proposed sign sketch displayed on board
and explained.) There are a number of signs in town by automobile
dealers that are of the height we are requesting. (Explained further)
We are trying to upgrade the sign with this
new program that GM has come out with. It is a much better looking
sign than the existing one. The existing one would be removed, sign
and pole. It is true that by leaving it in front of the showroom
we would have better visibility than we do have now as far as coming
out is concerned but not enough because we have a power line there.
We cannot bring the sign out to the property line as usual because the
new code says we have to stay 10' back of power lines. The power line
is 3' in front of the property line so that would set it at the edge
of the sign 7' back of our property line. When viewing this the sign
•would actually set further back than the photos lead you to believe.
Another thing, these signs are under GM's new program and are main-
tained once a year - washed inside and out, and if in need of any
repair during the year it is done within 62 hours, which is quite
unusual according to other sign programs, and if any lamps go out there
is somebody there to service them within 72 hours. This is really
unusual.
We think at the 42' height that we have the
four qualifications for the Variance. We have a unique set of cir-
cumstances with the obstructions by the existing signs in the area. as
far as degrading the area, this won't happen. And as far as aspecial
privilege, it is not a special privilege because there are other signs
existing higher than this and it is not necessarily contradictory to the
General Plan. If there are any questions I would be happy to try and
answer them. Also, it would upgrade the aesthetics of the facility
quite a bit, I am sure. Thank you.
Mandy Williams Mr. Mayor, I don't intend to give any
1312 Glen Ellen further testimony, except to say this sign
West Covina that we are requesting would be an improve-
ment for the area. I don't feel it is
asking anymore than is granted other dealerships in the area. Actually
we want this sign to get exposure other than exactly down Workman
because as far as Workman traffic I don't need the sign that I have now
because people pass me as they are going down Workman.- Thank you.
• THERE BEING NO FURTHER PUBLIC TESTIMONY PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED. COUNCIL
DISCUSSION.
Councilman Chappell: Mr. Mayor, may I have a few words to say
even though I will not be allowed to vote
again because of a conflict of interest.
He has been a client of mine since he opened. I would like to call
the attention of the new Councilmen to the policy of the Council in
- 16 -
CITY COuNCIL Page ,Seventeen
HEARINGS: V #711 12/23/74
the past on automobile dealerships on signs. Not only have you
noticed the height of 44 and 45' signs approved previously, but we
even approved a couple in Variance form for dealerships that didn't
get built, such as the Volkswagon dealership that was going in next
to Long's, we granted him a 45' sign. The purpose of having a sign
• is to compete with the dealers in the area. (Explained) And we have
always felt that we should give our dealerships the same type advantage
given to surrounding areas and we certainly don't want them to have any
lesser opportunity of selling their cars than dealers in other cities.
That basically has been our.policy since I have been a Councilman.
Councilman Tice: Mr. Mayor, I went by the location on Sunday and it
is very difficult to see the sign either going
north or south on Citrus Avenue because of the
other signs in the area. The sign up there now is not the best looking
sign and I think the proposed sign is much better looking than the one
there now - a big improvement, even though it does not meet our code
requirements; however, I think it will help upgrade the area.
Councilman Browne: Mr. Mayor. I spoke awhile ago about creating issues
as f areas Variances are concerned, but I think it has
been pretty well spelt out over a period of years
that we have considered car dealerships a rather unique type of
business. Basically because the tax revenue plays a big part in the
city's income and it is a highly competitive type of business.
Throughout our ordinance structure we have written sign ordinances to
cover specific types of zoning and adjacent areas thereto. In going
over the Variances granted in the past, of which I know of 6, four of
which are already inJexistence with a higher height. Staff speaks to
their dealing strictly with the sign ordinance in specific areas and
• where there has been a past attempt to relate to freeway oriented
traffic, major highways, but with very little consideration given to
secondary streets. I think we are outdated in this particular
ordinance because we have already granted`;enough of these signs to set
a precedent.
I think the one thing that should be taken into
consideration here is whether it be a freeway oriented location, a
major or secondary street location; the facts are there that the
businesses are allowed to be in that particular zone so consequently
I think the sign allowance should be in conjunction with the - - - -
that is in the area. I have viewed the location and the signs in
existence now. The new look of GM is to improve the aesthetics and
the proposed sign does do that. I would be in favor of granting the
Variance as asked by the applicant.
At this time I would also like to recommend that
we make a study of the existing sign ordinance relating to car
dealerships so we don't have to make a consistent review of these
sign requests.
Councilman Miller: A question of staff. When they were shooting the
photos coming down Citrus north and turning left
on Workman, you used the telephone pole as a
guideline to show the visibility of the sign? 'Was that pole 7'
• back from the street? (The Planning Director answered: The utility
pole is approximately 10'- away.) I have always felt that.a Variance
warrants it on the basis of a hardship and I feel it is an individual
situation, I don't think a Variance granted should construe that you
are setting a precedent. I think the sign of 35 is adequate and I
will stick to the recommendation in the staff report.
Mayor Shearer: A question of the City Attorney. In an issue
where there is a 2 to 2 vote is Councilman Chappell
allowed to vote?
- 17 -
CITY COUNCIL Page Eighteen
HEARINGS: V #711 12/23/74
Mr. Wakefield: No sir. There are some circumstances in which a
member of the Council may vote to break a tie
even despite a conflict of interest but this is not
one of them.
• Mayor Shearer: This is a bit of a problem. I don't agree that
automobile dealerships are=_- 111: that unique, it is
competitive but I think so is selling pantyhose,
hamburgers or gasoline. I don't think oldsmobiles are sold because
of the quality of the sign. To me a sign is merely a means of
identifying a place of business and the important question is
visibility. I do recognize that automobile dealerships do bring
considerable income to the City. .There seems to be major dis-
agreement between staff and Mr. Welsh as to the visibility. I am not
convinced that the additional 7' is going to be significant, particu-
larly when we look at the sign and it appears that the upper 8 or 10'
does not say anything to anybody. The message is considerably down
and actually the upper sign is blank with just an emblem on it. I
do think it is a vast improvement over the sign that is there now.
Mr. Miller - is there anyway in regard to the
question of line of sight - is there any known way short of building
something and looking at it, that this visibility question can be re-
solved?
(Mr.,Miller suggested a balloon test; Mr. Welsh stated the helium
balloon test is not the most efficient way to determine height, it
was at one time, but now the helm balloons are not even available;
boom trucks are now used. (Explained)
• (Council discussed cost with Mr. Williams and Mr. Welsh. Mr. Welsh
said GM would sponsor the cost of it, although it is quite costly.
Mr. Williams agreed to it.)
Mr. Welsh: If you think the flag test would be beneficial
to make a more accurate decision I am sure GM
would extend that.
Councilman Tice: Mr. Mayor, looking at the sign when I went by
there on Sunday, the present sign is 35' high and
it was pretty well obstructed from view. I
couldn't see the sign from the northeast side of the street.
Councilman Chappell: What is the hang up on voting for a 42' sign?
Mayor Shearer: It isn't in accordance with the ordinance and I
don't think that granting a variance is applicable
here. I agree with Councilman Miller that teach one
must be decided on its own case. We have staff testimony that the
35' sign would give as good or better visibility as the 42' sign.
And that is the question here, the visibility, not the height of the
sign.
Councilman Tice: We have given 6 variances that have exceeded 35' -
• Mr. Mayor.
Mayor Shearer: Yes, Councilman Tice, and I am sure in each one
there was a specific basis for granting the
variance and the fact we have given 6 I don't
think automatically qualifies the 7th unless the same items for
granting are also present here.
Councilman Tice: I feel the additional coverage or exposure would
warrant the exception.
CITY COUNCIL Page Nineteen
HEARINGS: #711 V 12/23/74
Mayor Shearer: I would agree if the exposure were there, and I am not
convinced that it is.
Councilman Browne: I personally think the whole structure of the
• sign ordinance has been broken down long ago.
There isn't a car dealer in town with the
exception of Mandy Williams that doesn't have a Variance on signs.
That is the very thing I have been speaking to. The whole structure of
signs has gone by the wayside. The businesses are& all- the -same.
Mayor Shearer: I don't see the difference again between the
type of businesses. I can see the
difference between the type of exposure or
visibility but I don't see the difference whether it is a car dealer
or any other type of business. I am going to vote "no" on the
Variance.
I am going to request that an investigation
be made on the part of the applicant to show just what is the proper
line of sight to give the best view with the understanding that if it
turns out to be 42' or 44' that I will support the Variance at that
time.
Mr. Wakefield: Mr. Mayor, the proper procedure would be
to reopen the hearing and continue it to a
date certain. If the applicant can
complete the investigation by your next meeting it could be continued
to that meeting or to the next subsequent meeting.
• Mayor Shearer: I would suggest that if the applicant and
staff can agree on taking the photos,
perhaps a black and white glossy, agreeing where
the sign would be graphically, that would satisfy me. If both parties
agree saying yes, that is where the sign would show up", that would
satisfy me, and be a much cheaper process. Keep in mind that I am
interested in where the message saying "Mandy Williams Oldsmobile"
would be.
Mr. Miller: :Staff would be willing to attempt to do
this, and given any other direction from
the Council we would be willing to work
with Mr. Welsh and look into any other areas of concern.
Mayor Shearer: I would request that be done. Some sort
of an agreement that this is what would
be seen from the critical point - which would be from Citrus Avenue.
Mr. Welsh,, Mr. Mayor, if we find this is inadequate
would it be all right if we go ahead and
perform the boom test? (Mayor Shearer
said "yes" if agreeable with Mr. Williams.)
Motion by Councilman Browne to reopen the hearing on Variance No. 711
and continue it to the Council meeting of January 13, 1975. Seconded
• by Councilman Tice and carried.
AWARD OF BIDS
PROJECT NO. 149-7503 LOCATION: Friendship Park - Sentous
FRIENDSHIP PARK Avenue and Levelglen Drive.
IMPROVEMENTS Bids were received in the Office of the
City Clerk up to 10:00 A.M. on Wednesday,
December 18, 1974, and thereafter publicly goened and read.
- 19 -
CITY COUNCIL
AWARD OF BIDS: PROJECT #149-7503
Page Twenty
12/23/74
A total of six bids were received and reviewed; all bids were checked
for errors and were determined to be valid bid proposals:
• R. Hellebrandt
A. Braeger
6ollins Construction
Century Landscape
Turf Management
*Aeroline Construction Co.
•
0
Base Bid
Alternate #1
$22,168.25
$130917.60
240,659.00
14,690.00
26, 005. 39
13, 453. 68
27, 513. 56
19, 330.00
31, 595. 64
12, 061. 92
521,410.76
19,330.00
(*Aeroline Construction Company made a large error in their unit base
bid price and therefore was not included in the average bid calcula-
tions.)
Motion by Councilman Tice, seconded by Councilman Miller, to accept
the base bid of Rudy Hellebrandt Landscape Contractor of Apple Valley
as presented at the Bid Opening on December 18, 19741 for City Project
MP 149-7503 and authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute an
agreement with said Rudy Hellebrandt for the work to be done.
Motion carried on roll call vote as follows:
AYES: Browne, Miller, Chappell, Tice, Shearer
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
BID NO. 75-29 LOCATION: San Jose Hills, South side of
FURNISHING A Galster Park.
COMMUNICATIONS —REPEAT- Bids were received in the Office of the
ER STATION Purchasing Agent up to 10:00 A.M. on
Wednesday, December 18, 1974, and there-
after publicly opened and read. Review
Controller's report. Request to hold over to 1/13/75.
Motion by Councilman Chappell, seconded by Councilman Tice and carried,
to hold this item over to the Council meeting of January 131 19751 as
requested by staff.
PUBLIC WORKS
PRECISE PLAN OF DESIGN LOCATION: 200 S. Vincent Avenue.
NO. 627 - LYLE J. PARKS, JR.
(Hacienda Bank)
Motion by Councilman Chappell, seconded by Councilman Miller and
carried, to accept remainderoof improvements and authorize release of
The Aetna Casualty & Surety Company Improvement Bond No. 59SB954BCA
in the amount of $10,000.
PCD, NO. 1, LOCATION: Northeast corner of Azusa
DEVELOPMENT PLAN NO. 3 Avenue and Amar Rd.
(Parcel Map No. 3799) (Council reviewed Engineer's report)
Alpha Beta Co., & Orange
Grove Terrace Properties
RESOLUTION NO. 4980 The City Attorney presented:
ADOPTED "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF -WEST COVINA, CALIFORNIA, ACCEPTING
A CORPORATION GRANT DEED EXECUTED BY
ALPHA BETA COMPANY, A DELAWARE CORPORATION,
AND ORANGE GROVE TERRACE PROPERTIES,'A
GENERAL PARTNERSHIP, FOR WATER LINE EASE-
MENT PURPOSES, AND DIRECTING THE RECORDA-
TION THEREOF."
- 20 -
CITY COUNCIL
PUBLIC WORKS: RES. #4980 4981
Page Twenty-one
12/ 2 3/ 74
RESOLUTION NO. 4981 The City Attorney presented:
ADOPTED "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF WEST COVINA,CALIFORNIA, ACCEPTING
A CORPORATION GRANT DEED EXECUTED BY ALPHA
• BETA COMPANY, A DELAWARE CORPORATION, AND
ORANGE GROVE TERRACE PROPERTIES, A GENERAL
PARTNERSHIP, FOR SANITARY SEWER EASEMENT
PURPOSES, AND DIRECTING THE RECORDATION
THEREOF."
Motion by Councilman Chappell, seconded by Councilman Browne and
carried, to waive full reading of said resolutions.
Motion by Councilman Chappell, seconded by Councilman Browne, to adopt
said resolutions and carried on roll eall vote as follows:
AYES: Browne, Miller, Chappell, Tice, Shearer
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
DRAINAGE PROBLEMS Motion by Councilman Chappell, seconded by
SUNKIST/VAN HORN AREA Councilman Browne and carried, to receive
AND CITRUS STREET AREA and file.
(Informational Report)
COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT LOCATION: Freeway Frontage Roads.
STATE OF CALIFORNIA (Council reviewed Engineer's report)
RESOLUTION NO. 4982 The City Attorney presented:
ADOPTED "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
• CITY OF WEST COVINA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING
COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT NO. 2991 WITH STATE
OF CALIFORNIA, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION,
AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND CITY CLERK TO
EXECUTE AGREEMENT."
Motion by Councilman Chappell, seconded by Councilman Tice and carried,
to waive full reading of said resolution.
Motion by Councilman Chappell, seconded by Councilman Tice, to adopt
said resolution and carried on roll call vote as follows:
AYES: Browne, Miller, Chappell, Tice, Shearer
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None.
CITY ATTORNEY
ORDINANCE NO. 1261 The City Attorney presented;
(Urgency Ordinance ) "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF WEST COVINA, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING
SECTION 6235.6 OF CHAPTER 2, ARTICLE VI
OF THE WEST COVINA MUNICIPAL CODE, RELATING
TO BUSINESS LICENSE FEES APPLICABLE TO COIN -OPERATED VENDING MACHINES
AND AMUSEMENT DEVICES."
• Mr. Wakefield: Mr. Mayor and members of Council, this
ordinance is designed to clean up some of
the problems that have arisen in the last
year or so with reference to the application of a gross receipts
license tax to certain kinds of vending machines and a regular license
tax to others so that confusion is eliminated. It does affect an
increase somewhat in the businesses engaged exclusively in supplying
coin operated washing machines and dryers to apartment houses and
other individual project users. This simply results from the,' n`ge
- 21
CITY COUNCIL Page Twenty-two
CITY ATTORNEY: ORD. #1261 12/23/74
of the=,basic. license fee from a quarterly fee to an annual fee and
is designed to eliminate the bookkeeping and record keeping necessary
otherwise on the part of both the City Clerk and the licensee.
• Councilman .;Brown A question. Who initiated this urgency ordinance?
Mr. .Wakefield: The initiation came on the 'basi.:.of. the
recommendations of the City Clerk to
eliminate some of the problem areas.
The urgency was based on the fact the licenses are due on January 1.
This will make it easier for the City Clerk to administer.
Motion by Councilman Chappell, seconded by Councilman Miller and
carried, to waive full reading of said ordinance.
Motion by Councilman Chappell to introduce and adopt said ordinance;
seconded by Councilman Miller and carried on roll call vote as follows:
AYES: Browne, Miller, Chappell, Tice, Shearer
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
RESOLUTION NO. 4983 The City Attorney presented:
ADOPTED "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF WEST COVINA, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING
RESOLUTION NO. 12771, RELATING TO THE WORK
CYCLE FOR CERTAIN EMPLOYEES ENGAGED IN
FIRE PROTECTION AND LAW ENFORCEMENT
ACTIVITIES."
is Mr. Wakefield: Mr. Mayor and members of Council, this
resolution is designed to take advantage'
of the exception contained in the- Fii-r,
Labor Standards Act as amended in 1974, which permits the establish-
ment of a work cycle for police and firemen and the resolution itself
does not change the hours of work or the work obligation of either
class of employees. It simply makes it possible to conform the work
schedule to the shift basis upon which the employees presently work
without the payment of overtime pursuant to the provisions of the
:`. Fair.= Labor Standards Act.
Motion by Councilman Chappell, seconded by Councilman Browne and
carried, to waive further reading of said Resolution.
Motion by Councilman Chappell, seconded by Councilman Browne to adopt
said resolution and carried on roll call vote as follows:
AYES: Browne, Miller, Chappell, Tice, Shearer
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
RESOLUTION NO. 4984 The City Attorney presented:
ADOPTED "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF WEST COVINA, CALIFORNIA, APPROV-
ING CLASS SPECIFICATIONS FOR THE CLASS
OF EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT."
• Motion by Councilman Chappell, seconded by Councilman Tice and
carried, to waive further reading of said resolution.
Motion by Councilman Chappell, seconded by Councilman Tice to adopt
said resolution and carried on roll call vote as follows:
AYES: Browne, Miller, Chappell, Tice, Shearer
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
- 22 -
CITY COUNCIL
CITY ATTORNEY: - Cont'd.
Page Twenty-three
12/ 2 3/ 74
RESOLUTION NO. 4985 The City Attorney presented:
RESOLUTION "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF WEST COVINA, CALIFORNIA, APPROV-
CLASS SPECIFICATIONS AND THE SALARY RANGE
APPLICABLE FOR THE CLASS OF STOREKEEPER."
• Motion by Councilman Tice seconded b Councilman Chappell and carried
Y PP ,
to waive further reading of said resolution.
Motion by Councilman Tice, seconded by Councilman Miller, to adopt
said resolution.
Mayor Shearer: A question. This is to be set up as a
e'GETA-7 funded position. Is this the type
of position that can be dropped if the
CETA-- '`funds are dropped and the City does not pick it up?
Mr. `Wakefield: Yes, Mr. Mayor, that is correct. The
position is like any other position, it
is subject to the availability of funds to
continue the position and the incumbent in the position.
Motion carried on roll call vote as follows:
AYES: Browne, Miller, Chappell, Tice, Shearer
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
RESOLUTION NO. 4986 The City Attorney presented:
ADOPTED "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
• CITY OF WEST COVINA, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING
CLASS SPECIFICATIONS FOR THE CLASS OF
POLICE CADET."
Mr. Wakefield: Mr. Mayor and members of Council, this
eliminates certain training requirements
that are presently in the class specifica-
tions for Police Cadet.
Motion by Councilman Chappell, seconded by Councilman Tice and carried,
to waive further reading of said resolution.
Motion by Councilman Chappell, seconded by Councilman Miller, to adopt
said resolution.
Mayor Shearer: Do you agree, Mr. Wakefield, that the law
as indicated by the staff report would
require the City to pay the Police cadets
while they attend school - are you in agreement with that?
Mr. Wakefield: Yes, I am, Mr. Mayor.
Mayor Shearer: Is there anyway in your opinion that we can
reword the specifications and still
basically accomplish the same thing and avoid having to pay for the
time spent in school, other than this? I hate to see that requirement
•because the staff report says they "reluctantly make this recommenda-
tion."
Mr. Wakefield: The way to accomplish it consistent with
the V:ir Labor Standards Act is simply to
include in the class requirements for the
class of policeman that a certain number of training hours be completed
by the time the candidate takes the examination for qualification as a
- 23 -
CITY COUNCIL Page Twenty-four
CITY ATTORNEY: RES. #4986 12/23/74
police officer. I think this training requirement will be communicated
to the Police Cadets and if they are interested and desire to qualify
for policeman they will proceed on their own to meet the requirements.
Mayor Shearer: I think this is another example of federal
•intervention in things where they had no
business%:intervening. We had nice things going - we had the ground
set for potential police officers where they could work part-time and
attend school part-time and along comes the federal government saying
when they are going to school you have to pay them. Now we can't
have that as a requirement.
Mr. Wakefield: It is the same kind of situation we run into
in connection with the police academy, for
example. All cities traditionally hire a policeman and then send him
off to the academy for 6 or 8 weeks of basic training required and pay
the cost of that training and the federal law simply picks that basic
practice up and makes it applicable to every employee.
Councilman Tice:
apprentice jobs?
as an exception?
Mr. Wakefield:
Wouldn't there be a separate exemption for
a certain class - such as the.:Z have for
Is there any possibility that they may be construed
Frankly I have not checked into the
apprentice situation but I will be glad to
do that.
Mayor Shearer: I would suggest that we make the change
tonight and in the meantime if you will look
• into it, Mr. Wakefield and if we find it is an exception then we can
put it back on.
Councilman Chappell: Mr. Mayor, I think if we find that it stands
then I suggest we draft a letter to our
Congressmen and call.it to their attention.
This may have been an oversight, a bill that slipped through everybody.
(Council agreed)
Motion carried on roll call vote as follows:
AYES: Browne, Miller, Chappell, Tice, Shearer
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
RESOLUTION NO. 4987 The City Attorney presented:
ADOPTED "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF WEST COVINA, CALIFORNIA, APPROV-
ING CLASS SPECIFICATIONS FOR THE CLASS
OF PURCHASING ASSISTANT AND ESTABLISHING
SALARY RANGE."
Motion by Councilman Chappell, seconded by Councilman Tice and
carried, to waive further reading of said resolution.
Motion by Councilman Chappell, seconded by Councilman Tice, to adopt
• said resolution and carried on roll call vote as follows:
AYES: Browne, Miller, Ohappell, Tice, Shearer
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
RESOLUTION NO. 4988 The City Attorney presented:
ADOPTED "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF WEST COVINA, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING
RESOLUTION NO. 4911 RELATING TO DEPART-
MENT HEADS AND FLAT RATE POSITIONS. (Re-
development Coordinator)
- 24 -
CITY COUNCIL
CITY ATTORNEY: Res. 4988
Page Twenty-five
12/23/74
Motion by Councilman Chappell, seconded by Mayor Shearer and carried,
to waive further reading of said resolution.
Motion by Councilman Chappell, seconded by Councilman Miller, to adopt
• said resolution and carried on roll call vote as follows.:
AYES: Browne, Miller, Chappell, Tice, Shearer
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
RESOLUTION NO. 4989 The City Attorney presented:
ADOPTED "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF WEST COVINA, CALIFORNIA,
AUTHORIZING THE DEPARTMENT OF GENERAL
SERVICES OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA TO PURCHASE CERTAIN ITEMS OF PRO-
PERTY FOR AND ON BEHALF OF THE CITY."
Motion by Councilman Chappell, seconded by Councilman Tice and carried,
to waive further reading of said resolution.
Motion by Councilman Chappell, seconded by Councilman Miller, to adopt
said resolution and carried on roll call vote as follows:
AYES: Browne, M:.11-er, Chappell, Tice, Shearer
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
GEORGE HART, JR. Mr. Wakefield: Mr. Mayor and members of
LETTER RE B.K.K. CO. Council, the City has re-
ceived a request on behalf of the B.K.K. CO.,
to extend certain time periods for the filing
•of items specified in the conditional use permit. Technically the City
can only extend these time periods by setting the matter for hearing
and going through the necessary advertising procedure and by the time
the procedure could be accomplished the additional time requested would
have past. It is my recommendation based upon the assurance of Mr. Hart
that the items referred to will be filed within the 30 day period which
he has asked and that this request simply be received and filed.
So moved by Councilman Tice, seconded by Councilman
Chappell and carried.
FIVE POINTS Motion by Councilman Chappell, seconded by
VETERANS' PREFERENCE Councilman Miller and carried, to receive
and file staff report.
LEASE PURCHASE AGREEMENT Mr. Wakefield: Mr. Mayor and members of
FOR CAMERON AVENUE PARK Council, this is a pro -
SITE posed lease agreement to be entered into
by the City and the Covina Valley Unified
School District with reference to the
acquisition of the Cameron Avenue Park site. The City Council will
remember that the funding for this particular acquisition was to come
from State Park Bond Issue funds and the availability of those funds
is anticipated to be sometime after July 1, 1975. The exact date
upon which the money would be received is not precisely known. What
• this agreement does is simply to hold the property available for use
by the City for park and recreation purposes until the funds are
available at which time the purchase can be consummated.
Councilman Chappell: Mr. Mayor, a question. If this document,
as the cover letter says, "a professional
appraiser will be hired....", I was under the impression that is how
we got this $130,000 price in the first place, that the school hired
a professional appraiser and that was the price he set on it and that
was the price we agreed to. Why do we have to go and have another
- 25 -
CITY COUNCIL Page Twenty-six
CITY ATTORNEY: Cameron Avenue Park site 12/23/74
appraiser and then probably find that our price is no less than
$130,000, because as I remember that was the established price by
an appraiser for the property within the last few months. We could
be paying two or three hundred thousand dollars for this property if
• this appraiser appraises it differently.
Mr. Zimmerman: The School District has had the property appraised
a little over a year ago and established a price of
$1301000 plus some incidental costs. The funding
proposed is by State Park Bond Issue which the City has met the
requirements for funding under that bond issue in advance of the
September 15 deadline this year. The requirements of the State Park
Bond issue are that no prior commitments be made as to price, therefore
to meet the requirements it would be necessary to reappraise it in
about a year at the expense of State Park Bond Issue funds in order to
establish the final purchase price which they will recognize.
Councilman Miller: Mr. Mayor, a clarification. The $16,500 can apply
to whatever the next appraisal is - whether it is
$130,000 or more?
Mr. Wakefield: Mr. Mayor and members of Council, while I was not
really a party to the negotiations which resulted
in the establishment of the $130,000 price for the
property, it was my understanding that the School District desired to
dispose of the property at a current date and that the $16,500 really
represented an amount arrived at on a negotiated basis as being sub-
stantially equivalent to an interest payment on the total purchase
price which was to be deferred to sometime the latter part of next year.
• So the $16,500 is not a credit against the ultimate purchase price to be
paid by the City. The funding for the $16,500 will come from next year's
budget simply because it is not required to be paid until the
commencement of the next fiscal year.
Councilman Chappell: If we buy the property before --the 18 months then
they pro rate that $16,500?
Mr. Wakefield: That is correct. Perhaps an additional word
about the subsequent appraisal - what the State
requires is a current appraisal of the property
at the time the acquisition is completed by the City. Essentially
pursuant to the agreement the price which the City would be obligated
to pay will not exceed the $130,000. On the other hand if the current
appraisal indicated that the fair market value of the property was
$1251000 that is all the State would permit to be applied to the
acquisition of the property out of State Park.Bond funds.
Mayor Shearer: I don't think it says that, Mr. Wakefield. I
don't find any place in here where it says
the Covina Valley School District will accept
no more than $130,000 for the property - I see it says it will
accept no less than.....
Mr. Wakefield: That is correct. If the current appraisal comes
in at less than $1301000 then the City would be
• obligated to pay the additional money.
Mayor Shearer: What if it comes in more than $130,000?
Mr. Wakefield: Then we are entitled to claim the full $130,000
from the State Park funds.
Mayor Shearer: And then what do we have to pay the School District?
- 26 -
CITY COUNCIL
CITY ATTORNEY: Cameron Avenue Park Site
Mr. Wakefield:
Mayor Shearer:
• Mr. Zimmerman:
acquisition of
and any other
Mayor Shearer:
.$130,000.
Page Twenty-seven
12/ 2 3/ 74
But the agreement doesn't say that.
Mr. Mayor and members of Council, the proposal that
was submitted to the State last September did include
the sun of approximately $145,000 available for the
this site. That would cover the cost of the appraisal
incidental expenses.
has said we want
appraiser comes
nothing in here
I see here is it
That is all well and good - I like what I hear!
But there is nothing in this document, irrespective
of where we get the money, that the School District
you to sign, that sets a maximum. What if the
in at $3001,000 - it probably won't, but there is
that says the most they will charge us is $130,000. What
says the least they will charge us is $130,000.
Mr. Wakefield: I think that is true but as I understand it the
$130,000 was a price negotiated upon the basis that
everybody agreed the property was worth based on the
last appraisal for the Covina Valley School District - but you are
correct the agreement itself does not commit the School District to
accept $130,000 period.
Mayor Shearer: So if the appraisal comes in at.a price we don't want
then we paid $16,500 for nothing - that sounds like a
bum deal to me. I don't think I can approve that
kind of a deal. This is tied up with the bond financing - I recognize
• that, but could the City loan or someway advance the money and buy this
outright at the current price of $130,000 - say out of revenue sharing
or some other pot and then repay at the time the State Park Bond money
comes in?
Mr. Wakefield: Unfortunately not, Mr. Mayor, because as
Mr. Zimmerman has indicated, the State Park Bond funds
provide in substance that the State cannot have
entered into any irrevocable commitment prior to the date the funds are
made available. That is why we were forced into making this lease pur-
chase arrangement, we had -the School District on one hand saying - yes
we want to sell the property but we want to dispose of it now so we will
enter into the lease agreement arrangement with you if you will make
the lease payment and we will take our chances on the fact that you will
get State Park Bond funds at some future date.
Mayor Shearer: We are limited to the amount of money we will get on
Proposition I?
Mr. Wakefield: Yes sir.
(Council discussed further and decided they wanted staff to go back
and negotiate a maximum as well as minimum price in the agreement.)
Motion by Councilman Chappell to request staff to go back to the Covina
• Valley Unified School District and negotiate setting a ceiling on this
price; seconded by Councilman Tice and carried.
THE MAYOR RECESSED THE COUNCIL MEETING AT 9:50 P.M. FOR THE PURPOSE OF
CONDUCTING THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MEETING. COUNCIL RECONVENED AT
9:55 P.M.
- 27 -
CITY COUNCIL
CITY MANAGER AGENDA
Page twenty-eight
12/ 2 3/ 74
SUNSET SCHOOL SITE Mr. Zimmerman briefly outlined the proposal
FRANK SATA ARCHITECTURAL by Mr. Sata as stated in the staff report
PROPOSAL submitted to Council, and further advised
(Staff Report) that the amount of the proposal by Mr. Sata
was $12,000 -to review the new buildings in
addition to another sum of $10,790 to review the existing building.
,The net result of this proposal would be that we would not require the
funding authorization to cover the new building at this time. So the
new figure would be some $12,000 less. Staff would recommend $18,000
-to cover the other items of work including the proposals previously
authorized by the City Council.
Mayor Shearer: This $18,000 is not all additional authori-
zation?
(Mr. Zimmerman stated not entirely; over $2,000 of it has been already
authorized; Mr. tiiassa explained that Mr. Sata's contract would have
-to be revised downwards.)
Motion by Councilman Chappell, seconded by Councilman Tice, to authorize
$18,000 as recommended by staff from Revenue Sharing Funds for purposes
of establishing preliminary requirements for acquisition and development
of the Sunset School as a community recreation center. Motion carried
on roll call as follows:
AYES: Browne, Miller, Chappell, Tice, Shearer
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
Motion by Councilman Chappell, seconded by Mayor Shearer and carried, to
• approve the agreement as amended for the Frank Sata Collaborates'
services and authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute it.
PHYSICAL AGILITY TESTS (Mayor Shearer stated on this item he had a
POLICE & FIRE DEPART- number of questions and would like to have
MENTS cit carried over. Mr. Aiassa advised "no
(Staff Report) problem")
Motion by Councilman Chappell, seconded by Mayor Shearer and carried,
to carry this item over to the next Council meeting.
NATIONAL YOUTH PROJECT (Mayor Shearer asked that this item be
USING MINI -BIKES carried over, stating all he had in his
(NYPUM) (Staff Report) packet was a copy of the Human Relations
Commission resolution and he would like
to get a report on what it is all about. Councilman Chappell said
he was present at the meeting when the presentation was made and
basically it is a program for youth put on by the American Honda
who furnishes so many mini -bikes and equipment as far as vans to
transport out to mini -bike sites and they work with the kids as to
the maintaining of the equipment, how to ride, etc., and they do
have some literature which he thought should be made available to
Council. Mayor Shearer said he questioned the hiring of two full-
time NYPUM directors to -involve 30 youth - the hiring of one
director for 15 sounds kind of expensive. Mr. Aiassa said this would
• not be city funded, it would be federal funded and Commissioner Cano
was the contact man; Mr. Aiassa recommended that it be carried over
to the Council meeting of the 13th when a detailed report will be
given.)
Motion by Councilman Chappell to hold this item over to the January
13, 1975 Council meeting. Seconded by Councilman Tice and carried.
(Councilman Miller asked that in the next report it also state the
liability factors involved.)
IMPA-ME
•
11
CITY COUNCIL Page Twenty-nine
CITY MANAGER - Cont-d. 12/23/74
MINUTES CLERK CONTRACT Motion by Councilman Chappell, seconded by
(Staff Report) Councilman Miller, to approve Amendment to
Minutes Clerk Contract (Nancy Beardsley)
extending its term to June 30, 1975, and
authorizing the Mayor to execute same.
Motion carried on roll call vote as follows:
AYES: Browne, Miller, Chappell, Tice, Shearer
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT The City Manager advised Council that
PROGRESS REPORT Mr. Salazar will have more details and a
(Informational) further report by January 13, 1975.
REQUEST FROM YOUTH Mr. Aiassa stated he did not have much
SOCCER ORGANIZATION information on this and would suggest that
FOR SIGNS AT ORANGEWOOD it be carried over to the January 13th
PARK Council meeting.
So moved by Councilman Chappell, seconded
by Councilman Tice and carried.
EXECUTIVE SESSION THE MAYOR CALLED AN EXECUTIVE SESSION AT
MAYOR's REPORTS 10:06 P.M. COUNCIL RECONVENED AT 10:25 P.M.
Mayor Shearer: Reviewing the items under discussion in the
Executive Session, the City Manager is
directed to maintain a minimum staff half a
day preceding Christmas and half a day preceding New Year's. The
intent of the Council being employees left off the day before Christmas
will work the day before New Year's and vice versa.
It was also decided to appoint
Mrs. Dorothy Tucker to the Personnel Board to fill the unexpired term
of Herb Tice.
RESOLUTION NO. 4990 The City Attorney presented:
ADOPTED "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF WEST COVINA, CALIFORNIA, APPOINTING
MRS. DOROTHY TUCKER TO THE PERSONNEL BOARD
TO FILL THE UNEXPIRED TERM OF MR. HERB TICE."
Motion by Councilman Chappell, seconded by Councilman Tice and carried,
to waive further reading of said resolution.
Motion by Councilman Chappell, seconded by Councilman Tice, to adopt
said resolution and carried on roll call vote as follows:
AYES: Browne, Miller, Chappell, Tice, Shearer
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
Mayor Shearer: Mr. Aiassa, will you direct staff to send
letters to those not selected. Council
decided at the last meeting to not fill
• vacancies on the Youth Advisory Commission, however some additional
information has come to our attention and it is the Council's
intention to :appoint the following:
RESOLUTION NO. 4991 "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
ADOPTED CITY OF WEST COVINA,CALIFORNIA, APPOINTING
CRYSTAL TEXEIRA, WAYNE SLAVITT,
MARC BEILINSON AND DOUG BAKER TO FILL THE
ALTERNATE POSITIONS VACATED BY SUSAN TITUS, DON HENRY, CORNY MORLEY
AND RENEE PARKER ON THE YOUTH ADVISORY COMMISSION."
- 29 -
CITY COUNCIL
MAYOR'S REPORTS
Page Thirty
12/ 2 3/ 74
Motion by Councilman Chappell, seconded by Councilman Miller and
carried, to waive further reading of said resolution.
Motion by Councilman Chappell, seconded by Councilman Tice, to adopt
• said resolution and carried on roll call vote as follows:
AYES: Browne, Miller, Chappell, Tice, Shearer
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
Mayor Shearer: The Mayor would also like to appoint Councilman
Chappell and Councilman Browne to an ad hoc
committee to look into the continued membership
of the City of West Covina in the Valley of Associated Cities and
report back to Council. We would also like to have staff assist in
whatever way is appropriate.
LOS ANGELES COUNTY/ Mayor Shearer: The term of Harvey Krieger
WEST COVINA JOINT on the Joint Authority
AUTHORITY BOARD Board expires next month and he has
indicated a willingness to serve another
term - I would recommend that he be re-
appointed.
So moved by Councilman Chappell, seconded by
Councilman Tice and carried.
RESOLUTION NO. 4992 The City Attorney presented:
ADOPTED "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF WEST COVINA, CALIFORNIA, REAPPOINT-
ING HARVEY KRIEGER TO THE LOS ANGELES COUNTY/
WEST COVINA JOINT AUTHORITY BOARD."
Motion by Councilman Chappell, seconded by Councilman Tice and carried,
to waive further reading of said resolution.
Motion by Councilman Chappell, seconded by Councilman Browne, to adopt
said resolution and carried on roll call vote as follows:
AYES: Browne, Miller, Chappell, Tice, Shearer
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
COUNCILMEN'S REPORTS/ Councilman Miller: Mr. Mayor, I would
COMMENTS like to propose that
this be done in resolution form or by
letter, recognizing the South Hills
Championship Football Team for a job well done by the staff, school
and all. And I wish everybody a Merry Christmas and a Happy New
Year.
Motion by Councilman Chappell to present a perma plaque resolution
to the South Hills High School coach; seconded by Councilman Miller
and carried.
RESOLUTION NO. 4993 The City Attorney presented:
• ADOPTED "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF WEST COVINA,CALIFORNIA, CONGRATU-
LATING SOUTH HILLS HIGH SCHOOL WINNING
THE 4-A CIF CHAMPIONSHIP IN FOOTBALL."
Motion by Councilman Chappell, seconded by councilman Miller and
carried, to waive further reading of said resolution.
Motion by Councilman Chappell, seconded by Mayor Shearer, to adopt
said resolution and carried on roll call vote as follows:
- 30 -
CITY COUNCIL Page Thirty-one
RES. #4993 12/23/74
AYES: Browne, Miller, Chappell, Tice, Shearer
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
Councilman Tice: Mr. Mayor - I notice in the City Manager's staff
memo they have some names listed here and they
had me down for serving on the Planning Commission.
I did not serve on the Planning Commission.
APPROVAL OF DEMANDS Motion by Councilman Chappell approving
demands totaling $1,090,184.38 as listed
on Demand Sheets C1025 through C10281
B651A, B652A and C867A. Seconded by
Councilman Tice and carried on roll call
vote as follows:
AYES: Browne, Miller, Chappell, Tice, Shearer
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ADJOURNMENT
ATTEST:
CITY CLERK
Motion by Councilman Chappell, seconded
by Councilman Tice and carried, to adjourn
meeting at 11:35 P.M.
APPROVED:
MAYOR